>> in the meantime liggett some headlines from today's washington journal. >> our question for you is whether or not the health care protests such is your mind. we have been talking a lot about health care. let's hear from you.

this is grace. independent line. what is your thinking? >>caller: my thinking is -- thanks for taking my call. it has not changed by mind a bit. i think that the american people would benefit by being a self-insured group. i think that we owe them that choice. i think it is nice that obama is giving a choice instead of forcing one way or the other. what i would like to say -- and this is very important, so i hope you will give me a minute. one of the things that we must do no matter which way the vote goes, the way that i can say different cost, 500,000 people are diagnosed with cancer every year. cancer is one of the most expensive things to treat. there is a prevention for cancer, and people need to be educated about it. a vitamin that is causing cancer, a vitamin deficiency

causes scurvy. it took hundreds of years for people to recognize that it was not caused by a virus. was caused by vitamin deficiency. when the people standing on these ships on long voyages started stocking with citrus fruit scurvy ended. they knew what the answer was. now, there is a vitamin that does prevent cancer. >>host: you need to be quick. what is it? >>caller: vitamin d17. thank you for taking my call. >>host: let's go to robert. good morning. >>caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. >>host: as you are watching these protests and townhall meetings what have you changed your mind on all this? >>caller: i guess it opened my eyes more to not so much the -- it changed my mind on the reaction from our president.

do not agree with the proposed plan. i don't agree with the anger when it gets to have of hand, but on the other hand i don't agree with that being an american to either agree or disagree. and there are a lot of attacks going on. almost the same proposal the bush administration passed. now it's on him. now they are doing the opposite. and it's going to change people's minds. a lot of it is coming out right now. changing their minds. the way they are attacking just for worse in their opinion. >>host: well, your comments and the ride into into a questi

light gray is democracy. dark green is abuse. people in the south were asked whether or not these actions were democracy or abuse. attacks against an angry bill. 51% say it is democracy. supporters of a bill. 33% said democracy. 59% said it was abuse. next telephone call is from tony in washington, d.c. >>caller: yes. people really need to get -- [inaudible] you know, what of the consequences if we don't do anything about it? people need to be well-informed. they need to get their information from more than one source. if we take politics back to this issue it's never going to do

anything. if we go back to '92 -- [inaudible] making billions of dollars. hard-working people. so politics has to be taken out of the equation, and we have to go back and really, you know, have a very serious debate. did information from om multiple sources. don't just listen to one. people have special interests. where do they are putting forward they have special interests. first we need to get information from multiple sources. thank you very much. >>host: thank you. arkansas. >>caller: good morning. >>host: good morning, sir. >>caller: i would like to bring up, the constitution doesn't say that the president of the united states and the congress have the authority to take the taxpayers' money and spend it on health care. i'd like to see it as a question

based on fact. it know, you will find out what a poor job at educating the test done. so how about asking the question based on fact and not just the opinion. >>host: all right. thanks. >>caller: the constitution does it say the president and the congress have the authority to take the taxpayers' money. >>host: thank you. washington times has a story about the public opinion affect of the town halls. they put the story. and inside the "washington post" this column has a different tack on it. he looks to history and suggests that there could be a backlash among voters watching the angry outpouring of the town halls. he looks to the lyndon johnson era for this, and he writes just

a few days before the national of action he was part of a crowd of 700 people. first republican congressman elected to taxes and the modern era. crowd of several hundred people who surrounded lyndon johnson and his wife ladybird as they arrived for a luncheon. many of the demonstrators carried signs labeling the texas senator. he sold out to yankee socialists. in built for more than half an hour. johnson refused offers of police assistance telling an aide at the time has come. i can't walk with my lady. the backlash was instant and powerful. the conservative columnist better wrote this scene out rates thousands of texas and seveners. senator richard b. russell had not campaigned since 1944

telephoned johnson that evening to offer his services. making a comparison to how the public might react today and watching the town of protest to be let's go to our next phone caller from shreveport, l ouisiana. independent line. >> caller: yes, ma'am. nobody has read this bill, it seems to me. all these so-called congressman won't take the time to read the bill. they get out here to these town hall meetings. the people that go to these meetings have read the bill. they don't like it. it's shoved down our throat just like this bailout. i swear democrats and republicans, they have been blackmailed or intimidated, one or the other. for instance, mary landreau says it's a wonderful thing. i don't even think she has read it. this is communism at its best as

far as i'm concerned. i sit there and watch this. just amazes me that they have dumbed the people down so much. >> we leave this morning's washington job to go live to the american enterprise institute. live coverage of a forum on government and the budget process continues. former house speaker newt gingrich. >> some examples of continuing change of how fundamentally different the method of thinking ought to be. one of the topics that has become most fascinated with is rehabilitation for prisoners. dare i want to say to examples of real change. america works, which is a remarkable company in new york, and the prison model that has done such a great job of developing. i believe that prison reform and prison rehabilitation should be a concern for all americans. today 66 percent of all u.s. inmates are rearrested within

three years of release. and 52 percent and a back in prison. there are some organizations leading the way in hell changing the way we rehabilitate prisoners and effectively integrate them into society. leading the way in welfare reform. founded and were a very bold breakthrough at that time in the '80's. several social workers went into private business and organized a for-profit company which would only get paid if hard-core unemployed actually change their behavior enough to go to work and they only get their bonus if they would work for a minimum of six consecutive months. they became an astonishingly successful would probably lead a considerable number of social work groups to hate them because they offered the opportunity, including indianapolis. because the america works is in indianapolis. they have since pranced into

working with prisoners. formerly incarcerated folks who have referred for direct employment when released from prison. the organization works to develop our best make an appropriate clothing, carfare. they take all the things the line, and they began developing for prisoners. how do you retrain people said that they get a job, keep a job, then have to be on time, mine had to show up. after a month in the america works program most individuals who were prisoners did hired. the company's bid could workers. the workers get the jobs. the government gets both reduced costs to criminal justice and the tax revenue for people now holding down a job. to give you an example of the cost to california, $47,000 a year to house one prisoner versus a one-time fee of $4,000 to get that person a job which is paid only when they keep the job for six months.

so in essence california is going to release 40,000 people. they should basically help apparel company which we could call california works ramp up to deal with all 40,000 people. and you have a fundamentally different kind of experience. jack olsen developed prison which provides spiritual, vocational, educational estimates in all 50 states and 112 branches worldwide. it relies on a volunteer network of more than 20,000 people. non-union, non full-time state employees, no pension. all the things we are told automatically raises costs. 20,000 volunteers to minister to of many of the 2.3 million prisoners in the new states. prison has an interchange freedom initiative which is very tough. remembered in the value based programs teaching the best

strategy to re-enter society beginning 18-24 months prior to release. now, i have talked about how challenging this is. this is a program where you don't smoke, you don't drink, you focus all day every day. they are really serious about helping people change their behavior and helping people change their future. according to the study of the interchange freedom initiative in texas' only 8 percent of those to participate in the program return to jail within two years compared to 52 percent of all american prisoners and returned to jail within three years. so i want to give these two models as examples. these are not just more efficient ways of doing the same old thing. these are fundamentally different approaches to achieving outcomes that are not achievable within the traditional raucously. and that is a key part of what we want to focus on. in this last section we are going to talk about examples of

successful policies in specific areas. i want to start with the economy. i believe it is ironic that james garfield in 1992 had posted in the clinton campaign headquarters a sign that said it is the economy. i really think this administration would do well to post a sign in the oval office that says it's jobs. and the fact is we don't focus on jobs we don't get people back to work and we don't create economic momentum. we are in deep trouble as a country. america only works when americans are working. furthermore when you're faced with competitors like china and india you have to have a strategy for economic growth and economic development in and time of considerable challenge. our argument is if we want to build a system of prosperous, and free future we need to create the most productive, most

creative, most entrepreneurial pro-market economy that runs on smart and effective economic regulation. let me be clear, i believe that if you set out, say, what would maximize the number of entrepreneurs in america. there are ways to do that. what would maximize the number of smaller businesses created by small business? there are ways to do that. if you say, how can i have the most continuous process of innovation, we know how to do that. it just doesn't fit the political elite definition of the future, which is high tax, big bureaucracy, and politicians entered. so long term we are going to need budgetary reform legislation. in the last congress more than one dozen bills were introduced to establish entitlement and budget provisions. but all the legislation did was have the same old conversation within the same old friend mark.

you in fact did not achieve very much. you end up with a compromise in which we would raise taxes while marginally cutting spending in order to sustain a bigger government and higher costs with a smaller economy and fewer job creation. tax increases are just a short-term fix that lead to bigger government and a weaker economy. the fact that in the last year 11 states raised taxes to help an unlimited budget gaps is absolutely amazing in the context of this economy. added new top rates of 10.8%, 11% to raise and it killed 3 million jobs. that kills jobs. california raised income-tax rates by 1/4%. that kills jobs. delaware raise taxes and earnings above $60,000. that kills jobs. new york races for higher income

earners. that kills jobs. by the way, i've talked to people moving out of new york city because they are now finding that finally it's so expensive compared to living, for example, in florida which has been tex. the differential is just unsustainable. the jersey and wisconsin raise taxes of high income earners. every one of those stats kills jobs. they also represent a distorted and social policy which we we can't weaken families cannot take money away from working families to create a bureaucracy to do for the family what it would have done for itself if it still had the money. let me give examples. under president truman reductions were 1000-$12,000 for married couples. in 2009 inflation adjusted figures $7,300 for married

couples and $3,650 for each dependent. now, if you will consider that you begin to look and a fundamentally different model. the original deduction, the original income tax would mean that no one hour in less than $8 million a year would pay anything. when income tax first came and it was going to be very limited are very small and very, very tidy. under $8 million in 2009 dollars. but if you look at the way in which the states are trying to -- states are desperate to find money. and so in effect they are exporting jobs to china and india. oregon increased its tax. delaware raised receipts and business franchise taxes. ivan of what a franchise in delaware? wisconsin reduced corporate tax breaks. nevada adjusted its modified business tax at that time when

the nevada economy is one of the hardest hit with property having had a deeper drop in value than all of the states. kansas' reduced business tax credits. nineteen states have increased taxes by more than 1%. only one state get its taxes by more than 1%. so if you look at that and you go through item after item only north dakota cut individual business income taxes by $50 million. and north dakota is a good example where energy revenue was helpful. north dakota is having an energy bump. our argument is if we want economies that encourage business development and freedom in the marketplace we need to reform our current tax structure demand we need to remember, as winston churchill warned us, the government is not the source of wealth. a nation tax itself into prosperity it like a man standing in a bucket and trying

to lift himself up by the handle. i think we have to focus in designing the government of the future on during a dramatically different job of reducing the regulatory barriers and cutting taxes that will discourage entrepreneurship and economic growth. that is why the american solutions has proposed to dramatic programs to create jobs and stimulate economic growth. we created a program which we think is key tax steps for prosperity. and we did this in part because we are convinced that the politician protection act, the so-called stimulus bill was clearly not been to create the level of economic growth that we want. the federal reserve wind that we can expect a long time of increased economic activity without new jobs, and that we can easily have eight or 9 percent unemployment for a long time. i think the american people will find that a very unacceptable future.

i think they could come in and say what we need to do is have more big government spending when the fact is by an 3-1 most americans believe that business tax cuts are a much better break to create jobs and more bureaucratic spending. so we suggest four key steps for jobs in the program because jobs here, jobs now, jobs first. all told you what the four steps are. the first is immediate payroll tax relief. while many people do not pay income tax everyone who has a salary basis of security and medicare tax. in this economy you may not be able to get people a payroll increase, but you can give them a take-home pay increase. so if you cut the security and medicare tax and we propose a 50% or to your 50% reduction in the papal tax you immediately boost take-home pay for even the least well paid person. subminimum wage workers who are currently paying the social security and medicare tax with a

significant increase in take-home pay immediately if they have a to your cat. we also propose that the employer match also be cut for two years by 50 per cent which means that every small business in america would have more cash flow to be able to pay off. three out of every four jobs are created by small business. now, the way we would do this -- and by the way, this would be a huge benefit u.s. self-employed. you did both the employer match and the employee tax. you have a very significant increase in take-home pay. remember, the state like california, more people are self-employed and there are union workers. you can barely have a dramatic impact on the economy and offset some of the damage done by state taxes. we find the money. you remember earlier i talked about the fact that we had balanced the budget for four consecutive years. i am quite comfortable in of $4 trillion federal budget.

we can find the money to put the money in the security and medicare trust fund so the data can be held harmless. i would start by taking all the unexpected t.a.r.p. money along with 300-$400 billion of unspent stimulus funding and diverting them into paying for the payroll tax cuts. in addition we would sell all the government on a ship that has been acquired in the last two years to get all of those businesses back in the marketplace. take the money that would turn. but that and. and i would propose zeroing out of money going to acorn because that is, after all, an organization dedicated to helping the board. we took the money they get and give it to record to the board in the form of a tax cut surely that would be exactly the model of what acorn says they stand for, so they should be thrilled by this opportunity. the second thing we want to do

is enable american companies to once again become the most competitive exporters in the world. we think the way you do that is umass the average tax rate which is tall and have% for corporations. today in the united states when you combined state and federal taxes it is the most expensive corporate tax in the world. this goes back to two plus two equals four. i get turned on to this. the head of intel. he pointed out that microsoft has all of their licenses and ireland. he said what do you think microsoft has of their businesses and ireland. they pay 12 & versus paying what some american states pay, over 40%. so to plus two equals four. you are a corporate ceo. your obligation to give the stockholders. but you better pay 12 and a half% tax or 40 percent tax? and all of our the bull france it up and yell about and patriotic companies. let's make it profitable to be

patriotic by reducing the tax rate he will suddenly find lots of americans and foreign see as. cast, i would like to have more factories in america because they'll have a lower tax rate in germany or britain or france or japan. third you really want to compete with china for jobs. you want the most innovative, creative, and entrepreneurial society in the world. max the capitol gains rate, which is zero. if we had no capital gains tax the amount of capital which would flow into the net the state, the number of new factories and businesses and new jobs would be breathtaking. we would very rapidly become the leading exporting country of the world. if you social values i did you believe in the work ethic. you believe in safety, and you believe that families ought to save for their children to have a better future it is absolutely irrational to have a death tax. and as a cultural value we

should abolish the death tax permanently to send the signal we actually want to encourage people to work all their lives, save all their lives, and the will to save up resources for their children. that gives you an overview of what we think -- does for tax cuts would radically accelerate economic growth in america, would dramatically reduce unemployment. and if you simply calculate. we were at 4 percent unemployment, it's bigger with our tax revenue be from people going to work? how much beer with the economy be? how much less will be be spending on unemployment, medicate, and other spending to make you begin to get the virtual circle of economic growth that enables it to go back to a balanced budget. we also have american solutions. eight other jobs which are not going to go through in detail. i will tell you that the strong, robust american energy program is a key part of that and a strong education program and health reform. i'm going to talk briefly about

all of the. education, very simple model. world-class jobs require world-class mining. you cannot compete with china and india with an inadequate education system. and an inadequate education system can't be fixed by not have left behind. you need an entire new model of every american getting a head because you have too many adults who are under educated for the world market, and you can't say to somebody who is 22, we are a guide to help you, but will fix k-12. you are going to have 40 or 50 years. so we need to have a fundamental new approach that includes a vocational technical school, college, k-12, but it also includes a home schooling, burning underground, it includes things like the university of phoenix online learning. we have to have a fundamental new approach to 3605 days a year capacity to keep learning and the most rapid possible rates of

that every american can be fully employed. i mentioned to you earlier, 2 million minutes. i really wish every community would watch this bill and have a dialogue about what does it mean and what did we have to do so our schools can be competitive? talks in points out. 60 percent of u.s. students have no signs are basic biology. 18 percent take advanced class is in physics, chemistry, or biology. yet every indian student in the academic track takes four years of physics taught biophysics major. only 45 percent of u.s. students take math course work beyond basic. remember, these are students who have not dropped out. if you then add in the students who dropped out you begin to realize how huge the educational challenge of the next generation is if we are serious about competing. and september 17th and i'm proud to announce american solutions will be hosting the premier of this new documentary.

2 million minutes and 21st century solutions. arco's with the education and quality project and with the u.s. chamber of commerce. it is very interesting. the film highlights the basic school which is at tucson, ariz. jarvis school. newsweek recently rated it as the best school in the country. and we really think there is about to be learned from it. this is the kind of opportunity to say every school could be this good if we applied the right principles and if we are prepared to really insist on excellence. i believed effective learning is critical. i don't see how you create job opportunities and productive, gainful employment for americans in and knowledge based internet connected globally competitive world without having very high quality learning in america. international competition and the future of this country requires effective learning by all americans, and the economic viability of the community

requires effective learning. the future of our children requires that the line. this is going to be one of the two or three most important debates in this country in the next few years. i want to say that we are actually directly involved with president obama and with secretary of education and with the rev. al sharpton in going. we would be -- i think actually this afternoon and then friday we are announcing, tomorrow morning on the today show that we will be going nationwide in a joint effort that is tri partisan, democrat, republican, independent, to give every state to adopt a strong charter program. this is one of the places where i strongly agree with president obama. .. should have the right

never to have their kids trapped in failing schools. this is a fundamental argument about the future of america. now we believe in a no limits charter system. all of the money allocated for student education goes directly to the school. the school manages its own staff whereby it is exempt from laws regarding tenure and need not unionize and define its owes curriculum and they are not exempt from state assessments. the schools are not exempt from reporting requirements nor qvt+h$ave the same obligation for transparency as any other school. state law should allow the

school to franchise its model without limitation. that means they need not apply for a new school every time they can build a new one. if they have the demand they must have been able to serve it. the state should have no caps on the number of charter schools that could be approved and the process for building charter schools should be smooth and efficient. they should open up their system for part-time teachers so physicists or local accountants could teach one or two hours a day and bring knowledge to the classroom and business-like knowledge to students. and programs for like teach for america should be encouraged but not limited. and an early graduation so students could faster and if they finish early it could be used as scholarship. my daughter led a foundation plan where they paid students -- this were seventh and eighth graders the same wages as

mcdonald's employees if they stayed in school and did their homework and they had a dramatic improvement in the number of poor students -- and these were in very poor neighborhoods and the students responded -- it always surprises me it seems a shock to some education theorists. poor children understand money. poor children understand the idea that they could earn the money. poor children willing to change their behavior if they actually get the money. and something we experiment with years ago when i was a member of congress and i would take my speech money -- we had a program called earning by learning and we paid $2 per book in public housing for every book the children would read and had huge response. 'cause they loved the idea of getting $2 a book. and they were willing to read lots of books. it wasn't complicated. all of us understand that that when we're watching, you know, tiger woods win a golf match or we watch somebody negotiate to be a football player or we watch a movie star or a rock star make money, that somehow we come around with these young people

who are poor and need money and we say, gosh, i wonder what might encourage them to study. so we encourage people to look at this. we think it might curb the shockingly high dropout rates seen as so many failing schools and we think it might break the cycle of poverty dependency and prison. so that's education. on energy, we think there has to be an american energy program to use american energy to create american jobs and strengthen american national security. we believe that if you want to build a safe, prosperous and free future you have to create a fundamentally new energy infrastructure to facilitate a 21st century energy economy. in fact, for many states, the key to closing the budgetary gap lies in increasing energy resources. the six states that project budget surpluses in 2009 all draw substantial revenue from natural resources. alaska will bring in over $8 billion in revenues from oil and gas taxes and mining fees.

texas will bring in $4 billion in revenues. we list here some examples of states that are getting more and more resources from their various severance fees and you'll notice, for example, louisiana -- it's very, very interesting. when people worry about drilling offshore, off of louisiana and texas, we have thousands of wells. we've had four major hurricanes in the last few years. none of the wells have had a problem. it's much more dangerous for the environment to bring oil in by ship from saudi arabia or venezuela than it is to produce it in the united states. at american solutions we have proposed ten simple steps for generating more american energy now. the first which became famous last year drill here and drill now and pay less and for the first time in 27 years congress failed to pass a ban on exploring offshore and recently as part of the budget agreement governor schwarzenegger said

they could drill more off santa barbara for the first time since 1969. a position by the way supported by 59% of the people in santa barbara county. so both offshore and in alaska we believe there's a tremendous amount of oil. it's interesting, there are continuing discoveries of new layers of oil and new layers of natural gas on a grand scale. in fact, there are new technologies for finding natural gas and shale involving drilling down four miles -- i'm sorry, drilling down 8,000 feet and drilling horizontally four miles out of the same well. and they are now discovering enough natural gas and shale that we have 1300 years supply in the united states of natural gas and it's going to create in western new york, western pennsylvania, eastern ohio, west virginia, kentucky -- all the way in an arc through louisiana, mississippi, texas and oklahoma -- a huge zone of people who are going to make money off of the natural resources on their farm land on a scale that nobody thought it was possible 10 years ago.

it's an example of new technology. we should lift the ban on developing oil, shale and colorado, wyoming and utah where we have probably three times as big a reserve as saudi arabia does. we should encourage building new oil refineries and natural gas processing plants in the united states. we should reduce bureaucratic obstacles and prevent frivolous litigation. we should encourage new clean coal development plants. people need to remember, china opens a new coal plant every week. if we're going to have any hope of dealing with carbon loading of the atmosphere, you have to have clean coal technologies because you are not going to get rid of coal plants in the next 30 years and coal is the most abundant single american resource in terms of energy. we have over 500 years' supply of coal. we should have a new fuel standard for more flex-fuel cars -- i mean, all cars ought to be built as flex-fuel cars which enables you to use biofuels and enables you to use a variety of approaches which both expands your development

here. remember, all the ethanol grown in the united states is money in the united states. and my bias is if my choice is between biofuels made in america or importing oil from either venezuela or saudi arabia i have zero doubt we are better in a country than biofuels. we need more prizes in alternative energy. ninth we should invest in nuclear power and there are small nuclear power plants that will be a tremendous breakthrough in nuclear power and finally we audit to keep the tax credit for enhanced oil recovery because we actually want to maximize the recovery of american oil not force us into independence. in infrastructure, i think -- and steve referred to this some of this earlier and i agree with him entirely. we're right at the beginning of a smart infrastructure model. i'm not going to go through it in great detail. if you look what's happening with the miami-dade smart grid and other experiments, we're about to have an ability to

create information-rich data which allows you, for example, to have different pricing at different times of the day. it allows you to have an ability for people to decide in terms of their schedule, when do they want to travel and you can actually dramatically change the load pattern of most -- of most highways. i think you're also going to find that there are new electric grid capabilities so you both have a smart power in terms of smart electric grids and smart transportation. and the combination of the two -- the use of information technology to -- for example, i met with several companies who are beginning to install smart homes so that people automatically dry their wash at the lowest cost of electricity that day. because their home computer talks with the electric utility computer and can literally tell you if you do the drying between

3:00 and 5:00 in the morning you'll get charged at one-fifth as much as if you do the drying when people have the air conditioner on. it will allow us to have a much better use of energy and a much better use of transportation friday. so both the electric grid and the transportation grid need to become smart systems. i personally am very much in favor of looking at magnetic levitation trains. if you look at what the chinese are doing, i think it's very sobering that you can now go to shanghai and take a 250 miles an hour train and virtually all of the very, very high speed trains in the world are being built in china. and pudong in and of itself is a very sober place because 20 years ago there was almost nothing there and today the gross domestic product of pudong alone is $38 billion.

and so you have -- just an enormous explosion of economic activity. spain now has a train that goes from madrid to sevilla at 186 miles an hour. the french have the tgv which is a very fast train that crosses most of france. japan has the bullet train. there are other projects -- i think that we have to fundamentally rethink our entire approach to rail, but i am opposed to simply giving money to an amtrak bureaucracy on behalf of highly unionized work forces to spend 20 years getting almost nothing done. i think we ought to look seriously at creating corridors in which you have a public/private partnership in which people with a profit motive build very rapidly high speed capabilities that at least match china and if you had the equivalent of a train from washington to boston or from san francisco to san diego, or in

some parts of florida, you could really begin to develop an ability to have people use the train on a grand scale. but you want to do it in areas that have very high density, a great deal of traffic, and you both want to take people off the airplane and you want to take people off the highway. and i think that can be done but i think it takes a much, much different approach of. for smaller projects, i think you actually want to get the federal government to back out. the point that steve made that it cost twice as much to build federal highways in a city as it cost to build a city highway so you're asking the city in effect in order to get the federal money, get as half as many miles built so they are not paying for it. they want the money even though it's stupid. we have to go to the tenth model we should reblock a number of things and allow the local government to be practical and contract out. and in that process, i think you got to look at it at modifying

the budget to create a federal capital budget. when you have something like -- one of the projects we're working on at american solutions is a 21st century air traffic control system. if we had a space-based gps-style four dimensional gps system that enabled airplanes in effect to fly with much greater accuracy and in much greater density, airlines would buy 10% less fuel. from an environmental and economic standpoint, there would be enormous -- we would also eliminate all the air traffic holds in the northeast. how many of you ever found yourself waiting either at la guardia or to get into or out of la guardia. and you understand what i'm talking about. you get on a plane and we have an air traffic hold and you sit for two hours. somebody figured -- with all the holds, it is now slower to go

from o'hare to la guardia by jet than it was to go by dc3 in 1946. because in 1946, you taxied out and you landed. and now you have all these various controls in the federal booishg si. bureaucracy. we clearly can technically build a 21st century air traffic control system. it will clearly save an amazing amount of money. it will free up the northeast corridor. it will enable philadelphia, for example, not to be trapped in constant air traffic control holds. if you're going to do that, we ought to build it as fast as we can which requires a capital budget approach rather than -- an annual appropriation of a tiny amount of money so it takes 22 years to do something that it took -- that should have taken three years. the analogy i'll give you -- i've written two novels about world war ii. in world war ii from the japanese attack at pearl harbor to our victory over japan in

august of 1945 is three years and eight months. so in 44 months, from december 7th, 1945, to the middle of august, 1941, to the middle of august, 1945, we defeated nazi germany, fascism and imperial japan. three years and eight months. it recently took us 23 years to add a runway to the atlanta airport. now, you can't have a bureaucracy between bureaucracy and litigation. we have become so muscle-bound that we can't function. and so we need very fundamental changes. we need a capital budget at the federal level so we could invest in things and there's a practical reason. if you'll notice here, that our country has decreased infrastructure spending from 3.6% of our gross domestic product to 2.7%. the reason is, annual budgets have a huge bias in favor of current services.

whereas, capital budgets have a huge bias in favor of the future. and so we're very strongly in favor of a fundamental approach to infrastructure that moves us back to a very serious investment attitude, the kind of thing lincoln would have understood, the kind of thing dwight david eisenhower understood that would really build a momentum of economic growth in the long run. but we also want to do it in an intelligent way. and i recommend all you have to read the paper and look at what governor wilson did after the northridge earthquake, what governor leavitt did in order to reconstruct highways around salt lake city for the olympics and what governor schwarzenegger did two years ago when there was a fire on the oakland, california, bridge. just give you quick examples. this is antithetical how bureaucracies think. the northridge earthquake took down the most heavily traveled bridge in america.

the governor used his emergency powers to issue a contract that said for every day you get done ahead of schedule, you make $200,000. because they had figured out that it cost more than a million dollars a day in economic loss to have the bridge closed. the state highway department said it would take two years and two months to replace the bridge. under this kind of contract, it was finished 74 days ahead of the june 1994 deadline and actually instead of two years and two months, it took two months and two days and he got a bonus of 74 days times $200,000. that's fundamentally the opposite of the way bureaucracies normally think. in the case of salt lake city, they had a similar contract where every time that the contractor disrupted rush hour, they suffered a penalty and

every day they get done ahead of schedule they got a bonus. and it turned to be remarkable. they reduced the schedule for the i-15 corridor project from 10 years to 4 1/2 years. so you both want a capital budget afford to invest but then you want smart contracting so that you get it done as fast as possible, as inexpensively as possible in the case of oakland, where the major bridge in the bay area was knocked out by a gasoline tanker fire, the original estimate was that it would take 50 days to do so. the contractor actually had his crew sitting next to the bridge when he went to sign the contract. so he could pick up the phone and say, go. they finished it in 17 days. and they did it $4 million under budget. so we want a capital budget, a

long-term infrastructure plan, massive involvement of private sector interests, a real willingness to pay for speed and for efficiency so that you use an incentive-built model. and in health, this is a topic we won't have a chance to go in great detail. i helped found the center for health transformation. we have an immense amount of material that the center -- as early as 2002, i co-authored a book called "saving lives, saving money." we have a program of six major changes in health reform. i think it is a tragedy that we are in a big fight over whether or not to impose a 30-year-old model of centralized government bureaucratic health and that the moderate view is well, let's do 20%. let's be 20% less dumb. so if you look at the senate efforts to write a health bill right now, they're not as bad as the health but they're bad. they're the same direction. we don't need a centralized

government very expensive model. all you have to say is, we're currently spending too much on healthcare so why don't we spend an extra trillion? i mean, that's the current argument of the congress. that we're spending too much on healthcare, therefore, we need to fix it so let's spend another trillion because after all we're spending too much. if you think that sentence through you understand two plus two equals for, rochester, minnesota, durham, north carolina, seattle are world class facilities that are world class on the national average. we work with the gunderson-will you telleran system who says has the best end of life process and for the last two years of life they cost about $18,300 versus 25,000 for the national average or 58,000 for ucla. now, how do they do it? well, they have an advanced

directive. now, i want to draw a sharp distinction here. at gunderson lutheran and my fatherly died of lung cancer here. the doctor engages with the family in a genuine discussion about the appropriate steps as part of the end of life process. there is no -- there is no budget pressure. there is no external reporting. there are no standards set by the government. there is no fear of a bureaucracy. it's an honest conversation with people who understand that they're in a difficult situation. when an advanced directive is written and about 92% of their patients end up with an advanced directive, it's an electronic health records so every member of the staff knows what the advanced directive is. they can deal with the patient and the patient's family in a knowledgeable way exactly as the family requested. they also have very strong care to deal with pain and they have a hospice program for people who are really beyond a point where heroic methods would help.

the result is, they have very high approval because people feel that they're dealt with dignity. the family feels that it is engaged. and the gunderson system has been adopted by the country of australia. it's unfortunate that the bureaucratic clumsy system that's in the current house bill totally distorts the debate a point which senator johnny ise s isaacson made last week. we believe you can $120 billion a year by modernizing the system. second, you have to move from a paper-based electronic health system. we think third there ought to be tax reform so that everybody can buy under exactly the same ground rules whether you're self-employed, unemployed. everybody should be able to buy with the same tax break as a big corporation. fourth, we would migrate to best outcomes and we would incentivize hospitals to move to

best outcomes. as defined by professional standards, not by the government. fifth, we'd reform the health justice system because we think unnecessary litigation is a major cost and if you look at the texas, oklahoma and missouri reforms, you can see that with malpractice reform you get much less defensive medicine and you get much less -- you have much lower insurance payments. let me close with an example of how different the future could be. but it's fundamentally different. i help cochair with bob kerry the alzheimer's study group. we looked at two years looking at alzheimer's and one of our members was justice o'connor. alzheimer's is a very painful and a difficult disease. it can last a long time. it can absorb the entire family.

my sister-in-law has alzheimer's. and yet we just there's real hope. alzheimer's right now is projected between now and 2050 to cost $20 trillion to the federal government, a very substantial amount to private citizens and a very substantial amount to states for long-term care. every other person at 85 has some form of dementia every sixth person at 62 is beginning to have some form of problems. so this is a very big issue as the baby boomers age. we've worked with three nobel prize winners and 125 other neuroscientists who believe that with the right investment and research and the right organization of research, we could have a fundamental breakthrough by 2020 or 2025, which would largely eliminate alzheimer's as a threat. now, first of all, the level of human pain that would avoid --

this is like talking about jonas salk which was trick from an aluminum to an iron lung it was to go to a vaccine that eliminated polio. because brain disease is different, this is not a vaccine, technically they believe we believe we can stop the steps that leads to alzheimer's. what would it be worth to spend -- if you went off-budget if you created an alzheimer's research fund, if you said to the brain science community, tell me the omost you can inves. we are currently spending $400 million a year at the national institute of health on alzheimer's research.

faced with this level of human pain, faced with this opportunity and faced with that out-year cost it is an i rationally small amount of money and michelle stein is leading. we would love to have your involvement with it. but look at what a fundamentally different model i just gave you. i didn't suggest to you that we find a cheaper way to house people in long-term care. i didn't suggest to you that we set up a government bureaucracy to decide when we should cut off people from having care. and i can show you quotes from people advising this administration in which they suggest that people with dementia no longer should rank very high for healthcare. i'm not suggesting that's how we save the money. i'm suggesting we save the money by eliminating the disease. now, that requires a fundamental change in the budget act. that requires -- i would issue alzheimer's bonds and have the

commitment that when we had the breakthrough and we no longer had to pay for alzheimer's the first round of savings went to paying off the bonds that were accrued in order to do the research. but if you went to the brain science community -- and by the way, if you do this much brain science research, this is the most explosive area of new knowledge we have is brain science. the brain is the most complicated organism there is. there is about as many synopse than stars in the universe. now you get into parkinson's and schizophrenia. now you get into autism. now you get into downs syndrome. all of a sudden by making that primary investment in alzheimer's, you begin to get second and third order research effects that just affect an entire array in ways we won't know until after it happens but notice the difference in the model. i'm suggesting a long-term

commitment, not an annual budget. i'm suggesting thinking about the solution we want, not the current processes. i'm suggesting that we break out of the bureaucratic models of the 20th century. these are fundamentally different ways of thinking. and the purpose of today's session was to say to you, you will never fix the current budgets. federal, state and local. within the 20th century bureaucratic interest group models. you have to think new ways as lincoln said, and you have to develop new solutions, and then you have to win the argument for those solutions and then you have to put so much pressure on elected officials that you offset the power of the interest groups. i think we can do it. we have done it before. i think this is one of the great challenges to the american people in the next decade and i really appreciate all of you being here today. thank you very much. [applause]

[inaudible] [inaudible conversations] ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. postal service anticipates losing over $7 billion in fiscal year 2009, which ends on september 30. here is more from the postmaster general, john potter and his chief financial officer. this is about 35 minutes.

>> good morning. [inaudible] >> good morning everyone. it is the to see so many familiar faces. and welcome to the new ones. let me just begin as joanne said with opening remarks. as the postal service reaches the final score of their fiscal year it is clear that weakness in the overall economy is continuing to have a profound, negative effect on our finances. virtually every element of the mailing industry has been experiencing the effects of

reduced employment, reduce spending, and reduced consumer confidence. we are saying that reflected in mail volume and revenue with a third quarter adjusted net loss of $2.4 billion. joe corbett will provide you with a more in-depth look at our third quarter results in a few minutes. let me assure you that we have not been standing still. in the face of this economic storm. our people have been doing a spectacular job is the work to reduce costs in every corner of the organization. we are well-positioned to exceed our goal of reducing the equivalent of 57,000 man years of labor by the end of this fiscal year. today, we have over 37,000 fewer career employees on the rules then we did at the same period last year. although we are projecting a net loss of $7 billion this year, without these focused efforts, our loss would have been over

$12 billion. i am particularly proud of the postal team when it comes to service and customer satisfaction. in the face of severe economic pressures, service performance has not faltered. in fact, it has only improved. we made a commitment to our customers that we will do everything in our power to maintain excellent service and we are standing by that commitment. over the course of this year we have been very candid with all of our stakeholders regarding the postal service's economic prospects. we have been clear about the causes of the problems and we have been clear about the solutions. the economy, as i mentioned, has taken its toll. a huge funding obligation for the postal service retiree health benefits imposed by a 2006 federal statute have raised their costs by more than $5 billion a year. we simply cannot afford these costs. legislation to modify these

costs were introduced in the house of representatives in january. similar legislation was introduced in the senate two weeks ago. both the senate and house bills have moved out of committee. if this legislation, h.r. 22, or as 15 1/7 is enacted it will improve our solvency, reduce losses and help shore up our financial position. i am very grateful to the house and senate as well as the administration for the actions that they are taking on behalf of the postal service to address our financial condition. one amendment that i would like to address directs the ga of to accelerate a report required of the postal accountability enhancement act regarding the business model necessary for the postal service's long-term future. this effort will serve as a gateway for a much-needed, a broader debate about the manner in which the postal service can continue to serve the american

public in light of recent economic conditions. but, as senator tom carper said, when he introduced this legislation, it is not a silver bullet. there is more that must be done by the postal service and by congress. another $3.8 billion from our base in 2010. we are developing and implementing smart, innovative growth strategies like our summer mail still. new approaches to pricing in easy-to-use products like our flat rate box are showing positive early results. butter altmed success also depends on structural change. the biggest element being our ability to move from six day delivery to five-day delivery. no one element by itself will be

sufficient to meet our short-term and long-term financial challenges, but if we address all of the issues i just described, together they can provide us with the financial stability necessary to preserve the viability of the nation's postal system for many, many years to come. now i would like to ask chief financial officer joe corbett to talk about our quarter three financial research-- results. >> thank you judge. i am glad to meet you all and i want to provide you with a brief summary. you will have the presentation in front of you i hope. just a couple of quick slides to give you a little more detail on what jeff mentioned. on slide to you can see the economy is starting to show mixed signals which actually is a good thing relative to the last six to nine months, where most of the signals were negative. we are not reading too much into that yet but we hope the trend continues. when you turn to slide four, you

can see a graph which shows that our decline in volume for mail has continued. we have ten quarters of straight declines and when you adjust for-- we have ten quarters of accelerating declines in mail volume. virtually every class of mail has been affected by the recession. on slide five, you can see the results for the third quarter, our fiscal third quarter ending june 30th. we had revenue of $16.3 billion a net loss before workers' compensation adjustment of $1.6 billion. we had a non-cash workers' comp adjustment this quarter of $800 million, resulting in an overall adjusted net loss of $2.4 billion for the year. on slide six, you can see very

clearly the job that the results of the job we are doing to manage the overall decline in revenues and in the first column you see volume. volume has declined for the nine months ending june 30th by 12.6% in terms of total volume. we have been able to adjust our variable work hours in the mail processing and customer service areas by over 13% in total, so we actually have been able to take more hours out on a percentage basis than the volume of mail actually has declined. the operating folks here are doing a remarkable job chasing that volume decline downward. you can also see that all other areas of labor are decreasing in hours even though they are primarily fix the nature. for example, city delivery and rural delivery hours which are about 50% of our overall compensation costs. those folks continue to deliver

to 150 million addresses six days a week as primarily a fixed cost. the cost is not very significantly regardless of whether they are carrying four or five letters to each one of those addresses. yet, we have been able to decrease those hours by 5% over the last nine months. on slide seven, you can see that our revenue for the nine months ending june 30th was $52.4 billion, and our overall adjusted net loss was $4.6 billion, almost 4.7 rounding. again, for the nine months virtually every class of mail has been affected by the recession and has declined. we have been managing the costs. we have already, through nine months, reduced the total labor work hours by 88 million hours. that is the equivalent of almost 50,000 full-time equivalent people. in addition to that, we have

renegotiated over 300 contracts with suppliers resulting in over $200 million of cost reductions and we have also put on a salary freeze, had a hiring freeze and have been able to reduce significantly transportation costs three renegotiations as well as their having to move lower volumes of mail. all that said, the loss for the year is 4.7 billion. we expect a larger loss by the end of the year, up $47 billion. and view this period we have a 12.6% drop in volume. thank you. >> i have added a couple of charts here that i would just like to point out to you. first, if you go to the favor chart shows whether year and that has then. back in 01, 2001, we hit the

peak of our debt at $11.3 billion. shortly thereafter we were put on a high-risk list by the gao, and we worked very hard to get off that list and you can see we actually got to the point where we had zeroed debt. however, since the paea has passed with the retiree health benefit obligation as well as the recession, which for us started back in 2000-- 2008, you can see that our debt has increased and it is the result of both the economy in what has happened with the recession. and, just as a comparison, what would have happened had we not been paying $5.4 billion in debt? i think you each have a chart that shows in 2007 we actually would have made $3.3 billion. in 2008 we have wedded actually

made 2.8 billion versus hefty losses in both years, and this year the gap would only be $1.9 million. i focus on that only because of the fact that this payment is very unusual. if we were part of the federal government, we would, and treated as an agency, we would not be paying prefunding retiree health benefits trust. on the other hand if we were in the private sector, we also would not be prefunding these retiree health benefit payments, and so therein lies the bit of a dilemma. the postal service is a bit of a hybrid. some people call us a government corporation. other people call us with a government enterprise. we are not an agency. we don't receive appropriations and although we are required to operate an follow gapped

procedures, we have the exceptions to that rule and retiree health benefits is one of those exceptions and you can see how that affects us. in addition to that i would just like to point out that if you look back in 2000, we give you a fact sheet. i would like to add one fact. in 2000, we had 167,470 city carrier routes and today we have 155,000. we were delivering 5.9 pieces of mail per day just. today that is down to 4.1. today, we have some 630,000 career employees. our peak with 800,000 employees back in 1999 and we have been steadily managing our workforce to match the changes that have occurred in terms of male usage over the years. what has occurred with the economy is unprecedented and has

created obviously a much bigger challenge than we are able to respond to in a very quick manner. we are trying to balance the need to provide excellent service and i think our folks are doing an outstanding job of that, with the need to reduce costs and with the obligations of the law that says you have to deliver to every address six days a week. you can't close post offices for economic reasons, so we are trying to navigate our way through what is a challenging period in time within the constraints that the law obligates us to. so, with that i will turn over to gyn-- joanne. bill. >> what is your cash position going to be as you move forward?

are you going to have to, and how are you managing that? >> our cash position this year, unless legislation passes, we will be, we will have a negative cash position at the end of the year of some $700 billion, and so you know, that is why we are working hard with the administration and the senate and house to get legislation that would give us relief from our retiring health benefit payments. this year the postal service will pay, if the law does not change, over $7 billion for retiree health benefits. that it's a combination of $2 billion for those people who are currently retired, the cost of their benefits and $5.4 billion into the trust, so we will have a negative cash position of $700 billion assuming that no law changes.

>> what is the latest on-- [inaudible] >> i am very encouraged about getting legislation passed. as i said in my opening remarks, a bill, h.r. 22 is in the house that has over 300 sponsors, and there is a senate bill that was recently moved through committee commerce subcommittee and full committee. i know that the administration is engaged and i have spoken to leadership in both the house and senate, and they are actively engaged in assuring that some piece of legislation moves through before the end of this fiscal year. randy. >> what happens if that doesn't come to pass?

[inaudible] >> we have communicated this issue to the secretary of the treasury, the administration, to the folks on capitol hill. we have been very clear that, they have been very clear with us that we are going to continue to deliver the mail, that that will go on uninterrupted. we have also made it very clear to our employees that they role will not be interrupted. our employees receive their pay for their hard work that they perform. and we have also informed the treasury that, should we come up short, we will not pay the full $5.4 billion into the trust fund this year. and so, we have been very clear about what would happen to all interested parties.

>> even though legislation will be easing some of the burden-- [inaudible] >> exactly. the fact of the matter is the postal service does not want to do anything that would disrupt this economy. there are over a trillion dollars moves through the mail in any given year, and we are the hub of an industry that employs some 8 million americans, so we have no intention of doing anything that would disrupt the flow of mail. however, on the optimistic side, i am fairly confident that action will be taken, legislative action will be taken before the end of the year, but in the event it doesn't, that is our game plan. >> how short-term are they? >> those bills, yes they are.

as i said in my opening remarks, when it comes to the postal service, i think we are facing a public policy issue in the public policy issue that we are facing is, how should the postal service operate, not just this year or next year, when it is time to set a path for the future and a course in terms of our business model and give us, and provide for universal service for americans for many, many years to come by to adjust the business model that we have to provide greater flexibility, to grow the business, greater flexibility to become more productive, to deal with some of our legacy costs like retiree health benefits and make sure that whatever the payments are, that they are affordable and that we look at structurally the service that is offered by the postal service and one that i

put forth that needs to be debated is six day to five-day delivery, because of the fact that there has been a reduced demand for the services that we offer. yes. >> the house and senate bills are different in their approach. do you have a preference for one over the other and why? >> at this point in time, i would not want to stay the preference. i have a preference that legislation moved, and the bills are somewhat different, but they both seek to help us and they both are, as the previous question just described, they are both focused on the short run, so i see them, if you think of it this way, phase one of what will be a multiphase legislative efforts to put the postal service on a proper path going forward.

yes. >> gm put out a report that projected a 7 billion-dollar deficit in fiscal 2010 and it said that was after $8 billion in cost reductions. how much are you planning to cut next year and where do those cuts come from? can you keep cutting work ours are where those cuts come from? >> our plan is to cut $3.8 billion. 80% of our costa's laborer so the bulk of our savings of that $3.8 billion our labor associated. we continue to have opportunities to write size of our delivery network, and we are working with the national association of letter carriers jointly to adjust the number of city routes that we have and we have been bringing those down on a steady basis. we continue to have opportunities within our plans to do some intra-plant

consolidations, so we are taking shifts or tours and we are consolidating tours and we are working within the constraints of our labor agreements, but the bulk of the savings, $3.8 billion, is labor associated. there are some other savings, as joe just described, savings when it comes to some of the contracts we have, adjustment to our transportation network, but the bulk are labor related. >> do they come from facility closures? >> some might but it is modest at best. the way to think of this is that it would be more associated with doer consolidations, adjustment to processes within facilities, and basic staffing and scheduling, so the opportunities are there. we know where they are, and we are modifying again, within the

constraints of our contracts, we are modifying our employees tours of duty, days of work and there will be some consolidation is, but again, the bulk of savings are associated with, with labor. >> on that consolidation, at that house hearing last week i think there were four different numbers shared about the number of facilities you are considering closing. it went from 3,000 to about 1,000 to 677. what is it, what is the process, and what do you say to lawmakers who last few days have expressed a lot of concern that you guys have not been very straight with them about which facilities are going to be closed, which are going to be open, what is the process. whitkey consider may be some kind of a brac like a mission

that would basically go state-by-state, city by saying-- city sing-- >> let me discuss the process. what we are undertaking right now is something that has occurred multiple times in my 30 year career with the postal service. however there is a 2006 law that requires us to be transparent, and when we were looking at our multicoded cities for the most part, cities that have multiple coastal facilities within them, so like a chicago has multiple stations, multiple branches, finance units, and maybe where we just sell stance and have some p.o. boxes. over the course of time we have done this refute but we have never had a law that said the review had to be done in a transparent way, so we filed

paperwork with the postal regulatory commission that said we rahn undertaking this national review of these, for the most part larger cities, to look at where our facilities were coming determine whether not they would need it, to determine whether or not there were opportunities to consolidate backroom operations and again, this is something that has been done over the course of the years. there is somebody on the phone, if they could, it is a little too close to the mic are too close to the phone. thank you. we are hearing some very heavy breathing on this end. [laughter] okay. so, we notified the regulator that we were going to conduct this review. we put some testimony before them to again, give them detailed information. there is no predetermined outcome, and what happened was

over the course of filing their testimony, or that paper, and then a hearing that occurred last week as a ramp up to that hearing, we were asked by the committee to provide an update on where we stood. so, we went from 3200 places that for candidates or facilities to be reviewed. we have narrow that down to under 800, 784 and it changes every day. be provided that information to the committee, not necessarily thinking it would be public disclosure. the regulator asked for a copy of it. the regulator published that data. that is created a bit of a firestorm because there is an assumption that everything on that list of, that was published, for facilities that were going to close. the fact of the matter is that list includes some facilities

that haven't even been looked at yet but they haven't been taken off the list. in other cases, there was a preliminary review that said there was going to be follow-up. at the end of the day, my expectation is that we will consolidate the backroom of some stations around the country that, in cases where we have facilities that are blocks apart, we may not need to move retail outlets. i also expect that we do have some pretty value property in downtown areas, and if we are able to consolidate back grams and there is value to that property, and we may move out of expensive property and move to a business front or a retail outlet that would continue to provide access for customers in that area. and so, again, i think that if anything, the matter that we

have been transparent has created a lot of attention. i think it is great by the way, that people care. if this happened and no one reacted to it, i would be concerned as the postmaster general that people really didn't have a need for the postal service. .. behind a traditional

postal counter. >> that hearing suggested privately that only 200 facilities on the list would be closed. is that a number -- >> no, i have no -- there's no prejudicial bone in my body when it comes to that review. we are reviewing everything in the postal services to determine whether or not there are opportunities to cut costs without affecting service to the american public. that person probably has a lot more knowledge of what's in that 700 than i do. but i don't have a number. i will tell you this, there will be a local review. it will move up to the area offices and we have, you know, nine of those around the country. and then it will move from those offices to headquarters where it will be reviewed to make sure that no one is being overly

aggressive. so i can't commit to a number. i only know we've whittled that 3400 down to about 780 and that further review is underway. yes. >> is the current financial situation the kind of circumstance that you would consider an exigency circumstance where you might seek to be able to break the cpi cap on rate increases. >> let me just say this, when it comes to the situation that's before us, obviously, it's a big challenge that we're facing here. i think everything has to be on the table. and, you know, decisions about rates are made by the board of governors of the postal service. i can tell you this, there have been some rumors out there that

we're going to raise our rates double-digits and i can assure you this postmaster general will not be making a recommendation along those lines to the board of governors. i think to raise rates would drive mail further away -- would drive mail out of the system and would only compound the problem that we're currently dealing with. >> if you were to attempt to invoke this, is it something that you understand you would have to wait until next year until the end of the -- into the normal cycle that you've developed or is that something that could be sought at any time? >> my belief, if i read the rules right, and i'm not a lawyer, my belief is that you can do it in any time. i'm not saying, though, that that is what we would do. i'm simply saying that as a matter of law i believe we can

ask for it at any time. that provision was put in for emergency purposes. and when the law -- that part of the law was being discussed, it was shortly after we had just gone through 9/11 and then anthrax. and so i think it was -- it was, again, the perception was there might be an emergency that we'd have to react to so i think the law was very liberal in terms of when we might ask for that adjustment. now, again, keep in mind my response to the first -- you know, your first question, which is, you know, raising rates particularly a precipitous rate increase will only drive mail out of the system and it would not be helpful at this time but again, that's not to preclude come next may there might not be a modest adjustment in prices and we might have to use an exigent process to make that adjustment.

>> the cash shortfall that you're projecting by year end, even without making the retiree health benefit payment, you're still going to come up short according to your own projections, right? >> no. >> no. >> the payment is $5.4 billion. i said we were $700 million short so 5.4 is a lot bigger than 700 million. [inaudible] >> thank you for coming today. this was a little bigger than our normal quarterly get-together, but we're happy the others were available to join us. so thank you all very much. >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> tonight on c-span2, author guy sormam talks about economics does not lie and peter lance triple cross the al-qaeda spy who inf- >>bill clinton kicks off the

2009 netroots nation convention. and tomorrow, panels on healthcare reform with howard dean, pennsylvania politics are senator arlen specter. making change happen and reshaping the supreme court. >> we'll be taking your calls, emails and tweets starting this friday morning on c-span. >> how soon c-span funded? >> like donations? >> federal funds or grant funds. >> maybe in private contributions. >> honestly, i don't know. >> i would say from commercials. >> advertisement? >> something from the government? >> how is c-span funded. 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money.

>> coming up next a senate judiciary hearing on domestic and dating violence. sexual assault and stalking with testimony from prosecutors, counselors and a victim. lawmakers are considering whether to continue programs in the violence against women act. this is just under two hours. >> good morning. since 1994, the violence against women's act or vawa has been the centerpiece of the federal government's commitment to combating domestic violence and other violent crimes against women. this passage and reauthorization were a signal achievement in support of the rights of women in america. i'm glad to see senator kauffman

from delaware because his predecessor, who now has another job in government, joe biden, was, of course, so instrumental in the passing of vawa. the landmark law filled a law in federal law that left too many victims of violence and sexual crimes. i want compliment then-senator biden and senator orrin hatch who were chairman and ranking member respectfully who worked so hard in getting this passed. i look forward to working with members of the committee and the obama/biden administration, experts in the field, to ensure the law remains a vital law for prosecutors and law enforcement agencies, victim service providers, but most importantly, the women and families who are threatened with violence. we have an extraordinary panel

of witnesses. of course, the first one is going to be katherine pierce -- and i'm glad to see you here, miss pierce. she's the acting director of the office of violence against women at the justice department. and, of course, karen scott, whom i've known for many years, who is a leader for ending domestic and sexual violence in vermont. i mention karen because people think of vermont like so many small rural states. we have a very low crime rate and everything else but we have domestic violence in every state. every state, every situation. sometimes in more rural areas, it's more hidden because it's something people don't want to talk about. i know that. the witnesses will be sharing their personal stories with the

committee. one has gone on to become a successful actor. one has helped pass a rhode island state law require teen dating violence education in public schools and one has become a passionate advocate for victims in california. i saw the demonstrating effects early in my career as a prosecutor. vermont states attorney. i know that violence and abuse reaching the homes from people from all walks of life every day. regardless of gender or race or culture, age, class, sexuality or economic status. domestic violence is a crime. we should never forget that. domestic violence is a crime. when i became a prosecutor, people didn't prosecute it. i changed that. and now everybody knows you have to. that doesn't make any difference whether it's a family member or a current or past spouse or boyfriend, girlfriend, acquaintance or stranger. it's a crime. it's a crime. it's a crime.

so we made some remarkable progress. domestic violence and sexual assault and stalking and violence is crimes. since the enactment of vawa fatal and nonfatal rates of domestic violence have climbed. more victims have felt confident to report these crimes. the states have passed more than 600 laws to help this. and to fight this kind of crime. but we still have millions of women and men and children in families who are traumatized by abuse. who know 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men of domestic violence. 1.4 million individuals are stalked each year so we have to keep on with these programs. 2008 census by the national network to end domestic violence found in just one day, more than 60,500 adults and children were served by local domestic

violence programs. almost 9,000 requests went unmet. numbers like these are why i advocated for increased funding in the american recovery and reinvestment act for important vawa programs. training, formula grant programmers is one of these. the inclusion of $175 million for stop grants on the recovery act is going to give resources to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors in courts and victim advocacy groups to improve victim safety. also $50 million for transitional housing assistance grant. that's something i authored to provide safe havens. there's more but i want to get on to the witnesses and i will put my full statement in the record, but i am -- the bill we have before us will make corrections and improvements for the law which has helped so many can continue to serve as a

powerful tool to combat violence perpetuated against women. i'm trying to get it passed to the senate. it has bipartisan support. i think every victim of domestic violence in this country will tell us how important this is. and with that, i'll yield to another former and distinguished prosecutor, senator sessions of alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mrs. pierce. we're delighted to have you here. i want to delay any long remarks. we look forward to hearing your testimony. we do spend a considerable sum of money. it has a very important mission. every dollar of it needs to be wisely and most effectively spent. and i would want to discuss that because programs as they age sometimes become less vibrant and effective than they were when they initially started.

so i want to talk about that. i would agree with the chairman that there's been tremendous progress. when i started as united states attorney in 1981, i guess, i sensed then that local police departments, even small police departments were becoming far more attuned to the dangers that occur from ignoring domestic violence. training programs have decreased dramatically that are so more sophisticated when this program originally passed and that's all to the good. let's talk about what good things have happened and what challenges we face and how to make sure that these programs are the most productive programs to reduce violence in america. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator kauffman, you want to say something? >> i can remember in 1990 when

senator biden -- then-senate biden and now vice president biden started it. and i know what a lonely job it was getting started. it really is incredible -- it's always been a great example to me what you can do if you really put your mind to do it and you have a just cause. and he just picked up people as he -- as he went along. and clearly, i want to thank the chairman for picking this up and moving with it and carrying it even further and for his introducing the approving assistance the violence against -- domestic violence act. but, you know, a lot of things have happened since the act was passed, which are very promising. the domestic violence has dropped by 50%. instance of rape are down by 60% and the number of women killed by an abusive husband or abusive husband are down 22%. more than half of rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime. acts of rape that protects the violence funding provides. but we still have a long way to go and that's why we're here today. and this is what we have to talk about. we cannot afford to turn our

backs on women and families in need of protection. we need to pass the improving assistance for domestic violence victims act and re-i go rate funding for violence against women act programs today so i just to thank you for what you're doing. what you're doing is absolutely the most incredibly important thing that i see every day in the job that i do and i want to thank you all. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator klobuchar? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> another former prosecutor. >> that's right and i know paul and sheila wellstone are looking down on us. this was their passion and some of it came from paul's fighting for anyone that didn't get the best luck in life or was the most vulnerable and she literally took this on in an amazing way. i still remember her arriving in washington with her frizzy hair eight years later and she was an amazing advocate for this nationally and part of that advocacy actually came out of the work in minnesota.

i was a prosecutor for eight years. the head of that office. and our domestic abuse center really was a model for the country, a one-stop shop where there was a daycare from and there was a place for police and prosecutors and restraining orders signed and everything instead of having to go through a bureaucratic maze of red tape which even lawyers couldn't figure out. this is something near and dear to my heart. i'm proud of the work i've done and the work that's been nationally since vawa passed and i look forward on working on the reauthorization. so thank you very much. >> thank you. our first witness, katherine pierce, is currently the acting director of the department of justice office of violence against women. prior to her employment as acting director, miss pierce was a deputy director of the office in charge of public outreach and communications. she was responsible for launching the office of sexual assault services program and the culturally and linguistically service program. and she was one of the original

staff members when the office opened in 1995. she also worked as advisory role with the state department on human trafficking issues, another matter of enormous seriousness. prior to her time in the department, she served as deputy at the state justice institute where she oversaw the development of judicial education and training initiative. bachelor from the university of massachusetts in amherst. thank you for being here. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today as you said my name is catherine pierce and i'm the acting director from the office of violence against women. i'm here to discuss of the progress made since the act was enacted 15 years ago and the challenges ahead. i want to personally thank the chairman and committee staff for working so closely with the

department on s.327. this bill contains a number of much-needed amendments to improve the grant programs. every day vawa funding makes a difference how communities across america assess and protect victims. of the 19 grant programs provide funding to states, local governments, tribal governments to assist communities, encouraging them to develop innovative strategies to respond to violence against women. we are grateful to congress for reauthorizing vawa in 2005 and expanding our ability to respond to all victims of violence against women including victims of sexual assault. we are pleased to report for the first time there will be awards under the sue sexual assault programs to provide essential services provided by rape crisis centers throughout the nation.

vawa has increased its efforts to respond to serious crime of stalking in january of this year the department released a special report which confirms what the field has long known. stalking is pervasive. women are at higher risk of being stalked and there is a dangerous intersection between stalking and more violent crimes. as the nation's understanding of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking has increased, so too has our awareness that these forms of violence affect all age groups. and that violence within relationships often tragically begins in adolescence. in addition with the reauthorization of vawa 2005, congress directed ovw to take the attention of violence of indian women. there was a federal advisory committee to provide recommendations on a program of research and instituted annual tribal consultations to learn how the department can improve its response to these crimes.

while we are rightly proud of our accomplishments, we recognize that there is still much to do. looking forward the office will focus on a number of areas where greater effort is needed. for example, over the years, we have learned that law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges alike work with victim advocates to use their distinct roles to create coordinated community responses to violence against women. while this approach has been important to our efforts we recognize that we cannot rely solely on the criminal justice system to end violence against women and that to be effective, local responses must be informed by the voicess and experiences of survivors. and also diverse representatives of the community. while vawa has made a tremendous difference of lives in many, we recognize we have left many women behind particularly women of color. in the months and years to come, we will engage in efforts that place accountability on the

safety of women and girls on the community as a whole. i am constantly inspired by the extraordinary commitment of the women and men who devoted their lives to ending violence against women but our lives have most been changed by survivors. women like gabrielle union and ann burke who have experienced the unthinkable and who have the courage to tell the stories to advocate for change. i was compelled to commit my life to this work over 15 years ago when i read the story of kristin lardner. like one of my daughters she was an art student with her entire life ahead of her. she was dating a man who became abusive. she broke up with him after he seriesly beat her and even then tried to help him get counseling. his response was to threaten and stalk her. kristen successfully obtained a approximately order against him but he did not comply. came to her workplace and insisted that she continue to see him. when she refused, he shot her in the head and then returned a few

minutes later to shoot her twice more. he went back to his own apartment and committed suicide. the man who murdered kristin had a three-page arrest record, was convicted of multiple offenses, was the subject of multiple restraining orders and was on probation for repeatedly assaulting and abusing women. at the time of kristin's murder he had violated the terms of his probation in another jurisdiction and should well have been in jail. i learned about kristin because her father, george lardner, a report investigated his own daughter's death and wrote a series of articles which won him the pulitzer prize. while this story changed my life and perhaps many others, it didn't bring kristin back. every day stories about similar homicides, rape, domestic violence and stalking remain in our headlines. this is unacceptable. we have much, much more to do. thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member sessions and members of the committee for your

commitment, your ongoing commitment to this issue and your time this morning. i'd be very happy to answer your questions. >> thank you. and thank you for mentioning george lardner's writing on that. i remember being gripped by that and wondering -- he wrote it but i can only imagine how difficult it must be for a parent to write something like that. i have three children of my own and now grandchildren, i can only imagine that must tear one apart. we have a serious economic crisis in this country, miss pierce. has that affected or increased or decreased or in any way affected the need for these -- the services that we have in vawa? >> i think it has, but i think i'd like to state sort of unequivocally that unemployment

is one of many factors that in combination can lead to an escalation in violence. we know from the research that has been done, there are other things that happen in combination with unemployment, an abuser's threat to kill her or her children, a woman or her children. or to harm them. threats to commit suicide. forced sex. and most importantly, the presence of a gun. so these are additional factors that we always need to look for and that unemployment alone is really not the cause. i think i should also state that we know that shelters help women avoid that kind of abuse during situations where their partner or their husband may be unemployed. but also what's helpful is when judges know that they should issue a protection order and when guns should be removed from the home. >> we put extra money in the

recovery act for vawa. has that money started going out yet and has that had any affect. >> i'm glad you asked that question. >> i thought you might be. >> we have announced 46 formula awards to the states totaling more than $120 million. those awards have been made. and this week 29 state coalition awards totaling more than $2.5 million have been made. before sometime before the middle of july, we will have made awards through our transitional housing program. we received 567 applications for recovery act transitional housing relief. and we will be able to really support only about 20% of those so there is a tremendous -- a tremendous need. similarly, we received 91 application from tribal governments and we'll only be able to fund about a third of those.

>> you know, times change. i mentioned others earlier. when i was a prosecutor we didn't have any of these programs and we had to kind of make them up as we let along and there was a lot of dedicated people for housing and on occasion my wife and i would provide that. but we have done a lot more than decades ago but are the needs currently unmet or victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking -- are there things that we should be doing? are there things we could be doing at the federal government? obviously, the state government had their own programs but is there things we need to be doing. >> we need to enhance our response to sexual assault crimes. we need to look for sexual

assault services in rural america. we're very concerned about custody issues in domestic violence cases and we'll be looking very closely at why women are losing custody of their children either to the courts or through the states to the child protection system. we're also going to be looking very closely at the problem of children exposed to violence and we know that when -- that children are safer when their mothers are safer and that safety is inextricably linked. the other thing as i alluded to in my testimony that is of great concern to us that we begin to focus our efforts on homicide prevention more so than we ever have before. and that we use research to inform our practice, and we use practice to inform our research. >> i don't mean this as an either/or things but thank you

for mentioning rural areas because, again, it's sometimes neglected. you also mentioned tribal issues. the u.s. attorney decides not to bring charges. can anything can done about that? i mean, some of these -- we don't have that situation. my state of vermont -- i talked to a number of western senators both parties who are concerned about it. is there some way we can get more timely information to tribal officials when they declined prosecutions? >> well, our office is responsible for providing direct funding to tribal governments and tribal coalitions. our mission is to make sure that

we are providing victim services to alaska native villages and to different tribes in indian country. and so i would have to say that the mission of our office is not related to the prosecution of those crimes within -- with the u.s. attorneys. >> but would you suggest that there is some way of getting better -- do we need better communication? >> well, i was about to say. i mean, there is always room for better communication and better coordination within the department and across federal agencies and we're very committed to enhancing that. >> i may make a few suggestions to the attorney general and others to make sure that's done. senator sessions? >> well, thank you. you asked, mr. chairman -- began a discussion, i think, about what our new challenges are. what our studies are showing. and how we can get that

information out to local law enforcement. i remember our former colleague fred thompson used to say the most valuable thing the department of justice can do is to do the good research that helps individual police departments and prosecutorial offices make the right decisions. and you mentioned some of the studies that you have ongoing. are you satisfied that the vawa office and the department of justice programs are identifying in a very practical way the kind of protocols and procedures that would be most effective for a law enforcement agency, sort of a midsize city, let's say a police department, that they are getting the kind of guidance that helps them establish the very best protocols for success? >> thank you for asking that. yes, the answer is yes. with the help of some national

law enforcement organizations, we have been able to develop what i think are clear protocol and practices. you should be aware that we are also going to be updating what we are -- what we call manual on promising practices. we'll be looking at law enforcement. and i think the thing to -- for us to remember -- since, the vawa was passed, we have a whole new generation of police officers and prosecutors who need to be educated. on those very promising practices and protocol that you've mentioned. and we don't need to go back and reinvent the wheel. we have done some significant work in that area. and what we need to do is to continue to educate. >> when you give the story about kristin, and that's a powerful story, i guess my question, could that stalker have been identified earlier?

could we have -- do we have any kind of identifying characteristics that say this is an abusive person but this was an abusive person who could become homicidal and dangerous? and are we -- do the average prosecutor and judge and police department -- do they know what they are and are they making the right identifications of who -- of the most dangerous people? >> again, thank you for raising that. i think we do have those indicators. i think we have that knowledge. i mentioned some of what those indicators were. and in the case of kristin lardner, i think a lot of those indicators were present. she did everything right. >> what are -- that's right. >> in her case, i mean, she went -- >> she sought a protective order. >> the problem was, as i understand it she got a protective order in boston and

he had been arrested in other jurisdictions and across state lines in new york. and so we need, obviously, databases that speak to one another and it would be great if every judge were able to pull up that information while on the bench and that is something that we need to continue to do. but in lieu of that, i think that our judicial institutes that we support, the leadership institute for chiefs of police that we support and the prosecutor's resource center that we support are ways of getting that information out. we have the information and we need to get it in the hands of local practitioners. >> i really think that's true. but just because you do a study and issue a report in washington does not mean that a busy prosecutor, a busy judge had the opportunity to study it. and i don't know how we -- and i

assume there's some disputes about what the best protocols are on various type circumstances. but i would assume there's some areas in which there's virtual uniformity of agreement that under these circumstances, this represents a real danger and strong action should be taken. would you agree? >> i entirely agree with you. and again -- >> have you thought about how to make sure that information is more widely spread? do we have an effective-enough programs to get that information how the >> i think we do. i think we need to continually reach out to prosecutor coordinators and to, you know, national associations that can provide us with lists of prosecutors who we can go to and say, please, we have this training. we're making it available with vawa funding and actually i think we've been quite successful in doing that. but we can always do better and we continue to try to enhance as

you said those databases of judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers in every state. i have to say we have created as a result of that -- those educational programs, dedicated units like in minneapolis and st. paul and other parts of the country. >> i think virtually every community has a more specialized unit. penelope houses, protective houses for women and children. i'm real pleased by that. i just would say continue the good research. continue to get the information out so it can be utilized and we'll have few of these cases like kristin. it's my personal view that a lot of individuals, unfortunately, are very dangerous. and the number of people who would actually kill somebody or stalk somebody consistently or sexually assault somebody is not that large in this country.

if they're properly identified, some of them need to be detained and locked up for the offenses they commit and that will perhaps prevent offenses in the future. so i thank you. >> thank you very much, senator sessions. senator klobuchar? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. miss pierce i always thought one of the real beauties of vawa is how it tried to encourage community-based responses and getting groups involved and the way i see this -- i'll just tell my own experience of how this worked. we actually got our hospital involved so that we had victim witness advocates accessible to people when things were discovered, they were part of the community response. we actually started a post-review process for cases where the thought was something might have gone bad or something didn't go bad kind of what they do in surgery after a hospital looks at all their errors to figure out what went wrong. and we did it not publicly. but we got all the partners

together to figure out what went wrong and sometimes they were little things of, you know, some police department not answering a phone call or someone not checking one kind of computer system. and we were able to do a better job because we did those reviews. and do you want to talk a little bit of the community response and how it could be improved and how it has contributed to the value of vawa? >> telephone. -- definitely. let me say i did visit your office and saw what an extraordinary job you all were doing several years ago and continue to do so i thank you for that. as i alluded to in my comments, i think coordinated community responses will only be strengthened when we begin to turn to the communities, particularly, the diverse communities who we are charged with responding to. i think we have not done a good enough job of listening to the voices of survivors. but you alluded to something

which i think is very -- has been an extraordinary and an excellent tool, which is the safety audits that were developed by one of our grantees. it's a tool that can be used to pull a coordinated community response together by looking at cases and figuring out where women fall through the cracks. and who could have done a better job without blaming or shaming or pointing the finger. to me that has been one of the most useful tools that we have. but i think -- the other issue is, i think, for prosecutors, judges and law enforcement officers to work with advocates in plans and to listen to those -- to listen to advocates and survivors. i can't underscore it enough. >> right. one of the things i know that's always frustrating for some of our prosecutors and the victims was just the enforcement of protection orders across jurisdictional boundaries. and i know that you've been looking into that. part of your testimony was about that. could you talk about what you think we could do better with that. >> well, i think as i said

earlier, we really -- if we could begin to develop databases that were more reliable. for prosecutors, for judges, for law enforcement. i think that would make an enormous difference. >> uh-huh. another thing that -- just thinking of my list of things -- if my victim advocates were here they would want to ask is the rape kits. and i believe that the violence against women's act prohibits grantee jurisdiction from charging victims of sexual assault the cost of collecting and processing the rape kit. there are many jurisdictions, however, where the victim still ends up paying the price. either because the state doesn't compensate the victims for the full cost of the kit or because victims are expected to pay the cost themselves and have the states reimburse them after the fact. should we be taking more steps up front to make sure nobody should pay for the rape kit. >> absolutely, unequivocally.

>> i would have been upset if you would answered the other way. >> this happens all the time. and in our state, there were proposals to do this. so i know it happens all the time. i think people would be surprised if they knew the facts. last year it was discovered that los angeles county has the largest backlog of untested rape kits of any jurisdiction in the country. almost 13,000 untested kits as of last summer and even if l.a. county is the worst offender it's a national problem. the national institutes of justice estimated there were approximately 400,000 untested kits nationwide. so as we look at this reauthorization, is this something we should be looking at as well. >> yes. and i think we need to be looking at ways that our office can coordinate more effectively with other parts of the department to make sure that this backlog gets addressed across the country. >> all right. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i appreciate your work. >> thank you very much. did you have a follow-up

question? >> just one, if i could. what do you think about the requirement in '05 congress created a funding incentive to cause states to test rapists, the perpetrators for hiv within 48 hours, i believe, after arrest. is that being effectively done? do you think that's a good policy that every state should test sexual perpetrators for hiv? >> well, we definitely believe that women who have been exposed to hiv certainly have the right to request that the offender be tested but as we all know, those of us who have worked in the criminal justice system for years, it isn't always so that the offender is apprehended within 48 hours or so. so what we're focused on is being able to provide the victim with -- the alternative to

receive counseling about prove laxics herself. about 84% of state and local governments who receive funding through the grant program that you're referring to, the grants to encourage arrest program, are unable to meet that requirement. so what we want to do is to -- >> why are they unable? >> the least of which is that the offender is not always available within that period of time. >> well, that's obvious. they can't do it if they're not arrested. but those who are arrested, i don't know why that wouldn't be just a standard protocol. >> well, i think it's about giving -- it's about giving the offender -- excuse me, it's about giving the victim an alternative. we need to have -- yes, we need to do -- we need -- >> what information do you have that every department should test a rapist or hiv?

>> i don't. >> okay. we got a law that says -- changing the subject on me, i just don't understand what the hesitation -- >> no, no. i'm just saying victims where that offender is not available, we need to give the victim -- we need to put our focus on the victim and provide an alternative for her. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator klobuchar, do you have any follow-up? thank you very much, miss pierce. thank you for being here. and thank you for the emphasis you put on this. >> thank you very much. thank you for all of your work. i appreciate it so much. >> we're in this one together. and we'll call up the other --

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you all for being here. we're going to start with gabriel union. has made frequent appearances on

television. more than 20 films when she's not acting she serves as ambassador for the susan g. comachine for the cure organization supporting breast cancer research. my wife and i have been on the -- not the run but the fast walk. [laughter] >> for the cure. she's an advocate for victims of sexual assault. she's a graduate of ucla where she received a bachelor's in sociology. miss union, go ahead. >> say the words sexual assault. sexual assault. i have -- it's a little crazy sometimes if we can't even say the words we can't effectively begin to deal with the problem. so a brief back-story. at 19 years old i got a summertime job like a lot of us and while i was at work one night a man came into the store, robbed the store and during the course of the robbery decided to rape me. during the course of the rape, he very calmly put the gun down

that he had been holding to my head and said, do you mind handing me the gun. and at that point i did my best starkey hutch and i fell on my back and i popped the clip and i missed and we began to tussle and he beat me beyond recognition. luckily enough, i was -- and i hate to say this. it really makes me sick to say this. i had the privilege of being raped in the wealthy community. the police arrived in minutes. it's a plet that was adequately funded and staffed. they immediately took my statement. they were well-trained. we immediately went to the rape crisis center where they took my rape kit and i was able to start the path from rape victim to rape survivor. i cannot say enough about the difference it made that i was raped in a wealthy community. with an adequately funded staff

and crisis center. i immediately began to get the treatment that i needed. within days my rape kit was tested and analyzed and within a few days after that, my rapist was apprehended and within a few months he took a plea and i had -- i had my justice. it's rare. it does not happen. and i just cannot say enough about the need for adequately funded and staffed rape crisis centers throughout the united states. i work very closely with law enforcement and what they always say, we don't have the time or the resources to help get a victim -- a rape victim between victim and survivor. rape victims, they say, make terrible witnesses. rape survivors are amazing and effectively to help us get rapists off the street. so if you kind of want to bottom-line it, having adequately rape crisis centers help get rapists off the state. i have to reiterate rapists

don't go away at the end of the day to rape land where we'd like to think they go. they live next door is to you. they are raping our mothers, our sisters, our granddaughters, our grandparents. they don't magically disappear. we have to help law enforcement get them off the streets. we have to be advocates for the victims to help them become survivors and lead happy productive lives. and it starts with adequate funding. to tell a brief story, i was in africa and i was sitting at the bar. and there was an image of paris hilton in her little dog came on tv and got the bar all riled up and they start telling these jokes. and this man said, you know, silly americans, you know, you care more about your pets than you do about your people. they'll spend tons of money to put away for abusing a dog but they don't care if you beat your wife. when in america beat your wife and not your dog and they'll put new jail. we have to make human beings a

priority. we have to make our women and our children a priority in keeping them safe a priority and it starts with adequately funding these programs with domestic violence programs and sexual assault programs. and it's become a sad reality that when i go to third world countries to speak to women and give them the just hang in there speech i found i have to give the exact same speech to women in america, you know, in third world countries we don't have an expectation, you know, of criminal justice, you know, there's no justice in those countries. there's no chance for, you know, therapy and hand-holding and i have to give the same exact speeches to girls and women in america. we're supposed to be better than that and we're not and we have to do better. thank you. >> thank you. karen scott has been the director of the vermont network against domestic violence and sexual assault since 2007 and a

note to my office and i have worked with her a lot during that time. before she came to vermont, she had worked with various victim services groups in ohio for 15 years. she received her bachelor's degree from bowling green state university. her masters in in ohio state university. and currently lives in vermont where the head of my vermont office lives. the vermont network that she leads a member coalition of national network to end domestic violence, and i'd like to thank the president and members of the board and staff who worked tirelessly on behalf of everybody here and please when you go back give my thanks. i think it'd be be fair to say

thanks. ranking member sessions and distinguished members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to discuss the success of the violence against women act or vawa and the importance of reauthorizing it in 2011. the vermont network against domestic and sexual violence is a statewide coalition of domestic and sexual violence programs and our fifteen-member programs are located throughout the state and provide life-saving services to victims and their families. vawa-funded programs like these are a critical part of our work in vermont and across the country. and i'm here today to discuss the success of vawa programs and the need to sustain vawa with the reauthorization in 2011. the crime of domestic violence is pervasive and life-threatening in total 1 in 4 women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime. 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men will have experienced an attempted or completed rape. the most heinous of these crimes is murder. and in 2005 alone, 1,181 women

were murdered by an intimate partner in the united states. even in one of our nation's safest states vermont there were seven domestic violence-related homicides and three additional violence related suicides in just one week in 2007. additionally, the cycle of intergenerational violence is perpetuated as children witness victim. 15.5 million kids are exposed to domestic violence every year. in addition to the terrible cost domestic violence and sexual violence have on the lives of individual families and their -- individual victims and their families, these crimes cost taxpayers and communities. however, in addition to saving and rebuilding lives, vawa actually saved taxpayers $14.8 billion in net averted social costs in the first six years alone. vawa was not only the right thing to do, it's also fiscally sound legislation. vawa has unquestionably improved the national response to domestic and sexual violence since vawa passed in 1994, states have passed more than 660

laws to combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. the rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence against women have decreased by 63%. remarkably the number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 24% for women and 48% for men. my written testimony details the impact of vawa grants including transitional housing grants, legal assistance to victims grants, grants to encourage arrest and enforce protection orders. they have created systems in which adults and children can find paths to safer peace-filled lives but in my 15 years i've had a firsthand view of vawa and i would like to highlight three vawa programs. through the stop grants program vawa has helped to educate an entire generation of law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges about violence against women. stop grants help state local and tribal governments to strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving

violent crimes against women and i can personally attest to the results of a study performed by the urban institute which said stop grants have ensured that victims are safer, per supported by their communities and treated more uniformly and sensitively by first response workers. vawa rural grants allow jurisdictions to develop and implement programs that address the specific barriers faced by victims in rural areas. in vermont our statewide rural grant program has created an innovative specialized domestic violence department for children and families which reviews 100% intake child abuse cases where domestic violence may be present ensuring that children and their nonoffending children get the support they need. for the first time since 2008 the program was funded and will begin to meet the extreme needs of victims of sexual assault. this formula grant will allow states, tribes and territories -- i'm sorry, to provide much-needed direct services to victims and training and technical assistance to

various organizations including law enforcement, courts and social services. rape crisis centers supported by the funding will be able to provide expanding medical and legal support for victims of rape and sexual assault. the continuation and expansion of these funds is critical to the creation of services and collaborative relationships that will result in safer communities. due to the overwhelming success of vawa funded programs more and more victims are coming forward each year however this rise of demand of services without concurrent increases in funding means many desperate victims are turned away. one day nearly 9,000 requests of services went unmet due to a lack of resources. services for sexual assault victims are more scarce and unfunded women, children and men are on waiting lists to receive treatment and therapy after sexual assault. the violence against women act is working but job is not done.

although vawa has done much to create systems that help victims and survivors so much more is needed. we must strengthen vawa so that it can work for all victims of domestic and sexual violence whether they live in rural or urban areas, whether their children or elderly victims, whether they speak english or another language, every victim deserves the chance to live a peace-filled life. congress has a unique opportunity to make a difference in the lives of so many by reauthorizing the violence against women act with key and strategic improvements. thank you, chairman leahy, ranking member sessions and the distinguished members of the committee for all you have done and all you will do to help victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. thank you. >> thank you very much. ann burke is our next witness. i think senator whitehouse, you wanted to say something about ms. burke. of course, having been married to a registered nurse for 47 years, i'm glad to have you here although i'm sorry for the reason you're here. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i just want to welcome miss burke. rhode island is a small state, and i don't think there was a person in the state who was not aware of the tragedy that befell her family and the terrible way in which her life changed when lindsey was murdered by an ex-boyfriend at the age of 23. we have also been very inspired by the way that ann as a teacher and a nurse has taken what for many would be a disabling clamity in their life and turn it for as much good as one could possibly imagine could be achieved out of such tragedy. ..

>> a group called m.a.d.f.e.. that's a parent support network for parents across the country to support healthy teen dating relationships and cope with the tragedies that still take place. she's somebody we're very proud of. we've shared with her as much as the public can, such a deeply private tragedy and we've seen wonderful success and strength from that tragedy. we welcome her today. >> thank you. chairman leahy, ranking members of the committee, thank you for

the opportunity to testify today. i appreciate the opportunity to share my daughter lindsey's story and the positive legacy that has come from her loss. my husband is here today. we are members of moms and dads for abuse education. she can easily be described at as the girl next door. we grew up playing with all the children in the neighborhood. she had plenty of friends. took dance, piano, soccer, tennis, graduated from rhode island college with a degree in secretary education. she was sweet and compassionate. my daughter never had by chance the wedding. i noticed things that didn't seem quite right, including the

change in personality. as the police would later describe that every form of classic abuse, verbal, emotional, and physical. until after lindsey's death i did not know that 76% of women murdered had been stalked by that partner. but only about half of stalking victims recognized the crime for what it was. after lindsey left the boyfriend for the third time she got calls constantly from him. more than 20 hours of week worth of calls. she was fearful and anxious. earlier he had threatened to kill her. after leaving him and trying to start a new life, the life ended almost four years ago when she was only 23 yards.

the police statements show she was tortured and murdered by her boyfriend. i hope after the sentencing, it will prevent people from being victimized from dating violence. i spent many months researching this topic. i began top wonder why don't we teach our children about the importance of healthy relationships. over and over i asked myself if lindsey was properly educationed would she still be alive today? i believe she would. i never learned about it while pursuing my degrees in nursing, secretary education, or my graduate degree. after being a school nurse and health teacher, i never addressed it with my students. i have since learned that my lack of education, rather than the exception. as a teacher i realized we had

school policies for bullying and sexual harassment. i strongly believe that this kneaded to be done for dating violence. i believe that has my daughter was told about dating violence from high school and as we as parent knew all the facts and reinforced this information, she could still be with us. a young lady that always spoke her mind. she didn't hesitate top change friends when some of them started drinking alcohol. she didn't hesitate to tell the school guidance or principal when something was going wrong. she wouldn't have hesitated if she would have had a frame of reference. knowing my daughter, i think she would have been. how many more teens have to

suffer in an abusive relationship sparing for their lives and afraid to tell anyone. the teen dating violence statistics are alarms. it's a major health problems that needs to other health problems, substance abuse, eating disorders, depression, suicide. we have found a strong connection in violence and poor reproductive health outcomes. a study published found that one in three high school girls that could have been abused by a boyfriend has become pregnant. we can reduce unplanned teen pregnancy. dating violence, the same as domestic violence, destroys and kills people. how can we ignore this major health problem any longer? in 2006 befounded the memorial fund to address dating violence primarily through education. through our workshops we have

trained 224 health teachers in rhode island. we have donated curriculum to these schools and to the workshops for general school staff we have trained teachers so far. more recently, rhode island legislatures passed the lindsay ann burke act. they now mandate violence education in students 7 through 12 through our curriculum in middle and high school, a school district policy to address episodes of dating violence at school and at school events and they strongly recommends parent training. episode will no longer be ignored. teens, staff, and parents will now get the education that they deserve. an interesting thing happens when you educate three groups. teens, staff, and parents at the

same time. everyone begins to talk openly about the topic losing the shame and stigma. this helps victims to come forward and seek help. it gives the seens knowledge and skills to help. it and helps parent to reinforce at home and watch for signs of unhealthy relationship. and they may think twice about their own behavior and seek ways to change. we have gotten support from both the national association of attorneys general and the national foundation for women legislatures. they have partnered with us to pass this in all states. as a result of their effort, several states have passed law with bills pending in other states. however, i want to point out that some have been watered down due to lack of funding for implementation. funding and leadership from the federal level is needed for comprehensive dating violence education. the last bill created the step

program supporting teens through education and protection act that would support trading in school. but it has never received funding. but the funding is exactly what they need for the dating violence. this is more critical than the survey released this morning in the prevention fund that says american teens are experiencing alarmingly high levels of abuse. at the same time the survey found parents are out of touch with the level of abuse among teens. the large majority of abuse teens are not telling their parents. we need to start funding the steps, to do anything less is selling our parents short. we should not delay. >> thank you very much. our next witness is a current national chair of force 100. she formally served as mayor of

the city in california. she has endured tragedy several times, murder of her son and brother. her experiences have made her a leading advocate nationwide. thank you. i know this is not easy. but i appreciate you being here. >> thank you. thank you so much, chairman. mr. chairman and senators thank you for the opportunity to allow me to address you today. you're right, it isn't easy. but it's worth it if it helps. the violence against wellness act. the victims of terrible sexual acts and physical violence. however that act standing alone

does not provehicle code enough means to address the crimes and their victims. facing reality our criminal system lacks due process and basis common sense. we certainly acknowledge resources alone are not stuff to bring true justice, but they help. there are huge issues in our justice system that have and will continue to effect hundreds and thousands of families just like mine. the sad truth is my family members -- sorry. would be alive today if our justice system worked like it was intended it, like we planned, like it should. but instead, sadly if your home, our only son, brother, and sister-in-law are all dead.

all murdered. >> take your time. >> to adequately judge it's importance for our nation's decision makers -- this makes me so mad. i'm a tough broad. i want to be really tough, and i'm not. and i know my husband's watching. and that really ticks me off. >> miss campbell, let me tell you, you're being as effective witness as in 35 years. >> god bless you, sir. to adequately judge what's going on is important for you our national decision makers to try in person -- in person, identify with the tragedy of this crime and truth and reality of the crime. you have taken on the huge responsibilities of the most important job in our nation, the

safety of our citizens. and it's critical to the american people that you fully understand the truth in what's going on. we must have predictable seasonses and keep dangerous criminals behind bars. it's critical to have rapid access to dna to save lives and time for law enforcement. it is also important to have victims present and heard. they know too much to keep them out of the courtroom. i realize that it is more than important and it is impossible in just a few moments to bring you to the real world of being a victim of crime. it is not a great thing. and we got to stop it. for a quarter of a century we aught to bring my family that has been through living hell, the hell was furnished by the

killers and criminals who should have remained in prison. then more hell was distributed by the justice system. if our justice system had worked properly along with many others, my murdered family would be alive today. in 1982 our on son scott just disappeared from the face of the earth. we looked for him for 11 months. two parolees had stolen a sports car and decided if both the car and our son were missing they wouldn't get caught. the killers statement was we took him for a ride, strangled him, and threw him into the pacific ocean where the sharks would eat him and he wouldn't be found. senators, what if the killers had been given three independent life sentences and was released

in only four years. the other was out on work parol after killing somebody else. you see, both of these criminals had been given another chance. they were given their chance. but senators, we never have another chance to see our son. they were still going through the eight years of our son's murder trial. we were excluded from the courtroom. my only sibling and his wife were also murdered. it took another 19 years to get those killers convicted. from the very beginning i was certain who had hilled mickey intrudedy, and naturally, there

were threats on my life so they wouldn't be brought to justice. however, i'm the proud daughter of a wonderful man who has captain and chief of detective on the california police department. and at a young age he taught my brother and me how to have courage and always do the right thing. and i'm a hell of a good shot by the way. not too many victims have self-defense training and are able to survive a quarter of a century of people wanting to take them out because they are trying to bring justice. i respectfully ask you to please place yourself in the decision that many of us have been forced to endure. and then only then -- only then -- will you understand the best steps to take to provide better safety for our citizens. and i thank you for allowing me

to sit up here and slobber all other myself. i guess it's because i flew and i'm really tired, but i wanted to be here. because i never want other people to have to endure what some of us have gone through. thank you. >> miss campbelling with i'm glad you took that fight. i'm sorry for what you endured before that. you have four former prosecutors. >> i know. >> the things you described should never happen to any victim. the crime shouldn't have happened in the first place. the delays and everything else never should have happened. we're trying in every way possible to get the resources, the training, and the steps that ms. burke has in rhode island.

these are -- well, i think the murder cases i prosecuted, 75 to 80% of them had stepped been taken earlier, they would have been avoided. there is nothing more tragic to being at murder scene at 3:00 in the morning blue lights flashing, people sobbing, and to have the "if only" or the "what if" or the other things. thank you for what you said. you are the human face of what so many of us have seen in the past. thank you. the chief assistant of the county attorney in phoenix. you have more than 350 attorneys

and 900 support staff. but in the office, you have been there for 23 years, she has her bachelors degree from the university of virginia. >> thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to present the views of the county attorney's office concerning the continued importance of the balance against women. and more specificically about the involve of mandatory sentencing for sexual assault and sexual abuse as well as hiv testing in case of sexual assault and sexual abuse. america's county attorney office is located in phoenix, arizona as you said. it employed more than 350 lawyers, prosecutors, and who

prosecute more than 40,000 felonies a year. as a 23-year veteran of the office and chief assistant, i've prosecuted domestic violence cases, sexual abuse cases, and i certainly oversee the specialized area of prosecuting those crimes. sexual violence causes lasting trauma to victims beyond physical injury. in many cases these crimes go unreported due to the fear and trauma associated with sexual silence. fear of retaliation and fear of public scrutiny. in our experience it's not uncommon for a sexual offender caught to admit to other sexual assaults that were never reported. in 2004 statewide study of arizona, it was estimated that only 16% of all sexual assaults ever came to the attention of law enforcement.

with respect to the fear of public scrutiny, the value of education cannot be underestimated. the accurate information about sexual offenders and their victims is essential to change public attitudes about these crimes so the victims don't suffer embarrassment or humiliation when they report the abuse. one message that should be clear in any statutory scheme and it should be part of any educational effort that sexual violence is one of the most fearless of crimes. the punishment should be commensurate with the damage that it inflicts. a mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration does send that message. victims suffering sexual abuse

and sexual assault need to know they are safe from the person who hurt them. they need a time to heal. for at least some period of time, victims need to know that the offender cannot return to inflict more pain or punish them for reporting the crime to authorities. a mandatory minimum sentence sends that message. arizona's statute -- our statutory scheme does send that message. sexual assault is a felony. a person who's convicted of sexual assault is not eligible for probation. a person convicted of sexual assault is exposed to a sentence of seven years in prison. if mitigating factors exist the sentence maybe reduced to a minimum of 5.25 years in prison.

and if aggravating factors are found, the sentenced maybe increased to 14 years in prison. in every case, a victim may expect the offender to be in prison for at least 5 years. and that 5 year window of safety not only encouraging reporting and participating in court proceedings, it gives the victim time to heal without fear of retaliation. in 2005, arizona moved away from classifying sexual assault on a spouse as a lesser crime. as part of that debate, i was asked by the legislature to provide some information about such a change might have on reporting. some of our legislature were concerned that the higher penalties associated with sexual assault might discourage

reporting. in looking at past reported cases, the crime of sexual assault of a spouse was often accompanied by more serious offenses like kidnapping which is a class 2 felony or aggravated assault a class 3 felony. if you want a higher penalty would discourage reporting, was not supported by the evidence. another important component in dealing with crimes of sexual assault and sexual abuse is biological testing. along with the need to know they are safe from many diseases that offenders may have transmitted to them, they need the assurance that they are safe from those diseases. there are several arguments from early biological testing of

suspects. and although i'm not a medical expert prosecutors generally accept if the victim reports exposure during a sexual assault within 72 hours doctors can describe a 28-day regimen that will help prevent hiv, the sooner it is begin, the more effective it is. the medication to prevent hiv infection is expensive and it may cause serious side effects. victims who do not know whether the attacker had hiv are forced to choose between the risk of hiv infection or the risk of the side effects associated with the proif i lactic treatment. that could include liver

enlargement or bone marrow problems. information that the offender did not have hiv would allow the victim to feel safe and begin to heal. in addition to biological testing, to ensure the safety, dna tests of the suspects ensures the suspects are identified as early as possible. as i mentioned before many sexual assaults by the same suspect go unreported. otherred are reported but the suspected are unknown. sexual offenses are repettive crimes. to link them early to individuals and areas helped law enforcement put an end to

several offenses sooner. sexual offenders are often linked to other types of crimes welcome like burglary, criminal trespass, or other types of felony. dna evidence is important to create an accurate history. it also eliminates suspects so that law enforcement resources are not wasted. dna sampling and testing -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt. we'll put the rest of your statement in the record. i'm trying to make sure we all have a chance for questions. when you were talking about hiv testing with we whispered to each other, this is something we strongly believe in. not only for being able to go on the medication you talked about but to be able to avoid it and for the peace of mind. lord knows there's enough things

that are going through a victim's mind to begin with. but that's one that might be eliminated. ms. union, you're story, and i -- i'm sure it's painful to tell, but it has -- in fact it should be heard. go into a little bit more about what you said in your statement that fortunate you were in a community that could offend to do the right things. how important that? not just the things that might help catch the perpetrator but i think the counseling. >> yeah, definitely. the main difference in a wealthy community like the one i was

raised in is the system kicks in immediately. the crisis center is well staffed. whether it was me or someone who speaks spanish or mandrin, there would have been someone there to translate. which is different where the crisis center might not have a translator, rural communities also suffer from that short of thing. crimes on reservations, urban communitying, they don't have the same access to translators, therapists, counselors, to a lot of states don't even offer hiv and std testing. that could cover -- as much as i would love to test all the suspects, i'm more concerned about the victims. i'm wanting to free that money to test immediately. i was also raped in a community

that can afford too that. it was rape victim to rape survivor and i was able to help apprehend the suspect in a timely fashion within 48 hours. that wouldn't have helped in my case, but in a timely fashion it helps get him off the streets. and without those -- the funding for rape crisis centers in automatic communities it would create a parallel universe objectives. only a few people raped in wealthier community are going to get the justice and treatment. if you can't get on your path of recovery after they are behind bars and getting your mental health issues in check, you've been left as a shelf a person. -- shell of a person. >> let me just follow that to

ms. scott. i live in a town of 1500 people. i live in a dirt road. my neighbor is half a mile away. not unusual in vermont, or some parts of california. rural california can make rural vermont look like an urban areas. what about in those areas? if something happened in small towns, what is available? not -- i assume not what ms. union had available to her. >> well, i think that's a very accurate description and probably rural areas throughout the country. the reality of being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault is that health is sometimes miles and miles away. there are certainly bare yours to finding transportation.

often in vermont rural communities are small communities. it's very tightly knit. people know each other. they are often related to each other. this can create a situation where victims feel they can't come forward because of the relationships that they have with the people living around them. i talked to many victims who have been living in rule communities in both vermont and ohio where the law enforcement person in their town was actually the brother of the perpetrator. so the real problems for victims living in rule areas because of the nature of the townsman and outlying areas where they live. the other factor, you know, that is in domestic violence the victims are isolated by their perpetrators in many ways. they are isolated socially, they are isolated economically from jobs and access to family assets. but in rural area, they are

geographicically. i've had the experience of visiting victims and driven through creeks to get to the place where i was meeting them. so rural conditions are incredibly difficult for victims and offer the challenges that are huge. >> thank you my time is up. i say to ms. burke, i agree with senator whitehouse agreed the education is necessary. >> thanks, i appreciate that. >> and it would have been very easy to just go to your husband and say that's it we've had a tragedy, we're shutting out the rest of the world. but instead you are helping people. and miss campbell, when you were married in 1951, i was married

in 1952, so it does not seem that long ago anymore, but i also want to applaud of bravery of both you and your husband. these are all things where it would be so easy to run away. and not want to do it anymore. instead you've been very helpful to this committee. that is extremely important. >> i appreciate your kindness. it means a lot. you're very special, you always have been. >> thank you very much. and mr. wills, thank you. i'm going to turn the questioning over to senator sessions and turn the gravel over to senator clove cloture.

>> few described previous record that should have in jail and not able to commit these kinds of crimes again. let's pursue that a little bit. your a professional. you've been at this a long time. i've come to believe that mathematic is a factor in all of this. that there is just not that many people of that sexually assault women. and there are a certain number of those that are repeat offenders who are dangerous. just from a purely public safety part of view, is it important we identify those persons early and they be incarcerated in order to protect the people of this country from this kind of violence? >> well, senator you said it as

well as i could say it, yes. that is critical. if we, and there are a loot of studies already that are helping us to identify those persons. as soon as we can identify them, then our goal should be to incarcerate them for as long as possible. >> you represent a very sophisticated department, you've been at this a long time, you personally try these cases. you are really an expert in it. do you think there are other departments of district attorneys offices, young prosecutors, maybe young police officers who deal with one of these cases that are not aware sufficiently to identify a person who maybe a highly dangerous offender and needs to be given as long as sentence that is appreciate under the law. do you think it's causing crimes that could have been avoided. >> i do.

there's a colleague who says there's a new generation of police officers and prosecutors coming who haven't had the education that i have. and it's important to keep the continuity of that education and to keep doing the studies that help us identify those offenders. and of course i believe the dna testing is one of the tools we have. >> tell me about the dna. how in a sexual assault case, how important is it that dna be determined and maintained for potential future use? how does that work to solve crimes? and prevent crimes? >> well, anyone who watches television knows dna is a very useful term -- tool in identifying suspects. and it can be preserved for a long time. arizona recently passed legislation that required dna

evidence to be held for 35 years. that legislation was introduced by victim groups because as we heard today, many sexual assaults aren't reported or they are reported much later than they occurred and the offenders may not be identified for many, many years. but the closure, the ability to find out who the offender was, and to find out maybe that they are in prison somewhere else because they've been doing this over the course of their offender career if you want to call it that, is very important to victims. >> i see ms. union, the person that assaulted you sexually assaulted a person later that same day, is that correct? >> a couple of days later. >> a couple of days later. if you didn't identify that person the dna that obtained immediately the investigators would know it's the same

rapest. if they had a previous arrest for rape and you had that on record you would know what that person was. >> that's correct. it's important to have database so that law enforcement agencies in different jurisdictions can identify a single offender. >> what is your opinion on the other departments that are doing things to maintain dna around the country? do you have any idea how well other departments are maintains dna? >> i do think more and more states are passes legislation to make sure dna is collected early. it's collected from a broader range of suspected not just suspects who commit sexual crimes. there are a number of crimes that are associated with sexual crimes, burglary, petty theft,

many states are expanding their dna testing to those as well. so that, like i said, if we can identify them early and stop even one sexual assault, it's worth it. >> i couldn't agree more. ms. campbell thank you for your testimony, ms. burke, thank you for your work. i think you are touching on an extremely important societal problem that we face. all of you, thank you for speaking up and being effective. we have had, ms. campbell, you were part of the movement of victimses' rights. it has really changed the mechanism. i think that's one reason murders are down substantially from what they were in 1980s when you lost your family members. i do warn, however, that i sense and a movement that's beginning

to go soft on the lessons we learned. and it is simply as this, certain people are dangerous just for the fact they attacked one person, and it is very indicative they may attack another. we do have to maintain tough senators, i wish it weren't so. thank you, ma'am. chairman, it's a pleasure to work with you. >> well, thank you very much. >> y'all are great leadership to canada. it was a fabulous group. you guys did a great job. >> thank you, you did pretty well singing with the fiddler. i won't reveal that. it was a lot of negotiation for florida. senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman. ms. burke you're done such good work as we look to rhode island as a potential national model here, what further feedback

would you give us on what elements of the lindsay ann burke programs have been best received, have been most effective, what are the lessoned learns from what you've done that you think congress should focus on? i think the lessons learned have been the need for funding. the! ation of the laws working in rhode island mostly because our organization and the rhode island coalition against domestic violence from even before we have a law assed stepped up to the trait and said we will be able to provide free training. so there was no money when it was passed. the drawback in other states is that many states have good intentions, but their were concerned especially in the hard economic times about the cost of

training. i've gotten calls even this week from the state of ohio, in new mexico, asking how we implement lindsay's law, what was the specifics and costs involved. i think for it to be successfully implemented we have to have funding. there's no way of getting around that. i also believe very strongly as an educator that we need to pass lindsay's law maintaining all the components. it would be a very severe drawback to educate the students and not have the staff educated at the same time. i think we wouldn't want to leave the parents out either. i think you need to educate all three. i don't think it takes a great deal of funding. not as much as perhaps most

people would knowledge. because once your staff is educate the and you're health teachers or whatever teachers are designated in other states, not all states are prior to health education, what other teachers are designated in other states to be the primary teachers of the students, once you have that training done,. only has to be done sporadically for new hires and it can be in the college education programs for student teachers. >> you at least want enough funding for the program to be consistent? >> correct. i think initially you probably need a substantial amount of funding and after that in time that number should drop down so that it could just be maintained. i've seen first hand the success two of my own formers students have come back today in different times. one when went on to a private

high school and one who went on to a public high school. after learning about it in middle school, they find themselves in those types of situation due to the nature they weren't aware at beginning. in one case, the student themselves after a while recognizes the warning signs and was able to get herself out. in the other case it was the friends who had the educational piece who recognized the signs. and they worked with their friend to get them out. i know the education works. there's no doubt in my mind. all students have a right to that education. i think to derive them, it's simply wrong. we can save lived. i was talking last even. i think it's going to be difficult to measure how many lives we are saving. many people won't come forward and tell us. long after they graduate, when we are teaching them this

education we are teaching them life skills. it's no different than anything else that we teach in health class. we teach them about heart disease. chancing of them becoming involved in abusive relationship is far greater than heart disease. >> thank you. my task force did a film and distributed to all the high schools and all the police departments. but that program didn't meet the test of persistence. i'll take that lesson from you today. >> i was talking and trying to find that tape to see if we could duplicate is and hand it out to all our schools again. >> very quick question in my last seconds. >> you can take your time. >> thank you, chairman. >> when it coming to testing suspected purpose --

perpetrators of sexual assault and obtaining dna samples, what level of suspicious do you recommend be reached before the testing can take place? do you require full probable cause or at what point would it be appropriate to require dna testing in the spectrum. we have no idea. we have a victim who has identified. there's a wide band of suspicious. at what point should is kick in? >> i agree with this. the standard is probable cause. and that's the same standarded that reviewed when they make an arrest. we also had the statute that allows dna testing for certain

crimes, not every crime upon arrest or charging by prosecutor. >> so again probable cause. >> yes, there's at least probable cause that the offender did commit the offense. >> that's good? >> i believe that's a fair balance. >> very good. thank you, chairman. thank you this has been a wonderful panel of witnesses i have to say. >> all right. thank you. i just want to say i give my thanks to the courage for you ms. union and the way you told that story. it's so clear that you have a survivor. and it's great work that you are doing. ms. campbell, i know your hoses was proud of you. you just showed him. i wouldn't worry about that at all. thank you for your work. i want to say some of the things that the other senators asked, my colleague for asking about dna. which is so important right now. one of the things that i find recently the csi effect, the

juries are expected to have dna. sometimes you may have an sexual assault that doesn't have dna or domestic abuse case that most likely does not have dna. we lost a case or two, some smaller cases, because the juries said later why wasn't there dna? that's when we got the right to rebut the. our state was the one for the last word. do you want to comment on that? the charges that says a lot about the big issues a few years back allowing us to go forward when the victim wouldn't testify with techniques already technologies where you don't have dna. >> you're absolutely correct. juries expect some kind of evident an especially dna in cases of sexual assault.

that's probably the crime where the csi effect -- >> the csi effect is jury expects this. if they don't have the it jury may think the person is not guilty. >> exactly. there is a new threshold. in the old day we can identify a witness that could identify the defendant, now in our juries are allowed to ask questions during the trial we get pages of questions -- why wasn't dna done? and sometimes because dna is a complex only -- chemical analysis the questions get very detailed. some jurors ask very complex medical questions during the trial of the sexual assault case. so it is very important not to

lose sight of the fact that if you don't have dna you still have to fall back on all of the things we are doing when we prosecuted sexual assaults before. interview as many people as possible. it's very useful to tape record interviews. it's very useful to get other kinds of evidence that corroborates. even if you do get dna you shouldn't stop there. you could continue to get all of that evidence because you don't know maybe the dna won't be admissible later on. but it is -- it is still critical to investigate these crimes as thoroughly as possible. >> uh-huh. thank you. one of the things you talked about with the kids at the scene and at home, i've had a kid growing up around domestic abuse is 76 times more likely to

commit crimes. you have a picture of a women with a band-aid holding a baby. beat your wife and it's your son that will go to jail. do you want to talk about the interaction with child protection? also obviously kids can be witnesses and what's been happening with that. as we look at the reauthorization, we should be looking at this aspect of it as well. >> thank you. thanks for the opportunity to talk about children living in violent homes. i agree with you kids are at particular risk. the statistics that you use is that kids living in violent homes are 6 times more likely to be abused themselves. not only are they more likely to commit crimes, but it's likely they themselves has been abused. from my belief system, the kid

is suffering from abuse. there have been great strides made. i've very proud of vermont and the work we have done. as i refer to in any testimony, it has created the opportunity for us to create a unique and innovative relationship with our children's protective services division of our state government and that -- what they do is we were able to provide intensive training for child abuse investigators. they are experts at the victims of domestic violence and their kids. in many cases, they were almost held acceptable. but in vermont this program allows investigators to go in and do an investigation. instead of blaming the victim for the abuse of the kids, they work with the victim to be able to provide them with the support that they need to make choices

about living in safe, peaceful home. >> okay. very good. you did such good job talking about how the fact that you had been raped in an area that had the resources. i very much resonated with me. in smaller counties that don't have the resources, they may not have the expertise or you have like you said a rape crisis center. i brought up earlier the issue of the rape kits. i wondered for anyone that has knowledge, that's what we have been hearing is efforts to make victim paying for them. or pay for them and have to be paid back by the state. >> yeah, we've been having this discussion for the last year and i live in california. i work very closely with the crisis centers. as a rape survivor myself basically when your dna is

collected it's stuck in a brown bag. it goes into the lab. i just see the line of brown bags. that's children, women, men, everyone has become this brown bag. and i know that -- >> this is dna that could connect -- >> yes. identify the perpetrator, oh, yes. and you know after working in this business than who deals with rape and domestic violence, you realize that there are priority that is placed on certain brown bags. and they call them sexy victims. and the victims that generally a sexy victim is white women preferably young formally educated, ideally, the cases that can get media attention and slam dunk. if you're not sexy victim, basically anyone who not a

young, white, educated, attractive women season not deemed. those are the ones that make up the bulk of the bag log cases. it's so transparent. when you sit there and you see the row of these brown bags, it breaks your heart. like i said when i talked to rape victims in the united states, i have to give them the same spiel. the likelihood of justice that you think you will get because they took your dna and revictimmized again after having to do the rape kit. i'm going to get justice and it's a path of recovery. and it just doesn't work like that. we start to prioritize certain people. that has to stop. >> all right. to answer, i know thank you for that point. if we look at this

reauthorization and the tools that we need i think sometimes laws and funding are set back at a time before we had this extent of the technology. that's why it's such an opportunity to look at what we should be doing differently and doing better. i will point out on a positive note that you said in your testimony that taxpayers $13 preponderate 8 billion in the first years along. do you want to comment about that and where you see those savings? >> i want to say back in 1984 i loved next door to a family with violence. we had to tell them there was a burglar to get the police to

come. there was no support, no prosecution, nothing, the family went on. they was a family that was poor. they used social services system. and their lot was barely hopeless. today that same family would be embraced with a social services net. the net would in my ways, especially with the new economic justice work, not only would it help them maintain safety but help them move forward in their economic goals. and so for me it's money well spent. >> thank you. that's part of the successes that we had. the movement has developed with the grass roots level with stricts say i'm not going to take it anymore that are willing to come forward and speak. we're looking forward to a committee to working on this.

this is a bipartisan effort, as you can see. strongly supported by both sides of the isle. i want to thank you and wish you well. your courage is unbelievable, and it's going to make a difference. thank you very much. the hearing is adjourned. [hushed conversations] >> tonight on cspan 2, we talk about the "economies does not lie" and "triple cross." the story of a spy who

penetrated the cia, and military. next after that "things i've been silent about" about her chidehood and family. -- childhood and family. beginning tonight at 8 p.m. on cspan 2. >> bill clinton kicked off his netroots nation convention. tomorrow pennsylvania politicians with arlan specter, and reshaping the supreme court. >> every morning this morning washington journal talks live with authoring about their new summer releases. our guests include ron kessler, dan wbalz,. we'll be taking your call this is week.

>> how is cspan funded? >> by donation. >> federal funds. fan funds. >> honestly, i don't know. >> something from the internet. >> how is cspan funded? 30 years ago the cable created them as a public service. no government mandate, no government money. >> a nasa scientist on his research of mars like environment. on his mission for a one-way mission to mars. this is from an international mission to mars. >> on the spaceward bound project that has students and other places to learn what we like to live on mars. he also has worked on many other

projects as coinvestigator on the probe and phoenix lander as well the msl mission coming up in 2011. it's also the 2004 nasa leadership metal. ladies and gentlemen, doctor chris mccay. >> great. let's see if we can -- >> i need about 20 seconds here. >> okay. 20 seconds it is. 18, 16. 14. [laughter] >> okay.

you're good. >> okay. i'm good. my book is three steps to mars. i want to share with you my evolving view of what we need to do to get ready to go to mars. i put my answers up here as you can see. i think we need to focus on three things to prepare ourself for the long term. i emphasis long term human exploration to mars. >> i think we need to focus -- >> we need to focus the program on sample return. i think we need to sail into the deep waters. i do think we need to establish a permit research base on the moon. and i emphasis permanent there. this is the goal, to establish a

base on mars, not to go to mars, but to stay on mars. and that's a key point that i'll come back to. a long-term research goal -- check. check. okay. great. i'll put this in my pocket. let me remind you why mars as we heard from the previous speakers is the question of life. did it have life? life in the present? can it support life? is it a place where humans can live and work? these are all questions. we don't know the answer. can mars have a biological future? these are the questions that drive exploration. why mars? why are we asking these questions? very quickly because evidence that mars had water, the presence of an atmosphere, and a

good potential of presentation of evidence in past life in a cold, dry, conditions on mars. as we said there, there's water on mars. mariner 9 discovered water and it's been rediscovered by every mission since then . :

>> we need to the fly beyond the moon. going to the moon is relatively easy. you never really leave the gravitational system of the earth-moon system. you come back pretty easily. we need to learn how to fly beyond that. an apollo 8-like mission is the key. and i think we need to build a permanent base on the moon. first let me remind you we have to mars programs. our key goals for the immediate future is to push for the unification of those two programs. human exploration of the moon and mars. the robotic exploration. and these two programs go to great pains to distance themselves from each other.

you would think that they were being operated by different, not just countries, but planets. and there is really not even the reason for that. it is a good time to force a coherence because the mars science program is at a crossroads. partly precipitated by the cost overruns and schedule overruns of msl, but a variety of other things as well. i'm not going to go through the detail. the bottom line is that the rationale for mar having a separate program has to change. for the last 10 years it has been the search for life. mars was a special target because it was the only place we could go to to search for evidence of life. that is no longer the case. now there are other targets that compete. one would even say exel with respect to mars in terms of the search for life.

what is special about mars now and why mars still has a special robotic program is not the search for life. it's the fact that it is a potential future site for human exploration. the mars program in a sense realizes that they have run out of the political capitol associated with the search for life in my opinion. msl is going to truss to its breaking point. okay. sample return is where the mars program realizes it needs to go to and is a good mission to connect human and robotic exploration. the first sample return could be a very simple mission. phyllis and third. but it in a rocket. send it back to earth. altman the we need to use the same approaches that we would for humans. so the simple returns will be our first round trips to mars. it is an important concept.

robotic missions to mars today have been one-way trips. i know most people talk about humans on one-way trips humans are going to do round trips. sample return would be our first round trip. we use that technology for humans to do sample returns. there has been a study looking at how we can use the same rockets and vehicles to drive sambo returns. so to look at it during a large map of mars landing vehicles to do multiple sample returns deterred. and i'll test quickly show you some of the islands of that. but duke and pack a lot of mass. you can to a sample return and a single motion. a simple return is key because it is the logical intersection between the two much programs. i think that we should focus on

that within the mars community. push hard for sample returns. why? first it has enormous scientific value. bill level of analysis we can do here on earth is enormous compared to what we can do. it is directly relevant for scientific preparations for human exploration. if we are going to land and build a base it would be nice to have a sample of the third in advance so we don't have the sort of surprise is we had with phoenix as you saw where the dirt did not behave the way we think a proper at baird should behave. so you go to mars with all this equipment. the tour doesn't do what he wanted to do. you're in trouble. almost an operational requirement to get a sample return from the site where you put the base as well as a safety issue. big surprise from viking.

perchlorate on mars is at 1%. just to put that in contrast dod sites now, if the perchlorate in the ground water is 20 parts per billion it becomes a cleanup site. 1 percent is larger than 26 parts per billion. even i can do that. well, what the implications? one of the surprises are in the chemistry of the soil? a sample return is going to be driven by scientific site selection and safety requirements for human. and of course testing technology. like a said, is the return. we have a sense stages on mars. entry systems and so on. we might as well test them out on simple returns. the next key part, i think we need to focus on is getting human exploration out beyond the

man. get us out into deep space into deep water without waiting for the development of significant hardware that would be required if we made that mission to record to mars. hear, for example, 150 day mission to a small object. the constellations supported study looking at using compilation hardware for near earth objects. is are fairly short missions. they don't tax our capability to do less support. they don't need to develop landing. these are not landing missions.

i get calls from my family say what are you doing to save the earth from killer asteroids. i say, well, i just got up a few minutes ago. [laughter] i'll get right on it. it is very easy to explain to people that nasa is to be able to demonstrate the capability. not that anyone was on its way now, but we want to have that capability. and it would test out our ability to fly beyond the system and test out this are rare. it's a key step in getting ready. here is a netherlands image of a larger object, and thereby is the s pace station. necessary for preparing to l ong-term. here is the current nasa plan for a base on the edge of the crater.

you get a sense of the size here by noting that these are football fields put down for pin. i think we should go to the moon to stay. often you hear people say we have to get to the moon and learn something and leave. i think that is the wrong approach. we don't need an exit strategy. we need to have a permanent

strategy. the hard thing to do is not to go, it's to stay. we know have to go to the mind. we have gone there. what we have not done is stay there. we know how to get to mars, but we don't know have to stay there. we need to learn how to stay. we also we will learn how to do things that will prepare us. mars that is not a little preparation. the goal of london-based should be a goal in itself. i can't imagine that we even consider ourselves the space civilization if we don't have a base on our nearest neighbor. not that i personally would be interested in going to the space. that's not my science. there are lots of people who find rocks interesting. there you go. it's a good thing to do. it brings me to a philosophical point. i grew up on star trek, the original series, of course. i was always enamored by boldly go. i realize the verb that we need

is not to go. going is easy. the verbal we need is stay. the challenge of space is not to go, it is to stay. we need to boldly state. if you look at what we have done in space, this whole list of things they have come and gone. getting there was easy. making them stay was hard. well, there is the last 75. there is the apollo astronauts. getting them up there was relatively easy. having them stay has been impossible. nasa has got a tradition of thinking that missions have five comments in your lifetime and then that's it. throw them away and do something else. so, yes. we could go to mars. lots of designs that show we could go to mars, but we aren't ready to stay on mars. we will end up doing what we have done before, boldly go and then stop and come back and that's it.

what i want to say is we need to boldly state. how do we do that? the example of one place where we have learned to stay and as a good model that we want to apply, the antarctic. south pole station. it has been operating for 50 years. he continuously. it is not a settlement. there is no majority order elementary schools. but there have been americans in this space for 50 years. last year we did the ribbon cutting ceremony of the new station and it has at 30 your lifetime, design lifetime. so 50 years in the past 30 years in the future, that is and 80 your window on the south pole. that's what i mean by staying. so it was operated for 50 years, mandated by national interest, and geopolitical interests. a government-owned facility,

obviously. but it's operated by a contractor to keep the cost down. originally operated by the navy. it's now operated by brave young. although it is mandated by national interest in geopolitical interactions with the antarctic treaty what we do their is only science. science and only science. completely science driven with peer review proposals election, and the enormous competition to do science. after 50 years antarctica is still interesting. i predict that after 50 years the man would still be interesting. after 100 years mars would still be interesting. these are natural places with natural complexities waiting to be discovered. there will be a lot of interesting discoveries on the moon and on mars. on the man they will deal with rocks and geology and history of the solar system. on mars they will deal with searching for evidence of life. in my view that is even more

interesting and so what do we have to learn? we have to learn how to operate the base for years on and in terms of technology, human factors, life-support, operations. most important lesson we have to learn on the marin is how to transition from an exploration base which may take an enormous fraction to a mature base which becomes a small part of the overall budget. a manned base should be operated, and it should take no no more than 20 percent of nasa's budget to do that. that is going to be a hard lesson. we are going to have to go to a contractor operating base for

transportation. ph.d theses. we continue to manage the program and it persists for 50 plus years. my point is if we can't do that on the moon, if we can establish a long-term based on the moon that is done at a reasonable fraction of nasa's budget and does it for 50 or 100 years we can do it on mars. that is what we need to do. so my conclusion is that we need to be thinking in this long term but. we want to have based on the mars for 50 plus years. that means we want to be able to know that we can do that for 50 plus years. it doesn't mean we wait 50 years to start doing it on mars. and we use the 50 plus years in

antarctica as of programmatic an operational model. that is the end of the talk. at [applauding] questions? >> i can give you this one back. >> chris, as you know, there is an infinite series of preparatory activities that could be advocated to help it as ready to get to mars. and if we allow these to be inserted into our programmatic sequence we will literally never get to mars. now, if we do determine the only way to go to mars is if you say our program is to get to mars.

you do that you design hardware said suitable for sending humans to mars. you could exercise with that harbor set in send humans to a near earth restaurant because there are no elements of a near astrid mission that are extraneous. in other words you don't have to develop anything beyond the marsh harbour said. so in fact you're not being diverted. your just exercising a subset. you could even do of mars sample return on that basis. if you're flying a mars direct mission you could fly and the rv and fly back with the town of samples. but of their base is quite different. of lunar base requires developing a lot of extraneous are rare that is not meant to go to mars. to demonstrate that you can stay on the moon for longer periods

of time requires running a lunar base program for a significant amount of time. really there is a choice here. if you want to go to mars you have to go to mars. if you want to learn to stay on mars you have to go and stay on mars. the resource utilization technologies that will be practiced on mars are completely different from those that would be practice on the mend. in fact have a much more favorable situation on mars in terms of a much richer resource base. water, carbon, nitrogen. much more things you need. thing is this. one could design an orderly mars mission plan. we did not have a separate program to do with the inner orbit space station. we flew apollo eight internet winner orbit as a preliminary

exercise before we send people to the men. the goal was to get to the man with an of very definite time frame and then within the context of that certain other activities were down. using that are rare to gain confidence. in this case want to do the mission or even of very robust sample return. for instance, if you say be have to do a sample return before you go to mars and within the context of the robotic program you design an entire special hardware set to do sample return because of course sample return could be done on a smaller scale than the return vehicle. but if you do that you are in searching -- you are basically saying you can't do that until you do this. and by the way, you can't do that until you do this and this. you never get there. said this is the way to do a coherent program. you want to unify the sample

return to its sabre doing a human program. and you will have a much better sample return and he will delay the human mission and all. >> there are two points. i agree with you fully that sample return has to be put in the context of human exploration. i agree with that. in terms of the manned base i think that i disagree with you in two ways. i think that mars ought to be a goal, but it does not need to be the only goal. we can do a lot more things. we still do telescopes. we still do other things. i think a moon base ought to be a goal as well. i think we can to oppose. i think we can do at moon space, a permanent moon base. >> after we live on mars we can use that as practice for going to the moon. [applauding] >> in any case that could be that it would work out that it

is easier to dumars first. i think it is not. the reason i think it's not is one big fundamental advantage that the moon has over mars in terms of trying to establish a base there first time and that is it is a lot closer. >> that is if you don't want to stay. if you want to leave the moon is more convenient. if you want to stay mars is much more convenient. the reason is there was nothing there worth staying for. >> at think we want to go back and forth. we don't want to -- at least nasa can't accept one-way missions. >> sentence a one-way missions. >> you have to be going back and forth. >> long duration. >> long duration you still have to come back. in terms of an initial base let's imagine in our lifetime -- i don't know about you, but i plan to the for quite a while longer. in our lifetime we want to see bases on the man in mars. acting that should be taken as

our goal. it is not an either or. i reject the view that we can do both. we can do both. we can have bases on the moon, on mars. we can even keep the base and antarctica. all good places to go. so given that the question is which do we focus on first? and a think we are in agreement that of flight and sample return a part of the steps. >> not necessary steps, but they could be done with the marsh harbour said. therefore if it was deemed reasonable -- >> okay. i'd think they're necessary steps. you're not going to establish a base without a piece of dirt. >> we went to the moon without a piece of dirt. >> we weren't establishing a base. that is a waste. i would vote against an apollo

mission. in the mars mission that goes involves very substantial service exploration. no such thing as a footprint mission. a mars mission would involve vast exploration. >> i don't want greater exploration. of what a permanent base. >> anyway, there are the people that want to ask questions. >> the essential argument is a rhythm and pace. i would argue that needs to be in our goals set. >> i think he has taken the wind out of my sails. i am a layman. i still have questions concerning the choices and the priorities that you placed, go to the men first and then go goo

mars. just as a layman isn't it less energy intensive to send a rocket ship to mars than to the moon? you don't need, from what i understand you need more fuel to go to the moon and back then you do to mars. second libau marks is -- once you get there it is less difficult to stay. you have a protective atmosphere. don't you have the ability? you have the atmosphere that you can make oxygen out of to breath which you can't on the moon. and you have the possibility of the protection of that atmosphere. so it would seem -- and the other thing is when you are a

landing on mars isn't it easier to land on mars than it is to land on the month? don't you have more of our risk of missing the moon and going off as they were afraid of doing during the apollo program and going off into space? >> let me address that and more in general ways than just going through your specific points. there are some the advantages and disadvantages. i think it is pointless to debate those advantages in detail. i think that we should plan on, as a goal, have bases in both places. then it becomes a question of which is more feasible at the start, which is easier to do at the start? i think if you look at the problem the moon has one overwhelming advantage that makes it the choice for where you start. and that is it is so close. mars is far. ultimately we do want to have a base on mars. it does use, as you pointed out

that the atmosphere. the moon has different challenges. mars has challenges. the man has different challenges. the motion that a moon base is a role model for a mars base is silly. the moon has one big advantage. that is important forbid testing out and safety. and i think that if you look within nasa the consensus has been the man, and that is the reason. it is not that folks don't like mars. wheel of mars. we want to go to mars. when you look at actually doing it, when you look at actually doing it it is of lot easier to do it first. the metaphor is setting up your tank in your backyard. a lot easier than setting it up in a remote desert.

but the real philosophical point is it is not a distinction. we should advocate as a goal permanent research bases on the mend and on mars. i personally would be more interested in visiting the one on mars. that is the kind of science i do. this is in contrast with the space station. we can do experiments in human construction, but we can't discover new things that are unexpected, that are not the results of these experiments. on the moon or mars mckee go out and discover something else completely unanticipated and an expected. that is what we saw. as part of constellations i get an e-mail from some of the committee. one of the lessons we learned is it is inadequate to utilize.

not enough advance signs. this is a mistake in view. the moon and the space station are not similar at all. on the space station you only get the science out that you put in. that you take with you. there is nothing there to discover. that is not the case on the mend. on the moon all you have to do is send somebody and they will discover what is there. the science approach is very different then on space station so this is a key point in terms of both the science and the man and why it should be a goal. the fact that we may not find science, that is okay. i personally don't find oceanography very interesting. and glad there are people that do and continue to explore the oceans. i devote my career to studying those objects. but that doesn't mean that there isn't a scientific return in oceanography or in a lunar rocks

as well. and a think it is a mistake for us to think that we can only choose one, that we have to choose a moon base of my space and that we can't do both. >> two questions. sense mars sample returned we seem to agree, and a lot of us have thought so far of longtime, a key element in the human presence. do you think that it is better to do a sample return in propellant production that offers of lot of returns in the sense of having many small rockets that test from stem to stern, top to bottom, front to back so that when your astronaut altman it turns the key and wants to come home you have a good rating basis. or do you think it is better to

do a sample return with one single large copy of the earth return vehicle that could be marked up and sent and tested stem to stern and you just don't get as many tests of the return system by that method. the second thing is can't we settled down and stop getting football team about this man in the mars bang. we have got a trade space. we have got a risk assessment. we have got reward assessment. why don't we sit down and if the augustine commission doesn't do it why don't we send them back to try and do it. to the true risk reports didn't on the relative merits on investments in mars. the public and keep it clear and let everyone see what the straits are. because i don't think we have seen anything like that yet. we would love to generated

within the more society. we don't often get the database required. >> two questions. let me get to the sample return. number one should be to test and develop technologies. said to the extent possible you use the same systems. so if that involves isru then use it. the only criteria is that you design your system for human exploration. i'm going to test that on simple returns. number two would be to get as diverse and interesting set of samples back as possible. those of you that design criteria, nothing else would really matter. you keep those principles. >> many the rockets and samples. >> maybe it would, maybe it

wouldn't. it may in turn into a big thing. your second question about how do we come up with decisions and make a case, this is a much more difficult. would you say might be true in an ideal world. in this real world and what happens is there is lots and yelling and screaming. people produce plans and plans are for 20 years. their is a new bout of yelling and screaming. the plans are race. we start over again. it's a wonder we get anywhere. >> the thrust of my question is don't we have the means to do that true risk/reward study on the two targets? >> that is not the way the decisions are made. >> that may be the way the decision should be made sarin. >> i agree. in an ideal world that would be how decisions are made. >> it is our job to idealize the world. it is our democracy. >> well, good luck.

let me know when the world becomes a deal and i will become perfect. >> i think that the position of the scientist is very clear. we need to do a lot of science before we are ready to send humans to mars. then only after scientists are satisfied with that humans get to mars. that is my impression. we saw in the previous presentation five or six spacecrafts'. i think we can cut some of that off and just send humans to mars or send humans to mars when humans are ready not when science is ready. a dinkins can before science is ready. i think science is ready right now we're ready for the humans to go to mars. why do we need to do that first?

i think i agree that we need to have a permanent place on mars. i don't agree that we need to go there when we are ready to have a base on mars. i think we need to go there when we are ready to go there. the last thing, i also don't completely agree. that is another way. so why do we try to go to a near earth asteroid? let's try to go to mars to go to mars. >> okay. i have to points in response. one is, go is a nice birdie, but i prefer state. i say we are ready to stay on mars. and not so interested in just calling. the second point, it illustrates the philosophical point of trying to make. mars cannot be our only

destination. can be an important destination, but it cannot be our only destination. my brother really calls me up and ask what you doing about these near earth objects * that are going to hit my house? he takes it all very personal. so at least for nasa there are more destinations. mars may be first among equals, but we have to recognize that in a sense we want to expand it to the solar system. i think that involves moon and mars. we need a plan that integrates them. we are already doing science on mars. but i would like to see is that science aligned with human exploration. three more. kansas' questions. that was a joke. a great sense of humor. one and then to hear. so will start here and then

here. >> the moon is a bird of psyche. as for mars, not space, colonies. that is why we need. it's all about the terraform project. no later than 2100. >> i have been focusing on the research based, not a colony. what we see in antartica is a recent base. i go on record. government agencies will to establish colony. nasa is a government agency. they may do something which enables someone else to establish a colony, but we are not going to establish colony. we are going to establish a research base just like we did in an arc in. there is no mandate to establish a colony or settlement. only a research base. i think that is the appropriate role for the government program. it doesn't preclude individuals coming behind and establishing a

colony. no one has deemed and darkness suitable for that. in terms of nasa's calls it ought to be to establish a research base. and so i'm not saying we can have a colony. i'm just saying that's not what we'll do. >> my name is george strait. first of all i would like to thank you for coming to the mars society. i think your work is very important. i think your ideas are very important. you should know that i am not a traditional member of the mars society in the sense that i came here to this location from the environmental community. and i think that one of the biggest flaws we have is that as a society we look at mars and we think, well, there is no deadline. >> no deadline. >> no deadline. just because obama or kennedy or

somebody hasn't said we have 10 years to do this. i think there is a deadline. we have to do this before the environment goes belly up. and so i don't think this is a let's-do-it-right situation. this is a let's-do-it situation. >> again. that is that not a problem that we could have a whole discussion on. studying mars will help us work our in our mental problem. the biggest help will come from an attitude change. i appreciate your point. maybe there is a sense of urgency. next question. >> chris, i am a chemical engineer whose job has always been to make things better or cheaper. i really don't think what you think it's easier to establish a base on the mend. my perspective, we have industries moving across the ocean because it's cheaper to make it there, not because they

are in their backyard. from my standpoint of looking at how you supported based it cost us thousands of pounds to ship anything in space. we have to ship all of our supplies to survive to the man. why is it easier to make a base there when we can get this stuff locally on mars? >> it is because the moon is close. i'll say it one more time. the moon is close. the get the detail. that works out to be an enormous advantage in terms of operation, safety, rotating crew, it turns out to be a of really big, big deal. so the gap. last question. >> we've worked together 12 years ago. this is the second time i am here. i must say that i think we have become more and more scared of mars and conventional wisdom has

also backslid, if i may say so. a point here, we don't realize, i think, still today in its bidding wars that space exploration, as e exploration, e have to do everything with space to launch humanity. it is the last dimension that will kick off a boom and prosperity in humanity. that is now not how things are going today. so the sides of the other noble reasons, one very strong reason. secondly i would like maybe to come to the rescue between

doctor and the argument of the moon. why not let -- why are we moving altogether in duplicating things? why don't we let the japanese do the moon. we should stick to mars. you and many other of us have this great practical way of doing it. and i really think -- otherwise we are beating about the bush. [applauding] >> i will just comment, their is a japanese base in antarctica. the u.s. has the biggest bass. the u.s. will have the base based on the mend. that is just the nature of the u.s. [applauding] >> thanks. it was very lively. before i introduce our next speaker says we are running of the late pleased to try to keep

your questions short, concise, to the point quickly said that we can -- so everyone has a chance to ask questions. our next speaker, one of our sponsors here at the conference. the director of business development responsible for aero jets' new business and mass exploration programs. the so i propose in guy who thinks about systems and architecture. based in washington d.c. he is always involved in policy and angles, propulsion and space technology as well. he hopes to stimulate thinking about getting things moving. and then there will be no turning back. so ladies and gentlemen, jocasta be talking about a one-way missions missions to mars. [applauding] >> let's get our technology going here. and i do want to say a couple of

things as i get this thing working and hopefully this is working okay for the guys there on the sound. serendipity is a wonderful thing. this idea of a one-way trip to mars, i called and talked to chris. i did not have any idea that the theme of the conference was going to be no turning back. it's sort of fits. and the discussion that just went on is also a brilliant segue into some of the stuff that i would like to talk to you about today. so i guess -- now if i can just get the slapstick to start. there we go. okay. we jump right into it because i know the other thing, i have the dubious distinction of being the only thing between you all had lunch. so the topic of the conversation is a one-way trip to mars.

what i am hearing out of a lot of folks is an impatience to get to mars. by a understand that. this is the 12 conference. i started working in electric propulsion. i did my master's research in 1981. and my great call at that time was to develop a propulsion system that would take us to mars. i had of a green subaru. my license plate was go to mars. and understand. i am simpatico. the idea of this one-way trip to mars was intriguing to me. i saw several things that had been written about it, and that is why i came up with the idea of wine ago when i knew i was going to be coming to talk about this. i thought i'd better do of the research and find out what is behind this and do is find this. is this just some sort of a splinter group out there that is kind of on the radical fringe? i've looked into it and saw this

list of folks who have proposed this. i said, well, obviously some of these guys have pretty good. it's not just a bunch of crazies out there talking about this. and the idea of going to mars one way, there are a couple of different variations of this. paul davies to i think a lot of you probably have heard of over the years, now in arizona, he has actually given talks where he proposed that this could be done as a kind of popular culture thing like big brother house and we actually sent a crew out there with the cameras and hdtv coming back and check and follow this. and the idea is that they get there. then of course people will pay to keep them alive and keep the thing going on. sponsorships and things like that. so it is another way of figuring out how to pay for all this. there are a couple other folks

who has proposed sending one person, a solo, the spirit of the lone eagle. those of you who have seen the movie rocket man, it sort of brought back to mind. although he had some company. the whole thing with the isolation chamber. and my wife always says she thinks that would do just great because i always laugh at my own jokes. he had the sock puppets. when they opened up the isolation chamber. he was going in there. so, can we keep going. i am not through the second act yet. in , i am not quite sure about the idea of sending just one person. but the buzz aldrin, james cameron, a number of people have to run some weight behind this idea. it is really all about this impatience. we would really like to get things going. maybe if we didn't have to do a two-way trippet would be better. there is -- i will skip quickly

through this one. the approach is really very only slightly in different numbers of crew members. some of the details of the architecture, how you actually manifest the nation and the ships that would get you there, this idea of the philosophy of continued support. could you bring in some kind of public way of doing this rather than waiting for the governments to get their act together. they are all alike in some ways. most of them to look at prepositioning assets, something that we have all been talking about for a number of years. he sent some is are you mad, since a nuclear how plants. when the crew gets there they have a nice warm place to stay and some way of making power and living. also primarily relies. mars has an atmosphere. you can use aero captured.

aerosols'. they do tend to look at a rather large era shells, something that is a bit beyond where we are today. and all would potentially send these crews one and a time with no real return trips. the idea being you could build up an outpost. and over time you could gain the capability. the first folks to go go with the idea that they are not coming back. what are the advantages? one is reduced cost. everybody sees that as one of the big barriers. most of the proponents claim that you could save something like 50-80%. i saw. the other is reduced risk. you know, that is the other thing. he caught the idea by talking to a russian cosmonaut. he worked in a nasa training

with some of the russian nice. he said they just have a whole different mindset. we are very of risk averse. they are ready to go. there was talk back in the apollo days. at one point when we were really, really afraid the russians would get their first there was some colonel in the military. i don't remember which branch, and i will say. all probably offend somebody. he was ready to go. just put me on a rocket and send me. wheel plant the flag first. said there has always been that kind of different mentality, the explorers that are ready to go. they are billing to take the rest. mclean even says in his proposal, well, i'm not talking about the suicide mission. we'll find a way to keep the person alive. we don't have to think about this process of bringing people back. they believe that doubles the risk or significantly enhances the risk. so what i did is i took a look

at that. i said, okay. what does it really mean? does it really say 50 percent or more? and the way and did that, most of the studies over the years that i have seen, the initial figure is about the best one. it's how much mass to you have to take up off of the rockier to get into orbit to get out to mars. the designed reference had about 37 percent of that initial associated with the return trip. that is just it's available document. you can get it and break it down. if you look at this thing and figured you were going to send some additional flights out to resupply and he would not to let the people died that is going to cut into the savings. so i believe the total net savings that he would be able to get out of something like that might only be something in the 25-30% range. that is still reasonable. but i kind of came to the

conclusion that it really didn't say 50 percent more. so the next one was risk. what does it really do? if you're looking at a figure of merit for risk you're probably talking about crew. so really there you need to compare these two some areas. one is -- mclane dallas into this a little bit bit more. i guess it was maclaine and davies. but they believe that the risk was high. that was another high risk. their is a risk for crew on reentry. certainly it has been proven to be the case. and you have additional radiation exposure on the return leg derrick transit that is going to cause a potentially down the road some increased cancer risk and the mortality of the crew. the second scenario is if you leave these people there. a gay. you're not picking them up off the surface of mars and re-entering earth's atmosphere. they live out their lives on

mars. we don't know whole lot about that. there is some on down there. there are things besides radiation. the argument was you can bury yourself down and protect yourself from radiation. but there are other things that we just don't know about. anyway, i went through. you can see on my chart there and not really buying the radiation exposure. i think certainly there are other things that could creep into beat you on the king and of long-term mentality any way. risky, but there are risks that we know about and what to do about. this is that we do all the time. i think you can kind of feel bad. so my conclusion on that one, does it really significantly reduce risk that probably not. so far i am not too keen on this bright idea us. you know, not so much that it would overcome this great

psychological, you know, thing with the public of we are going to send people out there. and then the next thing attack of a cat. in my mind the risk assessment, the biggest risk really entry, descent, and landing. use of the mission guys. whenever you want to call it. six or seven minutes of sheer terror when you are going. okay. and it doesn't get any better as you get bigger. when we start talking about these kinds of missions we're scaling up from where we have been. and of course air bags on the work up to a point. we are going back. going to propose of landing. but with the era sells it gets to be a big problem. you get to start looking at going from about two metric tons to something like tens of metric

tons. we are not even sure we know how. the whole scenario that ec down here have the parachute, pushed the d the era shall, , l, superc hydrocyanic. it works fine up to a point. it is a very different atmosphere. so that is a big risk. and i mentioned on here that we had trunks that were going to be dropped down that were about 60 metric tons. so just to recant, why would anybody proposed this crazy idea of a one-way mission? the biggest thing i see is the barrier of entry. we really think and all have that mars was the next logical step beyond apollo starting back in '72. yet, we have not gone. loads of paper and no mission. okay.

but we all want is to move beyond plans to action. we want to see people on mars in our lifetime. this seems to be a way of removing some of the obstacles, and that is why these guys are looking at it. they believe that the psychological and pediment of sending people one way is not something that is instrumental. there are plenty of people out there who would volunteer to do it. probably some in the audience today. but anyway, what i would like to do now, and i know i'm keeping you from lunch, is talk about the reason that -- oh, i forgot i meant to throw this in. the idea of lots of paper and still no mission. he came up with this a few years ago. it has been true in my 20-plus years in the business. we are constantly doing studies and studies and studies of new launch vehicles because we get to these very ambitious missions and figure the only way we can

do them is to design some great new launch vehicle. .. the other end use of this electric propulsion with some very small tanks that's the end of the propulsion. you don't need big proponent

tanks. but the really neat thing is and i will point out with my red marker here, is each one of these are individual payloads with individual aeroshell. you can break that up now, you don't have to do it in one big thing. remember my comment earlier on edl. we are starting to come down closer to what we used to. you can haul other stuff too. you can have some habitat modules and stuff like that and you make this thing so that it's reusable. of course if you put all this investment it's going to go back and forth. and the last point on this one it also keeps open the option for return, i just couldn't let that go. i would like to tell you i am a smart guy this has been my idea of all that but the fault was if this is so great outcome nobody's ever thought of this? and the fact column here the answer is yes, they have, many

times. 1957 before i was born walt disney and from brawn consult on this movie about going to mars using these big electric space ships and you can see the classical rockets, that was mars dissent in asset vehicle under the electric chip that was going to go out to mars. the russians many times have looked at nuclear electric propulsion for going to mars. in fact when i was working for the air force in the early 80's it was exciting stuff. that's how we got some of our funding for the npd thrusters, we've got to do it too. this is another jp all study done in 1991. but again, all throughout the great idea on paper but we had some technology challenges. so what's changed since 1998? store of here we are in 1988,

here is me with my howarth roster. we are flying shuttles and 88. we had of reusable launch vehicle that could get payload's up, we had a space station designed on the drawing board with something called a will keel and up here you have a hangar. the idea is to cut do assembly and put pieces of spacecraft together in orbit you could send out. at the time we didn't have this in high inclination orbit and that was yet to be decided, and we also had something here instead of just ford will tax we have solar concentrators with sterling power generators. succumb a number of different technologies that it and all manifest themselves that way. and here is our little sadr rang rover with a nuclear reactor and electric thrusters. as of these ideas were there in 1988. something happened that really significantly changed things. one thing in particular was the

fall of the wall. when the wall came down on technology that we didn't know much about called hall thrusters became available in the west and this is a couple pictures here. this is actually one we have recently tested that is 50-kilowatt thruster, 50 kilowatts of power through a thrust and that is us fleering up there. something else that has happened over the intervening time, commercial people have developed very high-powered satellites that are now over our heads in orbit. these are a couple examples of comsat's up to 25 kilowatts. they are working their way towards 50 what -- 50-kilowatt sources or from solar panels and these use electric propulsion routinely now. we've got something like 200 electric thruster's flying on comsat today, and that's been over the period between, like,

1983 until today we have eventually crept up on that type of target. we have also proposed and looked at again the idea of a nuclear electric sister. this was gmo in the early days of the program. this got a little way along and then got sidetracked when the decision was made on constellation to focus on more near-term things, and we build a space station which has something like 70 kilowatts of power, so a number of copper technologies have been significantly advanced and the inner feeding time frame. we are you getting better and better at this stuff and the implications for the design of cahal with gusto and the power technology are that now we know how to do with and what i wrote in 1988 was all pretty conceptual. i laboratory thruster, i didn't

have a power distribution system that would work. all those programs i showed you on the previous pages we've been working on the technology and it's there. its flight type technology now. we are in a skillet mode. we are not quite to the megawatt level but we could get there. so that and something i can across when i was getting ready for this talk there was a 1988 study done by maseth's office of exploration that really, really had excellent overview of mission options, it takes a look at lanier and what you can do with, i said iss, it would be a space station. again, the technology assessment is a little bit dated. they're looking at images and stuff like that. take that and couple it with this technology development we've seen the past 25 years and you might have something. gosh, that's pretty bad but let me just tell you what these are.

there were four case studies done. one was a human explanation of photos, expedition, one was a human expedition of mars, a mother was a lunar observatory, then the final 1i am going to focus most on is the evolutionary strategy. it was a blunder outpost leading to early marzio we will talk about each one of those. i think the first couple are pretty explanatory, the human expeditions' are apollo steel expedition, go out, but on the soil. one didn't go to speak to all the way. it told operation from phobos. the lunar observatory was thrown in as an example something you could do that was scientifically interesting but, you know, and the last is the idea of what does it take to build up to the idea and this i've got to throw

back to chris mckay, but another piece of serendipity. but does it take to go and stay, start changing the verb over to stay? now this is the key chart right here. all right. for different case studies. let's start with -- we won't even look at lanier observatory. let's start with this guy that's got the huge skyscrapers. this guy here is the mars expeditions and you can see why we never go. even here the hastert is right there, large masses of practical, alternatives under investigation. this is the amount of mass that needs to be launched in metric tons per year to support these various missions scenarios so you can see that's the big barrier, the big impediment. now let's look at the phobos expedition, not bad but still jumps up over 400 metric tons per year. the ones i want to focus on these little guys right here. this is the evolutionary

approach where we start off go lanier to mars, take a nice little increase and look at that, we are flat all the way out and predictable. the last thing on this charge check out this was 1988 check out the years we were going to be doing this. so, my challenge or my visas today is why the heck do we keep building on terse to this propellent? the whole thing with the tug concept is right now comsats i showed you, to do the mission without electric propulsion, 60% when you left off earth as propellant so why do we want to keep lifting propellant of the earth? while i did a little searching and found this guy may be some of you have heard of him but i love this quote. there's nothing more difficult to take in hand or parallel to conduct, no more certain and its success and to take the lead in the introduction of a new order

of things because the innovator has her enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions. okay. [laughter] makes perfect sense to me. what i want to say is let's launch a two-pronged attack on the old paradigm. let's look at developing better in space transportation and ways to make and store propellant's of world. i like propellant the post. there are a lot of guys talking about propellent the post in the testimony. you're still taking it from earth, guys, if you are just putting propellant in space you have got to make it out there and bring it then it starts to make sense. my one football analogy when i heard about this propellant idea and guys want to just haul stuff up there that's great but you're still taking it up there. i was watching a football game on time, john madden one of the greatest commentators was watching this game. it was raining like crazy when i

lived in seattle. these guys were on the sideline with a towel wiping the ball and after awhile the towel is soaked and he's wiping the ball with a wet towel and madden says i don't know why he's doing that, i think that he is just stockholm donner. [laughter] so that is what i thought about that. skill stock on dom. so this architecture i am proposing resembles this evolutionary study that they did. basically use an electric tug for anything that isn't essential cargo. take it out there first, taken the potential for using wheelan garrard resources that could be a big thing if you ought to make oxygen on the moon and use that supplement and you certainly would use marcian and resources and phobos as well as martian surface resources and phobos enters and because it makes an interesting mode in the martian orbit. definitely want to update the

cargo tug design for modern power and propulsion technology and i would consider solar electric variant of the cargo tug for cargo in space simply because we've got the technology to do it. you have got plenty of power available and you don't get into the issue of nuclear operation and a corvette. but you are going to hear later on when a nuclear advocate i know people are afraid of it sometimes put reactors are actually better than the radio isotope generators launching now with plutonium so you don't have any issue on the way out. what people don't like is when you talk about bringing a hot reactor back and i can agree with that so there's ways we could work around that. and if you're going to do that the thing that makes sense is develop one reactor designed to work everywhere so you have the same design that will work surface and for these tug. the way you don't spend a lot of money redesigning things.

you've got a common element because that will be a big ticket item. so, here and let's talk through this quick and i know we are getting close and i don't want to keep you from launch to much longer. this is the idea of the cargo flight. launch with a few heavy lifts or whatever you've got and that is my big key. we could make this work with whatever comes out of augustine. if they want to go in between or what they saw it out, whatever they want to go with i think it will work. okay? you're taking up mostly cargo now, not so much propellant, and to use this electric propulsion system to a spiral you out, you get to mars, you come down. remember when you get there how this worked this frame with little individual dies, the stuff that has to go down when you get to the one apparatus you can drop that down. the other quaffing about this you are entering mars's orbit

basically you fly this trajectory all to mars, match velocity nicely, starting to put yourself in orbit. people say how does that work? well, guess what? the europeans just did a few years ago. they flew a hall of roster and works fine. the gravity of the planet captures your nice and slow coming to go into orbit and then you're not screaming and. you're in an orbit around the planet so you drop down with your stuff that needs to get down and it's a little bit easier to get stuffed down to the planet's surface, then you keep on coming down. come on down and go to deimos. that's a nice thing. then you keep on coming down and have some synchronous -- this is the one seóul synchronous orbit. you're guinn to do that any way to get to phobos. drop off a couple of satellites because you've got the saddam, too then go down to phobos and that is your final destination for this guy. you basically plug and there you have got your propellant and

factoring tools you want to use at phobos and start manufacturing some propellant and phobos basically becomes or martian space station. and in the crew comes out in this architecture again, not my idea, a 1988 study done by nasa where you can launch these guys up and there's actually a couple other pieces to this you could do or you don't have to do. my idea is one way to do it, duke nuclear thermal rocket to get the crew out there, it's very effective, it works with the fuel we are talking about and gets a high ips peak. if you want to get through to the production lunar oxygen and that could come back to earth orbit and less stuff you have to launch up from earth. get to mars, rendezvous with a cargo vehicle sitting at phobos. you have the landreneau was holed out with a cargo vehicle and those folks take it down to

mars. everything set up. you've got an infrastructure in place to continue to use over and over again so it does contribute to that idea of how do we stay, not how do we go but how do we stay. and i think i just said all this. the one other point is on this one though is the idea again these things get broken up into small packages. this is a lot closer to what we know how to do and this is. okay. so, let's do some comparison and come back and see how this stacks up the one we mission dies. remember they couldn't get 50% reduction. when i looked at this concept, and again, the comparison was the design preference mission 3.0, 1998, we had 30% reduction in the initial so it's about as good as with those guys could do on the one we mission and the risk for the loss of the crew,

the cause of the edl risk i think we get it cheap sycophant improvement there, too and certainly that's always going to be one of the things in the trade studies in order to get somebody to say yes we can go you've got to deal to convince them it isn't such a high risk thing. so that is a big contributor. the third one the use of the moon, that was a topic we heard a lot of debate about earlier today and i think it means it makes going there mean something because if you do this and go there not only are you going to have hardware experience and things like that we talked about the people have been talking about with constellation, the you can make something that's actually useful for going to mars and it's a piece of the overall plan for getting to mars and staying. and it is an evolutionary method. i think that is what the other big things we have to look at is a brick stuffed down. one of the lessons we learned out of electric propulsion, when

i was working on the mpd thrusters and people had been working on engines for years and years couldn't get them flying. the first thing that flow, the very first electric foster in 83 was eight hydrazine resistant jet because it used the same propellent the satellite already have on board and didn't need much power. if it. so you've got to take sep steps and once we did that we worked at the hydrazine jets and are now flying in thrusters and engines suites pricking them down a little bit at a time. you take when you can get and then you wait yourself in and go a little further. then the last thing is it gives the opportunity for international cooperation. that cannot be a little bit in the questions last time but i will show you the idea of the map and i think all of these are things that are going to be considered. what i'm looking for right now in these options i am asking about, some of these are very important things and the technologies that we need

definitely a nuclear power, i don't think you're going to go out away from the sun without nuclear power and basis, there's so many issues with surface power. i eckert spirit and opportunities talk the other night about the dustin and you always got the issue of the seasonal variation. some nuclear power is the way to go. i would like to see us develop a nuclear thermal rocket because it is a good way to get crew out there. it will give you their reliably at a high ips peak, about 800 seconds, 800 to 900 seconds which is about double of what we can do it hydrogen oxygen. we need to scale the technology but that is what it is a scale. we, are there. that stuff works. it's a very nice if roster. ips are you technology would be available for this at phobos and the martian surface, and again the idea is you could do this

with demonstration. you could do a simple return this way and demonstrate some of the isru technology for you go to this mission. you look at propellant transference in storage i think that the deimos guys are pushing that, too. he would look at crew habitat, and fire matt kunkel, surface mobility. all of those are, in any way but in terms of me being a proportion guy you see of the tops of this proportion. so here's the road map, how do we get there from here. okay start today. tenure to the land of nuclear reactors again, common element. we need those for the surface and the tug. hall thrusters scale up we could do in five or six years and we would be where we need to be for about a megawatt class vehicle. put that together and you could do eight lunar demonstration. here's the solar electric. we had this program backend 2005. it got canceled with the advent of the constellation stuff but

who knows maybe it will come back. but that's all real stuff right there. that is a one eelv launched to get there and then the cargo comes up and what ever launched vehicle you want to bring it up and boxwood orbit and to fly round trip to the moon in a year, drop the cargo of, come back and fly another trip. basically you have got ella tug a year that can go back and forth to the moon. build a couple and you have a tug every six months. you could start running back-and-forth to the moon and with -- you're talking about an isp now on the hall thrusters of 3,000 seconds and by not talking about something working in a while, i am talking about flying spacecraft right that on the moon and by the way, you see the

flag. this is the international partnerships. i was a part of a delegation in russia in 2006. they have tremendous interest and facilities sitting there for during reactor development for both the reactor itself and for nuclear rocket technology. they didn't shut their program down as early as we did so their facilities were in better shape. hours and nevada are starting to fall apart so anyway, really interesting things you could do. esa i mentioned earlier the 40 flown to the moon and are interested in solar electric propulsion and would be an ice partner. the japanese somebody mentioned earlier, anything to do with making propellant on the moon, and construction on the moon, you can get japan to help with that. you have got the propellant storage and transfer development. in space, people want to do that anyway. so you can see how it comes together and by about 2025 or so you have got everything in place

we need to do the mission. so i think this is an approach would build toward a permanent human presence on mars. i think it is a kind and gentle approach that if someone wanted to come home they could or if in the case of the reality show if they got a vote of they just don't have to go to phobos or something. the major hurdle of the entry descent and landing is addressed with this and fits within the sort of structure of what is being referred to as the flexible exploration scenario. chris mentioned primitive bodies are in the air with asteroids. you could certainly use it as a donato mission for this approach, too. fly out there. i thought it was pretty neat that of ron and sitting there next to it, we worked on five program and i can remember talking to the adl.

they crept on it and kept getting closer and closer and studying the gravity and i don't know if you'll remember but it was not a lander, okay, it was a spacecraft, truly a spacecraft. it had solar arrays that went out in a shape and finally with a discount on a real close and let's see if we can just go in and touch it. they did, they touched down on the body of the spacecraft and silver panels and landed near the asteroid so astrid's car coal that way, you don't have to do special lenders. finally i will just leave you with a fault if we did is we could break the lock that chemical propulsion and heavy lift has as the holy grail and develop a true space fairing infrastructure. tug very much. [applause] i forgot the pretty pictures. i brought these because 1986 at the mars conference pat rall ringsted these pictures and there is the tug at phobos and

there's the propellant rigs set up and these guys are making propellent on mars. thanks. [applause] yes, questions. i'm sorry. yes? >> what kind of propellent production can you do that blood work with a whole thrust or what kind of on tsp are you getting out of that with methane or whatever? >> called the restaurant right now is hall thrusters it is such a small amount of propellant i would go ahead and bring it up. it's not the big driver. the big drivers are the hydrogen, oxygen, methane, those constituents for chemical rockets which would be used for lenders and the crew propulsion. so i wasn't really looking at doing isru so much for that, although you could start to look at that as you evolves. he would have to look at trace elements in the martian

atmosphere. you could run these things on argon. they typically like noble gas. any gas would work, eckert on. >> there's a fair amount of argon on mars. >> yeah, argon would work but i would see that as an evolutionary thing. initially he would bring this scene on from earth that you need. thanks. yes? >> a couple questions. when you have a large chart about all of the mass is going to mars, was that study predicated on using your use for resource propellants? >> that's a good question -- >> i don't think it was. >> the one that had the big bump was the expedition, right? so you wouldn't do that -- >> that's the problem. >> but mine that i compare to, the reference mission did look and also i forgot to mention that. it had nuclear thermal rockets for transportation. >> what propellant's do you build on phobos? >> phobos is probably a

carbonaceous chondrite so you could make hydrogen and oxygen of people are right about it and all the way back to carl sagan people have been saying it looks like a carbonaceous chondrite, so, yeah. it's perfect for rocket fuel. >> okay. and then final question, can't you test your edl systems here on earth? >> no, no. mars has surprised us consistently with what we thought mars atmosphere what do -- there's some really good articles -- ghosh, i can't think of the guy's name. maybe somebody here remembers the guide that is designing the pure shoots out of gbl. but that is one of the things that has been poking up in my mind over the last couple of years they are real worried about getting nasa is down on mars -- >> well, hear me out. >> okay, sorry. >> why can't you test them by flying to stagnation at 100,000 feet? then the only enter the out side of the earth's atmosphere, you fly to stagnation at the huge

altitude as mechanically equivalent unsettling down on the surface of mars. and there are so many scenarios how to decelerate a large mass, i don't think anyone who knows mechanics is going to claim that you can't find a trajectory that takes an arbitrary large mass to stagnation on the surface of mars. when you have to do is find out how to match the deceleration is to what you need at the trajectory. we can test all this in the outer atmosphere of earth, can't we? >> it may be. i will defer to someone who has a better, you know, deceleration expert. i just know that has been a concern that is being raised, even a whiff msl. >> it is so much to take and, so i am wondering whether there is going to be a copy of your address available in the society? >> actually it will be out in

about half an hour on this table over here. we have recorded the entire conference. yeah. >> thank you very much. [applause] justin note on that there are two versions of the mars, one following robert and the other following j.j. so there's two versions of that available out there. >> hall thrusters. that was a great talk again, and i don't want to hold you up from lunch, please be back here are now 1:00 we are going to have a big panel and i mean that quite literally -- [inaudible]