tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 10, 2014 7:00am-10:01am EST
later, the efforts to incorporate outside the space companies on future unmanned missions. you can join the conversation. "washington journal" is next. ♪ monday morning is november 10th. both chambers return. in the s taking part asia-pacific summit. before leaving washington. he would double the cruise in iraq. talk about g we will the escalating fight against
the extremist group islamic state. you can talk about how you is nk the fight against isis going, give call it a republican or democrat line you can also cut up with us in all your favourite social media like twitter, facebook or emails. monday morning to you. he talked about this new us troop deployment. what hasn't changed is our troops are not engaged in combat. taking for we are training centres with coalition
members. it will allow us to bring in iraqi recruits. given them proper training, proper equipment and happening with logistics. close air ovide support , once they close in on what will not do is have our troops fighting. "always knock back any threat. then when we leave that threat comes back. shall we respect more troops will be needed? as commander-in-chief. i will never say never. fewer actually see troops over time because now we seek coalition members joining
us. >> there was the interview that aired yesterday. the president authorised those 1500 new us troops, doubling us force in iraq. is now around 1400. troops are going down to 0 towards the end of 2011. already 1400 are deployed and providing assistance , hoping to stop the advance of islamic state. iraq needs to ask for the last territory. the new troops will be placed under the same noncombat
restrictions. there will be several weeks the new troops arrive, , according to a military reporters alking to at the pentagon. this latest trip deployment debate about a new the authorising the armed troops. of senator bit chris murphy on cnn state of the union yesterday. tomorrow, i would argue it is 60 days since the president announced his strategy. a responsibility to approve this. . i don't think the president has the authority to approve
15,000 troops. to be very are going reluctant to prove this. worry about the mission creep. do you think to congress o go for this? >> i think we will look for the orisation for deployment of troops, that could happen. but the recognition here is that a power alone is not going to accomplish the mission. we have a lot of troops in iraq. the tension here is to try and get the iraqi security forces -- syrian rreal
rebels equipped and ready. is advises me that we prefer them carrying the battle that american troops. the question is about timing. obviously we are not going to with the ob done current mission. >> that was cnn with senator republican y and debate uth dakota, the the t the authorisation of also went deployment on twitter.
prison prison or banner sending 1500 more troops . this duty of congress alone. last wednesday, . he said he was sending lawmakers a to authorise troops against the islamic state in iraq. such a formal approval is needed to show that the country unified to fight the violent singing -- sunni group. the islamic state, a different kind of enemy.
, said mander in chief in a new ng resolution. morning under washington journal. we want to have your take on the deployment of 1500 new troops in iraq. the bombing campaign now four months old. we start with todd from south carolina. it is very interesting, john mccain , maybe a year or two ago . he to the middle t east.
he was talking to the folks call isis is now. he was actually supporting these folks. get this ou information from? was in the news, this is an empirical information from a year or two ago. he went over that unescorted. back to today. obama you support the new campaign to put troops on the ground? >> absolutely not. wasps nest over the. do not want democracy.
you cannot give democracy to people who do not want it. if you leave those people there will be better. to know how many of them are in favour of sending troops. >> rhode island, jerry the morning. position a different on the situation. i was a veteran and my troops almost got sent to the middle east. if i got drafted i would have gone. isis is out of hand. should be l americans against them. 1500 ould put more than troops over there. of emotional about
they follow this pattern -- , but we have to do what we have to do. annihilate these people. >> when did you come to this opinion to annihilate isis? >> when they started cutting people's heads off. this goes on getting there head sliced up. they kill women and children. what kind of men do that? >> the new us troop deployment in iraq.
now ing campaign that is three months old, how successful do think it has been at the use of the new deployment? i want to get your view on what is happening in iraq. the over the weekend about us bombing efforts. islamic state leaders targeted, today's new tory in front page noting that local were trying to see leader had he isis been wounded.
they criticised that the us led coalition had failed to restrain. local forces say he's clinging to life. mike from oklahoma. independent, good morning. just wanted to say, i would actually support more troops going in. i can understand why the to put nt doesn't want ground troops. does his perspective. he not necessarily believe. having said that, i believe it mess that we created.
in the middle east, everything we in the is accurate about isis. but we probably need to go over take care of it. they come to power, we get reports that they get millions of dollars. to handle rather quickly. changing point for you? opinion changed about how involved the use should be? here in the media . they
run from the isis. we have seen them advancing in the cities in iraq. iraqi army over there -- i really don't know what they are doing in syria. the fault of mosul and other cities what change that for you? >> do you support troops being over there for years? do like nk we should that in the day, if the goal in the winter, established a governorship of the country until it works out.
into war, you cannot say we're going to end the war on this day. the mission does not have a deadline. i was supported as long as is needed to destroy isil. >> john from pennsylvania on our line for republicans. >> a lot of people fail to remember our history. turning into obama's vietnam. put up a puppet
regime and expected to stand up when have of the population is against it. iran is what you have in and saudi arabia. you can go in and change people's minds which religious beliefs is ridiculous. brought up vietnam. the slippery slope of more troops being sent in. mission worried about creep? >> first of all, we are going perpetual war over there. the same escalation that happened in vietnam has
happened already. the bombing in syria, it will not work. we dropped more bombs in vietnam that we dropped in world war ii. >> little more news on what the is going to do, lawmakers will consider the request to deploy and the $1.6 billion bill. kate good morning. >> i disagree with the invasion in iraq.
middle east cia lotta folks who involved in the details that most of the those an public, most of folks came out and said there are no wmd's. was there doing expections, prior to the ing invasion that they were false. there were millions of us in what we ets , based on where hearing. on what today, based you know?
>> once you go in, and you it, you own it. so i think i am with obama there. early one of your callers said about annihilating people. a person talked about the killing that we have done of and cent men, women children in iraq and with our drones. they -- is they don't have we don't r others either.
called mend documentary "iraq for sale". i really recommend it. i hope you guys would have on some of these experts to speak about the middle east. from you t to hear this morning, your views on the of us in iraq. over the weekend there was a it could do that without congressional approval. republican from california was on abc this week. here's what he had to say.
was just in baghdad . in in ition to 6 other nations the middle east. we are already the the government in baghdad is quite delusional about what the real impact is. they are still speaking about long-term training. if we want to defend against. done against islamic state. should there be any combat position? >> iraq should fight for their country. they are trained and should do it. no doubt the kurds will fight at all they need is technical know-how and air
>> i do not believe we should be there. maybe give them some support. it was like vietnam. budget should get out, deal with it later. where getting stuck like in vietnam all over again. to pay for this? a disaster in america -- who is going to pay for this war? are we going to get to china or some other country to pay for it? hear nothing about it. into the months bombing campaign you think it
has worked? we have reports that the head of the islamic state might of been injured or worst. >> we did what we did. we caused this and america has to take responsibility. these people in power -- we be doing this if saddam was still in power. have to get out, you can give some support. but they fight their own wars. previous callers said what they are doing over there, but it is happening all over the world.
>> joe, right in that there is risk of perpetual warfare . if you defeat the enemy. you can call in, our fans are open. barbara from oklahoma. >> i am in complete agreement with the second caller. getting back in power , the country can attend completely around. guts to stand up. i am glad that this country is going to turn around. we need to get out of it. sending men overseas is horrible. we have to protect our country. the other option is that they come over here.
what they are ve, doing. >> president obama is in china a trade meeting the. the asia-pacific economic cooperation. as a s been described three-day visit to capture the complexity of the us, china, relationships. we'll be talking about that later. with an asia-pacific expert and taking your calls on that too. new pressures,
millions of people returning with insurers, , according to federal officials. it is set to be released in six days under high degree of risk, -- scrutiny from the public and lawmakers. complicating the signup period. if you want to read more. it is on the wall street journal. what is going to be happening when members come back? of new elected members, two democrat, republican.
first of new jersey seat. of north carolina. from virginia t, seventh district. are this three new members in. 201 democrats will be in the new house. a few minutes left to talk about the new troop deployment in iraq. >> hi, i believe this whole thing is a sham. we don't need any troops on the ground.
we are not coming into this. bill clinton defeated serbia with air campaign alone. there was not a single soldier that touched the ground in kosovo. sufficient casualties was almost non-existent. here we have kurdish troops and iraqi troops , which we did not the war on kosovo. we can still not defeat isis. sending an aircraft carrier is not a commitment to this war. if we had the same commitment war would inton this. be over. >> you are saying that more strikes would show more
commitment? >> if you look at what bill not a n did there was single casualty civilian, there until trikes every day serbia leader left. >> if we send troops with better start raising taxes. from the democrat line. >> my nephew got killed in vietnam. i have been working with the service and everybody else. i am very ars old and ill.
has blood all over its hands. in the iraq war, a quarter of 1 million people died that we slaughtered. don't you know that when you kill those people's families are going to come? if you kill my family. i will get up this sickbed and i will come. we need to prayand stop this insanity. god bless america. back veterans' day. stories on veterans' day on the papers this day. >> free houston chronicle, new war for many veterans.
i hate to see what is going to happen in this nation . if one of our soldiers ends up being on tv being beheaded. because we do not have enough over there to protect these guys. i don't think we can trust any of the others to protect our soldiers. changed al opinion after the beheading? >> certainly. only nation s the that seems -- that has any morals. there is rules of engagement, do and things that you not do. america seems to be the only
one has those. middle ntries in the east, i think should get this her and take care of problem by themselves. they are sucking us into this problem. rebuild this to countries? they are going to want us to do it. we are putting enough to protect each other. >> president brought a of trying to make a bigger effort. obama sent a letter to iraq, saying that the of the ed expansion islamic state post a thread to both countries.
deployment should the degree which the us is willing to commit. the united states bombed the militants from the air. story from foreign policy. let's go to sunni, from kentucky. i want talk about, is our so-called ally in turkey. we have to refuel displays for the air strikes. close to ving turkey $2 million in help.
not letting us use their installations. the presently to tell turkey help us as eed to allies all week at the $2 million off. send the troops over, because i think they need more training. you can trust ink them. i think interested kurds. they look up to the united states. we to help the kurds and train them, and give the military deployment. but for turkey, the president them and tell n them they will not get more military help.
nigeria and a terrorist organisation. 47 people were killed and 79 were wounded on monday by suicide bombing outside a school. a set up explosion in government boarding school. -- side were soon as heart students had gathered for a speech a line from independent, jim, good morning. you things to say. are we going to continue going , er there and fighting them
and rebuilding them? i am tired of fighting and rebuilding these countries. i think the president is a week link with no spine. because he will not do anything that is right. you cannot turn around coward to the russians. he's over there with the chinese authorities eating sushi. from twitter, america can
force democracy on middle east countries that govern based on theocracy and considers us the infidel. representative illinois died on saturday, he died at 84. he was nine for being the of the american conservative working union. before reagan, he was considered another leader option. he spent 35 years in the house. from former s
president george w bush, , saying his brother is considering his own run for presidency. he said his brother was of stling with the decision taking the presidential campaign. >> jacob from hawaii good morning. just a real shame for other states to babysit the middle east, while we are going through a tough economy process. united states needs to to work with china.
these people have no guns and it is ridiculous. >> from virginia, on line for republicans. >> good morning, and i appreciate your show. to rybody says that when it send our troops to protect our borders. of americans are best tting, one of the protections we have is physics. they don't have a way to get over her. americans are forgetting about discussed it is being every single day, immigrants are coming in freely and we cannot stop them.
>> the c-span travels to us cities to learn about the history. we visit madison, wisconsin. >> it is a glorious service. comes to every citizen, it is an unnamed struggle. >> he is robbing the most political figure in wisconsin. and one of the most important in the history of the united states. was a reformer governor.
first to use the progressive as a way to identify himself. he was recognised as one of the sens of american history. after the civil war america changed radically from a nation farmers and small and by the late 1880's . we had concentrations of wealth. we had growing inequality and consent of the influence of money on government. on 1890's . he was going around
wisconsin speeches. he went to every kind of event that you could imagine and build a repetition for himself. to run for was ready governor advocating on behalf of of the people. he had two issues, no more selecting candidates without election. two, stopped the interest. events from of madison. washington journal continues. >> william galston had a piece on the washington journal the american
gridlock. have set the roadmap that you spoke about? >> they did break bread together. the issue of hat immigration has the capacity to really fall things up. the question is that given the fact the president has himself to issue it, retreat ably cannot from that promise. he has disappointed this panic -- , hispanic community. the question is whether
republicans will be able to immigration issue and pursue other items on the agenda. all whether it will turn out to be poison on the well. i hope republicans understand they have been given permission american people to govern. governing means dealing with people care about most, particularly the issues that will make difference between a vigourous economy. where are the areas that you and k they can move forward end this cycle of gridlock? there is some areas, election conference
started with ll the items are on top of everybody's like tax reform and trade. interesting very picture, last year they put on conference of tax reform. democrats on the senate finance committee have made proposals his most obama, in recent budget, also made reforms. that is one area of hope. another is trade. views . but ixed republicans will probably give
can of obama negotiating authority. what is the incentive to work together? why should republicans compromise at this point? for the present he had his bill in a healthcare, they are going to try to repeal it. what is on his side to try and meet? >> i am sure the present is thinking about his legacy. go down in want to historyfor not being able to do anything? -- six years is a long time to go. >> republicans might be the
unpopular party in history to win a sweeping election. they have two years to prove they can be something more than the party of no. talking with william galston about washington on the way to move forward. you want a phone, you have all the lines on the screen. puts his obama, if he hand out what it can to stop democrats for going after him for compromising with republicans? >> that will properly happen. a the present will have chance -- choice to make- just like bill clinton.
president have to lead and represent the interest of the country as a whole. above the interest of the party. there are two things give me hope. first of all, mitch mcconnell on a major speech that he was committed to restoring the as a functioning body. with debates were individual senators are free to offer amendments. that will be huge step. i and others will be watching good as his word. the american people shown before that ending gridlock in washington is a very high priority.
as getting the economy going. we cannot get the economy going unless we have a government that works. >> you already brought up one what about example, when he was ears working with democrats on foreign issues? is there a way forward on foreign issues between obama and republicans? constitution gives the president , the power in foreign policy that he does not enjoy on domestic legislation.
presidential leadership is a thing that republicans seniors is something they support. have a ere like to strong presidency for after obama. not think republicans wanted hamstring obama. by patterson support for his issues will be important. washington plan for to end gridlock, is the headline. we are talking about that. for the 35 minute we will take your calls. with john from pennsylvania. >> good morning. a gridlock when
they want to build a billion-dollar embassy in iraq. it comes to gridlock when they need money to build roads, or for schools. they increased depth, so we have no money. see a gridlock when we send money overseas. >> we have spent a lot of money overseas. been at war, non-stop since short after 911. the american people have tended in the belief s terraced we don't get where they are , there will be a bigger threat to the homeland. the embassy in baghdad,
. the argument is that it will target for empting terrorist unless it was reformed. >> you spoke about the politics . what are they? >> in recent months american that e have been bombarded they experienced challenges to their security. isil had taken over some a quarter f syria and of iraq. the horrific executions of americans. then came the bowler, which was experienced more than a domestic threat than it ever was. americans will like it more stable and secure world.
the level of exciting towards the future is very high. >> , let's go to the teresa. >> all the democrats got together after the selection. we voted for republicans to obama and the democrats. do not want compromise, we believe the republicans gave everything obama wanted. we voted to stop obama. the overwhelming majority of not want to compromise.
i don't believe the polls and you're wrong. >> i'll give you a chance to respond. i am sure there were some people who voted for republicans to stop obama. i suspect there are many republicans who have an affirmative agenda that they would like to move forward. stopping obama is not an agenda when you get right down to it. how the newly elected officials on the republican side who are going to washington interpret what their constituencies want. that is a critical part of politics in a representative democracy. you're going to washington. your election it may have been a surprise.
how do you interpret that? constituentsng to and also asking yourself crucial questions. m i just an errand boy for my constituents? ?ave i been elected to lead every man and woman in washington will have to answer that question. >> the color rings up you battlelines being drawn on immigration. immigration, the president was on "face the nation" and he was asked about executive action and efforts i congress on the issue. re ressn the e. here is a bit of what he had to say. >> everybody agrees that the system is broken. we have been out about fixing it for years. we need to be able to secure our border. we need to make a legal system that is more efficient and we need to make sure that the
millions of people who have been here for a decade or more and have american kids and are part of our community, they pay a fine, they pay penalties, they learn english and they get to the back of the line but they have a capacity to legalize themselves here. we don't have the capacity to support 11 million people. everybody agrees in that. i presided over a process in which the senate produced a bipartisan bill. i then said to john boehner, let's get this through the house here in for a year i stood back and let him work on this. he decided not to call the senate bill. he could not produce his own bill. time, i've gothe legal authority to make improvements on the system and i would prefer and still prefer to see it done through congress.
wait, we aret i miss allocating resources and deporting people that should not be deported. i am going to give you some time, but if you can't get it , i have to take the steps i can to improve the system. host: is the end of the year and left time? should the president give congress a few more months? guest: i think he has to put congress on notice that there must be action by a date certain or the executive order will go into effect. president, i would do a series of things. one of the senior advisers reportedly said that the requestt should simply
an up or down vote on the senate bill and if there is a vote on the bill, the executive order will not go into place. another possibility is the present would summon congressional leaders to the we are goingnd say to go into a room and were not coming out until we have a reasonable compromise on this issue. show some leadership and indicate that the executive order is his last choice, one he will make very reluctantly if everything else has failed. it would be worthwhile for the president to test that. with we are talking william galston from the brookings as the two. we are talking about the way forward.
robin is calling from pennsylvania on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i am so confused. and have been my entire life. i am upset about the things that are going on. i can't believe that the amnesty toould give all of these people that are coming here illegally. that is all you hear from him. i just don't understand. the day after the election, the president said he was going to take executive action if the congress won't come together. change my status from democrat to something, i don't even know what yet. does the i have a pen and
i have a phone line work for the president? guest: i think the american people delivered a judgment. there is no question in my mind, i hear the voices of the collars and the distress and the confusion and anxiety. there is no question in my mind what the american people want. they want a system that can act on the issues that they care most about. they don't want one party to stop the other party. they want the parties to get together and act together and to restore a very unfashionable word, compromise, to the center of our politics. country,ly divided neither political party can't
enforce its will on the other for very long. you need a majority in the house , the white house, you need a super majority in the senate to be able to move forward. party is closeal to having that kind of dominance. choices, compromise or gridlock. there is no third choice. people who are some prefer gridlock. guest: you would have to be totally unaware of what is going on in this country for the past 10 years not to know that there are strong passions on both sides. amnesty is a great slogan.
-- does anybody think we are going to roundup 11 million people if we can find them and put them on buses and ship them across the border and dump them in mexico? it is not going to happen. that people get emotional satisfaction out of imagining that it might happen. it is not going to happen. because going to happen there are sensible members of both political parties who are willing to stand up and tell an unpopular truth to the american people. however these people got to the haved states, many of them been here for a long time and are integrated into the community. their children have been born here and are american citizens. there are some principles of
decency and humanity that you have to consider alongside the principles of legality. i think thousands of people listening to the words i just uttered would probably throw stones at me. ok. the line fors on republicans. caller: good morning. is problem with the gridlock it comes down to trust. in 2006ed the democrats to lead us out of this. what did we get for it? ,e got the great recession which is blamed on one man. me, the democrats would be in competent. back to the trust thing, we gave
to get1 trillion infrastructure to build roads and bridges. how many roads and bridges did beget? -- did we get? every one of them illegals took those signs down. that is an american citizens job. we have more things on twitter. guest: what is the choice? has constitutional power. i am sure that mitch mcconnell
and john boehner would be the first to say if they were on the day, at the end of this the bill becomes the law when the president signs it here in aide is a famous story, an walked into lbj's office and gave them a draft of a piece of legislation that he wanted the administration to sent to congress. said,d the outline and the you want an issue or do you want a bill? that is the fundamental choice that the leaders of the congress of the united states have to ask them selves. and the president. do you want to fight? 2016? want an issue for are we actually going to try to get something done? host: why immigration?
thecan't the path forward paved with smaller bills to begin with? there is no question that the bonds of trust in washington have been severely strained and broken. am cofounder of a group called no labels, we want to bring elected representatives together to re-we've those bonds of trust. we have made some progress. there is more work to be done. it is true that a democratic political system that is divided cannot make a lot of progress unless there is more trust than it now exists. trust doesn't magically develop. it has to be created step-by-step. i hope that congressional leaders will be aware of that fact.
the american people want trust-based action. for our viewers who may be interested in no labels, where can they find it? labels.org. is in new jersey. caller: the color before that said we are tired of the democrats, the republicans are in overwhelmingly now. we are tired of the democrats. we are tired of obama. this trusted business that you talk about, the republicans should have done something. when obama first got in, he had the senate and the house. why didn't he passed immigration then? he concentrated on obamacare
that republicans didn't like. he was the king. we are sick of him and the democrats. it is about time that the republicans got in and will make some changes. have ans supposed to -- imeeting and he was don't remember the words, he wanted everyone to get along. withs going to be free letting the people know what is going on. he does what he wants. he acts like a king. we are sick of him. what if the president had started with immigration reform instead of health care? i think he would've been
well advised to do that, in my opinion. this is a debate that will go on among historians and among political analysts for long time. we think we would be farther ahead as a country if he had done what the collar just suggested. that is not a popular view inside my own party. a popular view inside my own building. host: do you think he could've gotten both done? guest: i don't know. perhaps not. host: we are talking about the way forward for washington. georgia onp next in the line for democrats. caller: good morning. like brian williams to
replay john kirby's press conference. people have got that all screwed up about what we are going to do with isis and who's got the authority to do what. if he would replay that some time today, get people to listen to it. host: thank you for the programming suggestion. isis, talk about the congressional reaction to the president's announcement on friday that he was doubling the number of troops there and the debate over the authorization of use of military force. guest: my impression is 's moves againsti
do enjoy broad bipartisan support. the president must be deeply disappointed to be in the process of sending troops back to iraq after working so hard to withdraw them. 275, then 1200, now he has doubled down by sending another 1500 troops. hasink he quite properly notified the congress of the united states that the mission of these troops has changed not incrementally, but fundamentally. he intends to go back to congress and ask congress to authorize these activities which will share responsibility for
the policy. it will make it clear to friend and foe alike that this is the policy of the united states and not just the policy of the executive branch of the government. host: why wait until after the election to do it? why not get them to do before they took their seven-week recess to run for reelection --? ion mark guest: they must have made a judgment that congress likes to get out of town and campaign. there was little or no chance the congress would give these issues the serious debate and scrutiny that it deserved. that sounds right to me, to tell you the truth. think labor day of an election year would've been a good time to demand an up or down vote on this authorization.
it would have given the american people a chance to observe the congress making an important decision and informed their judgment. >> we are talking with william galston from the brookings institute. he is also a columnist for "the ."ll street journal o caller: good morning. 52%president was elected by of the people. he wants to get 100% of what he wants. his policies were never overwhelmingly supported. health care was middle-of-the-road. one of the things that bothers republicans is pressed favoritism.
the press is supposed to be a referee. somebody drove the car into the to helphey don't get drive. when the press didn't call him overhaul, it care was underhanded. instead. applauded it there is a back lat -- backlash. he is doing things that he is not being checked for. when you see some but his hand on the scale, keep doing that. it creates a backlash. i think he has no ability to ever admit that he makes a
mistake. he is right about everything. he is going to have close to 10,000 troops in iraq that he should have left. a couple of points there if you would a pickup on one or two. guest: quite a few. i think we are going to debate the events in iraq for a very long time. every last troop and then beginning a painful process , itending some of them back was clear that we could not leave our troops there unless we had a status of forces agreement that gave them the necessary immunity from the iraqi legal process. no commander in chief could've left troops subject to the vagaries of the iraqi justice.
a lot of people inside the process differ on why those talks did not reach a successful conclusion. it may be that if the president had pushed harder and got more centrally involved in those negotiations that he could've gotten a better result or it i don't know. i don't think most other people know either. leader,dealing with a maliki, who could hardly have in promoting the best interests of his country or of the relationship with the united states. i think we have to take that into account. maliki was beholden to the iranians who had zero interest in seeing american troops left behind in iraq as a source of influence on the political process. to leave this to history.
host: d you think media has a role in causing red lock or ended it? on -- i am onad the one network that everybody agrees is an honest broker. if the media are so powerful, why did the republicans win to overwhelming victories in 2010 and 2014? president out campaigned the two republicans that he was fortunate enough to go head-to-head with. the media have been close to brutal in criticizing this president. this is appropriate. nobody drafts modern presidents into their offices. they work very hard to get there.
they must know that everything they do will be scrutinized. it is probably true that more members of the media lean democratic than republican. affectsnt to which that their work is quite limited. i know that i will never persuade individuals such as the caller that they don't really put their fingers on the scale all that much. >> larry is in georgia on the independent line. we've been waiting on the president to give amnesty to the undocumented people from mexico so we could hook them up on high treason. this is high treason. he will become an agent of brazil.
i know you have seen those videos and you know what i'm talking about. guest: i haven't and i don't. what is your view on reagan's solution to the immigration issue? ronald reagan did preside over a process that led to comprehensive immigration reform in 1986. theconsensus now is that bill failed in some respects. there has been a lot of effort from thoughtful people on both sides of the aisle to reflect on what went wrong with the 86 bill and guard against it. i think it is impressive that the senate passed on a very strong bite partisan basis -- bipartisan basis the bill that
reflect on much of that work. a lot of people have been disappointed at the house of representatives refused to bring that bill up for a vote despite the fact that many republicans voted for it or to do something else. president's interview was completely factual. the republican party in control of the house of representatives withn opportunity to deal the senate bill or do something else. because of her eternal -- internal republican politics, they did nothing. that explains why we are where we are. host: we are talking about ending gridlock in washington area --. ramona is in georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. go ahead.
you are on. caller: i think our political been hijacked by republicans. why is there voter suppression? why are there illegal tactics to suppress voters or close polls early? if there was such a way for republicans, i think that is a big lie. keepinghere a need for people from voting? host: your thoughts on voter suppression? guest: there is no question tout the fact that efforts require voter identifications, to limit convenient forms of voting such as weekend voting or early voting have aroused suspicions in some quarters,
especially in the african-american community that republicans are trying to roll the clock back and make it more difficult for people who have to work hard to get the right to vote to exercise that right. i think that is unfortunate. that thosey much measures had much of an influence in the outcome. i can think of one race where it may have had an impact, in north carolina. i can't tell you if it was a decisive impact area and prior to the vote in north carolina, democratic vote mobilizes thought they would get enough people out to get kay hagan over the top. to get to one or two more collars. gary is on the line for independence. caller: good morning.
i have four questions i would ask. what is the ideal population of the united states? how much do illegal aliens cost american taxpayers? host: let's start with those concerns about the cost of illegal immigrants. guest: we have to do costs and benefits. for of them do not qualify or receive social services. some do. many of them are actually working and paying taxes into social security. there are a lot of economic studies suggesting that though there are some spots in the country where they are a net
burden, on balance, if you have people working and many of them have been doing in construction and paying taxes into the system, those are important benefits to the country. i understand completely that some people are convinced that they are a major source of a drag on the economy and a drag on the labor market. i don't think research sustains that point. it will be impossible to persuade people to that fact. host: dorothy is on our line for democrats. are you with us? i think she stepped away. who are the dealmakers in congress? are -- is it the leaders themselves? both.
i will give you one example. take the incoming chairman of the finance committee, orrin hatch. he is famous for and prides himself in reaching across the aisle to do important legislation with people like ted kennedy. mr. hatch have a lot of say about the prospects for tax reform and other things at the beginning of the next congress. if you take a look at the leadership of some of the other hasittees, lamarr alexander jurisdiction over education policy. of people inot leadership positions who have shown in the past that they are willing to work across party lines to get things done. i am moderately hopeful that if senator mcconnell is true to his word and gives the committee process a chance to work as it should, we areit
going to see some decent legislation come forward area --. we always appreciate your time. up next, with president obama in china, we will talk more about china and u.s. relationships and wennie s. glaser will also talk about nasa. we will be right back. >> c-span veterans day coverage begins on tuesday morning at 830
eastern -- a.m. eastern. galaat 10:00, the uso featuring martin dempsey. we are live and 11:00 from arlington national cemetery for the traditional wreathlaying ceremony at the tomb of the unknowns. discussion on the veterans mental health issues and later selections from this year's medal of honors ceremonies. the student cam video competition is underway. it is open to all middle and high school students and they will create a documentary on the theme the three batches -- branches in you. there are 200 cash prizes for students and teachers totaling $100,000. for a list of rules, you can go to our website. continues.on journal
host: with president obama continuing -- attending the asia-pacific conference, we have bonnie s. glaser. remind us of the significance of this summit and what the president is trying to do this week read --. guest: he is attending the summit in beijing. they want to talk about trade liberalization. this is an agenda of this organization that was created in 1989 to try and get smoother investment and reduce tariffs on goods that are exchanged among all of these 21 economies. the present will attend at this meeting. afterwards, he will have other meetings as well. he will talk to the heads of the other 11 nations that are negotiating the transpacific
partnership. this is a nude free trade agreement. there will be standards for environment and labor. the country is working very hard and. i think this is a litmus for the obama administrations rebalanced asia. expecting a signed agreement? what will be the result? guest: nothing is going to be signed. that would be a surprise to everyone. hopefully there will be some progress. that is very important. there have been some difficult issues between the united states and japan. now that the midterm elections are over and the republicans have taken control of the senate, there really is some hope that we can move forward with this trade agreement. congress can give the president
trade promotion going forward. the president will have a summit with the chinese president. that begins in the evening of the 11th with an informal chat between the two presidents. they will talk about a number of important strategic issues as well as bilateral economic and military issues. the second day, there is a formal state visit. he will continue conversations through lunch. --t he travels to miramar burma. coming into the summit does this week in the president as he tries to negotiate some of these efforts or change the way for leaders
will view him? guest: undoubtedly presidents of other nations will see obama as a lame-duck entering into his last two years. that does set him up to accomplish some things in the foreign policy arena. he can work with congress on this very important new transpacific partnership agreement. i think when he meets with the chinese president, he is in a than he wasition when he visited china very early in his administration. the united states was suffering and the economy wasn't difficult straits. the economy is really scoring at some gains with the jobless rate down to 5.8%. the third quarter gdp growth rate is three and a half percent.
the chinese economy is starting to slow down. a host of socioeconomic difficulties. i think the president is in a strong position meeting with the chinese president. host: we are talking with bonnie s. glaser. the president is traveling to beijing. our phone lines open if you have questions or comments there and if you are outside the united states, there is a call on 40. here are a few headlines from the papers recording -- reporting on this.
from "the washington post," president isinese leading a very important meeting. this,st time china hosted they are now the largest economy in the world if you measure it in purchasing power terms. it is a very important layer not only in its region, but increasingly globally. it just stirred up an infrastructure investment bank. it is working with other nations , indians and russians and brazil to set up another bank. the chinese have a great deal of money. they are using this economic influence to try and create a situation where countries in the
world are dependent on china and will not challenge chinese interests. the chinese president wants to be seen as the center of asia. they want to get respect from all the important countries in the world. this is a very important coming-out party. china is also a center for human rights concerns. weeks, this is a recent speech that secretary kerry gave at johns hopkins university, talking about human rights and the united states concerns with that. and chinated states are the two largest consumers of energy. for 45%. we account
we need to solve this problem together. us can possibly solve it alone. even if every single american or used only solar panels to power their homes, if we reduced our missions 20 and planted dozens of trees and a limited -- eliminate all of our greenhouse gases, that wouldn't the enough to counteract the counter -- pollution coming from china and the rest of the world. the same would do -- true of china. we would wipe out their gains. , if one or two major economies neglects to respond to this threat, it will a race the good work done everywhere else. never before has there been a to countriescy
around the world coming together to meet not just an environmental threat, but an economic threat. a security threat. a health threat. we will see refugees in certain parts of the country displaced by vast changes in the ability to grow food and seek water. change the nature of security and conflict in the world. that is the reality of what we are up against. that is why it is so imperative that united states and china lead the world with genuine it reductions that put us on a path to real progress. our sharedws is, responsibility brings with it one of the greatest economic opportunities in history. can,shared responsibility
shared prosperity. the solution to climate change is as clear as the problem itself. it's not just somewhere out there over the horizon. it is staring us in the face. the solution is energy policy. it's as simple as that. make the right choices in your energy policy and solve the problem. host: that was secretary john kerry talking about energy policy. he also talked about human rights of that speech. energy policy and climate change, is this something that the president is expected to talk about? guest: i think we can see that secretary kerry is very passionate about the issue. this is been a topic of discussion beat tween the united
states -- between the united states and china. the environmental degradation in china has really become a problem recognized by chinese leaders. the pollution is terrible. , youu visit chinese cities can hardly see across the street. they burn a lot of coal. progress can be made. initiativese new launched next year. it is very important going in to feel each other out about what they can agree on and what commitments they can make in terms of putting caps on in missions and setting targets. this is a conversation the president obama is likely to have with the chinese president. this is an area where the two
nations really do share some common interest. host: we are talking with bonnie united statest and chinese relationships. let's get to some calls. charles, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. back to 20e to go , we voted for an approved nafta which opened up the borders between mexico and canada. makeal electric used to refrigerators and stoves in kentucky. there were 38,000 people employed there. it is now arrest belt. -- arrest belt. belt.ust all of those jobs went to mexico or canada. that bill gop effort
clinton unfortunately signed off on. from nafta to debbie t o. nixon opened up china. now look what we have wrought. shipped toories were china because you can't compete with $.25 an hour labor. can you talk about how this hangs over what is happening with these negotiations? guest: there are different views about whether we should be pursuing free-trade agendas. it is very controversial. at the asia-pacific region, this is an area where american exports are growing. them ins for growing
the future a quite great. have 40% of the worlds population in a pack. we have 44% of the worlds trade. this is a group of countries that are voluntarily coming together to try and lower tariffs, increase trade. i think this is good for the united states and the other countries that are engaged in the process. this is different. there is no enforcement mechanism. as the u.s. is trying to do this, can you talk about china with some of these same countries in the region? guest: china has a number of bilateral free trade agreements. one was just announced with south korea.
countries group of that is negotiating the reasonable cooperative -- reachable -- regional cooperative. it is somewhat competitive. i think they are quite different. this other agreement is a knitting together of other agreements. there will still be benefits that will come to countries. the dead states is not involved. focusing on the transpacific partnership. host: we are talking about united states and chinese relationships. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about energy
policy. the present has opened up oil refineries and the coastlines. you ask republicans and they talk about him as if he has not done anything in terms of energy policy. he has given them everything they wanted and they treat him like he is a liar. what do you think about that? if you want to talk about the political battles as they relate to what the president is doing in asia. guest: i think when it comes to in u.s.this is an area china relations it has a lot of promise. the president has his political battles back home. the chinese president faces similar political battles.
there are a lot of interest that want to china develop energy in the way that they have for years. they have created a lot of pollution and environmental challenges. wherek this is an area the u.s. and china have had a lot of quite cooperation going on for the last few years. they are exchanging technology. there are a lot of battles politically going ahead. host: there are high profile solar disputes. is that overhanging some of the things secretary kerry was speaking about? been a greathas deal of controversy over the solar panel area. have heard that those are possibly going to be resolved, that would provide a boost for
american companies that do what to compete in china. they have actually been facing a lot of obstacles. this is true of many american companies. the president has said repeatedly that there is an unfair playing field in china. the chinese give preferences to chinese companies and state owned companies that operate in china. american businesses 10 years ago used to be one of the strongest supporters of this relationship. that is no longer true today. american companies are making profits, but they are facing more and more challenges. this is true in other countries. where president obama has been very firm with the chinese. to andlooking forward even playing field.
the chinese of not provided the same opportunities to american companies have they have -- as they have two chinese companies. this is from "the wall l."eet journal your c guest: the president will discuss hong kong. the protests have been ongoing since march. there is a desire among the students in hong kong to directly elect the candidates. when the chinese took over hong kong, they promised that they would allow hong kong to move toward universal suffrage. what they have agreed to is one
man one vote. allow the people of hong kong to vote for a slate of candidates that are preapproved by china. they really don't have much choice. democracy in hong kong looks to be quite far away. i think president obama is worried about how the protesters are being treated and worried about the future of democracy in hong kong. there was some use of tear gas and pepper spray. so far, no violence. some people worried about what happened in tiananmen square in 1989. the young students were fired upon. that is like -- unlikely to happen. the president's message will be to solve this peacefully and in a way that you win the support of the people in hong kong.
you create prosperity in hong kong and you move toward fulfilling that promise. with let's try again secretary kerry. this is from that johns hopkins speech last week. >> the united states will always advocate for all countries to grievances. we'll spoken out about the situation in hong kong. respect for fundamental freedoms has been aalways centerpiece of american foreign-policy. againe seen again and that respect for rule of law and the protection of human rights are essential to any countries long-term growth.
host: i will give you a chance to comment on those statements. guest: there is growing concern in the administration about human rights in china. there has been a crackdown on dissidents into that. of some ofreversal the progress that had been made years ago in china. the chinese president is trying to implement economic reform, but he has no political reforms. they did meet with some human rights advocates from united states and from china. they wanted to talk about these issues. this is an issue that is always on the president's agenda. publicly, always
behind closed doors are when he speaks with the chinese president. --raises concern that concerns that the united states has about human rights in china. host: we are talking with bonnie s. glaser. in ohio on the line for republicans. caller: i host a radio show here in cincinnati. of praise for the chinese economy. they are a commonest economy. their government owns a businesses. we are free. we are for the free market. goliath.id versus a when you look at the access to difficultt makes it a scenario.
pipeline, ifth the we don't go through with it, china is waiting to take this oil. do you think we are on the right track when it comes to these issues? want to start with keystone? importing chinese are kazakhstan.sia, they have a tremendous appetite for oil. there is great potential if the united states chooses to export oil and natural gas. american companies are exited talking with the chinese. more is potential for energy cooperation in this area. issue that the caller raised about the difference between american and
chinese economies is valid to some degree. part of the chinese economy that provides growth for china comes from the privately owned companies. the chinese government knows that. wants tose leadership grow this portion of the economy. talkednese president about the market being the main driver of the economy. yes, there is a large percentage of the chinese economy that is isll state owned, there movement towards more competition and recognition that this is really the future of china. economics andto drivers and dynamics, i think china will become more like united states.
in political terms, probably not. host: maria is in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments i would like to comment on. the world could still profit from insider trading. i know the bush family started in china long ago. how me members of congress have had stocks? i disagree that any of this is good for the united states citizens. we ought to go back to the import tariff. when he to make everything in this country we possibly can. in 1944, we took england's place in the world.
we go around the world and interfere. we put infrastructure all over the world for these local companies. i think we should listen to our i think we ought to listen to our forefathers and have no more foreign entanglements. on one or to pick up two of them? in thishere is a view country and elsewhere around the world that we should limit our foreign entanglements. i think that the united states is inextricably connected to the rest of the world so i think it -- globalization has its upsides and its downsides. it is probably impossible to turn back the clock and close the door and produce everything for our country that we want to consume. 's first question, i don't know about the bush
family -- host: investments -- guest: i know nothing about this issue. but if you compared to the thereion in china, where is some of the worst corruption in the world, you will find that the united states looks very pristine. this is not to say that we don't have examples of people perhaps owning stock in companies or engaging in some way in what might be you listen practices -- practices.be illicit but when i look at the corruption in china it is undermining the health and well-being of the nation and economy, andthe this is the focus of president xi jinping to root out the corruption and he has than successful at it so far. host: are part of the cases that have made it to u.s. papers part of the effort to do that? guest: there was one particular
i, who is bo xila expected to be joining the standing committee of the central committee of the party. he was going to be in the top seven of the country. he was taken down. involvedrecent case the former head of the minister of state security. he is now under investigation. but in addition to the tigers, likes to call them, the chinese government is going after what they call the flies, local officials, and this is particularly important because the bribes that they take and the corruption that they are involved in really affect the people at the local level. wants to reinvigorate the communist party and ensure that there is loyalty to the party, then he actually has to
rid of the corruption at the lower levels, not just at the higher levels. host: new york on our line for democrats. caller: good morning, c-span. i feel that the president of the was welcome to go to china and the chinese government should sit down with .he united states and negotiate everybody is forced to sit down at the table and i think it is a .ood thing one other thing i would like to point out is yes prices -- gas prices. $2.75 in new jersey. so i feel good that the president is over there and that is welcome news. sharean share good ideas some ideas with china on how to clean up the environment on some of those rights issues. host: the president for
three-day visit this week, which we are talking about with bonnie glaser from the center for strategic and international studies. rick is up next on our line for republicans. good morning, greg. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment -- i would say obama is over there begging for more money from china. i would like to know what we oh china. there were never going to be any more good jobs here because even if there was a good job, the epa would shut them down. burning the goal, -- burning the cold, they have destroyed jobs in kentucky. coal jobs when we do nothing could i had a cousin who worked and over 3000 workers there at one time and shut down completely and nobody working could host. host: what about china owning parts of the u.s. debt? guest: the chinese certainly by
our treasury bonds. portion of thege investment in our treasury bonds. the largest percentage is owned by americans, so we have more owned inof the bonds the united states. i think the president has been successful at reducing some of our debt. there is more work to be done. but the chinese are, i think, not in a position to hold us over the heads of the united states. they cannot go out tomorrow and get these treasury bonds. it will harm them. it will undermine their own economy. they recognize they are so closely linked with the the united states. we have half $1 trillion of trade annually and this is growing. this is very much
interdependent. the chinese are investing more in the united states and this is something that america should welcome. there may be some sectors where we don't want the chinese to invest. this is where we have the process to review anything that might be strategically sensitive. but those would be for very, very small areas of investment. telecommunications we have been very careful about. but if you talk to companies in the united states, mayors, they are bringing money into cities and states and they should be welcomed. this is something that bringing jobs back to the united states that many people said a few years ago the chinese were taking away. host: new haven, connecticut, is up next. glen is on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.
i wanted to comment on the part where she said the united states hand a greater economic when president obama visits china. i don't entirely agree with that. i think the chinese have a large amount of cash reserves in the socialist economic system does not for the reserves into the economy as fast as we do. they are very patient and methodical. secondly, we have to be very careful about chinese military power. nobody knows how much money they are pouring into the military, and they have developed a missileange cruise taking our carriers so far off the coast that it is impossible for our planes to react in the military situation regarding patrols around the chinese coast . they developed a laser beam to shoot down grounds. that may be spying on them, or not.
but i think that we should be very cautious of the way we approach china and look for our strategic goals and keep that in mind when we're dealing with communist dictatorships that are only looking to enhance their ability and dominate asia completely. glaser, do you want to pick up on the concerns about chinese military goals and the weapons they have developed? guest: i would very much agree 's concern.ller the united states is very focused on the challenge posed by the chinese military. we are somewhat unclear about china's intentions, their strategic intentions. but we do note they are evolving capability. there is an effort by china to develop what the pentagon refers to as anti-axis aerial denial capabilities. this is basically a range of christmas is a fighter jets that range of cruise
missiles and fighter jets that will make it more costly for the navy to intervene in a crisis. if we have to come to the assistance of our ally japan in waters near china -- china has a coastal navy for many years and could only defend areas very close to its coastline. it is moving out simple thousand coleman -- it is moving out several thousand kilometers. -- colorin -- color bank caller referred to a missile that is known as carrier killer. the united states is forced to come up with new technologies to defend our axis when we deploy to them in the region and to some extent operate further away from china in the event that we go to war. of course, the answer there is to make sure that we don't go to war with china, and i think neither nation would benefit from such a war. but there is clearly a military
competition underway. host: can you update us on what happened with the air defense identification that was causing so much conflict therebetween not just the u.s. and china but japan as well and china? guest: yes, well, in november of last year the chinese announced an air defense identification zone over the east china sea, and it overlapped not only with japan's adiz but also south korea's and to some extent taiwan's. it was a surprise to all of the neighbors. there was no consultation whatsoever. today the chinese are monitoring the airspace, and on occasion they do have a close call with ,apanese surveillance jets japanese fighters that scrambled to respond to shiny fighters, and there is a risk of an accident there.
the united states does not honor or observe this adiz. we function in the area and carry out operations as we did previously, as if they didn't exist. the chinese are now thinking about establishing a similar adi z over the south china sea. this is something that would cause great worry among all of the nations of southeast asia. the chinese believe that these areas, what they call their -- the east china sea, south china sea, and the yellow sea -- they think it all belongs to them. they ultimately want to have the capability to dominate the area and take back any of the disputed territory occupied by other nations, and to essentially be something like the hegemon in the region. this should be a concern to the united states. i think our military is focus on
this problem. host: bob is in massachusetts on our line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like bonnie's opinion on the tpp agreement. i agree we should be concerned about chinese military expansion, but what is your take on vietnam, sort of expanding vietnam's military capability in order to contain china? vietnam is also a military dictatorship, and it is also trying to take over southeast asia, basically, it is trying to occupy cambodia and laos right now. guest: the obama administration recently partially lifted a ban on the sale of weapons to vietnam, and this is in part because of vietnam plus growing concern -- vietnam's growing concerns about china. i think what vietnam is likely
to buy, what the u.s. is willing to sell, is very limited. we are talking about capabilities that will enhance vietnam to know what is going on in waters close to its coastline. host: these are the f-22 -- guest: no, no, we're talking about like p-3 aircraft. the united states has developed a more modern version, the p-8. i think that is what the enamel primarily acquire. they don't -- what vietnam will primarily acquire. they don't have sufficient capability to know what is going on in the water around the coastline. domain that maritime awareness. i think the military relationship between the u.s. and vietnam low -- will grow very slowly. there are barriers on both sides. the united states still has incerns about human rights
vietnam, and the vietnamese do not want to get that close to the united states. they are right along the china border and they want to maintain a good relationship with china as well. every country in the region around china, they are all smaller than china, they all want to reach out to the united states and other powers outside the region -- india, australia -- so they can have some counterweight to help them hedge against the possibility that china as it rises uses its power to coerce them. host: got time for one or two more calls. colleen in wisconsin on our line for democrats. caller: i want to ask about the fact that this ptp agreement ses in it that says that for multinational corporations, anything such as osha rules either here or abroad
, any environmental rules, any patents, like for drugs that longerxtend the patent so that they would not become generic drugs, would be called a trade barrier, and would not be allowed. and if you try to fight it, the case would not be fought in american court but with a tribunal made up of corporate lawyers. host: bonnie glaser, some concerns with the tpp from our last colo caller. know the details about patents and pharmaceuticals and things of that nature. this is an agreement that is currently under negotiation and when trade agreements are under negotiation, they are secret. so none of these have really been released yet.
there are certainly components that are going to be controversial, but from a more strategic perspective, it is very important to the united states. countries in asia want the united states be informed more economically. we were talking about our military presence, but we need to be more involved economically and we need to find more ways to liberalize trade and open of investment that will bring more and to the united states enable more american companies to invest in the region. howe are a lot of pluses will no doubt be some minuses as well. bonnie's work is that csis.org. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you.
host: coming up, investment in commercial spaceflight and the future of nasa, but first, an update from c-span radio. >> an update on last week's elections. the associated press says that " for president obama, there may be some relief in democratic losses." they go on to say "the morning after the democrats' thrashing, president obama dropped by his senior staff's daily meeting and made an impassioned case for what he saw as an opportunity -- as the opportunities ahead and that his team still ran the most powerful institution in the world." white house officials say that the president's optimism reflects a president who feels, in their words, liberated. 6 races remain too close to call as local official continue to count mail in ballots. leadsska, dan sullivan
senator mark begich and it could be another week before the ballotsing balance -- are counted there. the lead over the democrat in arizona never to 341 votes this weekend. former representative republican in california leads the freshman representative by 2100 votes in sacramento. another republican leads democratic representative jim in anmy 740 votes unexpectedly close race. democrats lead in 2 other races. democrat in california leads the republican status and we meant by 1000 votes, and the associated press has yet to call the race in new york's 25th district. representative louise slaughter leads the republican by 582 votes. a reminder that congress returns this wednesday, 2:00 p.m. eastern time. live house coverage on c-span,
the senate on c-span2. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> tonight on "the communicators," a professor at the university of pennsylvania law school and director of the center or technology, innovation, and competition. >> people who oppose prioritization should take a 400, the magic that makes the internetwork. in that ismething different service classes for high-bandwidth services, low latency services, different forms of privatization. that was designed into the internet from the beginning. people say oh, that is just an old artifact. when we were running out of internet addresses the not only kept that debate another field called the label field to do another form of privatization. if you look at the engineering design, it suggests that this
was never intended -- prioritization was never littled to be allowed, a engineering knowledge goes a long way. it is the design feature of the network from the beginning and if you look at the way people using the network they use it to deliver, for example, voice service. ip-based was of a service that it all uses prioritization -- it all uses privatization. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on 2.he communicators" on c-span iss.ird mission to the main engine is at 108%. our viewers will recall
that last month the failed launch of the supply market to the international space station. we turned to the issue of nasa funding for commercial spaceflight as part of our weekly "your money" segment and we're joined by the senior staff writer for spacenews. oust, nobody was killed, but was the cost in terms of dollars and the future of nasa's funding for commercial spaceflight? guest: good morning. that mission -- both the value of the rocket and the spacecraft carrying cargo for the international space station was $200 million. this is a different relationship than the typical nasa mission. it was bringing a service rather than a launch vehicle or spacecraft. -- nasa's of national effort to turn more to the commercial sector and rely more tocommercial capabilities
all-out nasa to free up resources to do more cutting edge exploreation. host: when did that decision to go with this route for resupply happen? guest: dates back about a decade, to about 2005. nasa was making plans to retire the space shuttle and complete the international space station but realized there would be a gap in the ability to get access to the station. for the crew, nasa could turn temporarily to the russians. for cargo they wanted to return to the commercial sector. they realize that commercial companies a half century into do space-age capability to these sorts of missions and rather than nasa developing spacecraft, a good identify assert -- it could identify service and by doing so save money and use it to devote resources to the expiration mission. host: is that being rethought
after the high-profile explosion? guest: no evidence that nasa is thinking twice about turning to the commercial sector. at this point it has no alternatives. nasa is working on a next-generation spacecraft and a launch vehicle and those will be won't beil 2017 -- ready until 2017 at the earliest . those are designed for missions beyond earth orbit -- mrs missions like to the moon and to mars. ,ost: days after that explosion there was the explosion of the burgeoning linux patient -- the virgin galactic space of which resulted in one death. overhang the also discussion of the future of commercialization and space? guest: a lot of people tried to accidents but two
in reality they are very different and very little ties other than the fact that there commercial entities took place two days apart. virgin galactic is pursuing a different market, primarily space tourism. it was a different vehicle and it was a different failure mode that caused the accident and virgin galactic is largely self-funded. it is not dependent on nasa contracts to develop its vehicles. host: the white house spokesman got questions about the future of efforts in space at a press conference last weekend here is a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> we continue to believe and are proud of the fact that the united states is on an ambitious unsustainable path of space exploration, and the development -- ambitious and sustainable path of space explosion, and the development has had independent economic benefits for communities across the country. it is something that has led to
important innovation, that this competition as yielded innovative results and for the space industry and it builds and redundancies into the system. the president continues to believe overall in the value of investments inprogram program- in our space and exploration despite the recent setbacks, in some cases tragic setback. the president continues to be optimistic about the future of the space program. that was white house press secretary josh earnest last week in one of the press conferences he gave. foustjoined by jeff of spacenews come here to take your calls and questions.
host: our phones are open for you to call but this is our "your money" segment. can you talk about the nasa budget and how much nasa is playing these commercial company's for the services varying the cargo to the international space station? guest: nasa's overall budget is $17.5 billion. no major increases or decreases. nasa has contracts with orbital sciences and spacex. the combined value of those contracts is about $3.5 billion spread out over several years. orbital is contracted to do 8 missions. the one that failed was there third. spacex's contractors to do 12 missions. host: how much is nasa going to be paying for the crew ferrying
to the international space station, which is eventually going to happen with some of these? guest: in september nasa awarded contracts to boeing and spacex for vehicles that would carry astronauts to the space station in a commercial matter in much the same way that they have contracts to ferry cargo to the stations. the kind -- the combined value of those contracts is $6.8 billion. in the meantime we've talked about nasa hitching a ride with the russian space groups to get to the international space station. how much is the united states paying russia for these efforts? guest: it is roughly $70 million percy, and nasa has to buy six .eats in your,
six seats a year. host: question from jim on twitter. "i understand spacex rockets use 40-year-old soviet engines. that the best they can acquire?" guest: the engines have interesting origins. it was developed in the late 1960's and early 1970's in the former soviet union as part of their effort to develop an equivalent to our midmarket. that rocket did not figuratively or literally get very far off the ground. it suffered a launch failures and the program was canceled and the engines were basically put into storage. after the fall of the soviet union in the 1990's, many aerospace companies want to rush out to look at what technology they had available and one found these engines and worked out a deal to import them to the u.s., where they refurbish them and put in your -- put them and orbital
a new name on them and orbital later acquired those for its rockets. orbital's necessarily first choice. they were interested in another engine from russia. that was not available at the time because they had an for a jointntract venture of lockheed martin and boeing that makes the alice five rockets. -- the atlas five rockets. it was the best available given the technology that was on the market. host: howling of you been covering the space industry? guest: i've been covering it over a decade although i have only been at spacenews a couple of months. host: we are here to hear your comments about the explosion last month and the future of the space exploration effort. david is first on our line for democrats in albuquerque, new mexico. caller: good morning, c-span, and a good morning, jeff. so jeff, when asset uses
commercial flights, how closely does nasa monitor the commercial flights for safety issues that ? and that is my question. guest: that is a good question. nasa wants to make sure that the spacecraft in particular is safe to approach and dock with the international space station. there is a small office within the faa known as the office of commercial space transportation and they have the responsibility of licensing a commercial launch that takes place in the u.s. or by a u.s. company. the launch that took place that failed was licensed by the faa, and as part of the licensing process they have to ensure that the vehicle will not post any risk to the uninvolved public, third parties, that no one is injured and there is no significant property damage, and companies to get the large theyse after demonstrate
can operate a vehicle safely. in the case of the failure, no one was injured as a result of the accident and most of the damage the on the launchpad and the rocket itself were a few windows in a neighboring communities broken by the blast. but no significant damage and that is part of the government oversight process. the standards different for the cargo and crew ferrying and then some of these space tourism ventures? guest: when we get into crew flights, nasa will have a significant degree of oversight of the commercial crew vehicles to make sure that they are safe enough for nasa astronaut to fly on them. for space tourism ventures like virgin galactic, customers are expected to assume some degree of risk associated with that. it is written in federal law that spaceflight is inherently dangerous and people who fly have to accept some degree of risk, particularly if they are doing so for the sake of tourism
and spaceflight. .any are willing to do so over time as the industry develops more experience you can expect the fda to develop regulations that refined the best practices to ensure safety as the industry gains march. matures. host: if you have questions for jeff foust host: roseburg, oregon, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good, go ahead. caller: you mentioned something about orbital science developing research to explore mars and the moon and asteroids. how much of this funding and research is going to be going towards spatial mining and the development of bringing things back to earth? guest: yeah, interesting question.
there is been a lot of interest in having some of the resources that are available in space for commercial purposes and there -- a couple of companies deep space industry and planetary resources -- that have as the mission essentially astro mining. accessing resources and either using them in space or bringing them back to earth. as it turns out, one of the payloads on the spacecraft that was lost in the launch failure was a small satellite from planetary resources that was scheduled to be later ejected from the space station as a .echnology demonstrator some of the technology that they want to stop future spacecraft did a minor setback for them although they are working on a replacement spacecraft as we speak. host: a question on twitter -- "what if we found out that a rock to the earth and cause an extinction level event? can we stop it?
does climate still matter?" guest: it depends on how large the asteroid is and how much notice we get good the more notice we have the more likely we would be able to do something to deflect the asteroid. the smaller, the more likely we would be able to deflect found ag good if we large object that was what you do with tomorrow, there would be very little we could do, but if we found something a few hundred feet across that threatened the earth in a few decades and it would be a number of opportunities to try to develop technologies to do so, it is something that -- nasa is part of the broader asteroid initiative, trying to identify how many potentially hazardous asteroids exist. you can breathe a sigh of relief -- there are not any that are known to be on the impact trajectory for the foreseeable future. but they continued research and
a search for smaller objects as well. disastersr those twin last week, holman jenkins writes in "the wall street journal," "why space tourism matters." his opinion in "the wall street journal." indiana on our line for republicans. zach, good morning. caller: i have a question for jeff. i know we are not in the same atmosphere as the cold war and soviet russia has fallen and we don't have to compete in the space race with them anymore, but we did mention -- you mentioned $400 million to the russians almost every year. astronauts to an from space. funding, nasa get more or is it important for nasa to get more funding, to where we an be more independent
in space exploration and discovery rather than relying on the russians are japanese for space exploration? guest: yeah, great question, and the issue is come up in last two months as relations between the united states and russia worsened. there were questions about whether they would cut off access to us for the space station or restrict exports to the united states for the rocket engine i mentioned earlier that has a lot of national security payloads. so far, nothing is really taking place in an adverse respect. we continue to bring astronauts to and from the space station on the spacecraft. there was a spacecraft that i'm last night ined kazakhstan and astronauts were in good condition after their return to earth.
certainly a number of people make the case that because of the concern about worsening relations with russia, we need to do more about building up capabilities to transport astronauts on our own, and right now the best shot for doing that is the commercial crew programs. it has been hindered in recent years by not being funded at the level that the administration has requested. for 2015 the administration requested 840 $8 million for the program and has received between million inand $805 the house and senate versions of the appropriation bills. there is certainly a case to be made that fully funding the commercial crew may be the most expeditious way to reduce our reliance on the russians for crew access. nasa's biggest champions and because critics refining on capitol hill. guest: well, it is not
particularly a partisan issue, which may be a surprise to many. ontends to break down more district lines. a lot of centers with major aircraft centers in their districts of -- or states tend to be bigger proponents of nasa. particularly a partisan issue, unlike many other issues on capitol hill. washington, d.c., on our line for democrats. .aller: hello i was concerned with the fact that a lot of space centers are .xploding over years i wanted to know, in theory, is there a way to convey space travel through countable -- catapult were shooting through a medium such as a conveyor belt? host: alternative space travel.
guest: there have been lots of interesting technologies proposed over the years. using lasers to launch spacecraft, and so on. rockets, for all the problems they have come are the best weight we have given our current state of technology over time, to replace payloads in space. maybe over time we will come up with alternative technologies. there are many out there who advocate a space elevator, which runs out into space and you ride up as if you were writing an elevator could but we don't have the technology just yet and we don't have materials that could support something like that. for the time being it is rockets. host: jeff foust joining us on space travel. if you have questions, now would be a good time to call in.
host: lawrence is up next in nashville, tennessee, on our line for independents. good morning, lawrence. caller: good morning. regarding the launch on the east coast you were talking about, when it was first reported they said that the rocket was detonated shortly after it left the launchpad because it was going to be rough course and owing to hear off course and perhaps pose on to the population. heardthat i had never that the rocket was purposely blown up, because it was off trajectory. i wondered if that was the case. secondarily, i heard a guy in a state new york talking about how lled it afterwards, and i wonder, do we have any idea, since you said that the laws were not to injure any third parties or commercial flights,
if we had any idea what was on that payload, if there were .uclear materials i know there must of been highly caustic chemicals. i will take my answer off the air. thank you very much. guest: to answer the first question, every rocket has basically a self-destruct system. there wasf course, someone with their finger on the button that can do to make the rocket to prevent from threatening the uninvolved public. in the case of this particular lunch there was a safety system that was detonated but it was not clear that it needed to be used. as you can see from the video, the rocket went straight up and the engine failed and it landed almost on top of the launchpad it took off from. it posed no risk to the public even if there had not been arranged safety system on board. for the second question, the rocket uses a combination of highly refined form of kerosene and liquid oxygen for its
propellants. in terms of the payload carried, it carried a number of experiments but no nuclear materials, no really hazardous chemicals. environmental tests conducted surely after the launch failure showed no evidence of harmful chemicals in the atmosphere or in the waters. so someone smelled something in upstate new york, it was not from the lunch -- not from the launch. host: david is calling in. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask a quick question -- i know we touched a little bit on the u.s.-russia relations, but 2017 is kind of a looming deadline for nasa because that is when the contract is officially up for the russian launchs of u.s. personnel. and we know that our relations ,enerally disintegrate quickly
especially with what is going on in eastern europe right now. if you guys wanted to touch on if there is any budget appropriation going into nasa at all, how that might affect -- i will take michael laughlin. -- take my call offline. guest: nasa is not funded by the defense department. there is no defense department funding of nasa. the caller is correct that masses correct -- nasa's current contract runs out in 2017. that has been extended a number of times before in order to ensure access to the space station and as long as relations don't get too much worse, and i would not be surprised if nasa saw another extension just in case the commercial providers were not ready to go in late 2017 as currently planned. boeing and spacex, the companies with of those contracts, believe they will be ready to fal live n
2017 and if one of them is correct we can and our deals with the russians. host: can you talk about having multiple companies on the crew contract and the cargo contract? is to haveidea redundancy. if one company experiences technical problems or a launch failure or other issues you have another company in place to pick up and make sure that the capabilities are available. in the case of the carter program it may be some time they are ready to resume flights to the space station carrying cargo. however, spacex has the contract and they will be able to continue sending supplies and experiments and so on to the space station, ensuring that normal operations pretty much can continue there. n is in miami, florida, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. why did president obama missed the opportunity -- in the
cutting the national program to privatize it, why didn't you use this opportunity to crank the engineers by pushing and creating long-term goals like the moon mission, perhaps mars, asteroids, creating inspiration and getting the great goals and ambitions, which could have actually helped the economy by creating high-paying jobs, instead of taking the approach that he did by cutting the nasa program into the private, subcontract to the russians? didn't that miss an opportunity of lacking leadership? why did he take that mistake and wrote? -- mistaken road. guest: it's worth noting that the commercial crew program is an initiative of the obama administration to go back to 2010 when the administration program,o them, this
and the commercial cargo program 2005-2006 to timeframe under the bush administration. the obama administration decided to build on the success of the cargo program within the crew program. and thedid do was constellation program, and that was the initiative under the previous administration to sendop spacecraft and spacecraft to the moon by 2020. a blue-ribbon commission concluded that it was unlikely that nasa would be able to meet its goals without a significant additional infusion of money in order to do so. the obama administration sought to restructure the problem -- program and it is still seeking a long-term goal of sending humans to mars, perhaps in the 2030's, to an asteroid in 2020's, and perhaps a redirect
mission where it would send a to basicallycraft -- the asteroid into an orbit around the moon and send astronauts to the asteroid in the early-mid-2020 timeframe. there is certainly exploration with spaceflight emphasis to this day. it is a different direction than the bush administration. some people are not happy with that. they would like to see a return to the moon, for example. but that would require more funding than the administration or congress seems willing to provide nasa at this point in time. host: james is on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. of the $70 million, how much of that is actually to the russians? guest: good question. it is hard to tell what the cost structure is, how much it costs them to send the astronaut to a space station. it is worth noting that the russians in the past have sent private space tourists to the
space station, taking advantage of extra seats when they were not needed for crew transfers. those prices have increased over time. the first person to fly there spent less than $20 million -- host: how long did he get to stay? guest: he got to spend about a week on the space station. a number of people have followed since then. the prices have increased over time. that is more likely the russians gauging with the demand was and how much the market is prepared to pay for that. to gosenior is planning to the space station in 2015 on priceacecraft, and her will be closer to $50 million. host: how much is virgin galactic going to charge for those seats when they get the capability to do space tourism? guest: are virgin galactic seat will cost $250,000 could keep in
mind, that is a suborbital spaceflight. you are not going to orbit, not going to the space station. it lasts a couple of hours including a couple minutes in weightlessness. john is up next in canada, florida, on our line for independents. caller: i think now is the time to think about starting the process of developing some alternative pathway to space beyond the combustion engines we are using today. i know this is going to be something in the remote future, perhaps will but negating effort to negate the effect of gravity, or perhaps reducing the mass of the mechanismsning off come by some type of casimir effect using negative energy density matrix that cuts down on the wavelengths of the subatomic particles. host: more thoughts on alternative space travel?
guest: yeah, there's no shortage of ideas out there. whether the physics works and it is feasible is a whole other question. that tends to be funded at fairly low levels. there is a technology program within nasa that includes innovative advanced concepts program that provides small grants to researchers to look at some very early stage technologies that may have promised down the road. propulsiones, technology may fit within the portfolio. spring, maryland, on our line for democrats. thank you, first, for c-span. if you were president, what would you do different in terms of reducing the obstacles to getting americans -- america to put its own astronauts into space and improving the systems so that we don't have the disasters and reduce the likelihood of disasters that we just had? guest: well, big question there,
as president. i think what you would do is make sure you fully invested in government and commercial space transportation programs, both the commercial crew program as well as the space launch system. make sure you have a diversity of ways of getting humans into space. benefitnologies may commercial spaceflight and human exploration programs. they tend to be relatively small investments in terms of the size of the federal budget. but it has always been a challenge particularly in recent years getting the programs adequately funded. host: if you minutes left with jeff foust. if you have questions on the future of space travel, now is the time to do that. a quick question on the launch failure. how common are these types of launch failures, these rocket explosions? guest: in a given year worldwide there are 75-80 launches and it
is not uncommon for a handful of -- i handful to fail each year. they have different failure modes. that happens out of sight and out of range of the launch site. , but not uncommon certainly this one was particularly visually stunning by the nature of when and where it took place. host: where were you when and where it took place? guest: i was trying to watch it from here in washington. it is possible to see some of the launches particularly in the evening, as this launch was. i was on top of a parking garage waiting to see if i would see little red speck of your on the way to work it. unfortunately did not. host: when did you realize something was wrong? had a nasa tv on my phone and i looked down and i saw a fireball in the screen and
saw that something tragic happen. host: ohio on our line for independents. caller: interestingly enough, i watched it on nasa tv myself. i've been a subscriber to spacenews for probably 10 years. i have to applaud you for being on television, actually. in terms of rocket launchers and developing, your publication is publicationent almost from the financial investing perspective, because of the fact that there are so s, likemmercial payload telecommunications satellites, and you are about the only publication that i can get the information from. what i've noticed over the years is there is all kinds of launch vehicles like the pegasus and what strikes me is that we keep reinventing the wheel. you are always going to have
problems, especially on an issue -- there is always going to be something that doesn't quite work right until you resolve those problems. that is why the vehicle has been so successful. technologically they got their act together. guest: first of all, thanks for subscribing. i appreciate that. in terms of the launch of the launch vehicle experience, certainly the launch vehicle that can survive what is often called the infant mortality stage where you are most likely to have failures and you learn exactly how the rocket works. over time you build up experience. experience is no guarantee of success down the road. an example is the russian proton rocket. it has its related about 400 launches but in recent years it suffered from several launch failures because of various technical issues that may be yourd to quality control again, even though you build up
a lot of experience in the launch vehicle, you still have to commit to a high degree of technical excellence because there is often no margin for error when you are launching. .com if they want to find out more about your publication. staten island, new york, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. mr. foust i have a question for you. , host host: go ahead. caller: i don't follow it closely, but i do know that the trip to mars has encountered obstacles of keeping people quarters thatose they would have to experience. how do you believe they are going to solve that problem, which it seems to me to be insurmountable, with the prior testing i've read about. particularly one long space journey where the russian cosmonaut had issues at i think
the space station. i will hang up and take your -- host: in dealing with zero gravity? guest: there are several concerns. one is how you keep a group of people happy and productive on a round-trip mission that my last three years. there was an experiment in moscow a few years back where they put six people into the simulated mars spacecraft, really in a parking garage in moscow, and kept them in there for 500 days to simulate a mars mission. they were able to work together and they learnt a lot lessons from the psychological issues of isolation and dealing with the close group of people in close quarters. there are physiological issues -- weightlessness, radiation exposure. we don't know about conditions on the martian surface. it is it -- is it enough to keep the human body healthy?
today space things that people who spend a lot of time on the space station also experience? it will take decades before we are really ready to send humans to mars and that is part of the roadmap for the human mars mission. -- in the on the week weekend on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. my comment concerns the government spending a lot of money on commercial ventures. this goes back to what eisenhower cautioned in his speech was people think was all about the military industrial complex. the very next comment he made was the government concerning itself with who gets the money for technology and development. it is deal thing that is more -- it is the thing that is more recent, the government picking winners and losers, and no more did receive that t -- did we see that than solyndra.
if spaceflight is a viable thing, but hybrid sector should find that and make it work. -- the private sector should find that and make it work. the government should not spend money developing something that has no commercial value. if it did, the private sector should do it. like eisenhower said, spending a lot of on something that may not have value whatsoever. guest: that is a concern that actually has been raised by some people on capitol hill -- why should nasa be helping to fund the development of the commercial cargo and crew vehicles? the answers that they are providing a service that nasa needs, and by helping to support the development of those vehicles, they can ensure that the systems can meet nasa's needs sooner. there are copies out there, virgin galactic being one, that are developing systems without government funding at all. commercial spaceflight is not solely dependent on nasa.
nasa is hoping to accelerate the development of some accent -- aspects of it. host: you talked about the shifting mission goals from the george w. bush presidency to the obama president. what could keep the next nasa'snt from shifting goals once again? guest: that is certainly a concern and we will have to see who wins election in 2016. the space agency is not a high priority in the broader political scene of things so it usually takes an administration sometime before they put energy towards a new space policy. a newis the risk that administration could call in and decide to change nasa's mission once again. it will depend on how well nasa is executing on its current programs. if the space launch system is making progress than they make a stronger case for continuing that direction rather than canceling it and starting over.
we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: we will see you back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. have a great day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] them talking about the upcoming enrollment.