permanently extend the research and development tax credit.

that measure provides for no offset it according to the joint committee on taxation making the credit permanent would cause $155 billion over ten years. buy now or certainly members will consider a measure that will expand funding for charter schools. coverage of the house is always over on c-span. the senate wrapping up yesterday. they will continue consideration of an energy bill that would provide incentives for energy efficient manufacturing and also to promote energy savings and buildings. the leaders are still trying to hash out an agreement that would get that legislation to a final vote limited dh on the bill is scheduled for 5:30 eastern on monday. of course the senate is always live on c-span2. 2:00 monday eastern time when they gaveled back end. in about an hour or so we plan to take you west to california for remarks -- 1:00 p.m., i'm

sorry. we are planning to take you west to california to remarks by president obama speaking at a wal-mart in mountain view california expected to announce a series of steps his administration will seek to increase the use of clean energy and improve energy efficiency. that follows the release by the white house of the report that urges action on climate change. again the president is scheduled for 12:55 p.m. eastern and we will have that live for you on c-span2. the vote wrapping up on the floor of the house we expect this hearing to start very shortly. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] we are still waiting for this hearing to get underway area that is mr. brooks of alabama in the chairman's seat. we are waiting for donna edwards of maryland. some of the witnesses between the space and technology subcommittee on space tenant general raymond of the air force space command, george zamka, the deputy associate administrator of the office of commercial space transportation for the faa. robert nelson chief engineer of the bureau of the federal communications commission, pj is

an adjunct professor of air and space law at the university of mississippi school of law and brian is a technical advisor for the secure world foundation. you see the witness panel and it looks like the vice chair man i guess of alabama talking so hopefully this hearing will get underway. they are in the final passage vote on the floor of the house we expect members of the committee to make their way over very shortly in our life coverage will continue on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] the subcommittee on space will come to order. good morning. welcome to today's hearing titled space traffic management how to prevent a real-life gravity. in front of you the packets contain the written testimony biography of. before i begin my opening statement but they say the topic we are discussing is one that i know is of a great interest to the chairman steve palazzo and he woulhe would've the year leae discussion today if it hadn't

been pulled away by the death of a close friend this week. i also understand he will be including a statement for the record and i would like to offer my condolences to him and his family during this time. i recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. the focus of the hearing is how to prevent a real-life gravity as was portrayed by hollywood last year the threat of debris in the key orbits around the earth is a very real and serious issue. while the movie elevated degree to the forefront of the public's attention this committee is no stranger to the topic. today we will continue assessing the questions involved in space traffic management and what congress may do to ensure the safety and security of the space environment. there are two important facets of the discussion the first is an assessment of what we are doing right now to track and mitigated the debris. the second is what more needs to be done without burdening the space industry with unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles to success.

at the present, the joint functional component command for space, or jscc space is tracking 23,000 objects in orbit around the eart earth including 4,000 payloads of which 1200 are active. the current systems available for tracking cannot detect objects smaller than 4 inches in size. this means we cannot track a flight of paint traveling at 17,500 miles an hour which in and of itself although small can cause serious damage. the tiny satellites test in those have been demonstrated helpful told the space environment can be. this test resulted in the largest creation of debris in history. so far, almost 3,400 individual objects associated with this event has been cataloged and the list is still growing. additionally, in 2000 the collision of the russian communications satellite, the

cosmos 205100 active communication satellite called 33 created a debris field that resulted in over 2,000 pieces of debris. combine these two events account for almost a quarter of all the objects that jscc is tracking. while tracking existing debris is key to the discussion, we must also focus on preventing these objects in the first place. there are two key agencies involved in the mitigation of the degree. the federal aviation administration and federal communications commission. both of these agencies have developed regulations specific to the creation of orbital debris and i'm eager to hear from them today. the faa is responsible for the mitigation as it pertains to the launch and transportation vehicles. the transportation policy released in november of 2013 directed at the department of transportation to execute exclusive authority over these activities. while this was not a change in

the status quo, doctor george neil for the commercial space transportation at the faa testified before the subcommittee that his agency was ready to start in expansion on the orbit activities. it is unclear what specific authority the faa is asking for and how it would anticipate working with other agencies to implement this before the regardless of the plans the congress will need to carefully weigh the cost and benefit of increased authority for the faa against a possible overregulation of a still very young industry. in 2005 the fcc asserted jurisdiction for the orbital debris from commercial flights which require alliances for the use of spectrum. the commission based this assertion largely on the mandate and communications act of 1944 to encourage, quote, the larger more effective use of radio in the public interest. although the congress has not provided authority for this type of regulation explicitly, there

seems to be some ambiguity in the nature of the mandates to utilize the spectrum effectively and efficiently. the efforts of the federal agencies should be viewed within the context of separate international and private sector efforts created the united states has the most advanced situational awareness system in the world, but tracking and cataloguing the space environment more effectively make him from key partnerships. we cannot afford to ignore these partners. as commercial human spaceflight increases in the coming decades, we must b be sure the nation can protect the health, welfare and safety of our government astronauts and private spaceflight participant. it's also imperative that we separate the key orbits to protect assets critical to our economy. similarly, we cannot allow national security assets that are used to keep the country safe to be threatened by the proliferation of debris. the debris events caused by the cosmos in the collision and 2000 in china's test in 2007 demonstrated the space

environment is former rebel and ever-changing. we must be vigilant to ensure national interests are protected. i appreciate the appearance of the witnesses today and look forward to hearing from them. i recognize the ranking member from maryland, ms. edwards. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. welcome everyone to today's hearing. mr. chairman, while the accuracy depicted in the fictional movie gravity can be questioned, there is no doubt that it's made the public at least a little bit more aware of the danger of orbital debris. and that's probably a good thing. but in the real world of the nature of the danger was brought into stark focus by the aftermath of the 2007 and i satellites test conducted by china. this is said to have created an estimated population of 150,000 objects larger than 1 centimeter in size. the resulting increase in space debris has made the space environment more hazardous to military and civil and

commercial satellites in space craft for years to come. so what are we doing to make space travel safe from orbital debris? today a number of government agencies have a role in the education. three of those agencies are represented on the panel today. the teacher command is responsible for tracking orbital debris. the fcc has to restriction for mitigating the debris from satellites, and the faa office of commercial space transportation regulates debris from commercially licensed launch and reentry vehicles. however what isn't clear is what agencies have or could have legitimate roles in space traffic management. that is the authority t to tella space operator to move a space craft show the potential for collision from the debris or another space craft require. other questions also come to mind. should space traffic management be carried out by one or more existing agencies or by a new

organization? what needs to have been for the information on the space debris a potential collision to get to the people who need it and when they need it? is the current system for information transfer working or doesn't need improvement? to cause the causes and consequences of the orbital debris are international in scope, the successful space traffic management require an international approach. lastly what liability should the agency or agencies in charge of space traffic management assume if it's direction to a satellite operator to move the spacecraft results in a collision? these are just a few of the questions the subcommittee will need to address if we aim to lay the groundwork for ensuring the safety of the future spaceflight from orbital debris and other spacecraft. mr. chairman and these are complex issues and so i hope today's hearing will start to shed light not only on the important issue of the orbital debris but also on the approaches the congress might consider for the potential space traffic management and

regulatory regime and with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> i now recognize the ranking member of the full committee from texas for a statement. >> thank you very much and good morning. i want to welcome our witnesses to this morning's hearing, and i look forward to your testimony. i will be brief in my remarks so that we will have enough time to year from experts. orbital debris or space junk as it is sometimes called is not science fiction. it is a reality and something that has implications for the way we operate both in the spacecraft and our commercial and government satellites. it is a growing problem. dealing with the increase in orbital debris while to be easy. as the witnesses will testify,, the issues associated with this mitigation and as potential

removal from the orbit or complex, a number of agencies are involved. not all of whom are represented at today's hearing. but i am pleased that the bipartisan authorization bill that we've recently marked up now contains several provisions related to the orbital debris. i believe that their inclusion is a start to addressing this complex set of issues. that said, i would caution against this area until we have a better understanding of the issues involved. this morning's hearing will provide a good starting point for members to learn about the challenge as well as some of the potential approaches to dealing with that challenge. i'm pleased the subcommittee is holding this hearing. and in closing again i want to welcome the witnesses and i will yield back the balance of my time.

>> thank you ms. johnson. if members wish to submit additional statements or statements will be added at this point. at this time i would like to introduce our witnesses. our first witnesses lieutenant general john j. raymond coming under 14 air force space command and commander of joint functional component command for space in the u.s. strategic command. as a u.s. air force operational space components to u.s. strike stratcom he leaves her somehow responsible for providing missile warning, space superiority, space situational awareness, satellite operation, space launch and operations. as the commander, jscc space heater acts the stratcom space forces providing tailored responsive timely, local and global space effects in support

of the national stratcom. the second witness is mr. george zamka associate administrator for commercial space transportation of the federal aviation administration. mr. zamka came to the faa directly from nasa as an instructor pilot of the johnson space center. he's a retired colonel and an anime core and has more than 5,005 hours in fighter attack test research and training aircraft. he was selected as an astronaut in june of 1988 and spent more than 692 hours in space. the third witness is mr. robert nelson, chief engineer international bureau federal communications commission. he's responsible for leading the bureau's work on technical issues including satellite communications and cross-border technical issues. prior to serving as the chief engineer he was the chief of the

satellite division and satellites division engineering grant to read before joining the commission mr. nelson had serious engineering positions in the private sector. our fourth witness is mr. pj blunt that jumped professor at a her and space law at the university of mississippi school of law is an adjunct professor in the department of political science at the university. previously he served as research council for the national center for air and space law at the university of mississippi school of law. he teaches a security lock on international solid communication from human rights watch and cyber law. he serves as the assistant executive secretary of the international institute of space law. the final witnesses mr. o'brien technical adviser at the secure world foundation and as technical advisers he conducts research on space debris, global space situational awareness, space traffic management, protection of space assets into space governance. prior to joining, mr. weeden

served in the air force working on space and intercontinental ballistic missile operations as part of u.s. strategic command joint space operations center mr. weeden directed at the orbital training program and developed techniques and procedures for improving space situational awareness. as the witness knows, spoken testimony is limited to five minute speech after which the members of the committee will have five minutes each to answer questions. i now recognize general raymond for five minutes to present his testimony. >> chairman brooks, representative edwards and members of the committee began on her to appear as the united strategic commander of the joint functional component for space. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the committee and look forward to working to advance the space capabilities. before going further i would ask if i could be so bold as to ask for a favor and please pass my

condolences to the general palazzo. it's my highest honor to represent the 3,300 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and sailors that make up the component for space. these professionals along with exchange officers from austral australia, canada, the united kingdom and ensure the nation, allies and joint war fighters have continued access to the space capabilities that enable the american way of life. it's a world premier provider of space situational awareness data and process. over the past few years, we have bolstered our partnerships and implemented sharing agreements and worked collaboratively to refine the sharing processes. additionally, we are on track to deliver a new command control system called the joint space operations intermission system or jms for short and additional

space situational awareness centers. accommodation that will give increased capability and improve space situational awareness for the united states and partners. although maintaining awareness of the space domain is no small task, i am confident the men and women of jscc space are prepared with the dedicated innovation and devotion to duty providing the nation our allies and our joint war fighters assured access to the premier space capabilities. i thank the committee for your continued support as we strive to preserve the space domain and enhance the space capabilities which are vital to the nation. >> thank you for the timely testimony. the chair recognizes mr. zamka for his testimony. >> chairman brooks, ranking member brooks and distinguished members of thank you for inviting me. this is my first opportunity to speak before the subcommittee and i am particularly fortunate

to be able to speak about the faa efforts regarding orbital debris mitigation aside from launching reentry, orbital debris poses the highest risk of human spaceflight. during my space missions, we flew upside down and backwards to protect the shuttle goes from orbital debris and even doing that, we had debris strikes and cracks on the windows from the strikes. with the debris mitigation its hopeful to review the operations to which the faa authority applies and where does not read the faa is the sole federal government agency with authority to license commercial space transportation activities. that authority is limited by the commercial space launch act, the reentry of the vehicle. under that authority at the end of the launch, the faa requires the operator to save their vehicle and ensure there is no post separation contact in order

to prevent orbital debris generation. the faa also imposes a launch window limitations based on the launch collision avoidance analysis with spacecraft such as the international space station. the faa doesn't have authority to regulate on orbit. the only agency with any regulatory authority in between the launch and reentry are the satellites. they meet regularly through payload reviews and primary partners in developing effective orbital debris rules are the department of defense and nasa. the debris program office has been a stone partner in the development of faa rules and is an invaluable resource. the dod space operations center provides tracking information and debris production data that we use to evaluate the effectiveness of the launch debris mitigation efforts.

only the dod has legislative authority and capability to share space situational awareness information including notifications of impending collisions and near collisions to cooperating space operators but it lacks the enforcement authority. an issue of oversight and enforcement authority emerges with increasing numbers of commercial space transportation vehicles which will operate differently from communications or observing satellites. rather than travel to and remain in one stable orbit, commercial transportation vehicles will move in between orbits and attach to and the liver cargo to people in other space vehicles. these orbital operations can cause collisions that would create a debris. as congress explores the issue, the faa urges the committee to consider at least two possible options separately or in combination. first, it should consider whether a regulatory agency should authorize transportation

on orbit by license. and in that scenario in agency with the proper expertise blood as a part of a licensed evaluation review the operators plans and debris mitigation measures in advance of operations. in a second scenario that may require additional discussion, we would consider the benefits of an agency with enforcement authority providing notices of impending hazards and collisio collisions. that agency would serve as a referee advising impending high-risk events in facilitatind facilitating a safer orbital environment for all commercial and governmental operators. the subcommittee is familiar with the debris environment that consists of rocket bodies and debris travelin traveling in dit directions and speeds five to ten times that of the bullet and carrying tremendous energy into any collision. because of the minimal drag they tend to stay in orbit for a long time. for example it was launched over half a century ago was recently

added to the reentry prediction list. a collision between orbiting objects can cause a lot of debris. we talked about the cosmos provision that created over 2,000 of the 23,000 trapped objects on orbit. orbital debris affects human spaceflight as well. the iss has executed 18 and the crecrewmembers have been requird to shelter lifeboats at times when hazardous debris was protected with little warning to carry out the avoidance maneuver. as the transportation capabilities and operations continue to advance, and as the risk posed by the orbital debris increases, plans for mitigation become ever more critical. it's time to explore the safety of commercial space transportation under the commercial space launch act. this concludes my prepared remarks and i would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you mr. zamka. the chair recognizes mr. nelson

for five minutes. >> chairman brooks, ranking member edwards and members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about the fcc's role of orbital debris mitigation and how we fit into the government respecting this issue. in 1973 the fcc licensed the first private u.s. communications satellite and the first satellite began operation in the orbit in 1974 slightly more than 40 years ago. under the communications act the fcc is charged with licensing communications and recognized radio transmissions do not stop at the national boundaries and as a result of the activist crafted with an understanding of regulation needed to stand outside of the territorial boundaries of the united states. at the same time, the fcc licensing does not extend to u.s. federal government transmitters which are authorized by n. t. i a end of the congress department. fcc licensing and regulation are governed by the principle of the communications act issuing a

license requires a finding that the public interest must be served. in that vein, the fcc in 2004 recognizing the work done by other agencies adopted the debris mitigation regulations for the satellite services and licenses. the fcc concluded that the debris mitigation would help preserve the united states, continue to be affordable access to space, continued provision of reliable u.s. space-based services as well as the continued safety of persons and property in space and on the surface of the earth. fcc satellite licenses have always included as the one of the terms the assignment of the organization. deviation from that term as a basis for an enforcement action. the licensing process includes an opportunity for public comment, and this has on occasion resulted in objections to a proposed license modification based on collision risk. in 2004, the debris mitigation

rules added a requirement to describe the debris mitigation plans. specifically the rules require license applicants to describe steps taken to avoid accidental explosions to identify and avoid collision risks and to safely dispose of the satellite at the end of its mission. the fcc rules also include the requirement to dispose the stationary satellites consistent with international total communications union recommendation adopted in 2003. and the requirement alsin the rs the left in a safe configurati configuration. satellite applicant plans are evaluated as a part of the licensing process. the fcc is one of three agencies that licensed the activities in space and the other two being the launch and reentry activities and the remote. consistent with long established frequency processes, the fcc is the licensing authority for the radio frequency used i private launch vehicles and remote sensing satellites.

however, the fcc has recognized the statutory role under the commercial space launch act and recently reiterated that it was not apply to the mitigation rules to commercial space transportation activities that are subject to the faa regulation. the fcc recognized the statutory role concerning the post-mission disposal of the remote sensor satellite licenses. of all of the licensing processes independent from now and faa, the se fcc consults wih the agency says needed. consultation is related to the status of particular cases and the progress of licensing activities. further, the regulation to the licensing make use of the scientific and technical work done. the fcc does not operate orbital debris tracking equipment such as radar telescopes and like much of the commercials of light industry, the fcc main source of the satellite tracking data are the dod as well as the satellite operators themselves drive from

the links with other satellites. the efforts to improve the space situational awareness of the commercial operators through such mechanisms of the space data association or an important element to an overall debris mitigation strategy. to be clear that they are sharing between the jspoc and spacecraft operator basis the fcc is not an entry made year he and his process. in conclusion i think the committee for the opportunity to describe the fcc rules concerning orbital debris mitigation, the source of the authority on these rules, and the fcc interaction with other federal agencies concerning this important topic. thank you very much. >> the chair recognizes mr. blount for five minutes. >> chairman, ranking member edwards, distinguished members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this important topic. space traffic management is a complex issue and i will try to

briefly summarize my statement. space traffic management as a contest contains two different elements created these are the technical capabilities needed to control space traffic and the legal appropriate behavior. i will primarily be addressing the legal aspects of the space traffic management and i will do so in the context of the international obligations of the united states. international space wall encompasses a variety of principles that set the bounds of appropriate state conduct in outer space. these pencils are broad in scope and largely undefined. the lack of definition means the united states is a unique position to influence the content of the norms to create a safe and secure space environment. international space law grants allstate the rights of free access to outer space. additionally, the states shall under article nine of the treaty engaging space activities with due regard to the corresponding interest of other states and states are given a rid right ann obligation to seek consultations and there may be harmful

interference between the space activities. this treaty provisio provision s international cooperation and coordination in the space activities. article nine also create createn organization to not contaminate the space environment. under article six of the same treatment as aides believed the states are responsible for the activity of non- governmental actors and required to authorize and continually supervise these activities. this is an expert in a position in international law but it generally does not hold of the states responsible for the activities of the non- governmental actors. this provision gives the states an affirmative obligation to oversee the non- governmental actors to ensure they behave responsibly in space. as i've already mentioned these provisions are substantially undefined. they require states to engage in activities in such a manner to preserve to space exploration by all for peaceful purposes. however the provisions lead to the contours that constitute responsible behavior of the state who traditionally cooperate and coordinate on an ad hoc basis. notably the provisions failed to

set meaningful limits on the creation of orbital debris. the united states has been a leader in the development of international space law and space traffic management should be no different. the provisions of the treaties are unclear at the state's practice in regards to the provisions often help to define the content of the meaning of the provisions. for example, following the united states lead the article six obligation to authorize and supervised has been implemented as licensing regime's. the united states is in a unique position in the development of domestic space traffic management regime to influence the meaning of international norms and international framework developed to coordinate the management among the states. to this end in my written testimony i've identified three key principles that should be taken into account when developing a domestic space traffic management system. first, mechanisms for the transparency and access are critical to ensure the management of space traffic is a sensual to controlling domestic operations as well as international cooperation.

second, the system whether organized in one agency or many needs to ensure a government agency has unambiguous jurisdiction during all phases of space operations. this provides regulatory predictability that can help foster the commercial space industry and also ensures the united states comprises its obligation to continually supervise nongovernmental actors. finally, whatever government entity assesses to manage the space traffic, that agency needs also to be vested with technical competence to ensure it can properly oversee these operations. the jurisdiction to manage will be meaningless without the technical capabilities to do so. maintenance of a safe and secure space environment is in the national interest of the united states. civil, commercial and military operations are all dependent on a space environment free of interference from other actors. to this end of the united states should be a leader in developing the space system that can foster

such an environment with domestically and internationally to mr. chairman, this concludes my statement. thank you begin for the opportunity. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you mr. blount. the chair now recognizes mr. weeden. >> thank you chairman brooks, ranking member, members of the subcommittee. the foundation is dedicated to the long-term sustainability of the space environment so all of humanity can continue to use space for benefits. the growth in the space debris that increases congestion on the critical orbit present significant challenges to space sustainability. in addressing those challenges there is a key part of our work. regarding the threat of the space debris poses there are three categories o of compliment three activities that can help address this challenge. first is the space debris mitigation. the creation of new debris from the human activities in space.

second is the removal also known as remediation which removes the existing pieces of debris to help prevent future growth in the debris population or to reduce the collision risk to the satellite and highly congested regions. the third activity is the space traffic management which i define in my testimony as minimizing the negative impact of space debris on the space activities. all three of these activities are enabled by the port space situational awarenes awareness e defined abrought bedefined as ce environment and its impact on activities in space. the u.s. government's strong efforts on the space mitigation over the last decade and a half or a good start but needs to be part of a comprehensive approach. my written testimony outlines three major steps that can be taken in this direction. the first is to find ways to harmonize the implementation of that mitigation guidelines across the various regulatory agencies that currently have

authority. doing so can result in an efficient process with benefits to commercial industry innovation. second, the subcommittee can call on the executive branch to articulate a copy of strategy dealing with the debris which may potentially include active. third, the subcommittee can work with executive branch and other committees of the jurisdiction to re-examine the role of the responsibilities for the space such regional awareness and traffic management. the key question facing the government moving forward is whether or not the department of defense should continue to be the single federal agency responsible for all activities and regarding operational space traffic management of the world. i believe the answer is no. while space surveillance began as a national security function, it has default into more than just national security. it plays a fundamental role by not only the military but also the civil government agencies and the private sector.

thus i believe it is time for the government to shift response ability for part of the mission that directly supports the safety of the space flight to the federal entity other than the dod. the shift will allow the new entity to focus on building relationships, commercial at hers, to take better advantage of private sector innovation and to establish trusted services with all space actors. the dod would certainly maintain the response ability for and focus on the national security aspects. making this change is not without considerable challenges. first and foremost, determining which federal department or agency should be assigned this new role. one option is designed to an agency that already has existing authority for regulating and licensing private-sector space activities. another option is to assign a federal agency that already has significant expertise in the space operation debris. a third option would be a new federal agency with both

regulatory powers and operational responsibilities. which of these options is best depends upon the long-ter long-m prayer at ease and goals of the u.s. government and the role that i wants to play in the glol space activities. this response ability puts the u.s. government in a better position to harness the private sector innovation currently ongoing and improve its own capabilities and security. it's similar the approach for satellite communications and space remote-sensing. in both of these areas the government focuses its efforts on exclusive capabilities the private sector cannot provide. the end result has been an increased military lower costs to the taxpayer and a booming commercial industry. to become almost frightening to point ou out this baseball has changed in the context of the hearing it's worth making the point again. continued expansion into the numbers are the type of space activities has created a complex space environment.

technological diffusion has commoditized the space capabilities and fueled a surge of private sector innovation and creativity in impossibility for many new uses of the benefits here on earth. it's vitally important for the government to involve its approach on the ongoing change and continue to maintain its leadership role in supporting the safety of the space activities and encouraging innovation. thank you for your time. i would be happy to answer any questions that you have a >> thank you mr. weeden and i think the witnesses for their testimony. as an aside it looks like we are going to have our second set of votes around 11:30, 40, 45 minutes from now. hopefully we will be able to complete the proceedings before the house floor vote are called. remaining members committee rules limit questioning to five minutes the chair at this point will open a round of questions and the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. as a part of my five minutes in

recognizing i would like to at this point recognize the team from huntsville alabama if he would please stand. we have coach bobby murphy, john ashwin, v-victo victor murphy, d green, matthew kellog and estrada rate of the competition is tomorrow representing the state develop them and i want to encourage you all to do what you can to represent the community inasmuch as we are the birthplace of america's human spaceflight program. thank you for being here for this hearing today. the challenge we're facing today may be one we need you to school tomorrow. that having been said about me proceed with my -- [applause] having been said about me proceed with my first question. doctor henry of the george washington university recently

testified before the committee that the faa should be defined preferably limited to those issues directly related to launching and reentry. his comments appeared to be somewhat inconsistent with the request the faa is making today. can you comment on the statement concerning the potential role in this matter? >> it seems like i might be the first one. the current authority ends at the end of the launch and that is the last time an operator has contact with their vehicle at the beginning of reentry and that is when the safety checks begin. what we have experience with is talking to the operators into dealing with the orbital debris mitigation.

we are there as they are conducting their operations as part of our inspection and enforcement function so we have existing experience and credibility with the operators. the thing i will refer to my testimony that is new that would be great considering are the class of the vehicles and operations of these are vehicles taking the personnel cargo servicing of two space stations and also servicing satellites. >> i would add with what my partners an that we worked very closely on the licensing of the vehicles and commercial space launches that we conduct of the ranges we have the faa representation as we go. i would add we are consistent with the national space policy we think it's important that

this hearing happen and that you look at different agencies to take on the federal role really aren't going to pick one or the other but i think it's important that you explore that going forward. >> while the fcc has not ruled on any of these issues, it's probably important to point out they had a role in the past for instance with eric chan sport and human transport issues and they are involved with the launch vehicle situation carrying that through for the further launch operations. >> i do not answer this question. my testimony is who should have this authority. i think there are ways that we can envision either a single agency or the fragmented agency authority where we have

different agencies handling different functions. however, we do think general raymond's point about the overall agency is an agency that can coordinate this information and make sure that all of the involved parties and stakeholders are coordinated as very important and currently looks like the most appropriate for about i don't think it is necessary that it goes there. >> one of the key questions here is what kind of powers are we talking about. and with that extend to the operators what to do a lot of these areas when we are getting intwere gettinginto the approace objects and we don't know a yes or no answer whether or not they will collide except in very specific cases like for example the plan on david between the two satellite. most of the cases that comes onto the statistics and probability to make a judgment

call based upon as your level of the risk. to give the government agency the power to somehow tell a private operator with a level of risk should be and what it should deal with. they are not as numerous as many might think. most close approaches are between either two pieces of debris that no one controls or a satellite control piece of debris. the only situations where that might come into play if a mandatory control would be if perhaps safety was in question. >> the chair recognizes mr. edwards. >> i want to follow-up on this. in your prepared statement you are urging us to get to issues whether the regulatory agencies should authorize transportation on orbit by licensed, and the

second is the benefits of an agency with enforcement providing coalition and from my standpoint i'm really not prepared to legislate because i feel like there's still a lot we need to know so i wonder if you might comment what parties might need to be at the table and what then you to begin to explore with the congress needs to do in this area and might that be a better approach than going right to identifying an agency that would have sweeping authority that we don't even know about yet. >> we really just want to begin the exploration of the solution might be and a very important part of that is having the right players at the table tables of e industry certainly to have to deal with the risk and extent deciding to do the debris maneuver to avoid a collision is

a difficult one and there are a lot of working solutions out there among the commercial operators that are already working and there are numerous ways of dealing with a shy of the regulation and enforcement so we don't want t have to get f any particular solutions but i would say the agencies that are involved would certainly be good players. >> i wonder if you could comment about the role that he would see in the future environment with a whole bunch of other actors that play both domestically and internationally what then is the role of the department of defense? >> the department of defense is focused on national security and space situational awareness is foundational to everything we do. when you have these discussions, one of the things i think we

need to be careful about as we go forward as making sure we have the ability to do what we need to do to protect the nation and to protect. >> following up on what i said earlier and mr. zamka's comments, i would suggest at least from the point of view of the maneuver maneuver situationr enforcing an orbital maneuver to take place. it's in their best interests too move and that's how they would take a look at it. if you are aware a potential collision was coming along i'm sure they would end up moving that satellite. it's in their best interest especially from the financial point of view. having to have somebody that would go through and actually force them to do that is an

unlikely situation and further as you point out the international aspects of this, we only have a certain percentage of the satellites on orbit and the issue of telling some other countries for a satellite that they have to move raises its own issues. >> professor blount, i wonder if you can talk about the liability of the agencies either should have or do have and who should be in charge of the space traffic management and what liability should they assume when its direction to a satellite operator to move its spacecraft or its failure to provide a timely alert that results in a collision or debris. and i cannot verify that question on the liability of the federal agency to the space operator? >> either the liability that the agency has or should have.

>> i think the liability is an interesting question because these are obviously extensive pieceexpensivepieces of equipmet very fast speeds and can cause a lot of damage and there is when you define a federal agency that is going to be in charge they take on a responsibility and part of the points that i pointed out that we should have in the legislation is this technological capability. so right now that's capability if we name a federal agency lets say the faa then there becomes the question of where are they getting their data. they have to rely on me to get their data and then are they going to do this analysis were they have to rely on me to the collision analysis were the fda to do the collision analysis and so until the problems of where the data comes from and how it is going to be managed by that agency comes through its way to be difficult to determine who is going to be liable for these

actions. i would quickly added that the international level, the state is liable so the way that we manage our domestic asset is going to be important in the way that we interact internationally because we could be on the hook for something the commercial actor does. >> it does seem to me there is a fair amount of risk that is inherent when you cannot entirely be accurate if it comes to predicting how you move a satellite or how you move a spacecraft. so, these liability issues i think we have to explore in the responsibility in another lead agency. with that i yield and i think that we have a lot more questions to ask and answer before we come to the point that we need to legislate in this area. thank you. >> the chair now recognizes mr. bush of arizona.

>> i want to focus on what we do with the debris that is already there. we talked mostly about regulating a regulatory climate right now. but i'm interested in -- anyone can answer -- what is happening about either capture or deflect the orbit of existing space debris because i think it seems to me that 50 years from now we may not even be able to fly in space if we are going to way we are because we won't be able to get out of the way. obviously when you capture this you have to be going at similar speeds or it's going to destroy whatever you try to capture. mr. zamka maybe you can start. >> as a part of our center of excellence function we have six

studies and work to begin to characterize the degree to predict where it's going to be better and then identify potential efforts of remediation and other are some things that can increase the drag to begin to bring the pieces down but it is a difficult problem. the most important thing relative to today is the plan to mediate the debris on orbit is dependent on not creating more debris now and as we see in any single act to create a tremendous amount of debris. >> you pointed out deflecting the order magnetically or physically deposit of the vienna seems like we could solve the problem with a bigger step but all of the little stuff, you know like the stuff that hits the space shuttle between to be very hard to get that out of the

orbit it seems like. the commissio telecommunications at the same low earth orbit regime which is where it one of the debris is there's quite a bit of work going on in the community both on studying the problem and looking at some technology that is still near the level that it's early stages of the promising ones that might need to be adapted down the road. nasa works with other agencies to studies on this issue and they've done a lot of modeling. one of the big questions that we are grappling with is do we go after the big things were the little things? because of the generally is different types of technology. it doesn't mean twice as much money probably. and the difference is the source

of the new debris in the future. so removing them you are controlling the long-term growth but it's the current threat to o satellites. so removing that is a short-term lowering of risk. and that is the choice between which strategy is more important and that is the basis going on in the scientific community. >> as far as medication in the future and this would apply to u.s. lawyers because we can't control the international community but is there any talk about penalizing financially people that generate the space junk? does anyone want to talk about that? it seems if you are a private entity and you put something up into space that generates a lot of problems coming to know, what can we do about that and is there a way to financially address that? >> there have been suggestions and proposals in the past and eight tax or something.

a recurring problem is who has the authority to put that in place. as you mentioned it in international environment and there are more than 60 countries that are now launching satellites into space objects, and each of them has authority over their own private sector activities. ..

it is mostly government satellites. there's not a lot at the moment of a lot of private sector activity there. >> but there will be? >> in the future. but at the moment there's not a lot there. the question is how do you incentivize governments. >> good luck. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. bush on. the chair recognizes mr. swygert of arizona. >> it sometimes to find what makes us laugh, isn't it? >> first question and i just want to make sure i understand some of the hierarchy of the mechanics. first off, a u.s. by private commercial satellite, directv or satellite television or something of that nature. it's put up in space. does it carry insurance? >> most companies do have insurance on their satellites. larger ones may actually

self-insure. so they will put up money -- >> but whether they put up the fund, but some others and insurance. how about if i am the french government east indian, or private telecommunication or private cable, you know, or television provider? do they carry insurance of? do they have a national indemnity? considering they are often -- >> you know, from, different countries have different roles concerning how they go about, as is an example of the more of the united kingdom, for any of the folks that might launch under their flag they have a space act, and some of the requirements is indemnification of the crown, so to speak. it depends on the country and what the rules are associate with activity. >> mr. chairman, where i'm

trying to head is come these are very expensive objects both, you know, those from the private and those that are governmental have great, great value. we already know there's sort of insurance regime of some mix. it may not be universal in design. so we know we have incentives because of the valley. we know there's some structure out there. so what happens today? to the? how do they communicate today? general, let's say we have, ma you see something heading towards my directv satellite. do you can mutate with them of? >> congressman, thanks for the question. absolutely. we are very interested in maintaining a safe space domain. soba organization in the command center that i have the joint space opera center located at vanderburgh air force base tracks the 23,000 objects that you've heard about. of those objects not only do we

track them but we detected for potential conjunction. >> what i'm after right now because that was part of your testimony and that was very helpful is sort of the communication regime right now. so the satellite that is providing television for australia, do you communicate within the? >> we do. where i was going, if we detect a potential conjunction on any act of satellite that's up in space, any country, if we detect a conjunction will make an emergency notification. it's in all of our best interest. >> isn't bilateral? doesn't in the other direction where the private tracking firm that's managing, you know, do they communicate back to you? >> yesterday. we have two-way agreements with 41 different companies. we have it with five different nations. there is two-way sure no one at the fourth. those tracking to those that are out there are tracking capabilities and largely with the ones doing this for the

world. >> to any of those private firms ever provide their statistics saying hey, we actually believe you missed our orbit by a few yards, a few degrees? we had some wobble. we have some elliptical -- how do they share that data? >> for those web agreements with they provide what we call owner operator -- address in space if you will. we track it with a radar. they had the exact address of theirs and they do provide that back and forth. the challenge today is our command control system that allows to automatically and just do. we're putting in a new command system in place as we speak, joint space mission operations center system that will allow the automatic. >> mr. chairman, as my buddy and we're talking sort of one off a moment ago, as we see the commercialization of space, we know we have incentives. we are very valuable objects up

there. we know we have the need. we know we have sort of a communications structure and we also know it's ultimate going to be international. is there a way where we could advocate these parties would have sort of an automated information exchange act and forth? and others also hearing the cost of the. so thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> thank you, mr. schweikert. the chair next recognizes mr. hall, the former chair of the science committee. >> mr. chairman i think it. i of course thank you folding this hearing. i guess, general raymond, you know, sometime ago, maybe 15 years ago we had a hearing on astronauts -- on asteroids. and to our surprise we found out one had just passed and what they said was 15 minutes of the united states. nobody knew about it or no one gave us any warning about it.

spoke about it. i invited people from france and england, japan and others. japan is the only one that answered because it's a world problem, not just the u.s. got very little hope from, very few of them showed up. we've had some good hearings on that and things that would scare you to guess -- to death. it is some kind of a sense of process because and when you want to protect our national security at our commercial assets could be threatened by orbit debris of what of the degree there is. or how much warning did nasa have to avoid their threat they that? i think they had one. give us a general, in general and to my question it if it's too general -- >> we track every object or web operation that sent with us. we take precisely the protection

of the international space station pick your from our previous panelist that space station moved 16 times. effect just last month were recommended to nasa they move it twice. there's a layered approach to doing this. we detect where the debris is and then as he gets into a certain area around the space station we then put more energy on that debris, refined the orbital axis of that, estimate of the debris in the we make recommendations with the folks on the portrait of something we take very sicily and a cassette process with nasa operators. we also do that for all of our dod satellite. as i mentioned earlier, for any conjunction that we see is going to hit on an emergency basis we notify the world. >> i know you must have processes for the government operators to warn them about any possible collusion. but what type do you have with

the private operators? how do they know this and how do you contact them? or how do they contact you or how do they watch and listen to? >> we have a tracking network of about 21 different sensors around the globe the track what i will call addresses in space of objects, debris or satellite. we post that on a website, www.space track.org. anybody can get on there and all of the addresses are large portion of the things in space we put other publicly for everybody to have. >> and the private operator has just a good operation as a government operator to know -- >> to have that debt. for those who and into agreements with those we go beyond that we provide service to them in addition to that data and then again on an emergency basis even for those who don't have agreement. >> we have 41 different companies now that habit and we've got five different nations that we've signed agreements with and there's five or six

more in the hopper right now going through the negotiations as we speak. >> thank you for the work. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the chair next recognizes mr. rohrabacher of california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize. i had another hearing, mark up on another committee and i will be here reading your testimony. i think this issue is vitally important for the future of not only the united states but all humankind. the debris issue is not a secondary issue. debris is something that will limit humankind's ability to use the space for our benefit and to up left mankind, humankind. and we are getting to a point of saturation now would either we deal with it or we will suffer

the consequences of this limited, this limit on the benefits that we can utilize space for. one need only take a look at how we rely on space for whether. for communications. you name it. we have brought down the cost of telephone calls so dramatically with the use of space. we have agriculture that now depends on space. gps. we have whole economies based on space better now in jeopardy because we're not cleaning up our trash. we need to make sure that we just not track it. it's like a tracking trash in space. it's not the answer. what the answer is eliminating the trash from space, and this shouldn't just be something the american taxpayer needs to bear the burden of. we need to make sure that we

have an initiative. we should hopefully, this hearing will provide step number one for creating international initiative to clear space debris from orbital space. and i would imagine that our friends in the eu and russia and perhaps, i can't speak for china, considering the fact that they've contributed so much to this problem as of late, but we should make this an international effort and the steps should be made to get this thing moving. otherwise we're putting all of these wonderful assets that we have invested in and are currently helping improve the condition of humankind. we're putting them at risk. let me note, the chairman, our chairman of the full committee, just mentioned that we talked about near earth objects.

when he was chairman, and i think that we probably had something where we are tracking them a little bit more than what we were then, but i don't think that we have done anything that right now that we could count on to say if we see a near-earth object that's going to hit the earth and destroy, large numbers of people, whether not we have a system in place that we could then activate to deflect that near-earth object. i believe that system is in place. well, we've got two major threats there. thinks we should be able to work on with our allies and friends throughout the world in order to achieve this as a human goal, a goal for all of humankind as they say. so thank you very much for your testimony. i will be reading it. i'm sorry that i missed -- and i will be happy to yield to my colleague from maryland. is that agreeable?

did you want sometime? i would be happy to yield. >> does the gentleman from california have anymore questions? >> i'm done. [laughter] >> thank you. the chair at this point, subject to the call for votes on the house floor, is going to entertain a second round of questions and the going to defer my second round at this point and recognize the ranking member from maryland, ms. edwards. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the reason i wanted mr. rohrabacher to stay because, in mr. weeden's test when he had a recommendation for the executive branch to clarify its strategy for assessing the orbital debris removal. it really struck a chord because it out of committee, bipartisan committee passed bill just a couple weeks ago we included a provision that would require nasa in collaboration with other relevant federal agencies to review the concepts and tactic

coal options for removal or bottle debris -- technical options. said getting to this question of not just looking at it and know where it is all very important, but what will be our strategy for removing it? we need to free up some of that space for all the additional activity that's going on. so i wonder if any of you have any views, mr. weeden, starting with you, about what an effective approach and nasa might take to address this particular provision, assuming that it does become law? >> that's a very interesting question. it's a very challenging question because at the moment there's no single technology that seems to be the answer. the are a couple of different technologies that have some promise, and so i think a first step would probably be to figure out what those technologies are and then look for how are we going to mature those technologies? because the moment that they

exist we generally know theoretically that would probably work but most of them have not been demonstrated in operational manner. so the identifying what the most promising technologies are, and then some sort of a strategy to mature them, the risk reduction and some sort of demonstration mission on orbit of one or more of these technologies. i think it's probably going to to be an international demonstration mission in nature given the nature that all the debris is international. a country can only really touch the thing that it owns and so there will have to be some level of cooperation. >> given that the united states mostly tracks all of this, i would assume we should be able to get some cooperation. general raymond, is there a way that dod can play in terms of maturing some of these technologies? >> bam, there's a lot of discussions going on around the world on this problem and it is an important issue. i think the our roles week ago.

i've not heard to date without any specific technology that's out there that i see is, is something near-term that will be able to solve this problem. >> mr. nelson? >> i think mr. weeden touched on it. the technologies and being able to take the items out of orbit and getting them out of orbit is there important. obviously, if you get it out the likelihood is they won't question is something else. the issue comes down to is whether or not you take out -- somebody else's piece of debris. the flags that are flying, even if it's not usable, that particular item has the flag of another country. so there were probably have to be some sort of treaty work or something along those lines or agreements made between nations in order to be able to effectively work that out. >> great. i know that goddard space flight

center has rather robust activity going on now to try to look at ways to resurface some of these decommissioned satellites as a way to get them back in service, not put new winds up. that, too, is a long way down the line but something i think we need to invest in. with that mr. chairman, i will yield. >> thank you. mr. rohrabacher, we have time for another round of questions on your and if you any additional questions. the house floor vote has not yet been called. >> i would just like to suggest that we make this the first step and not just a public relations -- this is a problem, you know. we can do something in congress to work with these folks and to work with people internationally. when i travel overseas, i'm on the foreign affairs committee, i

always want to go to another country i go and talk to their space people. every time i talk to the space people, whether it's russia or japan or europe, they all are in tune with this is the challenge that we're going to have to someday deal with. because it's coming to the point now where it's imperative to do with it because it's limiting what we can do in space. so let me see, i would just say, okay, have any of you had any talk with, for example, the russians or the eu or japan on this issue? >> server, the faa is engage with a lot of international partners, including european space agency and we have letters of agreement with countries like spain.

because of such a big international problem there is international will to attack it. one thing we had an opportune to do here is identify a civil agency that can represent the united states, which is the biggest operator out in orbit to take a leadership role as we communicate with the rest. >> i remember one of the directors of the space program in russia telling me that they had been thinking about some, almost a bulldozer type of thing where you had some kind of a big shield in front of something that would go forward and get a hold of some of this debris. we actually -- are we studying anything that would be -- there's one idea. i mean, i'm not saying it's good or bad. are we really, you mentioned that we don't have any -- is there a program on that is after

going to develop the technology on this? >> at the moment i'm only aware of one nasa funded program to do some technology development, refers to the electrodynamics tether which is a spacecraft that could use the combination of electrical fields and earth magnetic field to maneuver without using fuel aside from sunlight. the technology is fairly early stages but it could be one of the more efficient ways of moving around and gather debris. i'm not aware of any other u.s. government-funded program but i will say that in reference to question by international efforts come next month there will be a meeting hosted by the french space agency that has participation from japan, from nasa, from russia, a number of the countries, a three-day workshop looking at technology and engineering solutions for this. >> really? where will that be? >> it will be in paris.

they've held this workshop every two years. this is the third instance of it. >> what days are the? >> it will be june 16, 17, 18, around there. >> mr. chairman, i would suggest that someone from this committee go to that hearing, or that meeting. [laughter] >> is that a request? [laughter] >> thank you he may have to compete with the chairman and the ranking member. [laughter] >> does the gentleman from california have anymore questions? all right. let me exercise my prerogative now, ask my questions. general raymond, if an event like the cosmos collision happened today, how would jfcc respond specifically can you give the committee a sense of the process that goes into action to protect our assets on international space station or other national security commercial asset that could be threatened by such an event? >> thank you for the question.

if an event happens were to sell its collided it would generate debris, we would detect that debris with her network of centers around the globe. we would characterize that debris. we would get an orbital element or the address in space if you of that debris and we would we find that over time and put that debris into our catalog. once it's in the catalog as i discussed earlier we have the process in place we differ every active satellite on orbit. we would screen against that debris to ensure that we were provided proper warning if something were to collide. >> that's the vote call but we still have 50 minutes before we have to be on the house floor. a follow-up question. how long does it take, generally speaking, for the orbital debris to have its orbit to the point where goes back to earth and it's no longer an issue? >> mr. chairman, there's lots of factors that are involved in that.

that. >> is there some kind of average number of years or decades or a range of? >> i don't have that a much of t to. there are so many factors involved. it's size, shape, speed, velocity. a whole bunch of things. we do predict reentry and we tried to three entries. we track those, we warn against them, when they will reenter but i can't tell you, you know, i can't give you a time for how many years. but when it gets close we can characterize that reentry and we warn against that as well. >> mr. nelson? >> the general actually hit on the issue but it's basically the altitude, the shape of the object, the mass of the object. and it can range quite -- there's a very, very large range from tomorrow to maybe a million years from now. depending on where that particular object is a so that brings up the issue of basically taking it out of the orbit.

>> mr. weeden? >> just to give you some ballpark numbers, at the space station i would say rough estimate on the order of months to maybe a very short number of years your when you move up higher, what's it about 800 kilometers where most of the remote sensing satellites are in the grid congestion, debris is, and the collision was and the chinese satellite test was, at that altitude you were talking decades or longer. once you get beyond 1000 kilometers for all intents and purposes it's up there pretty much as far as we are concerned, forever. >> thank you. general raymond come as a follow-up to my car to question to you, faa requested in the reinvestment 43 to require operators to move positions is a possible collision is detected. how would your process change if at all if that authority is granted to the faa? >> the faa would still rely on the data we get from our senses but we'll be providing that dated. today, again we warn others

conjunction. we do not have the authority to make a satellite operator move. i can't -- i can make commercial satellites i don't have that authority but they would take our data that we have and use that data in their new role. >> thank you. any other follow-up on that? mr. zamka? >> if i may, the request to have the ability to have an operator be forced to move, that can be done in a number of ways. earlier is better. earlier interaction press agree with the operator as part of the operating process was a quick it would be for which they move in the progress of all would be an industry based consensus on what is the agreeable time to affect a move. all these things involve probabilities and a lot of expense for the operator, frankly. >> all right. i thank the witnesses for the

valuable testimony and the members for the questions. the members of the committee may have additional questions for you and we'll ask you to respond to those in writing. the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments. written questions from the members, the witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> so that wraps up this hearing. over on house floor the full chamber this morning pass

legislation that would primarily extend the research and development tax credit, a measure provides for more -- no offsets making the credit permanent would cost $155 billion over 10 years. right now members voting on a measure to expand federal funding for charter schools. live coverage of the house right now on c-span. the senate wrapping up work yesterday. members return monday and will continue consideration of an energy bill that would provide incentives for energ energy-efft manufacturing. also would promote energy savings in buildings to party leaders try to hash out an agreement that would get that legislation to a final vote, go to limit debate on the bill is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. eastern time on monday. of course, live coverage of the senate always right here on c-span2. coming up about 1:00 eastern this afternoon we will take you out west to california for remarks from president obama. he speaks at a wal-mart in

mountain view, california. the president expected to announce jesus of steps is a administration is taking to increase the use of clean energy and improve energy efficiency. disposability's this past week a report that urges action on climate change. again the presence remarks scheduled for 12:55 p.m. eastern and we'll take it live for you right here on c-span2. >> let me be clear that i am not defending ms. lerner. i wanted to hear what she had to say. i have questions about why she was unaware of the inappropriate criteria for more than a year after they were created. i want to know why she did not mention the inappropriate criteria in her letters to congress. but i could not vote to violate an individual fifth amendments rights just because i want to hear what she had to say. a much greater principle is at stake today. the sanctity of the fifth amendment rights for all citizens of the united states of

america. >> i have never alleged that it goes to the president. i have said that the tea party would clearly and fairly be described as enemies are adverse to the president's policies, and i think is pretty comfortable to understand. they were targeted by somebody who politics with the president and to quite frankly trying to overturn a supreme court decision, since united come in support of the president's position using her power. and with that i yield back and urge support. >> this weekend on c-span, house debate on holding former irs official lois lerner in contempt of congress for refusing to answer questions about targeting conservative groups. saturday morning at 10 each and. and on booktv, in point of attack, the obama administration's foreign policy will harm regional and international safety. sunday at 7:30 p.m. on c-span2.

and on american history tv and look at the newly unveiled restoration of george washington's mount vernon dining room sunday night at 9:30 p.m. on c-span3. >> and as we mentioned earlier this week the white house releasing that report on climate change. with a series of discussions on the issue this week on "washington journal." here is one of them. >> host: back to washington to table this point, the top democrat henry waxman, democratr of california. what wasgy your reaction to then third national climate assessment released yesterday? >> guest: that assessment saysas the scientist unequivocally climate change is happening is affecting everyone in this country and around the world. from droughts in california to hurricanes in florida, storms, flooding, sea levels rising. there is no question that it is happening. that it is maned

caused for the most part. we are seeing the hottest year every year on record, as we go from one year to the next. the assessment says it is real. we have to do something about it. i think we are at a crossroads in this country. we either take the science seriously and good on the path of reducing these carbon transitionnd try to so that our economy does not get jolted. at the same time, make the industry leader in the world. what seems to be happening with the republicans in the house -- deny the science, refuse to have a plan at all, and just pay attention to the fossil fuel industry and others to get your campaign funding. it is doing an enormous amount

of damage. luckily, the president is acting with an action plan. if you do not like his plan, what is yours? the republicans do not have a plan. it is no to the president, no to the regulation, no to market forces. host: we will get to the president's plan in a minute. first on this national climate assessment, how is it different from previous years? guest: they have said that the science is unequivocal and that the danger is happening. it is not going to occur in the future. now it isening g to gns >> host: how do they get from its down the line commits in the future to know, it's happening now? >> guest: by looking at the clement events that have been taking place, looking at the evidence, looking at the sea level rise and all of the predictions coming true.

so thousands of people worked on this. thousands of record of scientists, they are very clear assessment of where we are now and where we're going to go if we don't take action. >> host: white house going for urgent action. have they done enough on this issue? the president has been in office for five years. >> guest: the president said very clearly he wanted congress to act and he fought hard for us to pass legislation in 2009-2010 that would've been a comprehensive energy effort to reduce carbon emissions and make us more energy independent. that fail. it was blocked in the senate but it passed the house, and now the president says if congress won't act, he will have to take on the leadership and take the actions that will be necessary under existing law. so the environmental protection agency is adopting requirements that coal burning power plants must be regulated, first the new

ones and existing ones to reduce the carbon emissions from power plants. coal burning power plants is the largest source of greenhouse gases that we are putting into the atmosphere. the president has other things that he can do under existing law. he set out the whole effort in a speech last year in georgetown, and his administration is moving forward to implement it. it would in my view have been better had congress acted but under existing law the president is able to act. he's chewing the leadership that we need in this area. >> host: do you agree with the presidents all of the above strategy? >> guest: i think that we need for our energy portfolio diversification were not going to stop the use of oil, gas and even coal overnight. but we can't just put all of our relies on burning more and more of those fossil fuels.

we need more solar, more wind energy. we need more efficiency in our use of energy. the automobile sector, we see a dramatic shift to hybrids and electric vehicles. but we've got to give incentives to accelerate this movement, but we need also for our own energy independence, we need to take advantage of the enormous success of natural gas that is being produced here, and even oil, that will make us less depend on other countries. >> host: dana milbank, he says this, john podesta, the all of the above strategy told reporters monday that the administration is quote firing on all cylinders when it comes to producing more energy, cleaner energy and more energy efficiency as well as combating climate change. is that a contradiction transferred i don't see it as a

contradiction. and natural gas revolution is taking place now that we didn't even foresee 10 years ago. it's a cleaner burning fuel than oil -- than coal and gasoline. it's a very good transition fuel as we tried to even reduce carbon emissions much more than what natural gas will produce. natural gas has been a boon to our economy. manufacturing is returning to the united states, and we ought to rely on this fuel while we develop the ability to have even less of greenhouse gases put into the air. >> host: let's get phone calls. california, republican caller. >> caller: good morning. i just think there's a little bit missing here. we overregulate here. i live in california. we lost all our jobs to other places with less regulations. when they go offshore we are not helping mother earth at all because china, india, when they

had olympics there adequate burning coal. a few commonsense regulation instead of overburdening regulations that destroyed our economy. that doesn't anybody with a weak america. >> host: what is the commonsense regulation? >> caller: not going so far that we're sending our jobs to another country or another state that has little or no regulation. we are not helping anybody by that thank you can you imagine if we produced the technology to sequester carbon from coal burning power plants? if we develop that technology we would be selling it all over the world. coal is ubiquitous. it's cheap, and, unfortunately, puts a lot of substance in the atmosphere is causing climate change. we need to develop that technology. we needed it with a private public partnership. that will help us with more jobs. this doesn't only have to be done by regulation. if we put a price on carbon it would give the signal to the whole market system to develop

the ways of reducing carbon. and that's what i would've liked to have seen and maybe we can still get there. but if you don't have the market forces, you have to have the regulation, maybe a combination of the two. i think the eichmann that it costs jobs is just a political statement. because over the years under the clean air act and other laws we required regulation, and it has not cost us jobs. our economy has grown. with more jobs as result of it. it's not an either or. we can have a clean environment and a growing economy. >> host: our last guest was saying that companies are coming back to the united states, even as the president has touted that saint energy costs are so low right now in the united states that companies are returning here to produce all sorts of things. if energy costs go up though because of regulation, some say that cost jobs. those companies won't compare to

the united states. they will stay overseas. >> guest: it depends on the regulation. the reason we have manufacturing starting to come back in the united states is because natural gas which is cheap. you don't have a large market exporting natural gas. that's an issue how much more we should do in exporting natural gas especially as we look at ukraine. natural gas is cheaper here because it's not an international price. that's been a boon to our economy that there's no doubt about it. we always have these considerations to concern ourselves. i don't think there is always a contradiction but we have to keep the right balance. >> host: twitter wants to know, what percentage of global warming is caused by nature, volcanoes, underwater volcanoes, the sun, et cetera? >> guest: the overwhelming amount of greenhouse gases is from nature. the man-made addition, however,

is what has upset the balance that we've had for centuries. we see now the highest amount of accumulation of these carbon emissions in the atmosphere. they concentrate in the atmosphere. they don't dissipate. if you allow too much of this, it's like filling up, alluding a water stream. if you allow all that dumping of pollution into the water, eventually you use up that a vote for the water to work. we're using up the ability of our atmosphere to function as we have known it. the man-made contribution is what we control and what we need to control in order to deal with this issue. >> host: will go to gene next in sarasota, florida. democratic the caller. you are on the air. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. thanks so much for your service. i would like to suggest to scientific sources from chemists that strikes us what to do with natural gas.

the first, a nobel laureate in chemistry whose book shows that other than using natural gas as a power source on the planet the most significant transmission is methanol to a dozen country are using it now, in particular the prime minister of israel have said they would use their natural gas to produce methanol and they hope to blend in about 50 or 60% and reduce their oil consumption. the second scientist, unfortunately he is deceased, but he was at johns hopkins, his book shows a power system that emits no carbon monoxide and produces methanol. he even tested out am both parts of that technology are going. the plant is now being built in upper china that will produce

electricity and water. >> host: will have the congressman respond. >> guest: your point out that there's so many innovative, righteous technologies that we could develop -- miraculous your one we need basic scientific research. and fort lee that's been cut not only in this area but in the health area, national institutes of health. and then we need to give the incentives for people to realize they could make money if they develop these ways of producing energy. but if it's too expensive and they can't compete against cheap gold, then they're not going to get the investors needed to take advantage of that technology. let me just talk about cheap coal. coal is ubiquitous. it's cheap and it's cheap because we subsidize it. we don't ask them to pay the full cost of the consequences of burning coal. they by the goal, barna, produce electricity by the public has to

pay with health consequences. our planet has to pay for the greenhouse gas consequences. and that is not having the polluter carry the burden of cost of business. which ought to be put into the way we allocate impact of their businesses. >> host: here's a tweet from a viewer wondering if you think natural gas is a great, what do you think about fracking? >> guest: i think fracking is necessary to develop natural gas. i think it has to be very carefully regulated because it has a potential of poisoning our drinking water. but it doesn't have to do that. it doesn't have to be the consequence. we've got to have fracking done in a responsible way and the public has to be protected. >> host: independent says the government funded the bulk of research which resulted in current fracking techniques. why not solar and wind up? >> guest: the government has been involved in trying to get a

jump start to solar and wind. they are now great sources of jobs, alternative energy. and we need to push more for renewable, not just solar energy but other forces, other sources of electricity, and using that electricity to generate our motor vehicles. we can use a lot less oil. >> host: claremont california republican caller. >> caller: good morning. wouldn't putting a carbon tax on our whole tax or policy based on how much it's like putting a tax on a skinny guy and a fat guy. the fact it doesn't take as many. the guy who takes -- keeps running and running and he's burning a lot of carbon. he pays a higher tax but it's like asking the question in china, are they causing more by

the cars to drive of factors 1.2 billion of them are taking jobs from americans because everyone of the politicians are bought off by how many shares of the ipo of a bobble they will be getting. let's see, can i make more money for my family like integrated or -- thank you for said and the you be retiring but my god, think of the money you spent it at the 17th trillion dollars how much by going to pay before you go or am i going to have to pay, how much of your retirement treachery let me give a comment to that rant. a tax, you tax things you want less of the. so if we tax pollution, we get a strong incentive to have less pollution and to develop the ability, the technology for less pollution. now, not only do we give the

right incentives, we then let the market system work. the best way to accomplish these goals in my view has always been, if you put a price on carbon, there are several ways to do it, you can adjust it to take away the impact that might be harsh on some groups, but you unleash the entrepreneurs. and this country has a history of having great entrepreneurs. don't look at all the downside. at the positive side of this. of course, you want to look at how such a look at the downside of what's going to happen to our environment if we allow more and more carbon to be put into it. i, for one, of the best comments on the issue was from elon musk in california, tomatoes develop tesla, spacex and so many other innovations. he said okay, you don't buy the whole science? what about 10% chance they are right? how can you responsibly take a

10% chance on poisoning the only atmosphere that we all share? it's just too great a risk. so if we can figure out the ways to drive reduction of greenhouse gases, of which carbon is maybe the leading greenhouse gas, it's in all of our interest. and if we put the right incentives, it will be in our economic as well as environmental interest. >> host: you are retiring so what is next for you? >> guest: i've been in congress 40 years. i'm very proud of my service and we've accomplished many important things in health and environmental area. i don't know what the future is going to be for me. i'm serving until the end of this year, i reached the conclusion 40 years is long enough, let someone else come in, not only in my c. but in congress to take up the mantle. if there is ever going to be chance of me to have a second act after congress, this is the time to do at.

>> host: will that include talking about climate change? >> guest: no question about it. these are issues i care about. i want to continue to fight for good policy and health and of our middle area, public policy overall. i will just to from a different perspective. >> host: what is up with cap-and-trade? if we think there's a problem, shouldn't we just cap? >> guest: cap-and-trade overtax our different ways to accomplish the same goal and that's to unleash the market forces to develop ways to reduce the pollution. and i offered the cap-and-trade builder i'm willing to thwart a carbon tax. i thought some of the money from the carbon tax could have been used to reduce our deficit and former secretary of state scholz argued we need a carbon tax but let's use it to reduce other taxes. my view is fine, let's reduce other taxes. a lot of taxes put american businesses at a disadvantage. some of the corporate taxes, but do what's necessary to drive the development of the technologies

so that we are not poisoning our plan at. >> host: greenbelt maryland, democratic a caller. >> caller: good morning. how are you doing? congressman waxman, good morning to you. i hope you stay on even though you're retiring. but congressman, this is a global issue. it's a global concern. i'm a concerned scientist and a ph.d scientist, and part of my job was putting satellites, we -- the melting of the ice captured were very concerned about that. >> host: where did you work? turn four i still work even though i'm retired, challenging the relatively right now. congressman, here's the thing, greta, and to understand this very well, just a couple of years ago the whole nation, all states of our nation was killed with snow but where do you think the energy comes from? first of all you have have it

operation. and the children learn the fundamentals when they go to school. we teach based on the nose in physics classes. it takes one gallery to raise one cubic centimeter of water one degree celsius. to melt of the water just have ice, you melted and it takes nearly 500 -- >> host: good -- >> caller: bid point is it will take the globe to solve this problem. >> host: our time with congressman baxley is short today. >> guest: you are right. this is a global problem. we need the rest of the world to work with us. china is a leading source of the greenhouse gas pollution and they have to be part of the effort to reduce these dangerous pollutants. but the position we've taken so far is there not doing enough, therefore we should do less but, of course, they turned around and said they will do less

because we are not doing enough. that's immature. there's too much at stake. if we show leadership and we drive the negotiations internationally and i know secretary is looking to do this in some of the upcoming conferences especially next year, we need to get everybody working together to use all the best efforts to reduce this pollution. we can't do it alone. california has an innovative program with the cap-and-trade. they are doing great things but they alone can't solve the. it's got to be the rest of the country and the rest of the world. >> host: what about comments by the white house counselor who said epa's going to go forward, congress can't stop us? this is a tweet from i, constitution. there's no constitutional authority let alone executive authority. president cannot regulate. >> guest: that's ridiculous. the congress passed a law almost

obama certainly bipartisan signed by president george h. w. bush called the clean air act. the supreme court said that if carbon pollution is a threat to human health and the embargo, epa must regulate it. that's constitutional, constitution and the law. it gives the epa the power to start the regulation and move forward. i don't understand why people would say the president can act. he has to enforce the law am and this is the law. >> host: here's a tweet. if it moves you tax but if it keeps moving to regulate it. if it stops moving subsidized. that's a great government. >> guest: that sounds great. i don't know what that means but it sounds great. >> host: will go to dave next. we need to make it real quick. >> caller: a couple of question for congressman. >> host: give us one. >> caller: do you realize that plants need co2? if co2 goes below 200 ppm as

measured by german scientists, all the plants in the world will die and you'll kill the whole goes but we need to increase the co2 to about 1000 ppm, not decrease it. that's where you are wrong. there's been no flooding in orlando as al gore predicted by 2014 for orlando would be completely under water. has that happened, mr. waxman? >> guest: plants need co2. we need to exhale and that produces co2. there's natural produce co2. that's part of the functioning of our planet. the problem is the addition that's brought into the whole picture by man-made sources of greenhouse gases. that's a we need to stop, the increases because it's all looking at living in the atmosphere. it doesn't dissipate and if we have too much of the atmosphere, it would be impossible for us to change to stop that impact of

climate change. that's the fear that scientists are sending us a signal about, that we better take this whole matter seriously house of representatives we have to let you go. i understand you had a meeting poppe this would begin meeting with the rest of the democrats talking about this special committee looking into what happened in benghazi. what are you going to be telling your colleagues did a? >> guest: this is all partisan politics. the republicans have had hearing after hearing after hearing. we even had a special task force with radius in which people from the military. there's nothing there, but they want to keep on with the big lie, the propaganda over and over and over again. we are creating a special committee. we out to vote against grading this special committee, recognizing republicans, the majority created and then i think we've got to be there to make sure that people understand what's really going on and not allow witnesses to be badgered

and his statements made without challenging. >> host: your advice is to participate in this investigation transferred yes house of representatives congressman, thank you for coming on the show. appreciate your time. spent coming up in about one hour from now will go out west to california for remarks some president obama speaking at a wal-mart in mountain view. the president expected to announce a series of steps is a administration is taking to increase the use of clean energy and improve energy efficiency. this follows the release this week by the white house of a report that urges action on climate change. again the president, his remarks scheduled for 12:55 p.m. eastern and we will have it live right here on c-span2. let's continue with another conversation we had yesterday, or today's i should say on the subject of the white house climate change report, another portion of wednesday's "washington journal." >> host: we are back with charles drevna, here to talk

about climate change. the white house is urging strong action, quick action on climate change saying it's happening now. let's begin with your group and who you represent. >> guest: first of all thank you for having me on. it's a great privilege to be here. we represent all the refiners and all the petrochemicals producers in the united states. that makes up every gallon of gasoline. every gallon of diesel and all the petrochemicals that go into all the hospital goods and all the composed of everything we use in our everyday lives. >> host: one caller mentioned even medical devices. >> guest: everything. aspirin the asphalt, helmets too hard files, computers to cosmetics, everything in between. the chances of medicine, advances in surgery, the advances in health care, the advances in protecting our

troops overseas but everything starts with petrochemicals. >> host: the president because it's national climate assessment, urging, calling for urgent action. what does that mean for the companies you represent? >> guest: it depends on what the urgent action is to listen to your previous post, you see how emotional the debate is. the first thing we have to do is take the emotion out of the debate. is there climate change? well, i could say yes. i could say yes there's been climate change since the lord rested on the seventh day. the question went to look at today is, if there is, again, how much of it is man-made and even with the report i still think that a lot of questions of that, and what do we do about it? what are the ramifications and what are the unintended consequences? i don't think anyone has looked at this thing holistically to say going forward, we're talking about something that may happen by the end of the century. we are using models on --

scientist are using models to come and say we're looking at a global model and talking about what will happen in a locality. ..ed, but again, can we just take the temperature down a little bit on this issue? what can bebout done and what should not be done to handle this perceived problem. recall -- we had a call from a republican who said he is open to some changes. are you open to some changes? specifically for the industries that you represent? guest: we are already ahead of that curve. we are investing in efficiencies. it is one of the scientific things that we really need to focus on here. our companies are investing in alternatives, and other things. but one of the problems is -- i