hurt their business later on down the line. when we talked with congressman thornberry, he was saying he preferred incentives over top-down regulation. do you agree? is. >> guest: i think it has to be a combination of the two. certainly, we have to have better and stronger regulation. our incentives won't accomplish what we need to accomplish, but where we can collaborate and encourage through incentives, we should certainly do that. >> host: and another problem that you've identified is a shortage of trained professionals who can deal with this ever-evolving and growing threat of cyber attacks. how big of a problem is this going to be for us later on down the line? >> guest: yeah. i'm so glad that you raised that point because that's another area that has to be addressed. we don't have enough people with the right skills and talents to go into the cybersecurity field right now. the director of the clandestine information technology office at the cia had said going back a

couple of years ago that we only have about a thousand people in the country that can compete at a world class level in the area of cybersecurity, and what we really need is somewhere between 20 and 30,000. so, um, there's clearly a need. i'm trying to address that in a number of ways in particular. we just had a study done at the pentagon to identify the skills that we need and the career path for those people that would go into that field. but also we created the cybersecurity challenge at the high school level, and we're collaborating with the sands institute and creating that program, and it's running in several different states now. but it encourages young people to think about a field in this, in cybersecurity. we put them through the paces, different challenges, um, and a program that lasts about a couple of months. but it's not only about taking something that's just a hobby and using it for fun or, you know, for school work but harnesses these talents and skills that may eventually lead

to a successful career for students. >> host: now, congressman langevin, jennifer raised with congressman thornberry the issue of the budget issue. with everything going on in washington right now, omb estimates that about $12 billion is spent government wide on cybersecurity, prevention efforts. do you see this as a problem in the future, getting enough money to protect from cybersecurity, substance abuses, attacks -- intrusions, attacks, etc. ..

>> guest: most of it's been kind of encouraging and collaboration across the departments and agencies. but he doesn't really have the authority for the sake of going to olympians same this isn't doing what it needs to. we need to take some measures to make sure they are held accountable. >> host: and also i would ask congressman thornberry about the house gop freshman have been very outspoken about how they are against anything that will increase spending. you were saying the budget will impact the type of legislation that is moving through the house. do you see this as a possible

issue that democrats are going to have to tackle later on down the line? >> guest: clearly come if we don't address threats to her own cyber networks,.gov, or encouraging the private sector, that would be penny-wise and pound-foolish because the damage that can be done and that already is being done in terms of the amount of data theft that we're seeing is costing us dearly right now. and so it's much more effective to do those up front than wait, to make sure with a robust cyber defense on our networks, and in obviously we will see things that are costing us now at a different level. >> host: what did you think of the pentagon's recently released cyber strategy? >> guest: the rollout of the pentagon cybersecurity strategy, i want to thank the secretary for his work and leadership on

this, and a variety of other key players at the pentagon who all had a hand in bringing forth a strategy. it was a good move in the right direction. what i was concerned about is it didn't identify, it didn't go far enough in identifying what we consider to be an attack and what our response will be. the pentagon responds they want -- there's some ambiguity right now. it keeps the bad guys guessing, if you would. but because the threat is so serious and the damage can be so catastrophic, i think it's clear we need to do more in identifying if what we see as a cyber attack, there is no, what is our response going to be. >> host: , and finally, congressman langevin, how to thread the needle legislatively when it comes to keeping up with technology, protecting privacy

and addressing some of the concerns, the group such as the u.s. chamber have expressed about this heavy handedness of a proposal which may hinder business? >> guest: that's where collaboration comes into play. this would have to be a public-private partnership, and privacy concerns have to do at the forefront of our thinking and our conversations about all of this, and not an afterthought. the more we engage the privacy, and have them as part of developing the strategy is a way of -- criticism our problems, but again, it's an ongoing effort. cybersecurity issued is a moving target, so it's difficult to stay one step ahead of the bad guys but we do this best again by information sharing and collaboration. >> host: congressman langevin

ranking of unarmed services subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, and also cofounder of the house cybersecurity caucus, and jennifer martinez of politico. thank you both for participating in our series on "the communicators" on cybersecurity. >> guest: thank you. >> them next a discussion on a pilot program that uses digital technology and life string of trial court proceedings. then a forum on the future of nasa with the space agency scientists and engineers. after that how science, space and technology committee member don edwards also speaks to the nasa forum.

>> next a look at a pilot project exploring the use of digital technology and live streaming for trial court proceedings in a quincy, massachusetts, courtroom. the officers host this hour and 15 minute discussion. >> i am drafting people. okay, one quick announcement and then i'm going to turn things over to chris davey. lawyers -- requires you to fill

out the root if i wish and four. it's in your packet. make sure you grab it, fill it out and turn it into the front desk before you exit. at any rate, very briefly i wanted to introduce chris davey, public information officer for the state of ohio. he is going to be the moderator for the open court project. it's fascinating stuff. i have known chris for a couple of years. i always get e-mails and see news materials about the wonderful work that he is doing and his committee is doing. and i'm really looking forward to a fascinating discussion. chris. >> thanks, ben. good morning, everyone. we've already had a full morning and went quite a bit ahead of us yet so we will jump right in to our discussion about this innovative program that is connecting a trial court in massachusetts with the public they serve with the hope of supporting trust and confidence

in the judicial branch. it's been mentioned a couple times that there was a conference similar to what we have been discussing this week, last week in atlanta with the chief justice is in the state court administrators on the topic of new media in the courts. i thought i would open with some remarks that were given by richard griffith, vice president of cnn, who close last week program in atlanta with a speech about the importance of connecting what courts do with the public being open and transparent for the purpose of supporting trust and confidence in the system. and what richard was discussing specifically was something that has come up several times this week at the conference of court public information officers which is real market declined in the traditional, sometimes they use the term legacy news media in covering the courts. and i know judges who, at one

point the reporters as somewhat of a nuisance, who now look around and say where are they. and their understanding since they disappeared, and literally disappeared in some spots, that we need them and we need to have vehicles for communicating to the public what we do. and richard griffiths, after outlining this problem for chief justice's and state court administrators in this speech, he closed by saying this brings me to my radical final proposal, if the public does not have the opportunity to learn about what happens in court through traditional routine reporting, why not leapfrog the media and open of all court proceedings to the public by streaming over the internet? the technology is here and getting less expensive by the day. while some judges remain nervous about cameras in the court,

others are very comfortable with the presence of a couple fixed video cameras streaming all proceedings on the web and keeping an archive, may be the ultimate and ultimate. well, there are some folks that are redoing and we'll hear from them here this morning. our panelists are all from the state of massachusetts and they're involved in this program to do exactly as richard griffith at cnn has suggested we explore, connecting the court directly with the public. we have joan kenney from the massachusetts supreme judicial court. she's a public information officer at that court. joan is a former public relations executive, and has spoken in eastern europe and russia about matters related to the administration of justice. with his also is judge mark coven, the first justice of the quincy district court in quincy,

massachusetts. judge coven has been a judge for over 20 years, has been on the quincy district court since 2000 has been an extensive author and law journal articles on a number of different topics. finally, we have john davidow, executive editor of new media in boston. and john is the 2010 recipient of the knight news challenge grant to do this very program, and so we are going to start with john who will give us an outline of what they've done there in quincy, and then we'll hear from our other panelists and open it to discussion. john? >> thank you. that was very interesting about richard griffiths. i think the best thing to do is rather showed until. so let me just see if we are up alive right now. and, indeed, what is coming out

of there. and naturally we are flat line right now. [laughter] but like every good news producer i have a backup. [laughter] so let me get that out. and this is from our archive from august 2. you will notice a very familiar face on the bench. and we can always come back and check it later. but these are guys. oakley the internet stream will be bad enough. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> so you get the idea. and i don't how much i want exposure to a. you've all seen court action, but that is essentially what open court does every day, whenever the court is in session, whenever there is a judge on the bench. i know i'm not speaking into any of the mics specifically, but canyon in the back of the rim? and exactly what chris was talking about, the reason for open court was exactly that, was to address the fact that there were less and less court reporters, people covering the courts. there used to be these things called reporters and they work for things that used to be called newspapers. [laughter] and there's just less and less of what is out there. ironically at the same time that

the bridge, those reporters that brought was going on into the courts, the individual citizen journalist, or just the individual is now equipped with smartphone technology that can do pretty much what we in the electronic me have been able to do for a very long time. record, videotape, even lifestream right off of a smartphone. i didn't have a chance to go, but obviously they can blog entry and facebook almost anywhere at anytime. so when the founders initially thought about how the judicial system was going to be, the idea was that it was going to be open and it was going to be public. and i always think about that movie, "to kill a mockingbird," where the entire community is piled into that court. the courtroom that was built in the center of town, and now that life has become more

complicated, less and less of us have any reason to be in touch with what is going on in the courts, we understand them less. and now with less reporters out there, there seem to be in need to bring the courts to the people. and that's exactly what open court does. and fortunately we were able to convince a lot of people that this was a pretty good idea. i am on, along with joan, on a committee called the supreme judicial court media judiciary committee. and you can tell that title was picked by a jurist as opposed to a member of the media. we would never get that many words. but it is essentially made up of members of the bar, members of the press. and members of the court. who sit there and off the record discussion, i think it's been going on for about 10 years. it is presided over by a member of the media and a member of the

state supreme judicial court. and it's a place where we can discuss issues off the record and talk about camera in the courtroom issues, all of the kinds of things that come up between the media and the courts. and i'm sure there are similar organizations around the country and jurisdictions where you live. that's were i took idea. the knight foundation has an international competition that all they really wanted was to inspire our innovative ways to cover the news, to use digital technology, to do it in a shareable way. and basically to make sure it is local. and we enter this competition and we are fortunate enough to get a court of a million dollars grant from the knight foundation to set up this technology. so those of you are wondering whether money is coming from, it's coming from not the state,

not fashionable, indirectly, the reader, but really it's something that is funded up by the knight foundation. so as we're formulating this idea, and there's about 25 members on this organization, if we, we have to present and prepare for this organization. and get their buy-in. and it was a formal vote made up of the members of that organization. they busted. actually it was 100%. there were no dissenting votes. and at the time it was suggested that we need to find a courtroom to do this. and the courtroom that was sort of picked by this committee was the quincy district court where judge coven is the chief justice. and the reason for that was i think they wanted a very busy, very active court, one that was

proximate to boston, and honestly the quincy district court's has always had a history of innovation going back, you know, at least two or three decades. and i'm sure judge coven can talk about that. at the same time, that we got the blessing from the media judiciary committee, and once we got our funding we set up a board of advisors. there's no fiduciary responsibility but by the end of this conversation you will know i have no legal background at all. and so we needed to bring in lots of voices to help us figure out how this is going to work from a very practical standpoint. so on our board of advisors is a justice from the state supreme judicial court, the president of the state bar association, a representative from the state district attorneys association, the top of victim witness advocate at the attorney general's office, a woman who

runs a company called place blogger that oversees 6000 hyperlocal new sites across the country, a du law professor specializing first amendment issues, and the chief counsel for the state district court. so it's a very representative group, and their goal is really to keep us sort of listening as was possible not to grant any of what we're doing down anybody's throat. the last thing was we set up a quincy to support working group, and this is really under the judge coven. judge coven insisted that from the very beginning we get all the courts stakeholders involved, and that's the clerks, the court officers, that's the district attorneys who appear, the public defenders, the victim witness advocate, citizens, the

press to cover the courts. all of those people are on the working group on and after our first meeting in december when we started rolling this out, we met subsequently a number, many times, just to go over some of the issues that are sort of obvious when you bring something so different to a courtroom that has been doing something so much the same over the years. so lots of communication and lots of listening, and at the same time, hopefully a few answers along the way. one of the more interesting things that we were able to set up is, and judge coven on july the chance to talk about this, is that we like to refer to ourselves in some ways as a dump pipe. all we are is the way to get the signal and what is happening out of the court. we do not bring our editorial

side to what goes in that pie. the judges still control the courts. and that's what i've actually demonstrating to you. we do have a producer in the court at all times but that's because we are a pilot. how we envision this is that the court, the judges who preside over the court would determine when the stream goes on and when the stream goes off. and judge coven controls the stream, and very often we have two laptops, one on the bench and one by where we set. and he will control the bench. excuse become he will control the camera from the bench. the microphones, and there are signs all over the courtroom talking about this as a pilot program, and our microphones are actually plug into the court system. and that's really only so we don't have to continue to lay out why her everyday, and the idea is terrific coming out of the court. in fact, if you were sitting in court you really can't hear as well as if you're listening to what is already the court

recording system. and the signs are by the defense attorneys, by the district attorneys, at the witness box, whatever anybody would be speaking. we also demonstrated in the courtroom where there were dead zones, where the attorney-client privilege would not be compromised. so before we even started we brought all the stakeholders into an anti-courtroom and did mic checks and walk them through. this is all part of the preparatory process that really needed to be done. we also come through going with our board of advisors and with our quincy stakeholders, we started feeling out some of the obvious pain points, where not everything was going to be immediately live streamed. in massachusetts, there is

statutory requirements, that's the cameras in the courtroom law. and essentially there are very clear to define things that just are not shot by any members of the media, for dyer, juvenile sessions, again, joe who manages that will be happy to describe specifically what those are. and then we started talking about what is the judicial discretion, what can we agree on as a committee and the stakeholders who want to see this work. and 1-19 talks a substantial likelihood of harm. so again, that's the judges discretion. also, the people who are in the stakeholders were worried about witness protection, people who came forward, victim protection, would this keep people from going before the court, either due to legal status, domestic violence, what were those cases that the cameras should go off and what would be the procedure to do that, bench conferences.

all of these kinds of things were anticipated, and with the idea that we did not want to keep people from going forward. one thing that we decided to do before even going in, this is at the suggestion of the justice from the supreme judicial court, not to do in domestic violence cases unless there is a criminal complaint associated with them. because we didn't want to run before we walked and learn about the issues. we also set up a wi-fi network, which is for citizen journalists. so the entire court is wi-fi, there's an area where you see priority seating, where citizen journalists can sit and blog without disturbing what is going on in the court. honestly, we haven't done that much of that, and i just want to sort of talk you just briefly about the future of where open

court is going to go. our funding -- first of all, we went on line a second so this is making, we started getting this up and going right in the gut our funding, november 1. i hired two very accomplished journalists who have an incredible digital skills to work with me, and i have been very fortunate. but the future of that will be eventually once we have the mechanics out of the way, and it was a lot of sowing the seeds of this, we are going to take those people who i hired to start covering what is going on in the courts, highlighting cases, creating a place where the citizen journalists can engage with them, moderate that coverage of the citizen journalist. train citizen journalists. i think more and more we're asking that question, who is a journalist? what is a journalist?

and joan can talk about the new cameras in the courtroom conversation going on in massachusetts that's up for public comment, because it now makes room for a citizen journalists in addition to a professional journalist. we also want to create more of an educational opportunity. there's an organization called discovering justice in massachusetts that teaches civics in courts for elementary and middle school students. we want to be engaged in the quincy public schools curricul curriculum, blankets and. and i know this is something that's important to justice coven. we also want to address a huge issue, which is the real benefit to what we're doing, or a which is putting out data for david's sake? what is going to be the way to quantify the impact of this project, how is the public being served collect all of those

types of things. so we are looking for ways to sort of quantify this experience which is a challenge. and then finally, we want to do a better job chronically in legal journals and working with the berkman center, the cyber law clinic, hopefully ben's organization, to start publishing our experience and sharing what we have learned with other people to the case study law that comes out. and then finally create some sort of media judiciary resource center, where we can take what we have learned and help propagate it around the country. so with the end of that, those remarks, let's check one more time on the court and see if we are live, just to prove that i'm not making this up. [laughter] >> let's just see. [laughter] >> they are on spent well, i

will keep an eye on it, and we will see if we can find something going on. that's the end of my prepared remarks. >> thanks john. are there any questions for john? [inaudible] >> is that one fixed camera? >> yes. that angle. and i'll go back and show it to you, is a fixed camera. but i think your question really is, let's say there's a disruption in the court. we will -- unit, we didn't give up our journalistic credibility and agree to not move the camera if necessary to end with two journalists in the court at once, our job in general is easy with the public sees. we are not, if there's something seated in court, that's a public place. so we are not considered locked down to that position.

but for the most part that's the practical shot. we've had to move it to shoot arrangements -- arraignments better in a stairway because of identity issues or downstairs. so it's not fixed fixed, is the answer. [inaudible] >> yes, and they are. there is a pool camera as well in room 119 which joke and talk about, which provides for the on the next page. [inaudible] for lecturing about our people are visually impaired? >> we have not. and i think, speaking of that, i can't see it. sorry. [laughter] we should. and right now in massachusetts that not as big a priority as it is, in for example, california. where it is mandated.

but it is something we should object to consider and i think is probably again one of those cases where we are walking before we run. obviously, that would impact our funding. it's an actual question. >> but it's not only an important question, if not only people who are physically challenged, but we have in quincy probably 20 different dialects. and so, to the extent like the other day we had hearing-impaired interpreters there. they are all covered life. the same thing with our language interpreters. you are all covered life. so you get the sense of what's happening in court. >> i need to remind everybody in the audience, because -- you need the mic before you ask a question i make a comment. who is next?

>> i which is what how closely you watch her analytics -- your analytics? i'm a journalist. [laughter] >> if we were in it for the hits, we would be in another business. but surprisingly so, at any given time it is up to 100, 150 people watching that lifestream, which actually isn't surprising. when there is a newsworthy event though, i mean, you can see that. a lot of it is pretty mundane. when there is a newsworthy event, our stats do go out. we tweet and we're not really posting -- posting much of facebook, but we tweet throughout the day explaining what is going on. and in terms of followers. so there's a case that has gotten a lot of interest out of the quincy district court. and i've had a number of journalists tell me that they're not going to court, they're just watching our stream.

and you know, that's part of what we figured, that would add to the efficiencies and add to the -- that's helping access for the journalists to be there. i wouldn't say it's the best way to do it, but it might be a practical way to do it. so our stats are not horrendous. we are on the quincy patriot ledger website. we are on "the boston globe" website. we are on wc bb affiliates website him and that was part of -- they're all member's of that media judiciary committee, and have agreed to do that. and then i'll just ask, answer the obvious question. so if you're online, what you do about comments because comments can be toxic? we don't allow comments on our lifestream. we did not want to do mystery science theater. [laughter] we don't want people talking about hairdos, clothing, any of

that. so again, that kind of conversation came out of the working group. you know, they were worried about that. we had to anticipate all of those kinds of things. you can't just put a stream of an not think about those things. >> john, this is -- what's the projected model? is a commercial? is it court financed coverage, assuming that it is a viable and you want to see it in our courtrooms in massachusetts? do you see a commercial or do you see it in some way state or municipally financed? >> i think what i imagined -- it's a very good question. what we imagined was that we asked for two years of funding from the knight foundation to demonstrate best practices. to show how this was done,

create almost a toolbox for other jurisdictions that would want to do this. and that's the sort of goal. we never thought there was much of a sustainability model, or as a business. on the other hand, this is where things are going and we feel that we can be a resource for that. and in my imagination of where this would be going is, 20, 30 years ago there was no such thing as a victim witness advocate in the courtroom. those were funded by federal grants. and now they are a fixture, at least they're a fixture in massachusetts courts. i can't imagine a time when the will be -- i can imagine a time with a ba digital media access advocate who will play a role within state government, that would inevitably come out of a project similar to this one, not

necessarily this one but i do see that the need is only going to grow, as opposed to diminish. >> actually i have two quick questions. what would you estimate the cost was for the single courtroom set up? and secondly, what do you do about jury? >> we don't show jurors. >> are you shooting over the heads of the jury box? >> i'm not even sure where the jury box is in that court. where is the jury box? >> we don't do trials in that session. we do trials upstairs, and the cameras are only in the main courtroom we don't do trials. >> is a single courtroom to our goal obviously it would be in all five courtrooms there. that way the court can't take cases and move them around to avoid the camera, which can happen. but your first question again?

>> costs. >> short money would be the best way to describe it. the cost of video, equipment, unicom we had to lay out for camera. we were starting from scratch so we bought computers. the wireless cost was pro--- not your basic cable service. and i will tell you why. it's because quincy, a major city in a major metropolitan area had no digital access. they are taking up the street. there's no, whatever you call it, broadband there right now. so we actually had to sort of pull off a stunt to get our signal out of there with something that is shooting off the roof. we didn't anticipate that. and a normal circumstances, we would've just plugged into a service. and even, we couldn't get the broadband without verizon.

little things like that add cost to put the string costs are not prohibited. the biggest and only serious expense right now are the two journalists. and believe me, they are not considered a very expensive, and i wish i could give them more. >> let's turn now to joan kenney from the massachusetts supreme court. and joan, why don't you tell us from the courts perspective some of the challenges you face and have you move forward with the program. >> well, this program has been just an amazing program for us. and one of my roles is to help inform the various courts throughout this system what's going on. everyone has heard about this project in quincy, but there's a lot of curiosity about it. and they want to know, is this coming to my court, and exactly what is happening in quincy. so part of my role is to communicate internally with the various court leaders and court

staff throughout the system, to explain what is going on. i have to say john's staff that he hired to produce the programming every day are just absolutely top notch, unicom highly trained journalists. and i think that is made all the difference, too, to make this program so worthwhile. and the staff and -- at quincy district court and the judges who have been involved in this program have been outstanding, and just so cooperative and supportive. having that working group that john talked about and getting all of the stakeholders together early on was absolutely essential. if you were to ever start this program, i mean that is the model he would want to follow. but quincy district court was the perfect choice i think for this pilot project. and how it is helping me on a

parallel track, as john mentioned, there is this judiciary media committee -- [inaudible] >> sorry. i guess -- last night. >> so there really is life. >> lie that quincy district court. [laughter] >> that is the judge. >> i understand -- >> it is not just a judge coven. >> would you like me to appoint them on this one as well? is there an issue of bail? >> we have agreed to a 5000-dollar cash bail. >> so there you go. sorry about that. it just sort of popped up. >> i think that's great. we are getting live proceedings from quincy district court. what i was about to say is on a

parallel track, the judiciary media committee was looking at our existing rule of cameras in the courts. and we were asked to see what changes could be made to it, to update those rules which have been in existence since the late '80s. and those rules of course it started out as an experiment, do. so we have the judiciary media committee is doubtless a subset of that group, and we brought in some of the people throughout the court system, call it the rule of 119 committee. and there will 119 committee has made some proposals that go back to the full-court pickup full court has set them out for review, or excuse me, for comment at that comment period is over now but it went back to the rule 119 committee where it is to review those comments that were received and to see what adjustments should be made. now, let me tell you what the proposals are.

first to step back you need to do what our current existing rule is, cameras in the courtroom. and that is if presumptively open, meaning all of our judicial proceedings, or most of our judicial proceedings are open. the judge does have discretion. john mentioned the threshold is substantial likelihood of harm. if the judge finds that there is substantial likelihood of harm, the judge can either suspend or limit what the coverage would be. currently, one td camera and one still camera are allowed in the courtroom. and it is a pool camera situation. they stay stationary in one spot. i think some of you have similar rules in your courtrooms. and this is working very well over the years. we have had very few conflicts with it.

but obvious in now with a changing media landscape, judges were asking for guidance because they were getting requests from nontraditional media people asking whether they could bring in a camera. so judges and clerks were calling my office and saying what should we do? this doesn't quite follow our rules, but can i do it? so there was a lot of, there were a lot of people looking for advice about what to do. and that's what brought -- i brought the agenda to her judicial committee. what we have come up with right now, and again i want to stress that this is due in a discussion stage. we will be having a meeting in a few weeks to discuss it more. we've had several already but the news media, you know, we had a lot of discussion, robust discussion about who is a journalist, what is a journali

journalist. and this isn't the exact language but the news media would be defined as those who are regularly engaged in the reporting and publishing of news or information about matters of public interest. so this would definitely include citizen journalists and bloggers to meet this standard. then we had a discussion about should we register them, or should they be credentialed? and after looking at all the pros and cons we came up with the idea that this should be, there should be a registration process. and one the of the reasons for that is that nontraditional bloggers or citizen journalists, you know, may not understand the rules. so my office is not going to be credentialing anyone, but people will have to register and they will have to say, fill out a form that can be downloaded from our website that would say i

have read rule 119, this would be the new rule 119, and will abide those terms. and then they will sign it and they will be registered. so i am not checking to see whether they are a blogger or a journalist. they are certifying that they are. now, the judge will still have discretion to decide whether that journalist or blogger can come in to the courtroom. and even if they are not registered, the judge would have discretion. so there's a lot of room there. we are also anticipating that there would be a third camera allowed in the courtroom, and that third video camera would be for webcasting or live streaming. not live streaming, but streaming a video. so they would be the tv camera that is allowed now, the still camera, and then the third camera.

we've also changed -- we're not calling it cameras in the courts now. it would actually be called the electronic access to the courts, because it really goes beyond cameras. we are talking now about having laptops and mobile devices in the courtroom as well. and those of course would be allowed under this new proposed rule. so those are just some of the highlights. there are many other things in the rule, and if we get to questions, you know, i'm happy to answer those. thank you. >> i'm sure there will be more questions but i would like to suggest we have put justice coming in an unusual position which is to ask them to speak last. judges are not accustomed to that. so let's, we've heard from the perspective, we've heard from the supreme court's perspective. justice, what can you tell us about how this program has worked out in the courtroom there? >> if i could just back up a

second, provide a little historical context your in massachusetts, in the district courts, our proceedings were not even audiotaped until 1975. prior to that time there was no record, at least audio recorded record of the proceedings in the court. judges loved that. virtually everything you did was not a peelable because there was no record of what you were doing in the courtroom. [laughter] judges considered their courtrooms and the court houses their sole domain, not the public's domain. key, and was almost all he, judges, male judges in 1975 could act arbitrarily, unfairly without any equal protection come if they chose to do so. so, fast forward 35 years later. as everyone of you know, as the

public knows we're in a time of deep cynicism towards all institutions for government, one of which being the judiciary, and i have total confidence that, and it's been my position, that the more people actually know about what the courts do, the more trust and confidence there is in the judiciary as an independent branch of government. i'll give you just do a very practical examples. probably every public information officer in this room has had to deal with an issue of bail and when bail has gone bad, something terrible has happened, a person have been released by a judge on bill.

i've written about veils before. i publish articles. i've had op-ed pieces in "the boston globe" and boston globe. other judges have as well. and i remember the first day we went online, went live on this in may. there was a wonderful bail argument, i'm in just a very professional argument between the prosecutor who is seeking a bail and a defense attorney who was explaining what the purposes of bail is. and that is in massachusetts, and the state court system, to ensure that the person returns to court. and i leaned back during this argument because it was all the focus was on the argument, and i said i couldn't write 10 articles that better explained what you have just seen in terms of the very practical application of bail. the second example is that massachusetts, we've had a recent controversy with our

probation department and hiring practices in the probation department here and there's been grand jury investigations now, the commissioner of probation has resided. and there was a globe spotlight report on probation, the hiring practices and probation. and the public was left with this impression, i think, it was very demoralizing to the probation staff obviously, but the public was left with the impression that the probation staff is full of people who just received their jobs because their relationship with politicians, legislators or other things. and each week in this courtroom that you are seeing there, and i did it all day yesterday, we went and entire day of just probation violation hearings where the probation office has come in and they are seeking reviews of people who violated their terms of probation.

and you see the probation staff who were fulfilling their professional obligations, who know they are -- who know their probationers, can present a case, can present evidence, who are looking out for the interest of their community as well as the people they are supervising. and fully representing their professional obligations. again, a totally different portrayal of what probation does in very real terms. then you would get from this spotlight series, or grand jury indictment, or whatever. so you get a fuller perspective. so from the courts perspective, we think that we can really show what actually happens and that if the public understands what we do in court and how hard people work and how seriously they take their responsibilities, there's a totally different impression of the court system and of

government as a whole. we all know that the world is changing out there. we have gone from 35 years from a time where proceedings were not even recorded in my session, to what it is live streamed. and that's the way of the future. there's no doubt the future is that the public has a right to full access as to what goes on in the court. if they can't walk into the courtroom to see for themselves, why should they be prohibited from seeing it on their computer? it's the same thing if they have the ability to walk in the courtroom, no one would prevent them. from seeing what goes on in the courtroom. and this experiment, and that's what it is, is an experiment that it gives us the opportunity to get ahead of the wave your there are real issues of this. i went to the earlier one of your earlier sessions, judge liebowitz from district of clinton was speaking, and she

friend issued exactly. there are tensions between the first amendment and the public's right to know, and a criminal defendant and particulars right to a fair trial. and we could either examine those questions, that balancing act, and the responsible and thoughtful way as part of this experiment, or, which and that is going to be reacting as we always react to public policy. >> questions? tom? >> right at your table. >> joan, this question is for you did you talk about judges retain the discretion, even if an individual is registered with the system, to exclude a person. does that mean the judges have the discretion to exclude a particular person, or is it to disclose that particular proceeding or portion of a

preceding? >> those are i think two separate things. the existing rule allows judicial discretion and suspending or limiting camera coverage. so they can do that now. and in the new rule, proposed a new rule, that remains the same. the registering is a separate issue though. so what i was trying to convey is that even if a person doesn't register with my office, it's possible that the judge would allow that person in. so the judge still has discretion over who comes into the courtroom. >> are the only cases criminal matters? >> no. in fact, i just want to touch on that because it's another very important part i think of this experiment, sort of the whole public's right to know. and that is where daschle we are

a community court, we call ourselves sort of people's court, and you see a host of people come in with a host of different problems. so, predominantly we do criminal cases, and there are arrangements, bail argument. but some days i will do, we don't have a housing court so i did landlord-tenant matters there. if you really want to learn about what's happening with foreclosures, with people, former homeowners are now being evicted by banks, you see it in the summer process. earlier this morning before i came out, the judge was hearing several motions, civil trials. we do a lot of collection cases, credit card cases. if you want to really learn about what this finance reform means where you see people come in with credit card debts that start out at $7000 now with

interest payments and late fees, they don't understand why they're court adjudicated judgment is now up to $20,000. we have a tremendous substance abuse problem in our jurisdiction. we have a very large heroin problem. we do substance abuse, involuntary substance abuse commitments in the courtroom. so you'll see a hearing where family member is talking about why her son just spiked his arm last week and she found him with a needle hanging out of his arm in his bedroom, and why he needs to be committed for a period of 30 days for a treatment center pixel all those things are done in the courtroom. and so my point is, not only are we talking about the court system but we are talking about the social problems that actually exist in our community. and having people begin to understand what a drug problem is, what a foreclosure problem

is, what a credit card problem is, and to get a realistic opinion about what the types of social issues that our courts really do address. >> the parties know in advance they will be in the courtroom where it will be broadcast? and it had the opportunity to express concern about being broadcast? >> we put a sign on the door to the courtroom saying that everything is broadcast there. as john indicated, we put signs around all the microphones. one of the things that he did -- didn't indicate is we even put signs in the prisoners stock, and so as you come up the stairs, the prisoners are told that anything you say will be captured on the microphone because you don't want them confessing on the microphone. so yeah, everybody knows -- you,

you people have the right is a i don't want to go in? no. what the supreme judicial court decided, the committee decided was that as john indicated, is that we do not do the domestic violence restraining orders in that session because there's a question, at least initially, after we did want to do anything that would inhibit the victim from seeking the protection of the court. so we don't do those. that's the one category of cases that we don't do in that courtroom. >> i'm not quite clear in your answer. in a civil case, there is no mechanism for one of the parties to present a case for why he or she does not want to be on camera. there's actually no mechanism in the system right now? >> in both the criminal and civil side of our business people could always make a

motion for not being on camera. much less likely that they'll prevail in a civil case as opposed to a criminal case. >> question over here. >> for joan, under the proposed changes to 119, are you going to be permitting the registrants to maybe take a cell phone picture, or is it still going to have to be that pool arrangement? and what if there is no professional photographer, you know, who wants to video a preceding? are you going to allow somebody to stand there? >> no. no, we're not. under the proposed new rule, covert photography recording for transmission is prohibited. so you wouldn't be able to bring

in a camera and just take pictures from your device at your seat. >> but if you, you know, i'm a member of that committee, and my understanding is that if there's no quote mainstream media in the courtroom, that a citizen journalist who is registered with the court who has agreed to those rules could take their iphone, and in the designated area set aside could be the designated community or civic journalist reporter. is that your understanding? >> yes, but that would be with the judge's permission. it wouldn't just coming in and doing it on your own but you would have to have permission. >> just one? >> just one. >> other resources are provided for people understand what they see going on, or haps a glossary of common legal terms that you might hear, boilerplate?

>> may be i would just go to the website and show you that, hang on. >> it is open court docket u.s. and i think it is terrific website. >> we have a blog. resources, go to our resources. you will see how to open your court, local organization, glossary that we're working with harvard cyber law. that is one area to talk about. we have a need to court officials. the history of the court. which gives you some of the background, for example, this talks about the clerk, talks about judge coburn. talk about other people who are in the court. this is all why did you agree, we had questioned why did you agree to have your court host

open court? we have question, what role does the court late in citizens lives. we talk to the assisting clerk, another justice of the court, head of probation we talked to. we are trying to provide some context of what is going on around the court and how -- help people understand it. we been through doing the blocking and tackling the challenging part has been the video. we are smoothing out all of that operation. again, we started on may 2. focusing everything live, the site went up in its formal form on may 2. so yes, we have work to do, but that is actually part of our mission, as much as the stream. >> i understand there was a debate over the archive are not archived or can you tell us all a bit about what the objections were and what considerations went into the final decision?

>> if you take a look at our site and it's handy that i have it, let me just go to it for a second. actually i need to bring it up a little higher. we have an ongoing blog that covers us, covering ourselves but it's very -- [laughter] it's a very made the experience. and the archive issue is a very complicated one. and there were a lot of conversations beforehand of how we would archive, when would archive, what we would archive. and i'm giving you my point of you and i think i need to at least -- this is a good place for disclaimer. there is, as you can see, on our blog, the full massachusetts supreme district court is to hear about the open court archive. so clearly it's an issue that

hasn't completely been resolved. and i can't talk about the specifics of the case because i suspect there's a few people who work in public information for the court that you'd want to avoid something like that. but the issue of archives is the key one because it's not replicating the experience of being in court at that time. it is time shifting that experience. so, by definition we are not actually, you know, providing the exact same thing that happened when you come into court. and that was a large, large conversation about whether we should or whether we shouldn't you.we felt either friday, by my the second we had come to a consensus that we had covered the issue of archives and we

would post archives. late on friday for the monday that we started it, we got a letter from the district attorney's office, from norfolk county where the quincy district court resides, and stating their feelings after should not be an accessible archive. they're in favor of an archive but it should be publicly accessible. >> i have a question for john. what is the response from the press in massachusetts to making reporters registered? if i tried to do that to reporters in west virginia i think they would be a revolt. >> remember, this isn't credentialing. this is just asking them to sign up on a website and download a form that says i'm a journalist and i'm going to agree to these

rules. these proposed rules went out for, and went out to all the news organizations. so there were no real objections to that. and because we have the judiciary media committee and the rule 119 committee, which is comprised of journalists as well, they had a hand, a big hand in helping us to devised this proposed rule. so, you know, i don't anticipate that being a problem. i think it's going to be in the beginning, if this does get approved in this way, there will be a lot of work in the beginning just to get everybody registered. but then i don't think they'll be a problem after that. >> i think tony had a question after laura. >> you mentioned with analytics you've got about 100, 150 people viewing. but i'm curious what the overall public perception is, how this

project shape the public perception of the court, has a change, him has improved? i doing to gather feedback? there's no comments which i totally understand i'm wondering what your doing to see how the measure the feedback apperception of the court as a result of the project. >> well, i want a clever one thing. we are doing comments but we're not doing comments on the live stream. so you can comment on the blog, but to the point we need to do a better job of being part of that conversation to see where things are going. a lot of the comments, in the sense of what we're doing has actually come out of coverage around this issue of the archive. we announced that open court was going online. we have a bit of a bully pulpit because we are based at wbur, we are part of the wbur.

wbur is one of the leading news information sources in the city. it's the npr public reader station. so there is an awareness of this. there's been public conversations, on our anger, around this archive issue. so that's what is going, but to your point we, as i've explained, we spent a lot of time on the mechanics and getting it down. and now we, our intention is to be much more out in the community, in gauging that community. and quite honestly, with this issue of the archives, we were doing periodic meetings with the quincy working group and within that community. and those have sort of, it's been hard to inject ourselves into those against the background, against the backdrop of litigation. but we intend to pick those up

actually now. i mean, at this point we just need to keep going forward and talking to the community. but that's a great question. >> the comments that you have on the blog, are those moderated? >> we moderate our comments. >> do you have a policy? >> yes. >> that says what the circumstances are, when you would delete something, et cetera? >> yeah, it's interesting. public radio, knock on wood, does not have that kind of comment and issues of the media does. and we just used the exact moderating policy that we use for the rest of the wbur.org site. >> is it a i will not when i see a test? >> it is basically a well -- play well with others and be respectful. it is very similar to npr's policy. we really group our policy comments from npr's. and it's worked out pretty well.

know, there have been problems. >> tony? >> for john, i wanted to see whether this project is being used by the traditional media locally, broadcast and print it if i was a reporter watching this, "the boston globe" newsroom or something, and i saw something interesting going on, it looks like things are moving fast, how could i find out, for the public, how could i find more about this? what's the title of the case, you know, who are the lawyers? is there anything that is on the site speak with you know, tony, we thought -- it's a real interesting question. when we were planning this, we thought the lowest hanging fruit would be post the docket, what each case was. we have not really been able to crack the state court database

to provide something that is usable. and there's also a lot of sensitivity about posting the name of those accused, because they are accused. and then as we all know, nothing disappears on the web. so for example, if john davidow is wrongly accused of x. and john davidow applies for a job as a "national journal" and the google john davidow and it turns out that he was accused of that, maybe i wouldn't get that job. and so, it hasn't been fully resolved. so it's an incredibly blunt instrument right now. there is no tagging that is really effective, no names associated with the case. and that's, as we go forward, one of the things that we're going to be working on, because

-- and i referenced this earlier, sort of the data the data thing. you can sort of get what judge coven is talking about is issues of bail, issues of society, and what he didn't include was how much of the court is almost the social service agency of last resort. which the public can certainly get an appreciation of what's going on. from a pure coverage point of view, people -- you have a pb book and they know what's going to be heard that day so they will put it on. that's what the globe did. there was a danger of a case a week ago. they knew it was coming up that day. they monitored it that way. so it's a really blunt and schmitt and i wish it wasn't. >> part of my question was his question, so you don't publish

the docket, but it appears to me that what you're showing would be what we call our first appearance or our arraignment court. and we don't permit cameras in there because 99% of the people making a first parents are being arraigned don't have representation. is about the case in your court and how do you address that, judge? >> well, as i've indicated, it's a good part of what gets -- arrangements. there's a lot of other things we do as well. but at our arraigned session people are appointed council that day. they either come with counsel or they are uploaded council. so the vast majority of people, you know, will have lawyers there either because they are appointed, and then there's a call later if there's a question of bail or if they are just given a lawyer and given a day. in answer to tony's question, they case the day is called the

lawyers identify themselves. that's the best you can get. we don't post the list of the cases that are going to be called or everyone who's going to be arraigned that day, or whether it's a criminal pretrial conference or a landlord-tenant? the cases are called by name, so it might be a bank of america versus john davidow, if you think for closed on. -- if he is being foreclosed on. >> the holy grail of my career has been access to the court, so i must commend you for providing this kind of access. i think it's great experiment. my question is, to questions actually. one is, do you contemplate have it is what worked for high profile trial? and also, what do you do about bench conferences? are you able to block them out? >> yeah, we did -- interesting

case yesterday. i was taking a plea on the case, and the prosecutor and defense attorney had, you know, i looked at the guy's record. the prosecutor and defense lawyer said they had an agreed upon disposition, and it was, it was almost laughable what they were recommending to the court. and when they sort of looked at my expression, what they wanted me to do, they said can we approach and have a bench conference? will come as soon as they say that, i know they'll come up and tell me the guy is in a form and providing information to the drug task force. so they don't even need to approach. i've been around a long enough time to know. [laughter] but they insist on wanting to do it, and it all gets on the record because we never turn off the recorder at all. so he gets on the courtroom record, but, you know, at that

bench conference yet, i turned off the camera because i did want everybody in quincy to note that this guy was providing information to the drug task force. and what was your second question? >> a high profile trial. >> yeah, i mean, there are certain things that are prohibited by statute in massachusetts in a jury trial that you can't film that would be precluded. we wouldn't come the jurors. we wouldn't film or allow video streaming of voir dire. one case is very high profile. you human trafficking case where the defendant was alleged to pick up a girl walking home from high school, a 15 year-old girl, and sexually -- essentially placed her in prostitution for three or four week every. we had a hearing on the way he should have been held as a

dangerous economic going to comment about the case but the legal issue was that the defense attorney and prosecutor both wanted the camera shut off for the whole hearing. the prosecution wanted it turned off because they wanted to protect the privacy of the victim, particularly said she was a juvenile. the defense lawyer wanted the camera to go off because they didn't want to inhibit his right to a fair trial at any later point should this be archived. so there were two motion, want to shut off the camera altogether, and one do not archive this or not allow access to the archives. and i denied both motions. i ordered both lawyers in their examination, cross-examination not to mention the minor child's name, or any identifying information, information that would cause her to be

identified. the defense counsel used her name twice and now the case has gone up to the judicial supreme court. so there are real issues. you know, it's not as easy as it may seem, just a video stream things. there's a significant and i think important legal and policy issues that we need to grapple. and that's what i think is great about having this as an experiment. you know, that we could get ahead of these issues and think about them, we could be thoughtful about them. in before going statewide the supreme judicial court will now have to address this issue which i think is great. i make the decision. unlike any trial judge. i make the decision. if i'm wrong, the appeals court will tell me i'm wrong and we'll get some direction and will get some statewide policy on this. >> we have about four minutes

left. a question over here. >> i was just wondering if this has generated interest in cases that wouldn't otherwise be high profile cases? i know justice coven you mentioned there was a window into the social issues of the day, and i was wondering if that had had any sort of reverse fallout in terms of journalists covering issues they wouldn't otherwise have picked up based on watching the live streaming? >> i will answer that. they should be. and i know that wbur, and because it is coming into our newsroom and we have two employees in that courtroom every day, there is no shortage of material that should be covered. and there are absolute plans to do that. and i suspect, as we all know,

coverage breeds more coverage. that this is a really valuable window into what is going on, not just the quincy district court but around the country as judge coven alluded to. step well, it's been said several times that this is an experiment and i think it's a hypothesis is being tested, a statement that has been made throughout both of these conferences, which is that the more the public knows about the court system, the better the public's perception of that system will become which is something all of us are dedicated to try to support. so i commend you all on testing that hypothesis. i think you will find out that the answer is, that it is true. and i think the audience for some good questions, and i also thank the panelists. [applause]

>> and, of course, i want to thank you, chris. let's give him a separate hand. [applause] 's. we're actually right on schedule. we will have lunch in this room. before we break up, i wonder where art smith is? art smith is the chef for this wonderful facility, and he used to be oprah winfrey's chef, and barely. who knew, right click so you at the will be treated to a wonderful meal. so be back right around noon. then right on time at 1:30 we will assemble at metro east and west for the case of the nylon night stalker. it's a lot of fun and you have some great speakers, so we have about a 12 or 14 minute break, right back year for lunch. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] next on c-span2, look at the future of nasa with remarks by some of its scientists and engineers.

>> next, nasa scientists and engineers talk about the future of the agency following the end of the shuttle program and how it moves forward in tough economic times. from the university of maryland at college park, this is about an hour. >> i want to start by saying a simple fact, and that is this. that our greatest achievements, the greatest things we do as individuals or as a society really began with dreams. some thought of something we need you as an achievable but worth thinking about, worth dreaming about. and as our capabilities evolve, as we become smarter, as technologies are brought forth, these dreams evolve into aspirations where all of a sudden -- not all of a sudden but inside it's not so crazy to think about going to the moon or

going to mars, or looking at distant stars on the edges of the universe. so they become aspirations, something maybe some day to shoot for. and as we continue to become smarter or develop more capabilities and technologies, the next step in this continue, these verses, these aspirations become pursuits, things we can actually go after, set our sights on, focus and work towards the realization of those goals. and then finally, the last step in that sequence is achievement. so we go from dreams to aspiration, to pursuit to achievement. and i believe that sequence has been borne out time and time again at nasa in the past, is being borne out in the present and will be borne out in the future. one great thing about achievements is the lead to new dreams.

so this cycle can just keep going, and really say the sky is the limit, but the universe is the limit. i don't even think that is the limit. we will learn as we go. so nasa has a history of producing incredible achievement, and these just aren't human achievements in exploration and taking people to places for most of humankind was thought to be a possible. these are scientific achievements. discovery about our surroundings, about the earth, about universe. the administrator listed a number of achievements in either the last couple of months or in a couple few months, but the last six months of this year really is incredible with two missions to study the earth, a mission to study the entry of the moon. we are on our way to jupiter now. we will be exploring mars in ways that we haven't been able to to date, and we are in orbit

around the asteroid best to, learning about the origin of solar system that we result entered orbit around marjorie. february we're launching an x-ray telescope to look out further than has been looked more with x-rays. this is over the course of maybe and eight or nine month period. i would say this is a period of great achievement with many to still lie ahead. and when i think about nasa science, two words come to mind. inspirational and service. i think what nasa does is inspirational. i think it speaks to the very core of who we are as human beings. one thing that has been constant throughout time is the desire to explore, a desire to understand our surroundings, whether it be years ago the forest we lived in

nearby and how our residents or domicile fits into that landscape, or more recently the universe we live in and our place in it. and if you just think about it, getting back to dreams and pursuits and achievements, you know, we are currently looking very closely to the beginning of time as we understand it, out of the furthest reaches, the edge of the universe. we discovered methane lakes and rivers on the surface of titan, we discovered at least strong let -- strong indications of liquid water on mars. we are understanding our own planet, how it functions, how it is changing and what those changes mean for life on earth. .. looking space.

i'm sure nearly all of you have seen that earth rise image of the earth hanging -- well, floating -- actually floating isn't the right word, being in the darkness and silence of space and that picture really changed how we view our planet. as did the pale blue dot image from the earth of the solar system. that perspective, understanding how the earth works, interacting

components will not only allow us to survive in the face of the changes that our planet faces but really thrive, really make the most of the evolution of our planet. so in that sense, science at nasa both inspires and serves human kind. and what pursuit could be greater, frankly? and i think it's fitting that we're here at a university because i often compare investing in nasa science and exploration to investing in college, you know, we're in difficult economic times but any parent that has scraped and saved money despite hard times to send their child or children to school for a brighter, better future understands what we do at nasa for the nation and for the world. so with that i'll pass it over to laurie. thank you. [applause]

>> thanks, waleed. good morning, everybody. thank you, gentlemen. i am here representing human exploration and i am here to report that the reports of our deaths have been greatly exaggerated. i'm here to report that the next phase of nasa is here and i'm here to make our next days a reality. i want to talk to you today a little bit about where we are going in the future with human exploration. as we go, we will be building on extraordinary legacy, the legacy of apollo perhaps the greatest achievement of the last century of human kind. the legacy of the space shuttle program, which we successfully brought to a close only weeks

ago with an extraordinary mission, final mission of the space shuttle to the international space station. how many people watched the launch? did anybody go in person? right on. i was very privileged to be there, and it was -- it was a special -- a special time. and we owe extraordinary kudos and that team deserves -- all the kutos we can give them and that program deserves all the pride that it takes in its achievements but it has been extraordinary but we are looking towards the future as charlie said, it was time to retire the shuttle and move forward. we will be going farther. we'll be going beyond where the shuttle could go, beyond leo and the earth's orbit. we'll be going beyond to places like asteroids and mars and in

my hope and aspirations, even beyond that with humans. why will we be doing this? well, one, there's so much to know about these places. asteroids can tell us about the birth of our summer and they're the oldest rocks in the solar system and we can use them to really unravel the mystery of how solar systems are formed and how our solar system formed and even how like the organic materials that we're all made of were delivered to the forming planet. in addition, of course, asteroids can have a counter-effect on life on our planet as we know. anyone who loves dinosaurs knows these objects occasionally intersect the orbit of the earth when the earth is sitting there on its part of the orbit. they can cause major changes in life on our planet and have done so. in fact, one might argue and a

lot of people have that we are here today as a result of an asteroid impact so we'd like to not go the way of dinosaurs but understand how that might prevent us in the future so aasteroid are interestingly and who knows maybe we can save the world by exploring them. and then, of course, mars is one of our future destinations for humans and a compelling place for a long history for holding a special place for humanities of dreams for future exploration. i believe it's our best chance to discover life on another world. you all heard of our great water discovery last week. potential for flowing water even today on mars. it's my opinion that we're going to need human explorers to actually go and definitively answer the question about whether or not there has been or is currently life on bars. so that's an extraordinary scientific reason to go and in

addition, long periods of stay for humans away from earth. myers seems quite a logical place to go do that. we do it because there's so much to know and we do it because pushing the boundaries of what's possible is part of our dna as human beings. and it's part of the dna of our country i would say. it's part of american dna so we're going to continue to push beyond where we've been before. and also because undertaking really audacious challenges like we're going to send humans to mars strives our nation to ultimately prosper. i truly believe we must take on audacious challenges as a country in order to drive forward and prosper. so how are we going to do this? how are we going to create this future for human space flight when so many people are saying there is no program? and i'm here to tell you there is a great program. we actually have all the pieces in place in the programs we are

putting together to undertake the next phase of human exploration. we have those pieces in place thanks to congress who passed our authorization act last year and to the administration who supported that. what are those elements? there's basically three pieces to our future program of human exploration. they start close to home in low-earth orbit with the international space station and its extension to at least 2020. it is our laboratory. it's our test bed and it's our foothold in space for humans. we've got astronauts now who have been occupied continuously and we continue to keep that record going for another decade at least. we will use it in ever expanding ways. we'll supply it with cargo and ultimately crew using innovative approaches, partnering with the private sector in new ways for nasa to create new industries and new commercial opportunities, though, not in the traditional nasa program sense which we can talk about in

the q & a but yet in new ways of commercial partners developing that nasa can purchase and then it's available to more than nasa and so we start in low-earth orbit. next we go beyond low-earth orbit and the great thing of doing this innovative partnership it should free up resources for nasa to low-earth orbit. we need we did a call sul so we're beginning on those right away and actually starting to be constructed. and third we need research and we need to develop new technologies and new capabilities in order to go beyond low-earth orbit and we're working on those as well. so there are hard questions we need to answer about human survivability on long space trips beyond earth.

there are new habitats that need to be invented. a new propulsion for space travel, new space walking suits and new shuttle craft to supply astronauts around the asteroids. we actually had a question on twitter already about the new kinds of technology we're going to be working on. those are some of the new kinds of systems we need as we go beyond low earth orbit. we need to invent other things as well and i'm sure bobby will say more about this. we have all of these elements in our programs now. we have all those different pieces. the low earth orbit that we need. we need to make sure we follow through on inventing all of those things and on driving through all those things to make our exploration dreams a reality but i want to close having destinations and various pieces are not enough to make this a

reality. making this endeavor a reality is going require inventing something that is more challenging than inventing new technologies or new systems. i think it's going to require a inventing a new way of operating for nasa and for our community. it's going to require inventing new ways of collaborating, new ways of exploring. we need to collabrate across different parts of nasa. we need to collaborate in new ways with the private sector like we're trying to do with our commercial programs. but even in our nasa programs we need to work differently with our private sector colleagues. we need to collaborate with other nations in new and expanded ways and we need to work with universities to make sure we have the best and brightest -- and the best research possible. and we probably need to collaborate with the public in the ways that we haven't collaborated with them before. we need to create a worldwide

exploration movement in order to make this aspiration a reality. so my request of all of you today is to think about how you can help us do that. talk to us. tell us ways that we can help create this worldwide exploration movement. tell us how to do that with you. worry less about who's going to build it or what the rocket exactly is going to look like and how we're going to create this coalition of human beings who won't rest until a person is walking on mars or even going beyond that. and let's just think about that for a moment. what is that moment going to feel like as that first astronaut steps foot on mars as she shakes that red soil from her boot, i hope you all will remember the day that we all rededicate ourselves to working ourselves an amazing future for nasa. thanks. [applause]

>> and i i turn it over to my dear friend bobbie brown. >> actually, thank you both. remind me try not to speak after you two again. i'm going to start out by making a couple of remarks. i guess the best way for me to say this is to say that i love being affiliated with nasa. i'm an engineer who has dreamed of building things and the privilege of actually working on some flight systems in my career who's been transplanted here to washington. and i love being affiliated with nasa. and i've been thinking about why that is. and the reason i think is because nasa to me is a little microcosm of the best of our nation. we're a nation of explorers. we're a nation that's never satisfied with the status quo. we're a nation that's always trying to out innovate

ourselves, to do better. we're never quite there. we can always do it better. and, sure, there are fiscal challenges that our country faces today, but this country still remains the land of opportunity. and when i look at nasa, those are the exact same characteristics that i see for our future. and by the way, those are the same characteristics, that mentality, that approach, that approach to operation is the same characteristics required for success in the 21st century, in the global technological marketplace that we find ourselves in. we heard something about nasa's future science missions, some of nasa's future human exploration missions. these missions are bold. these missions are grand in stature and so to me one thing that i'm proud of is that our country can dream big through nasa. now, from a technology

standpoint many of the missions that we're accomplishing today are based on engineering principles and on engineering systems that were actually first demonstrated in the 60s, '70s, and '80s while we're doing missions, it's imperative that i will why we proceed on these missions that we also on a low level make the technology investments required for our future. make the basic research the applied research investments required for our future. when i think of nasa, i think all the way back to the space walks and i think of three long-standing core competence, basic and applied research, flight system -- flight system development and missions operations. you take any one of those three things is nasa is not nasa. all three is required. now from a budget standpoint they don't require all equal budgets.

that's not what i'm saying. all three have to be at a critical mass. because our technology investments at nasa are motivated by our mission. and our missions are only as big as the technologies and capabilities that we've proven. these are at the core of what make nasa a special place for our country and a special place actually for the engineers and scientists across the country that worked there. i've had the privilege over this past year and a half of representing those folks that are doing the basic and applied research. the technology developments that are critical for our nation's future and for our future in space. and i can tell you from firsthand accounts that these folks at the nasa center in industry, in small business at universities like the university of maryland are thrilled and excited and ready to go. and they're contributing today

to our nation's future in space with the work they're doing that will come to fruition in the future. now, we make technology investments for a number of reasons. we make them as i've been saying to enable our future in space, to is in stable our future mission. we also make -- the federal government also makes these investments because they build our economic competitive. we know the dollars when the federal government invests dollars in basic and applied research, the economy reaches a multiplier of the dollar invested. there was whole bunch of articles about the human genome that every dollar that the federal government invested in the human genome project, over $100 were put into the economy. if nasa could get that kind of multiplier, just think what that would do for people around this

country in terms of jobs and our economy. we also invest in technology because it's a way of staying at the cutting edge. universities know this at their core. nasa knows this at its core and that's why there's such a strong partnership between universities and nasa. small business, larger companies they know this as well. it's by pushing boundaries of aeroscience and taking informed risk that these future missions will one day be possible. the 21st century will be won by those who innovate. by those who seek breakthroughs, by those who create that future. and i'm here to tell you today that nasa is doing that. nasa is doing that every day. the engineers and the scientists were making greatly strides towards that future. and when we create these missions, the future science missions, our future exploration missions, when we create that future in place, we should improve life every day here on the earth. the technology developments that

go in to nasa's future space missions are often spun off into new businesses, new product, new services that we utilize every day. in the biomedical industry, the protective armor that our police, firefighters and military personnel wear. blood flow monitoring devices, artificial heart and even lasik surgery. the gps system that's in leland phone or joe parish's car, all these things that we take for granted, the weather channel, they all come from our past investments in space and they certainly have all improved my life and i'm sure you would agree they've improved yours. so when i think about our space program i, first of all, as an engineer i'm immediately drawn to the charm of our future missions in science in human exploration but i'm also reminded that those missions can only be as bold as our

technological investments that we make ary's. and without those technological investments we won't reach where we're trying to go. we'll be grasping for that future with older technology that will make it harder to have a sustainable and affordable exploration future. like i said, i'm an engineer who believes this passionately. i think it's been a real honor and a service for me to come to nasa and get to represent the engineers and scientists that make -- are going to make this future possible and are going to make this future possible every day. there's one question that i did want to get to before i pass on to leland, it also came in on twitter. and the question that was asked is a very wise question, how do

we ensure that the best ideas are harassed? everyone has ideas. i'm sure here at the university of maryland. if i got 1,000 students together i'd have 10,000 great ideas. and there are ideas that are pouring in by the way through our technological development programs. they come from universities. they come from small businesses. they come from the nasa centers. and so the one thing i do want to mention is that we can maybe discuss it more in the future is one of the things that nasa is trying to do is engage america in this journey. we can't do this by ourselves. so the technological developments that i'm speaking about, the technological developments that we need for our future science and exploration missions, they will come from across america. they will come from innovators all around the country. we have to do this in an open and competitive manner. and you see us taking steps that way with some of the solicitations actually that administrator bolden mentioned in his speech. he mentioned the nasa institute

for advanced concepts, which this week announced 30 visionary advanced concept awards. those awards by the way just happened to be divided about 30% went to the nasa centers. about 30% went to academia and the rest went to industry, small and large business around the country. that wasn't by design but to me that's a little bit of proof that there's great ideas everywhere. there are innovators everywhere in the country and one thing nasa needs to do is actually engage them and that will enable this future that we see. thank you. [applause] >> let me turn it over now to my good friend, mr. leland. >> thanks, bobbie. i'm really excited to be here because my job -- i've been the last eight months have been the associate administrator for education. and charlie has charged me to

help inspire and motivate our next generation of explorers. all the missions that waleed and laurie and bobbie was talking about innovation, we need a very technologically and digitally literate work force to make these things happen and it starts at a very early age, usually middle school is where students get turned on and turned off to science and sometimes even before that. now, i have had two very defining moments in my life at an early age. and the first one was when i turned over a desk in my elementary school class and mrs. martin grabbed my ear and took me to the principal's office. and mrs. carlisle -- you know, back then you would have a little corporal punishment and i had a little hand in my development from the principal. as i walked home, i stopped by my friend butch's house and his mother was a teacher. so we had that telepty in my

development and when i got home i have a bigger hand in my development. i say this it takes a village to raise a child is an african proverb and we need to ensure that these students are armed with everything in their power to succeed and to be the future technologist, the future innovators, the future rocket scientists, the future explorers. so the only way that we're going to move forward in our society is to allow the village to come together as we're doing here and have a role and a part in the development of children. now, there's another piece of this -- so that was my first defining moment. showing that the community cared about my education, my development, making sure that i'd be a part of a functioning

society that does great thing. the second defining moment -- i think i was in eighth grade and my mom gave me a chemistry set. and this was before osha had, you know, child-appropriate age for doing things. so i mixed these two chemicals and created this fantastic explosion that orange and white smoke and burned the hole in my mom's carpet and had another hand in development but this fueled my curiosity to be a scientist. i became a chemistry major in college. so this out of school hands-on expertial activity helped me see the excitement of science and engineering. and that fueled me to become a chemist as i said. but how do we do this as a society to get these students to see how they can become something like a bobbie braun or

a laurie leshin and it shows them they can dream. there's so many kids that are disaffected by the inability for a teacher to share with them the proper way to do integral or a proper way to learn different systems to get to the next step. math, science, engineering, technology -- these are all the things that nasa is trying to do to ensure that kids have the right -- the right tools to move forward but also the right -- the teachers have the say. we are working with programs where we support teachers with curriculum with hands-on pieces. it's not just for the kids. it's for the teachers too. a couple couple of weeks ago i was down in houston at nasa jsc and we flew on the -- well, it was on the 0g airplane which we affectionally call the vomit comet. but we had 84k-12 teachers th--4

k-12 teachers and flew on this zero g airplane and we took one of our nasa analysts so that nasa can offer so that kids are motivated and inspired so we have to figure out what do we uniquely have to offer to show that piece of inspiration. and this is what we have to show, these villages to share these unique experiences to blow up the rug in my mom's room to have these defining moments so that they will know that there's something out there for them in the future. this exploration, the science, the engineering. how many of you in here by a show of hands have had a defining moment early in your life that led you to where you are today? a teacher or an experiment or

building a bicycle or doing something with your hands? we have programs like the summer of innovation like we're trying to reach underserved students and having a summer experience because lots of times, the summertime is when you get the summer slide and the students don't do anything and so by the time they get back to school in the fall, they're having to play catch up again. so this is a program where we reach out to students but we also reach out to teachers so give teachers these same types of hands-on experiences. we're looking for collaborations with industry, nonprofit, for-profit, other government organizations so we can better leverage the nasa resources. it might not be matter it could be subject matter experts who come in to school and work with you. it could be, you know, giving awards for gamification or badging to have the winner get to fully on the zero g aircraft or where a student or a teacher can actually build experts to go

up on a sounding rocket or to go to the international space station. to me these are some of the assets that we can have to have to offer up in a venal partnership. we have an announcement of opportunity that's ongoing that you can apply to get a space act agreement with nasa and we'll talk about it later on in the panel this afternoon. but one of the other things that we're doing -- we have a vision for nasa education which is to advance high quality s.t.e.m. education to use nasa unique capabilities. and the america's peact had the office of science and technology come up with a paper in january of next year to show how the federal government and the s.t.e.m. fields are working together so that we don't duplicate efforts. how many summer camps are doing the same things? how many other organizations are doing very similar things? how do we pull them together and

leverage the resources they're doing to make a bigger impact? i want to try to make things to scale and try to motivate and inspire and that's what nasa education is doing so thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you to our panel and our speakers. and now is the really great part, an opportunity for all of you to ask questions of our panelists. we have microphones here in the aisles. if you would like to ask your question of one of our panelists, please go to the mic. we do ask that you use the microphones in the aisles so that our viewing audience over nasa television over the web can hear your questions and our first question here, sir. >> good morning, folks. i have a general question about technology for you at nasa. how much do you think there is a

synergy between green or fuel technologies and exploration technologies -- how strong do you think the synergy is if you think it exists? and how much do you put -- how much mental effort do you think you guys can, should, and have invested in making that synergy a cornerstone of how you run the technology research? >> that's a great question. thank you for that. i think it's very true that the technology investments that we make for our future space mission can help us right here on the earth and in particular in energy. i can give you a couple of examples. so when i was an engineer i worked on a mission to mars actually the mars 2001 lander and to be honest with you, it never flew. but there was a payload on that

mission that was designed by a university professor at arizona state university. and after that payload was developed and after it didn't fly, he actually left the university and went to california and started a small business. the reason he started that business is 'cause if he took his little mars payload that was designed to produce propellent and he ran it in reverse he had a very efficient fuel cell and those systems are popping up all over california. they're called bloom box. i don't know if anyone has heard of bloom energy here. but, for instance, nasa has got a new energy efficient building at the nasa ames research center and it's got bloom box in some of their power. there's google headquarters. in his speech the administrator mentioned juno.

juno is the first solar powered spacecraft to go as far as jupiter. it's only able to accomplish its mission because of the high efficient solar cells that will provide the power for the instruments to do that mission. now, they didn't just happened. it took years in collaboration with business and universities to develop those photovoltaic cells and those same cells can be transferred and in many cases have been transferred to commercial applications right here on the earth. so those are just a couple examples. but i should also tell you that in my role as chief technologist i am working to set up partnerships with other government agencies. i've talked with the director with rbi. i've been over with the d.o.e. i've been with a number of energies that aren't in the energy sector as well and one of

the things i've noticed about agencies -- we all have different missions, right, energy has a different mission than nasa which has a different mission, obviously, than the d.o.d. but where we all have commonality is in advanced technology. and so when nasa makes advancements in technology, it creates partnerships. partnership opportunities i should say across government. and in a way it makes the pie bigger for all of us. and the fact that nasa is now making technology investments and is talking about when those investments will help our mission in the future has actually created some inertia for me, positive inertia, a positive momentum with those other government agencies. including d.o.e. and rpe and so what i think what you will see nasa will continue to make advances in technology, in power and for propulsion for our in-space positions and we'll

continue to transfer those advances to benefit life here on earth. >> i would just -- i would just add one quick thing to that there's a unique part of this when humans enter the equation which is the long-term life support systems to keep to sustain a human mission up to a year to an assist noticed or two on three years to mars you must by definition -- you can't take everything with you you need to live for two or three years in space. you got to be able to generate or recycle -- we're going to have the most efficient recycling system around on these space ships that we're going to send to these other worlds. >> yeah, the water systems and other support systems, packaging -- advanced packaging systems. there's all kinds of ways that this can flow back into our every day lives when you put humans in that equation. >> there's many of that today on the iss, on the international space station. >> we're pioneering them on the space station. >> okay. a reminder that if you're

following us on twitter, you can follow the conversation at pound nasa future. you can also send questions to us through the nasa twitter account for technology@nasa underscore technology and if you have a question please come up to the mics and we'll take one in the back. >> good morning, i'm ray sudwick and i teach at the university of maryland. the biggest problem nasa actually has is p.r. i think you guys probably appreciate the fact that, you know, you're kind of preaching to the choir here and everybody that's following along, you know, on twitter or on the web are also kind of part of the choir. -- i mean, nasa does a lot of great stuff in terms of outreach and you talked about, we recognize it. but aerospace community is very small, you know, it's a very niche market. and, you know, it seems to me,

you know, our militaritizing -- the general public knows what the military does because they see advertising for it. and it's great, you know, you reach out to the kids and the hope is that, you know, they're going to get excited and this information is going to get disseminated but the problem is the kids don't vote. it's the parents who vote. and maybe there's something that restricts nasa from being able to make customers. i think you need to get creative and find a way around that because i think the biggest problem is really exciting the adult public and letting them know what nasa is doing and what they're doing for their kids and, you know, the technology they're really benefiting from. >> well, yes, you're correct. there are things that prevent us from doing exactly what the military does there. but the truth is we're creative and getting more creative all the time in our public affairs world and david could even

answer this, but you start to see nasa popping up in pop culture references a lot of places, tv shows, things like that. yeah, that's not all on accident so we do what we can to get things out there. you're absolutely right, though, that part of the challenge i hope we all take on is to try to go beyond the people who we've already convinced and are already great supporters of nasa and there are a lot. i mean, it's fairly consistent when we do polls and it's fairly consistent between 50 and 70% of the country support us all the time so that's great. and nasa has great brand recognition around the world. so we're really fortunate in that way but you're right we need to unleash an even broader base of support. one way we can do that is by having creative programs to engage people in new ways and i think, for example, the commercial approach to bringing crew and cargo to low-earth orbit is going to open up space

for people to experience ultimately. it's going to take a little while for us to get there for more people to experience than has ever experienced before in my mind that will be the best advertising we can get and have more people actually experience going to space. >> i would like to add one thing. you mentioned preaching to the choir. and i actually want to ask for the choir's help. i mean, the more loudly you sing, the more people passing by the church might poke their head and see what's going on. [laughter] >> there's a lot of magic at nasa and i think the people in this room know that, believe that and feel it. and i think we really feel it. otherwise we wouldn't here. so ideas that you have and conversations you engage in to help get that magic out 'cause i do think it's contagious would be helpful to all of us. >> i think one of the other things we need to do is look at

nontraditional partners. last year during the summer of innovation program, we had a psa with mary j. blige the multiplatinum, you know, music recording artist in r & b and she supports a school in new york, the women's academy of excellence. and so she's giving scholarships to these students in new york city a lot of these kids are single parents and don't have a lot of resources but just this relationship with mary j. blige with advancing women now gets it out to a demographic usually doesn't know what we do at nasa so i think more strategic partners that we don't usually see or work with is really important to ensure that this message goes out. donna -- don mcnabb got taught by the the physics of football. if you understand physics you might be better and here's a

group of students who might never think of physics associated with football. and, again, reaching out to groups that would not traditionally be part of the mainstream. because that gets replicated and replicated and it goes out and using social media is also a big area to get that message out too. >> but please, send us your ideas. >> yeah, this is a two-way conversation. it's not just us knowing the best things to do up here. we need the support from you guys out there also while we're here. okay. yes, sir. >> i'm dick henry. i'm director of maryland space grant consortium and i'm professor at the johns hopkins university in baltimore and i have a question for mr. leland melvin. we're all attempting to inspire the young people and the national space grant program allows nasa to have a footprint not just in states such as maryland where there's a nasa center but in every single state of the union.

and i'm wondering what your vision is mr. melvin for the future of your space grant program. >> a very good question. and we just went through a redesign of nasa certification and we're meeting september the 9th with all our directors to start shaping where we're going to go with our new vision for education. so i'll have to get back with you september 9th. we're really looking at how do we give kids more experiential moments to get that defining moment in their lives? also with middle school teachers, that's another area that we're going to try to increase this pipeline. and give, you know, some of the higher ed kids, you know, these experiences. some of the things you're doing right now. all the things you're doing right now but how do we take it to scale even more with better strategic partners to get even more reach and more breadth. so it's coming. we're going to can talking to you guys a lot. diane who's our lead for space grant we're working together to try to see how we can use the dollars to be more effective where we're going with our

vision. >> thank you. that and a couple cards handed up from our followers on twitter. would any of our panelists like to take a question? >> sure, i'll take one that came in that asks what international partnerships are currently available? and how can these benefit the u.s. economy? we have a number of partnerships from argentina to japan to throughout europe, brazil. i mean, there are sensors and instruments on various spacecraft. some of our loftier ambitions going deeper into the solar system looking out far into the universe have strong partnerships in particular with east of the european space agency. and i see more in the future. we cannot do this alone.

while we can do a lot of it alone but we can't do as much as we should be doing alone. these partnerships allow all nations involved to realize things that are greater than they could realize individually. so certainly there are many existing partnerships. i look forward to many future partnerships. in fact, it's part of the national space policy. and as far as how these can benefit the u.s. economy, it all ties in to what bobbie was talking about, investments in innovation producing significant economic benefits. the farther we reach, the more we pursue, the more we can learn from and cost-share with our partners, the more benefit we can realize in our own economy through new technologies, through capabilities that we otherwise would not have developed on our own, through -- i would argue that missions that go farther, look deeper can be

more inspiring of the young people who will benefit through our contributions down the roads. there are many opportunities and many benefits. >> i would add today we have an extraordinary international partnership in space on the international space station. six agencies working together. and we have expanded that group to be thinking about the future of human exploration. we have a group called the international space exploration coordination group. it's in about another couple months i would say, you will see come out the first international roadmap for human space exploration that is 14 space agencies coming together from all over the world who worked together to think about what are the destinations and the pathways we want to think about for human space flight and what does it drive us through today to think about things that we need to be collaborating on. we are literally laying the foundation for expanding all the success we have had

internationally to the future. can i answer one quick one from twitter? aaron from twitter, i hope to be a geologist on your first mission to mars. how can i make your reality? >> aaron, you're going to have to throw me out of the way first. [laughter] >> no i would be throwing up the entire time. that's a great question and to motivate us about actually getting to experience that space flight and actually going to be the person that does step foot on mars. what i would say keep pursuing your scientific work and i love the concept of a scientist being among the first crew that goes to mars. we're going to actually need to go to space aaron so keep studying your geology and throw in some biology because we're going to be asking for life when we get there and leland what else should this person do if they want to think about becoming an astronaut.

>> eat your green beans. [laughter] >> study hard. i had never thought about becoming an astronaut and i was working at nasa langley for 10 years when a buddy handed me an application and said, hey, you would be a great astronaut and i looked at him and i said, what are you talking about? i never even managed it and thought of it until my friend charlie who applied and got in and then i said to myself, well, if they're knuckleheads like that in, maybe i have an opportunity to get in but, you know, it's really about doing the best that you can in the field that you're in, you know, people always say do i have to get a degree in material science or mechanical engineering? it's just choosing what you love. and doing the best that you can and being inspired and motivated. because as you fly in space, you're not -- you're not really an expert in one thing. you're a generalist because if the toilet breaks, you got to fix it. if the solar panels break, you got to go out and do a space walk and fix it.

so you're not a focused specialized person. you are a generalist that your engineering and science classes have taught you how to learn, how to grow, how to think. >> as a scientist, you probably want to get a ph.d. most of the scientists in the corps are ph.d.-holding. and then come work with us at nasa. >> you heard it from leland. even knuckleheads can be the inspiration. [laughter] >> that was charlie. >> okay. we'll take another question from here in the audience. here in the back. >> thank you, good morning. first things first, thank you so much for being here today and giving us a chance of talking to you. it's wonderful. i'm a graduate student here at maryland. i study aerospace engineering and we had this course last semester with professor hubbard from nia and we were discussing

many of the challenges that nasa has in terms of education, exploration, manned versus unmanned, robotics, exploration and we were, you know, rounding out all these issues but in the end, it seemed that one of the major problems was to sustain or increase nasa's budget authorized by the governments. so one of our solutions as graduate students was to say, okay, why don't you approach the problem from the standpoint of motivating the american public to motivate the congress at the point of authorizing these budgets so that people will say, oh, yes, nasa does this for us. nasa does that for us. so my question is, what would be

needed for nasa to be more present in the civilized -- just like you did with the chilean miners so, you know, nasa has many technological advances that can help humanity at this point, droughts, famine, things that will definitely make a big, big publicity and will open the general population's eyes to how great nasa is 'cause i do think that nasa is great. thank you very much. >> well, first i'd like to say i hope you run for political office. [laughter] >> secondly, in our earth science division we do have an application program that really is highlighted at how we can use the space station observation to enable society directly. secondly, i think, you know, one

reason we wanted to have this forum was to hear this kind of feedback, invite ideas from you because we don't have all the answers, but i believe our content is incredible inspirational. i believe that -- i believe that anyone who's sort of even looked at the old footage, even if it was before you were born of the lunar landings that gets goose bumps get stirred by it. >> when i watched the satellite launched toward jupiter it was palpable the people and the public that were watching this rocket carry this thing to great new destinations were energized. and somehow we're trying to bring that appreciation. the inspirational aspect and the service to society outward. and this conversation is one step in that process. our outreach efforts, our -- you know, they're working diligently but we are always open to new

and innovative and exciting ideas. >> if i could just add to that a little bit, i think your question is very wise. i mean, from an area -- aerospace engineer i'm proud. i'm also a university professor. i'm a guy who's been affiliated with nasa for most of my career. but before i was in this position, i had that same question. now that i'm at nasa, i see the content. i see it every day. and while it's described well, it's rich. it's amazing the way nasa impacts the nation in so many ways. economically and disaster relief across the world, you know, weather, you know, monitoring of the earth. i mean, it's just -- it's

unbelievable, actually. but i can tell you that as someone in the choir but previously in the public, like yourself, i didn't know -- i didn't know about all the great things nasa was doing and so one of the things that i've been doing as chief technologist is we've been ramping up our communications of the spinoff programs. nasa has a fantastic spinoffs program. it's where we take the technological investments we're making for our future missions and we spin those off into commercial products or into services that help the country. and we're publicizing that much more now. just in this past year, there were a whole series of magazine articles that came out about some of the spinoffs. we're highlighting them on our website more. there's always been a spinoff book and a spinoff website and this is just a start. you know, we haven't made a dent

in where we need to be with this. but what i think you'll see this year and in these next few years is a much greater emphasis on societal benefit and communicating that societal benefit through the public because nasa does have a great story to tell. >> i will add one thing and my perspective on this is we are living in a time in our country where dramatically increased benefits are probably not realistic, right? we've all just watched the great debate about the debt ceiling and linking that to reducing federal spending. so i think part of our job in the way we address this is how do we do more with what we have? how do we bring other kinds of support to the table beyond just federal dollars? and we have several ways that we're doing that. that gets back to the innovative partnerships that leland was talking about.

how do we leverage investments that are being made by others to advance the cause of space exploration? i think that is something that is really a great opportunity for us. through our commercial programs we don't just give the government a contract. contractors bring their own investments to the table. we all have skin in the game. we're partnered with google where privately funded folks are off trying to build missions to go explore the moon. what could be better? that's not nasa money. if they make it and are successful we've incentivized with very tiny amount of investment. if they make it there's a prize for them and from the nasa side as well as the google side as well. there's an extraordinary opportunity for us, i think, to leverage other investments that are out there as a way of increasing the pie that's not just increasing nasa's budget and then nasa needs to look at doing things more efficiently and effectively. >> following the panel congresswoman donna edwards a

member of the science space and technology committee addressed the forum for about 10 minutes. >> good morning. and i apologize i was running late this morning but i understand that administrator bolden was here and he said we're friends. he's right. it is so exciting to be here and, dr. abdalati, i'm going to leave another tweet, and it is this, a nation is only as strong as its investments in technology in the future. and i believe that. and i think that nasa is at the core of that investment. i've had a couple of experiences just in the last two weeks that have, i thought, nothing to do with being here today. and i'm going to share them with you. the first was, out at a home in university park not very far from here at college park. and i was there with our lieutenant governor, anthony brown, and we were looking at some investments that the state

and the federal government made through stimulus funding to improve the efficiency of older homes. and there was a crew of four -- four men working on this home to improve its energy efficiency and they had this little hand-held device. it was a device that was used to move around the ceilings in the walls to detect hotspots. it's used now throughout the entire energy efficiency industry to do that to improve -- to look at where it is where homes can save on their energy costs. the family in that home, an older family had been in that home for a very long time. and was spending a lot of money on heating and cooling costs in the home. and so they became part of this program that the state is offering that's supported by the federal government. and this crew is in there and

they've been in this business for about 20 years. but the business has really only started to ramp up over these last couple years. and so the technician who was in the home was going around the home slashing the device at the ceiling and at the walls and you could see on the screen the hotspots as they lit up on that screen to say where the insulation was degraded and needed to be replaced. and so they were using that and then were replacing the insulation. and i was asking about the device and the other people who were in the room too -- november us -- no connection to us. that growing industry, that green economy was developed at a lab in princeton in partnership with nasa and i think you heard from the panelists earlier that we have examples like this all

throughout this country and around -- and around the world. and we have to tell those stories. now, today i'm a politician. but before -- long before that, i spent an amazing six years or so with lockheed before the merger so that dates me a little bit at goddard space flight center working on this space lab project. now, i was one of those space babies who grew up watching that black and white screen in the classroom in those missions and i was hooked and working with the goddard flight center with many amazing and talented people who were really talking about the future hooked me forever, and not because as a long-term career and certainly not now that i would end up in the space program but because it allowed me to see the tremendous benefits that investments in

technology, innovation and exploration pay off every single day. i had another experience just two days ago out in columbia, maryland, talking with this company that is an amazing biotechnology company, and they -- they have developed over the course of about 18 years the ability to grow algae so that it's used in so many of the products that we use that are commercially available on the market that improves health outcomes, and they started out as part of the fbi-r program connected with goddard space flight center, with nasa. they spun off. they are, you know, a mega million dollar corporation now doing some of the most amazing innovative work around. their beginnings, their origins were in the space program. and i think as a member of congress -- and i heard the

questions earlier. our challenge is to make sure that all of us know that. ..

>> all of us know we could that 10 days in a sunday and still not make a real dent in the federal budget. and the last thing that we need to do as we are approaching this new century, we are a decade into that and we've got decades to go. and who we will be for our future, who we will be as americans and as a world is so dependent on having robust investment in our space program. and i would urge us to send that message outside of the doors, as you said, other churches and worship centers, to saying that message. because it really will define who we are for this century. and so i am not just an excited

proponent of our space program and the exploration and the science and all of the technology because of the work that is going, you know, the importance of the work itself, but i'm excited because i know that it is a key to his developing our future economic and other success here and around the world. and i think it's important for the rest of us to get that message. we will only be as good and strong as our investments and technology. and the core of those investments is the work that we do at nasa. i want to share with you a last story, and it is the story of -- every year i go on a family camping trip, fourth of july. all of our family, extended family and friends h.r. tens on the beaches and just enjoyed our few days. i was with a group of young

kids, because now my young kid is not so young anymore so he won't just lie out on the beach with me and look up at the stars. but i was with this group of young children, and they ranged in age from about four years old to about 11. and we spread our blankets out on the beach. the dark night sky, and it was clear as you would believe. and we all were just spread out looking up at the sky. and the kids were so fascinated by the stars and planets. and they wanted to be there. and you know what? i felt like i was about four or five years old because i wanted to be there. and lori, i may have to tackle you on that mission to mars. because i think, i think we really do have an opportunity to inspire a new generation of science leaders. we really do. and you go -- it doesn't matter, you go to any school, in

elementary school, any high school and you can see it when that conversation happens. and i know that all of us who make a point, and we should make a point, no matter what it is you do, going out to those schools in your local communities and just talking with the young people about what it is you do and why you are so inspired. and dr. braun, they will get your passion because i felt your passion sitting over here. and i know that our young people will come and they will take on that challenge. and then you will leave it to us, but not to us alone, to make sure that nasa has the resources that match the vision and the nation. that's always been the challenge, to bring the resources close to the mark where that mission and vision is. and i know that we can do it. just a couple months ago when i turned 53, my birthday present

was a day flying an f-16. and so, you know, i only made the five g. marr, so the next time i go -- i didn't her or anything like that. that was a major goal. were going up and into a live, i just said oh, my gosh, i just want to go farther. and i know that this next generation wants to do that same thing. and all of the things that we do here on earth that helped to build for that kind of technology, and in all of the things we do wait out there that gives us ideas about how to better understand our universe and to better understand our planet. this is our future. and so i just appreciate being able to share a few words with you this morning, and to know that you have this member of congress fighting for our space program, and all that it holds. but there are others, too, and

we need more. and so, thank you very much. it's exciting to be here. i look for the panels today, and i thought i wanted to stay for the entire day, and then i look at my blackberry and they tell me that that is impossible. but it's better for me to know that you are here and that you will be out there. thank you very much. [applause] >> and now we're going to go live to a discussion hosted by the heritage foundation on the potential threat from an electromagnetic pulse, emp which is capable of disabling entire electrical grids. it can be produced by detonating a nuclear bomb from high-altitude. live coverage now from c-span to. it is just getting under way. >> we, of course, will post this on a website within 24 hours for

everyone's future reference as well. our internet viewers are always free to e-mail us with questions during the program. or comments at any time. address those he knows to speaker@heritage.org. hosting our discussion this point is doctor james jay carafano. he served as director of our douglas and syrup allison center for foreign policy director and said that the director of our cabin and shelby colin davis institute for international studies. he's a member of the national academies board on army science and technology, and the department of army historical visor committee as was being a senior fellow of the george washington university homeland security policy institute. he has lectured and and professor at some university campuses. he is army career, he was lieutenant colonel serving in europe, korea and the united states and was later executive editor of joint force quarterly. he has authored several books including the one he co-authored force you at heritage, winning the long war, lessons from the

cold war for defeating terrorism and preserving freedom. please join me in welcoming my colleague, jim care pharma. [applause] >> here's the course of action. i'm going to introduce carcassonne bartlett who is a great, safety words and to some questions and answers. we'll do that for about half an hour and in what i'll do is i will introduce the panel and then the panel will speak on each will speak for about 10 minutes. then will do a question and answer. we'll wrap up and about an hour, al and have it we always start later but we end up on time. so i will be recognizing questions. so if you have a question even for the congressman for the panel, integration and wait for the mic going to come round. and integrate the microphonefrom any jurisdiction you state your name and affiliation and asher question, that would be triggered.

so that overcome. i have a real honor introducing congressman bartlett today. we're releasing a paper today before the lights go out, a survey of the emp preparedness. so congressman bartlett was instrumental in establishing a national commission which issued two very important reports on the emp danger. and what we did is conducted a survey of what efforts the federal government and the congress have made in implementing the findings of the report. i believe it is, i'm certainly the most confidence of a idly the first survey that's been done evaluate what our government has done in response to this threat in the last two years and i think it's very enlightening and important reading. and for those of you come if you're interested you can grab a copy. if you're on what you can find it at a website on heritage.org. congressman bartlett is the definition of citizen legislator.

10 terms in the house, chairman of the tactical air and land forces subcommittee compiles armed services -- services up to me. and one of the few actual scientists in the house of representatives. he worked for more than 20 as a scientist and engineer in research and development programs for the military and nasa. he has an undergraduate degree from university of middle. he studied physiology and zoology and earned his masters degree in physiology, and he taught on the maryland faculty where he earned a ph.d in physiology. so he is a scientist. he is a scholar. he is one of our nation's most respected legislators, and a champion for taking on tough issues regardless of how popular they are or the politics of them. if it's important thing for the security of this nation, that he cares about them and speaks about the. so i couldn't be more honored to start with him. so please join me in welcoming

the congressman. [applause] >> thank you very much. i think we are nine members of congress, and three russians, and the personal representative of slobodan milosevic. we were sitting in a hotel room in vienna, austria, in 99. it was during the kosovo conflict. jesse jackson was in belgrade. i remember our secretary of state was aghast when there was a photograph of jesse jackson standing in a circle holding hands with slobodan milosevic in prayer. we were there developing a framework agreement which the g8 about a week later a doctor to end the kosovo conflict.

the senior russian there was vladimir who was the ambassador here at the end of bush and the beginning of clinton, the end of bush one, the beginning of clinton. he was at that time, he was the chair of their international relations, the equivalent, in the russian duma. he was very angry. he sat in that hotel room, a little short though with his arms folded over his chest looking at the ceiling for today's. and he said you spit on us, now why should we help you? the only country that had the real confidence of yugoslavia was russia. and what we have told them was the soviet union had collapsed

and we are the big guys now, we will take care of this, thank you. and that was his reference to you spit on us, now why should we help you, because we've come to the russians to help us with a negotiated settlement to the kosovo conflict. and, finally, after two days there, vladimir lukin spoke up and he said if we really wanted to hurt you with no fear of retaliation, we would launch an slbm, we would shut down your grade, year two medications and your six -- your grade for six months or so. the third ranking communists was there, alexander, a tall, handsome blond russian. and he smiled and said, if one weapon won't do it, we have some spares. i think at that time did something like 10,000 spares. what was he talking about? by the way, curt weldon was

there. kurt spoke russian. kurt said did you hear what he said speakers of course i heard him. i couldn't understand what he said intel was translated. what was he talking about? something that would shut down our power grid, argument occasions for 66 months or so. and it would be no fear of retaliation, slbm is launched for the city, who would know what it was came from, it was launched from the see pictures talking of course about emp, electromagnetic pulse. it's an inevitable accompaniment of any nuclear detonation above the atmosphere. any nuclear weapon detonated about the atmosphere would produce an emp pulse that are only legal -- real-life express what that was in 1962, johnston island. hawaii, 800 miles. so not much microelectronics back then.

62. hawaii, 800 miles away had some pretty serious consequences of the atmospheric detonation. the soviets had a lot more experience than then we real-life experience with it. we had a number of stimulations -- simulation but it's a difficult to simulate the long line of facts. what is this emp electromagnetic pulse? it has three phases. the first one is different than anything we have experience. it goes right through your surge protector. it is in nanoseconds and it is through the surge protector before the surge protector sees it. and there's e2 in three and a three is really something that we have very little experience with. it's a very long life that will couple with wires buried under the ground if it lasts for several minutes. i came into my office a couple

years ago i guess it was now, and there was a big thick novel on my desk and it had a handwritten note in it. doctor lowery was lying in his hospital room recovering from a heart operation. and he was surfing the television and he happened on c-span. and i was doing one of about a half a dozen our presentations on the floor of the house on emp, and he happened to tune in at the beginning of that our. he stayed with me during the whole hour. he was retired, and he was ph.d in electrical engineering. he really got fascinated by emp and he did a lot of work study on it, and he wrote a novel. the satan legacy was the title of the novel. i don't know how many others have read the book.

newt gingrich came by my office a couple years before that, and i don't read novels. so i wouldn't know him, but bill forced in was within. bill was a very well known novelist. and bill had written a story about an emp attack, and they gave me a little notebook with a prepublication, draft, of one second after. i came to the office a couple weeks ago, and outside the door was a big box. i thought gee, what is that? it was 500 copies of one second after newt gingrich had called and asked if i would help and distributing one second after the members of congress. he said there were 500 copies of there. we're going to do a good job of having a person, not just --

because we would like more of them to be knowledgeable about what emp is. my wife listens to my presentations and said why would you want to talk about that because all you are doing is giving our potential enemies some ideas about our vulnerability. because emp is certainly the most asymmetric warfare that you can imagine. and i told her, not one in 50 americans might know about emp, but i would say that 100% of our potential enemies know all about emp. had to convince the audience is that true, i have a chart which i use and it's in russian, and it shows a nuclear detonation and emp and powerline sparking and everything going out. so obviously they know about it.

it's in all of the open literature of any of our potential enemies. it's in all of their war games. it's a very early event in all the war games. because it is so asymmetric. i guess it's been a couple of years or so ago in a dr. mcclellan, he is the head of the office of reliability in for. and he said that when we have the next event, carrington event is a super solar storm, the last one occurred in 1859. there was not much electronics of any kind in. this was a really big solar storm. a british scientist by the name of doctor carrington described the event and so it's known by his name.

if there is another carrington event, dr. mcclellan said the grid would come down, we would destroy or damage 300 of our big transformers. we don't make them. you order them and they will make them for you. and it takes about a year, year and a half, two years. he said the grid would be down from two to four years in the event of a major solar storm. that's not an if, that is a win because there will be another major solar storm. the next cycle is what, 12 and 15, so it is starting next year there'll be another major solar max and. so we will see what happens. you know, there's a general understanding that if it is too good to be true, it's maybe not true, probably not true. and emp just seems too bad to be true. so, therefore, it's relegated

china to the prejudice and why do we want to talk about that because it is so improbable. i started these two months we have together i using -- by using the comments of vladimir lukin, if we really wanted to hurt you, with no possibility of any revenge, because you you wod know who did it. we would launch an slbm. by the way, it doesn't even take a state actor to do this. it could be a nonstate actor. a single weapon detonated 300 miles high over iowa or nebraska will blanket our whole country. the russian generals told the emp commission that the soviets had developed, they had enhanced emp weapons that produced 200 kilovolts per liter. that's 100 kilovolts per meter, the margins of our country,

northwest washington and miami. we have never made or tested anything anywhere near 100 kilovolts per meter. it takes out all of our microelectronics, all of this back until the day should be should of power. i don't know how, if you have been to a manufacturing plant where they manufacture these microelectronics. i was kind of fascinated when i visited there. it was mostly women doing the work by the way, and men and women are different. our military has little trouble understanding that sometimes i think, but they are different. and women are superior in some things, and manufacturing microelectronics they must be superior because they were almost all women. but i look down and they had a steal and click on, and it was tied to the floor. and the reason is that these microelectronics are so sensitive that the static electricity that you develop

when you move your clothing produces enough static electricity that you could damage these microelectronics. we hardened in the pacific and bounce around in your car, you can drop your cell phone a bit and so forth. at the are exquisitely sensitive to these emp ways. i don't i first heard about emp, but when i became aware that there was such a phenomenon, i called my friend, tom clancy, who has done a couple of fundraisers for me. and tom i needed very good research and head emp scenario in one of his book specs i asked him if you talk to me about emp. he said if you read my book you know all i know about emp. he said let me refer you to the smartest man hired by the u.s. government. that's a pretty big order, isn't it? because we hire a lot of people.

and from his perspective, the smartest men i by the u.s. government was a doctor would year and so i got doctor lowell would -- doctor lowell would page. this is pre-cell phone. and i got his pitching number and i paged him and i thought he was in california. it came down to his pager in washington, d.c., so within an hour, told woods was sitting in my office. lowell's assessment of the problem we face in preparing hard against emp is it is just too hard, we are not going to worry about that. scarlett o'hara will worry about that tomorrow. and that's what we generally are. we just passed a bill. we could go come out of the house, and it had hardening of the grid against cyber, that

could bring down the grid. there are three things that could bring down the grid. cyber attack with cascading effects. carrington event will bring down the grid. and and emp could bring down the grid. i mentioned that it doesn't need to be a state actor. steamer, a scud launcher which you can buy for $100,000 on the open market, and any crude nuclear weapon. scad about what, 180 miles? that's not high enough or can't go far enough to shut down our whole country but it certainly could take out all of new england, couldn't it? that would be katrina what, 10 times over at least 10 times over. by the way, both of these novels, and i would recommend to you get them and read them, "one second after" and "the satan

legacy." that's a legacy was the big soviet missile that had 10 more hits on it. in history, one of those disappeared when they're moving them from ukraine to russia after the soviet union collapsed. and three of those warheads are used in this attack. they are launched from the caribbean and we're watching. we see those things and g., where are they going to land? one is lan in the atlantic. the other is a lot -- the other slain in the pacific and the third is planned in canada. right across the united states. this is an even the attack. -- this is an emp attack. i hope this is a story that doctor lao tells and "the satan legacy," not much is going to happen to this, just the other side of awful. it is awful enough and "one second after." but all of this can be prevented. none of this has to happen.

all we have to do is to use a technology which is readily of able to us through hardened our grid. and to prepare for this, i think it is inevitable, one of these things will happen. there will be a cyber attack. there would be a carrington event. there will be an emp. and all three of them have the same effect that they bring down the grid. and just think about your life. if you do not have electricity, they'll be no electricity for the next year, what will you do? by the way, if it's an emp attack, your car is full of computers. that are probably all fried. but we can prepare so that at least the grid -- you might be without your car. it's going to be real tough without the grid. the house passed a good bill that has emp in a. when it got to the senate, the senate decided it would be too expensive so they took it out.

if it ends life as you know it, it can't be too expensive to harden to avoid it, can't it? i'm having trouble understanding that logic. and it would come it would end life as you know. i know they are me out there who have never heard about emp, and g., what is this stuff? are you being radical and are you a member of the lunatic fringe? i will assure you this is very real. that it can happen. and we need to prepare so that when it happens we will not be devastated by it. i'm very pleased to be here. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> will take a few minutes for questions from the congressman, so peter up front. >> one of the prospects of the shield act passing the house,

and do you know as trent franks and you bill to protect the grid, what are the prospects of getting that through the house and what recommendations do you have for us to work in the senate? >> oh, just call your congressman, call your senator, urge them to get on the bill. i hope we can get it through the house. we, of course, it would be nice if this was the only problem we face. when the deficit is a half a billion dollars more than all the money you vote to spend, it's easy to see how we are focused on our deficit and what we're going to do about it and by the way, nothing would get to propose is even close to solving that problem. the rhine budget doesn't balance for 25 years. and then it only bounces -- during the time our debt about double to italy pounces if you make unrealistic assumptions about economic growth. with the world bank up against a sea of 84 million barrels of oil now or five years. look at the projections of the

future. i love challenges. i'm exhilarated by this because this is a huge, huge challenge. preparing for nt is a big challenge but there others equally big challenge. we need to get that bill out. we're not going to have a lot of money. first things first here and making sure you have electricity just has to be a first thing. if you think about your life that if you have electricity, boy, things just thought, don't they? so this has to be, i think they should be our highest priority. there will be money for much but there's got to be money for th this. >> general mcknight, i was the director, command-and-control during sbi. many stories about what we can afford and what we can't, but we had a very limited amount of bogey for a hardened

communications. and directed gaps between the hardened communication which was our command-and-control for nuclear forces, and the tactical forces. so, it's a matter of expense where you go with hardening. my two predecessors, one was a nuclear physicist, and he put into the program everything on nuclear hardening. the one that followed him was trained as an astronaut. and i came in as a systems engineer. so where do we have the fallback position? do we have engineers that can create generators for emergency that won't be fried? do you have any of those particular things? it's been written about by clancy, by every novelist going, scare the hell out of everybody, you know, here it comes. but i faced this for three years in the pentagon him and everybody was talking about

hairtrigger this, hairtrigger that. but i believe you when this guy said oh, we meant to hurt you, we could have because by the grace of god we escaped a lot of things as far as i'm concerned. do you have any fallback positions that might fall within the affordable area? >> commission a great recommendations, and it has not all that costly to hardened the grid. i've been to the cheyenne martin. i've been to sigh hard. and it is more a matter of attention than it is to hardened. if you're hardening as you go the system, by the way, it costs no more than five to 10% more, sometimes only 2% more to harden the system. you try to harden after it's built it becomes enormously expensive. i am told hardening air force one against emp cause is as much as buying air force one. i don't know if that's true or not. it's very expensive to try to

protect after you bill. if you design it in, and by the way, we have been wading emp hardening for military weapons platforms ever since the little funny of the clinton years. we've been waiting there. and my question has been, he only time we're ever going to need this equipment, you don't need in iraq and afghanistan, and it's nice and you went a little quicker maybe. but you don't need. daily time you need this equipment is against a feared or in your fear. one thing they will do it tonight all the equipment which is not emp hardened which today is essentially all of our equipment. we would have great difficulty finding after an emp. but it's a matter of attention. it's just so easy to violate his hardening, just one little antenna outside and it spreads everywhere like a cancer once it is inside. it's not so much it costs after you pardon the system as it is vigilance to make sure you retain that hardening.

>> i'd like to bring some of folks into the conversation. i don't know if you're aware of this but today is national emp awareness today. it is so because we're sort of declared it. [laughter] all right, we started this a couple years ago and it started at a tongue-in-cheek they're going to be great if congress celebrate national emp awareness day by pretend like it was an emp attack? they could turn off their blackberries and shut off the lights and turn off the air conditioning, close the cafeteria just what it's like for a day. then maybe they appreciate it. of course, congress could do anything for a day, maybe we would be better off. so we did uppercut hoosiers and quite honestly nobody paid attention so the promise act with the congress is paying attention to the wrong people. we moved emp national awareness day for august 15, and august 15, 2003, was the second largest blackout in human history. it was 551 people in the east coast of the united states and canada lost power for 24 hours.

we asked people to think like if they had to live like that for a year or two. as congressman bartlett said, by some of the estimates it's pretty horrific. it's one of the truly genocidal weapons. you can sustain 409 people, if you can't -- out canadians, and we like them, you just can't. when the carrington effect occurred we all have horses and vegetable gardens. so august 15 is national abm awareness day. the question is why are people paying attention to this? you have to understand the size, the policy, and don't understand the program. i couldn't think of three better musketeers to do this at a panel that i've assembled today. what i'm going to do is introduce them very quickly, and then we'll go down murderers row here and ask them each to make about 10 minutes worth of remarks. and then we were just like to open it up to the floor and to get as much question and answer as we can in the time that we have a lot of.

so very, very quickly and very every good introductions. dr. peter pry is the present impact which is a citizens group dedicating, educating the public on threat of natural emp effects to address them come he is also the director of the united states nuclear strategy forum which is an advisory body for the contras on policies to counter weapons of mass destruction. frank gaffney is an old friend, founder and president of the center for security policy in washington. he works on many of the key national security issues of the day. anne frank is also the host of secure freedom radio. if you haven't heard secure freedom radio, you should because it's a kid. and it features newt gingrich, donald rumsfeld, and a pair that didn't qualify to make that list. and drew miller is the present of the heartland management consulting group which is a defense consulting group that works for the institute of

defense analyses on dod projects in analyzing a range of security issues. so these are gentlemen who have dealt with, all with, all three of the issues assigned to the program. so i'm going to turn over to peter and we'll go down the row. >> i would just like to add to my biography, probably my most important credential is that i served on the staff of the emp commission with doctor bartley referred to earlier. i think the science and physics have been covered pretty well. i would just like to recap quickly that an emp could be catastrophic to the united states, could because of a nuclear weapon, a conventional design. doesn't have to be a high-yield nuclear weapon. the commission found a very low yield nuclear weapon such as rogue states or terrorist could design would be sufficient to cause a catastrophic emp attack against the un-harden critical structures of enough states. there are nuclear weapons with

special design, however, mr. barton virtue with the russians, russia prefer to this as a super emp weapon which is designed to produce extraordinarily high emp field. and counterintuitively it does nothing for high yield. it's not designed to create large glass. it's designed to produce gamma rays which was causes the emp effect. the emp commission was wanted by russian delegation first, don't time to have admitted to the proliferation that the secret of the super emp weapon might have leaked in north korea and protected it at that time with a few years after meeting with eb commission, within a few years knows korea might be capable of building such a weapon. whether three of it is complex the technology is not. in a couple of years after that, within a few years after being told by the 2006 that north koreans conducted their first nuclear test in a wider declared

in the west a failure because it had a very low yield. at the seismic signal looked so much like the super, very low yield but it puts out his seismic signal which would come out. they are 2009 tesla to sing. the north koreans have declared this to be a success. and presumably it is a success because the defense intelligence agency testified to the senate last month that north korea is mounting warheads on missiles, its nuclear warheads on missiles. why would they put a failed weapon that needs further development on missiles? or whatever that thing is, it apparently works. so the super, and the nuclear weapons conventional side, and then, of course, there's mother nature can cause an emp event by an electromagnetic storm which are commonplace. they happen every year. 1989 it was a commonplace that caused the blackout in the province of québec.

destroyed a transformative but there is this thing we're concerned about that emp commission warned about after the national academy of science subsequently, a once in a century phenomenon. the great storm was 1859. we know these things happen. they are inevitable and when they do happen they will collapse power grids across the entire planet, not just in our country. and we're very concerned about what will happen during the super maximum which begins december 20 passes through 2013, because we are completely unprotected in getting increased incidence of solar flares and ejections through the solar maximum. it's like a roulette game. a lot of scientists are concerned that the possibility of the storm will increase during the solar maximum which happens 11 -- every 11 years. and last which would have imagine there are nonnuclear emp weapons. these are not sufficiently powerful to take out the whole

country, you know, that you could, but they are available to anybody. a madman or a criminal can purchase an official emp simulator which can be used as a weapon. and effect there is one advertised that usually show him everything that is called an emp suitcase. it's to be used by one person, a very high localized emp field. but if you know what you're doing to you could throw this thing in the trunk of a car and park it near a big transformer, you know, you know, these things are not protected. we have probably seen them when you drive down the highway. there are these chain-link fences near the highway and you are strange, large devices. those are basically what powers the cities. these transformers are located, they are not guarded. they are only protected by chain-link fence. if somebody put one of these emp cemented in the trunk of a car, new which building to park it near, you could block out a city. so those are the threats. very real threats.

it doesn't cost a lot. the emp commission came up with recommendations. you know, we have known for 50 years the technology. we don't need new technology. to protect, to protect the minimum, the minimum that we should do, in the commissions he was to protect these 300 a transfer would associate with the major metropolitan areas. if we did that comment if we could do that for 100 100-$200 million, and since the commission estimated in the absence of the emp protection given our current state of unpreparedness, a year after an emp events, two-thirds of the american population would die from starvation, disease, societal breakdown. at least two-thirds. the commission was criticized for underestimating the threat why fritz be used to be the chairman of the national intelligence council and says, you know, we've made good arguments as to why more people would die. mainly because americans are not prepared to survive the way,

just the generation ago, the great generation. i know my parents, for example, having lived through the great depression and world war ii, they didn't trust the system. they never heard of emp but they're prepared for anything. my mother was constantly can't be. we had a year of food supply. my father knew have -- my father knew who -- knew how to hunt and fish. so 100, 200 million, or a dollar for every life that would be saved is a bare minimum. that wouldn't solve the whole problem. but it would at least give us a fighting chance to save those two-thirds of the american population. that's the bare minimum that should be done. the transfer estimated that for an increase of 60 cents in the bill of every ratepayer idiocies repeat of three years, 60 cents per year, three years for each

ratepayer, we can protect. robustly. to protect all the critical and structures, 10 to 20 billion over three to five year period. and so those are the costs, and one would argue that as mr. bartlett has said, there are some things you must afford, that one must afford, must do something about it and i guess i'd like to just wrap up my remarks with this observation. and we appear to be now in a national security freefall. looking at the large picture, you know, where the american people have been demoralized by foreign wars that don't seem to have much in relationship to their own security. and the defense department budget is being looked at, you know, is something that were probably be deeply cut because of the financial problems that we have. i'm hoping that people, that dvd

and vhs will look to this threat which congress have been trying to get to pay attention for many years now. something not just that they need to do, but you'll see it is in their bureaucratic interest to do it. we need to do things with our defense dollars that makes sense to the average american. and i mean, and to those americans who hold, tea party people have libertarian attitudes now. who are moving toward a period politically with the force between isolationism, fortress america, america first attitude is probably more potent than it has ever been since before world war ii where people don't want to support the military, that is focused on fighting foreign wars, wars overseas. how is that related to the personal security? we need to do that, but one of

the things we can do it is by preparing for an emp at the department of defense and homeland security, you know, which can involve, utilizing many military bases to work for whopper particularly, for example, with local governments, state governments, trained them come exercise with them so that instead of these military bases and our investment in the department of defense as being seen to support overseas contingencies, that include not just for i would add, but enable us to give homeland security capabilities in japan, our department of defense is or is the first on the spot and is a great job. but next time you look at for example, the tornado that went through tolls, it struck me there was not one uniformed person there. and there are lawyers who argue there's constitutional reasons for the. i think the average american won't understand why current policy gives higher priority to

indonesians and japanese when it comes to americans and not to americans. so, so i think we need to reinvent ourselves in a way that makes dod much more relevant to the lives of americans. and emp is something we must do. .. >> for a very long time and as much as anybody in the nation, i think, to try to raise the level of the consciousness of the rest of us about this particular threat. as jim mentioned at the center for security policy which i run,

we worry about a lot of threats. we're focused on the dangers of sharia, we're worried about what china is up to, the russians. we're concerned about threats to our sovereignty, including what is in the offing if, as the obama administration apparently has in mind, dusting off the old law of the sea trity one more time and trying -- treaty and trying to jam it through the senate as they did the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. bar none, even as those various problems are real and being exacerbated by some of the things peter just talked about in terms of the actual effect on our defensive capabilities and the perceived weakness ander resolution that will be seen by others associated with those cuts, the thing that i worry

most about as a mortal peril to this country, to its people, to its way of life, to its system of government, to its freedom is that associated with an electromagnetic pulse derived problem with our electrical grid and all of the related infrastructures. a problem that has been mentioned can be accomplished in a couple of different ways. the department of homeland security is fond of calling these things manned-caused disasters. well, this would be the uberman-caused disaster. [laughter] but as has been said, we're looking at this train hurtling down the track whether the north koreans actually had failed with their tests or not. and, therefore, were unable to

do what i must tell you i fully expect they are in the position to do and in the business of doing. which is to sell a super-emp weapon to somebody else. and as congressman bartlett, i just cannot say how appreciative i am for your work in this space, roscoe. but as you've pointed out both here and elsewhere, there are lots of missiles in the world today. in fact, in one of peter's slides and the briefing that he gives, there are even cruise missiles that might be of some value in this area, not an optimized attack, but the russians are now producing missiles that are concealed in containers, cruise missiles. and it's entirely possible that

that would be the launch sort of cover of choice for a blastic missile, a scud missile, for example. the problem is you put one of those things on a ship, you bring it close to our shores, you don't need an intercontinental range missile to achieve the kinds of effects that we're talking about here. so that man-caused disaster is decidedly in prospect. but even if it's not, even if north koreans, the iranians, the russians, the chinese and others aren't intent on exploiting the vulnerability they all know we have, we know mother nature is going to do an emp laydown in due course. peter mentioned that these things happen roughly every 100 years, well, we're about 160

years overdue. it's coming, folks. and i have to tell you, in the time that i've been in washington which is about 35 years now i have never seen so outrageous a failure to attend to so manifest a problem, let alone one of such enormous magnitude. in terms of the consequences. the chairman of the commission that peter serves so ably and congressman bartlett not only got initiated once, but had to keep going repeatedly despite efforts from several quarters to shut it down, but the chairman, bill graham -- one of the eminent nuclear physicists in our country today -- actually estimates, i believe, in congressional testimony that

nine out of ten of us will be dead. within a year. of this kind of emp effect. so it's real. it's a grave danger. and we know that it's coming. and despite roscoe bartlett's warnings and those of others like him, despite the commission's reports, despite confirmation by other distinguished scientific and other bodies and despite even nasa and noaa confirming that possibly as soon as 2012 or 2013 we're going to get some of those geomagnetic storms, intense, devastating geomagnetic storms, we are still not doing anything to fix this problem.

what do we do about it? well, the first thing is to stop denying that it's a problem. what we're here, i hope will contribute to, is a raising of awareness that causes people across this country to insist that their elected representatives give this kind of priority that congressman bartlett and others have rightly said it needs. obviously, enacting a very modest piece of legislation, the shield act, focused principally on these key transformers is the bare minimum that we can do. now, peter estimates the cost of trying to harden these transformers at about $250 million. we spend more than that on coffeement -- coffee for the

united states government's personnel. and if we fail to make that investment, the costs not only in human lives, but in terms of every other aspect of this country are incalculable. truly incalculable. the commission used the term "catastrophic." and i think, roscoe, you mentioned katrina. think about that. katrina was a trivial example of what could happen if not coast to coast, certainly over large parts of the country depending on how this plays out. so enacting the shield act and making, as i think the act would help do, it a priority for industry, not just for the government, to address this vulnerability is critical. i've talked to people in the electrical industry, and, um,

most of them don't know what you're talking about. at least on the management side. what they know is this is not going to show up well on their quarterly reports to their stockholders. and be unless somebody say -- and unless somebody says, well, the stockholders might not survive if you don't do something about this in conjunction with this being given the sort of priority that it requires from the government, maybe we could enlist their help. they do have a vested interest after all. we've got to provide the resources for this. it's been said repeatedly now but i second it, what higher priority is there than insuring, fundamentally, the survival of our country? and, again, to repeat, you cannot sustain the population of

a 21st century superpower with the agricultural capacity this country has without electricity. not only to grow the food and harvest it, but to distribute it and to do all of the other things that we require electricity to do from communications to finance to water and sanitation. to health care, to transportation. you don't have any of those in most places where most people live. without electricity. and, unfortunately, every bad guy on the planet knows that. and some have said, well, we just do it back to them. well, in north korea that probably isn't a deterrent. [laughter] because most of the people in north korea don't have food as

it is. let alone this kind of infrastructure. i want to just emphasize two other things that were said that might not get sufficient attention here, but i think they're really critically important. one is for years now we have both waived the requirement for hardening of our military's capabilities to ensure that their systems will function in an emp environment. that's been compounded, i believe -- maybe the waivers have applied explicitly, but certainly implicitly to this -- by the fact that in order to save money the military has increasingly relied, as congressman bartlett knows with his responsibilities on the armed services committee, on commercial, off-the-shelf technology, cots technology. virtually none of which has been

hardened against emp for the same reason that the electrical industry is not concerned about this. why? why add the additional cost? even if additional cost, as you said, roscoe, is trivial when you're building it in the to begin with? but it's hugely expensive now to fix if we've built an entire military for two decades, basically, without attention to this problem. and a related point, there's much talk now about either as part of the stimulus bill or otherwise building a smart grid. nothing could be stupider than building a smart grid that isn't smart enough to deal with this problem. and doing it, doing it from the beginning as has been said will make it both possible, i believe,nd