our witnesses afford to hearing from them. i now recognize the ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, welcome to everyone to today's hearing. ..

so what are we doing to make space travel safe from orbital debris? today a number of government agencies have a role in orbital debris mitigation. three of those agencies are represented on the panel today. the dod strategic command is responsible for tracking orbital debris. the fcc has jurisdiction for mitigating orbital debris from satellites and faa office of commercial space transportation regulates orbital debris from commercially licensed launch and re-entry vehicles however what is an quite clear is which agencies have or could have legitimate roles and space traffic management. that is the authority to tell a space operator to move a spacecraft to show the potential for collision from debris or another spacecraft require it. other questions also come to mind. should space traffic management be carried out by one or more existing agencies or perhaps buy a new organization? what needs to happen for the

information on space debris in potential collisions to get to the people who needed and when they need it. it's the current system working or does it need improvement. because the causes and consequenconsequen ces of orbital debris are international in scope the successful space 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 a spacecraft result in a collision? these are just a few of the questions of the subcommittee will need to address if we aim to lay the groundwork were ensuring the safety of future spaceflight from orbital debris and other spacecraft. mr. chairman these are complex issues so i hope today's hearing will start to shed light not only on the important issue of orbital debris but also on the approaches congress might consider for potential space traffic management and regulatory regime. and without i yield back the

balance of my time. >> thank you ms. edwards. i now recognize the ranking member of the full committee from texas ms. johnson for a statement. see 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 we will have enough time to hear from our 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 are cruise spacecraft and in their commercial and government satellites is a growing problem. dealing with the increase in orbital to worry will not be easy as our witnesses will testify but each is associated with its mitigation and its potential removal from orbiter conflicts.

a number of agencies are involved not all of whom are representative and today's hearing but i am pleased that the bipartisan reauthorization bill that we recently marked up now contains several provisions related to orbital debris. i believe that their inclusion is a useful start to addressing this complex set of issues. that said i would caution legislation further in 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 both the challenge presented by orbital debris as well as some of the potential approaches to dealing with that challenge. i am pleased that the subcommittee is holding this hearing. in closing i again want to welcome our witnesses and i yield back the balance of my time.

>> thank you ms. johnson. if there are members who wish to submit additional opening statements are statements will be added to the record at this point. at this time i would like to introduce our witnesses. our first witnesses lieutenant general john jay raiment commander 14th air force air force basic mandate commander joint command for space u.s. strategic command. as a u.s. air force operational space component to u.s. stratcom general maim and leaves more than 20,500 personnel responsible for providing missile warning, space superiority or space launch and range operations carried as commander jay fcc space directs assigned and attached stratcom space forces regarding timely local and global space affects in support of national uss

stratcom and combatant commander objectives better second witness today is mr. george zamka deputy associate demonstrated for commercial space transportation of the federal aviation administration. mr. zamka came to the faa directly from nasa where he served as an astronaut most recently as a research instructor pilot at the johnson space center read he is a retired colonel in the marine corps and 5000 flight hours in fighter attack test research and training aircraft. he was selected as an astronaut by nasa in june of 1998. he has spent more than 692 hours in space. our third witness is mr. robert nelson chief engineer international bureau federal communications commission. he is responsible for leading work on technical issues including satellite medications and cross-border technical issues. heart of serving as the bureau's chief engineer he was chief of the bureau satellite division and satellite division

engineering branch. before joining the commission mr. nelson of various and engineering positions in the private sector. our fourth witness is mr. p.j. blount adjunct professor at the university of mississippi school of law. he's also an adjunct professor of the department of political science of law at montpellier state university. he he served as research counsel for the national center for air and space law at the university of mississippi school of law. he teaches space security line international telecommunications law human rights law and cyberlaw. he serves as the assistant executive secretary of the international institute of space law. our final witness is mr. brian weeden technical advisor of the secure world commission. he conducts studies on space assets and space governance. prior to joining sws mr. weeden

serve active duty as an officer of the united states air force working on intercontinental ballistic missile operations as part of u.s. treasury commands joint space operations center. mr. weeden directed the analyst training program and developed tactics techniques and procedures for improving space situational awareness. as our witness would know spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each after which the members of the committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. i now recognize general raymond for five minutes to present his testimony. >> chairman brooks represented edwards and members of the subcommittee is an honor to appear before u.s. united states strategic command commander of the joint component command for space. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the committee and i look forward to working with you to advance the nation's space capabilities. before going for that would ask for a favor and just please pass along my condolences to chairman

palazzo. it's my highest honor to represent the 3300 soldiers sailors airmen and marines and civilians that make up the joint functional command for space. these professionals along with our exchange officers from australia canada the united kingdom ensure our nation and our allies and the joint warfighters have continued access to the space capabilities that enable the american way of life. jay fcc space is the world's premier provider of space situational awareness data and products. over the past few years we have holstered our commercial and international partnerships raid we have implemented two-way sharing agreements and work collaboratively to refine our sharing processes. additionally we are on track to deliver a new command and control system called the joint space operations center mission system or jms for short and additional space situational sensors or the combination will

give us increase capability and give us a your awareness for the united states and our partners. although maintaining awareness of the space domain is no small task i'm confident the men and women of the jay fcc space are prepared to meet the challenges with the spirit of dedication and devotion to duty providing our nation our allies and joint warfighters assured access to the world's premier space capabilities. i think the committee for your continued support as we strive to preserve the space domain and enhance the space capabilities which are so vital to our nation. >> thank you for your timely testimony. the chair next recognizes mr. zamka for his testimony. >> chairman brooks ranking member edwards and distinguished members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me. this is my first opportunity to speak before the subcommittee and i'm particularly fortunate to be able to speak about the

faa's efforts regarding orbital debris mitigation. aside from launch and re-entry orbital debris poses the highest risk to human spaceflight. during my two space missions we flew upside down and backwards to protect our shuttle windows from orbital debris and in doing that we had debris strikes and? on our windows from very small debris strikes. with regard to orbital debris mitigation it's helpful to review the operations to which the faa's authority applies or does not. 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 to the launch and re-entry vehicle. under that authority at the end of launch the faa requires the operator of the launch vehicle to save their vehicle and ensure there's no post separation contact with are deploying payload in order to prevent orbital debris generation.

the faa also imposes large imitations based on the launch collision avoidance analysis with human spacecraft such as the international space station. the faa does not currently have authority to regulate on orbit. the only agencies with any regulatory authority between launch and re-entry events or the fcc for communications satellitesatellite s and noah for remote sensing satellites. the faa interfaces with the fcc and no of regularly through payload reviews and our primary partners in developing orbital debris rules for the department of defense and nasa. the nasa orbital dip grade program office has been a strong partner in the development of faa rules and is a valuable resource. the dod joint space operations center rj spock provides tracking information to pre- detection data that we use to evaluate the effectiveness of launch debris mitigation efforts. only the dod has legislative

authority and capability to share space awareness information including notifications of the pending collision and near collisions cooperating space operators that lacks enforcement authority. an issue of oversight and enforcement authority emerges with increasing number of commercial space transportation vehicles which will operate differently from communications or earth observing satellites. rather than travel to and remain in one state of orbit commercial transportation moves in between orbits and rendezvous with cargo and people to other orbiting space vehicles. these orbital operations could cause collisions. as congress explores the issue of orbital debris and transportation hazards the faa urges the subcommittee to consider at least two possible options separately or in combination. first as you consider whether regulatory agency should authorize transportation on orbit by license and in that

scenario and agency with the proper expertise would this just part of a licensed evaluation review the operators plans and debris mitigation measures in advance of operations to a the second scenario that may require an additional discussion we would consider the benefits of nh and sea with enforcement authority providing notices of pending hazards and collisions. that agency would serve as a referee advising impending high-risk events in in facilitating assay for orbital environment for all commercial operators. the subcommittee is familiar with orbital debris environment that consists of spent rocket bodies and debris traveling in different directions at speeds five to 10 times that of the bullet caring tremendous energy into any collision. because of minimal atmosphere drag and earth orbit objects tend to stay in orbit at least for a long time. for example tyros too launched over a half-century ago was recently added to the 60-day

re-entry prediction list. collisions between orbiting objects can cause a lot of debris. we talked about the uranium cosmos collision that created over 2,023,000 tracked objects in orbit. opal blue debris affects human spaceflight as well. iss crewmembers have been required to shelter in their soyuz lifeboat at times when debris was detected with two little warning to plan and carry out and -- as capabilities and operations continue to advance and as the risk posed by orbital debris increases plans for mitigation, ever more critical. it's time to explore the orbital safety of commercial space transportation under

issuing the license requires that the public interest must be

served. in that vein the fcc in 2000 for recognizing work done by nasa and other agencies adopt a debris mitigation relations for the satellite services and licenses. the fcc concluded debris mitigation rules would preserve united states continue affordable access to space the continued provision of reliable u.s. space-based services as well as the contingent safety of persons and property in space and the surface of the earth. fcc satellite licenses of always included as one of the terms the assignment of an orbital location. deviation from that license term gives basis for an enforcement action. the fcc 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 debris mitigation rules added a requirement to describe debris mitigation claims.

specifically the fcc 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 a requirement to dispose of geostationary satellites with the international telecommunications recommendation adopted in 2003 and a requirement that all satellites be left in a safe configuration. satellite applicants plans are evaluated as a part of the licensing process. the fcc is one of three agencies that license commercial activities in space. the other two being the faa for launch and re-entry at today's and noaa. consistent with long-established radiofrequency management processes the fcc is the licensing authority for frequency use. however the fcc has recognized

the faa's statutory role under the commercial space launch act and it recently reiterated it would not apply to debris mitigation rules to commercial space transportation activities subject to faa regulation. and noaa's statutory role of remote licenses. although the licensing process is independent the fcc consults with agencies as needed. consultation is often related to status of cases in the progress of licensing activities. the fcc's regulations and licensing mail make use of scientific and technical work done by nasa. like much of the commercial satellite industry the fcc main sources of tracking data are dod j. spock as well as the satellite operating themselves derive from the radio links with satellites.

the efforts to improve space awareness of the operators through such mechanisms as a space data association are an important element to an overall debris mitigation strategy. to be clear data-sharing between j. spock and commercial operators is on a spacecraft operator to spacecraft operator basis. in conclusion i think the committee for this opportunity to describe the roles concerning orbital debris mitigatiomitigatio n the authority on these rules and the fcc's interaction with other federal government agencies considering this important topic. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. nelson to the chair now recognizes mr. blount for five minutes. >> chairman brooks ranking member member edwards does he wish morceau subtwenty thank you for the opportunity to bid peer before you today. space traffic management is a complex issue and i will briefly summarize my written statement.

as a concept it contains two different elements. these are the technical capabilities needed to control space traffic in and the legal regime which governs behavior. i will primarily be addressing the legal aspects of space traffic management and will do so in the context of the international obligations of the united states. international space fun compasses a variety of principles that set the balance of appropriate state conduct in outer space. these principles are broad in scope and largely and a fine. the lack of definition means the united states is in a unique position to influence the content of these norms to help create a safe and secure space environment. international space love grants all states the rights of free access to outer space. additionally stage show under article ix of the treaty engaging in space activities with due regard to the corresponding interest of other states and states are given a right and an obligation to seek consultations when there may a harmful interference.

this treaty provision of the sizes international cooperation in coronation with space activities activities. article ix creates an obligation to not contaminate the space environments. under article vi of the same treaty states are internationally responsible for the activities of nongovernmental actors and required to authorize and continually supervise these activities. this is an extraordinary position in international law which generally does not hold states responsible for the activities of nongovernmental actors. this provision gives states an affirmative obligation to oversee nongovernment doctors to ensure they behave responsibly in space. as i have arguments in these provisions are undefined. they require states to engage in space activities in such a manner as to reserve space for use in expiration for peaceful purposes however these provisions with the contours of what constitutes responsible behavior of two states who've traditionally cooperated and corrugated on an ad hoc basis. notably these provisions it have failed to set meaningful limits on the creation of orbital

debris. united states has traditionally been a leader in the development of international space law and space traffic management should be no different. the provisions of treaties are unclear and often helped to define the content and meaning of those provisions. for example following the united states lead article vi obligation authorizes its has been applauded by states is licensing regimes. 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 the international framework developed to coordinates space traffic management among 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 provided for data transparency and access are critical to ensuring proper management of space traffic. it's essential to controlling domestic operations as well as coronate international cooperation. second of space traffic

management system would organize a one agency were many needs to ensure the government agency has unambiguous jurisdiction during all phases of space operations. this provides regulatory predictability which can help foster the commercial space industry and also ensures united states complies with its obligation to continually supervise nongovernmental actors. finally whatever government entity or entities is vested with the jurisdiction that agency has to be invested with technical competence to oversee these operations. jurisdiction and managed operations will be meaningless without the technical capabilities. the 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 space environment free of interference from other actors. to this and the united states should be a leader in developing the space traffic management system that can foster such an environment domestically and

internationally. mr. chairman this concludes my statement. thank you again for the opportunity. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you mr. blount in the chair recognizes mr. weeden. >> we are dedicated to long-term space environment so all of humanity continue to use space or benefits on earth. the growth in space debris and increasing congestion in critical regions of earth orbit present significant challenges to space -- and addressing those challenges is a key part of our work create regarding the threat that space debris poses there were three categories of complementary activities that can help address that challenge. the first of space debris mitigation. the creation of new debris for human activities in space. the second is active removal also known as remediation which

aims to remove some existing pieces of debris to help prevent future growth in the debris population or to reduce the collision risks of satellites and highly congested regions. the third activity of space traffic enrichment which i define in my testimony as minimizing the negative impact of space debris on space activities. all three of these activities are enabled by a fourth space situational awareness broadly defined as characterizing space environment and its impact on activities in space. the u.s. government strong efforts on space debris dedication over the last decade and a half for a good start. they need to be part of more conference of 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 their mitigation guidelines across the various realtor agencies that currently have authority. doing so can result in a more

efficient and effective process with benefits to commercial industry and innovation. second the subcommittee can call on the executive branch to articulate a conference of strategy for dealing with the space debris which may potentially include active removal. third the subcommittee can work with the executive branch and that the committees of jurisdiction to re-examine the roles and responsibilities for situational awareness. the key question facing this government moving forward is whether or not the department of defense should continue to be the single federal agency responsible for all space situational awareness activities and providing operational space traffic management for the world i believe the answer is no. plus the surveillance began as a national security function it has evolved into more than just national security. it plays a fundamental role in the breadth and space of activities being conducted by not only the military but also civil government agencies and the private sector.

thus i believe it's time the u.s. government to shift responsible for part of the ssa mission that directly supports the need of spaceflight to the federal entity other than the dod. the shift will allow this new entity to focus on building relationships with commercial foreign actors take better advantage of private sector innovation and established trusted services with all space actors. the dod will simply retain responsibility for any focus on the national security aspects. making this challenge -- change is not without considerable challenges. first and foremost determining which federal department or agency should be assigned this new role. one option is to assign an agency that has existing authority for regulating and licensing private sector space activities. another option is to assign federal agency that has significant expertise in space operations space debris. a third option would be to assign it to the federal agency with operational responsibility.

which of these options is best depends upon the long-term priorities and goals for the u.s. government and the role it wants to play in global space activities. this proposed shift in responsibility of belief puts u.s. government in a better position to harness the private sector innovation currently ongoing and improve its own capabilities and security in orbit. it is very similar to the dod approach for satellite committee patience and space-based remote sensors and both these areas the government focuses its efforts on exclusive niche capabilities the private sector cannot provide. the end result has been an increase capability for the military lower cost the taxpayer and a booming commercial industry. it has become almost -- to point out the space has changed but the context of this hearing it's worth making this point again. the continued expansion in space actors the types of space activities has created a complex environment via technological

diffusion has commoditized space capabilities. fueled a surge of private sector innovation and created the possibility for many new uses of space for benefits on earth. it's vitally important to the us government to evolve its approach to stay abreast of ongoing change and continue to maintain its leadership role in supporting the safety of space activities and encouraging innovation. thank you for your time and i will be happy to answer any questions you have. >> thank you mr. weeden and i thank the witnesses for their testimony. as an aside it looks like we are going to have our second set of votes somewhere around 11:30 roughly 40 or 45 minutes from now. hopefully we will build complete these proceedings before -- reminding members the chair will at this point open a round of questions in the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. ..

>> the george washington university testified before the committee that the faa should be defined and preferable limited

to those issues related to launching and reentry end quote. this comments appear to be inconsistent with what the faa is making today. can you comment on the statement concerning the faa's potential role in the space debris matter. go ahead whoever wants to poke the button first. >> the faa's current authority ends at the end of launch. that is the last time an operator has contact with their launch vehicle and that begins at the beginning of reentry. that is the our current authority. what we have experience with is talking to the operators and dealing with orbital debris litigation. we are there also as they are conducting their operations as part of our inspection and

enforcement function. so we have existing experience and creditability with the launch operators. the thing i will refer to my testimony with that is new that would be worth considering are the new class of vehicles and operations. these are vehicles taking personal cargo and servicing up to human space stations and servicing satellites >> i would just add consistent what my panelist partner said we work closely with the faa on the licensing of launch vehicles and in commercial space launches we have faa representation as we go through the process. i would just add that we are consistent with the national space policy. we think it is important you look at what happened and that you look at different agencies

to be able to take on the lead federal agencies load. we will not pick one or the other but it is important to explore that and we are interesting in exploring that. >> the fcc hasn't ruled on the issues, but it is probably important to point out the faa had a role in the past with air transport and human transport issues and the fact they are involved with the launch vehicle situation and that might be an appropriate situation in regard to transporter further launch operations. >> i actually don't answer this testimony. my testimony is to who should have this authority. i think there are ways we can envision a single or fragments agency authority where we have different agencies handling different functions but i think the point about having a lead

federal agencies is important. an agency that can cord nature this information is important and i think currently the faa looks the most appropriate but i don't think it is necessary it goes there. >> i would add that one of the key questions here is what kind of powers are we talking about. would that extend to telling satellite operators what to do? that is a complicated question. a lot of these scenario when you get into close approach of the base objects we don't know a yes or no answer whether or not two things will collide except in very specific cases. and most of the cases it comes down to statistics and probability. we have having to make a judgment call based on your level of risk. and i think the hesitant to give

the government agency the power to tell a private operator what that level of risk should be and what they should deal with. on the other side the situations where that might need to be approached isn't as close as you thing. most approaches are between two things no one controls or satellite and a debris. it would only be an issue if human safety was in question. >> we recognize ms. edwards. >> i want to follow up on this because you are urging us to look at two issues. one is whether a regulatory organization should provide

authorization. i am not prepared to legislate yet because i feel there is a lot we need to know. i wonder if you could comment on what parties would be at a table in what venue to explore what congress needs to do in this area and might that be a better approach than identifying an agencies we don't even know about yet? >> thank you for that. we want to begin exploring what the solution is and having the right people at the table is important. so industry who has to deal with the risks and the expenses for deciding to do a debris maneuver to avoid a collision is a difficult one. there are working solutions out

there amongst commercial operators that are working and there are numerous ways of dealing with it shy of regulation and shy of enforcement and so we don't want to get ahead of particular solutions that are out there. but i would say industry and the agencies involved would be good players. >> and before i go to mr. nelson, general raymond, i wonder if you would comment about the role you see in a future environment with a bunch of other actors at play both domestically and internationally, what is the role of the department of defense in this? >> clearly, ma'am, the department of defense is focused on national security. and space situational awareness is a foundation of everything we do in space for security. we need to make sure we have the ability to protect our nation

and nation's satellites. >> and mr. nelson? >> following up on what i said earlier, i would suggest at least from the point of view of orbital maneuver or forcing an orbital maneuver to take place that from the point of view from it folks we work with, it is in their best interest to move and that is how they would take a look at it. if they were aware of a potential collision was coming along i am sure they would move the satellite to take care of that. it is in their best interest especially from a financial point of view. so having to have someone that would have to go through and force them and say to them to do that is probably unlikely situation. and further as you point out the international aspects of

this, we only have a concern percentage of the satellites that are on orbit and the situation of telling another foreign country satellite it has to move raises its own issues. >> and i wonder if you could talk to me about the liability that the agencies either should have or do have who should be in charge of space traffic management and what liability should they assume when it is dregs to move a space craft -- direction -- that results in a slin slings -- collision -- the liability the agency has or should have. >> these are expensive pieces of

equipment moving at high speeds that can cause a lot of damage. when you define a federal agency that is in charge they take on a responsibility and part of the point i point out we should have in the legislation is the idea of technilogical capability and if we name a federal agency there is the question of where they getting their data. will they have to rely on dod and then they will do the analys analysis? so until the problems of where data comes prom and how it is going to be managed from the agency comes through it is going to be difficult to determine who is liability for the actions. at the international leal level

state is liable. so the way we manage domestic assets is important for the way we act internationally. >> it does seem to me there is a fair amount of risk that is inherent when you cannot entirery be accurate if it comes to predicting how you move a satellite or space craft. so you know these liability issues, i think, we are going to have to explore if we shove responsibility to another lead agency. i think, mr. chairman, we have a lot more questions to ask or answer before we come to a point where we need to legislate. >> the chair recognizes the gentlemen from indiana. >> i want to focus on what we do with the debris that is already

there. we are talking about regulating a regulatory climate right now. but anyone can answer this, what is happening with rnd about how to capture or deflect the orbit of existing space debris? it seems to me 50 years from now we might not be able to fly in space if we keep going the way we are because we will not be able to get out of the way of stuff flying around the earth. obviously when you capture this stuff you have to be going at similar speeds or it is going to destroy what you try to capture with. >> it is difficult problem because of the high-speeds involved and you would have to track it down. we have six studies in work to

begin to characterize that debris and predict where it is going to be better and identify potential efforts and remeadation and there things that could use a magnetic field to bring the pieces down but it is a difficult problem. the most important thing relative to today, though, is that any plan to remediate debris on orbit is dependented on not creating more debris and any accidents creates a tremendous amount. >> and deflecting the orbit magnetically is a possibility. all of the little stuff, like the stuff that hitathize space shuttle is hard to get that stuff out of the orbit it seems like. >> yes, sir. and one of the challenges we have is the human space flight

and it telecommunication satellites and earth observing satellites are in the region with the debris. >> you had a comment, mr. weeden? >> yes, there is a lot of work going on on studying the problem and looking at technology that is still nearly level but early stages but the promising ones might be adapted down the road. nasa works with a number of agencies to study this. we are grappling if we go after the big things or little things. it is generally different types of technology. we are moving the debris and

controlling long term growth with the big debris. but the smaller debris is a threat to satellites so removing that is a short-term lowering of the risk. it is choice of which strategy is more important and that debate is going on within the scientific community. >> as far as mitigation in the future and this applies to u.s. players, but is there any talk about penalizing people financially that generate space junk. if you put something up into space and it generate as bunch of problems, what can we do about that? is there a way to financially address that? >> there have been proposals of a tax or something on people that generate debris. the reoccurring problem is who has authority to put that in

place? as you mention it is an international environment. there are more than 60 countries launching satellites and each has authority. >> i am not promoting new taxing like if you fly into space you get taxed ahead of time. but the reality is if there is not an incentive not to do something i would not call it a tax but a penalty. say you send something up and it blows up and generates a thousand pieces of space junk. but if you send it up and nothing happens, great. but there has to be an added incentive. >> when debris is the worst it is mostly government satellites. there is not a lot of

private-sector active there. >> but there will be. >> there will be in the future. but at the moment. >> so the question is how do you incentvise government. >> good luck. i yield back. >> thank you. >> it is sometimes terrifying what makes us laugh, isn't it? first question and i want to understand the higherarchy and the mechanics. a u.s. but private satellite is put up in space, doesn't have insuran insurance. mr. nelson? >> yes, most companies do have insurance on their satellites. larger ones may self-insure.

>> but somehow there is an insurance product there. how about if i am the french or the east indian or you know private telecommunication or private cable or television provider; do they carry insurance? >> you know, from different countries they have different roles concerning how they go about. as an example the one i am aware of is the united kingdom for any of the folks that might launch under their flag they have a space act and some of the requirements for instance is indim indimnification of the crown. so it depends on the country. >> what i am trying to head is these are expensive objects,

those from the private and governmental, have great, great value, we know there is an insurance regime of some nix. it might not be universal in design. so we have incentives because of the value and there is a structure. but what happens today? how do they communicate today? general, let's say you see something heading toward my direct tv satellite, do you communicate with them? >> absolutely. we are interesting in maintaining a space zone that is safe. we track the 23,000 objects you have heard about. of those objects, we track them but we detect for potential

conjunction. >> what i am after right now because that was part of your testimony and that was helpful is the communication regime. it is the satellite that is providing television for australia. do you communicate with them? >> we do. if we detect a potential conjunction on any satellite in space, any country, we will make an emergency notification because it is all of our best interest not to do it. >> does it come the other direction where the private tracking firm that is managing do they communicate with you? >> we have two-way sharing companies with 41 companies and five nations. largely, the tracking capabil y capabilities that are out there are ours and we are largely doing this for the world. >> do any of the private firms every provide their statistics saying we actually believe you

missed our orbit by a few yards or degrees? we had wobble or ellips? >> they provide owner-operator, the address in space. we track it with the radar and we have the address. the commanding control system doesn't allow us to ingest that. we are putting in a new system as we speak called the operation center that will allow that automatic ingestion of owner operator data. >> my body and i were talking a moment ago, as we see the commercialization of space, we know we have the incentives and valuable objects up there. we have the need and

communication struggle and it will be international. is there a way where we can get the parties where they have auto mated information exchange back and forth. thank you. >> the chair next recognizes mr. hall the former chair of the science space and technology committee. >> mr. chairman, i of course thank you for holding this hearing. i guess general raymond, you know, sometime a go, maybe 15 years ago, we had a hearing on astronauts -- on asteroids and to our surprise we found out one just passed in what was 15 minutes of the united states and no one knew about it or gave us any warning about it or spoke about it. i invited people from france,

england and japan and japan is the only one that answered. it is a world problem. but got little hope from most of them. very few showed up. we had good hearings and things that would scare you to death. give us the sense of the process that goes in when you want to protect the national security and assets that could be threatened by orbital debris and how much warning did nasa have to avoid their threats? i think there have been instances where they have. but give us a general answer to my question. >> we track every object and we have nasa operators that sit on the jace box floor with us. we take serious the protection of the international space station. you heard the station moved 16 times.

just last month we recommended they move it twice. there is a layered approach to doing this. we detect where the debris is and then we put more energy on that debris and refine the orbital accuracy of that position and make recommendations on the floor. there is a set process with nasa operators and we do that for dod satellites and any conjunction we see is going to hit on an emergency bases we notify the world. >>i i know you must have processess for the government operators to warn them about possible collision, but what type of work do you have with the private operators?

how do they contact you? >> we have a tracking network of 21 different centers around the globe that trap addresses of satellites in space and we pose that on www spacetrack.org. anybody can get on there. and the addresses of things in space with put out there for the public to have. >> and there private operator has just as good as the government to know. >> they have that data. we go beyond that for those that enter into agreements and provide adecisiditioadditional . >> how many know they need that? >> they will know. we have 41 signed and two countries and all are five or six more

>> i think your work is very important. thank you. i yield back mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. hall. the chair recognizes mr. royb h roybacher. >> i apologize i had another anothered -- another -- hearing this morning but i will be reading your testimony. the debris issues isn't a secondary issue. debris is something that will limit human kinds ability to use space for our benefit and to uplift mankind/human kind. we are getting to a point of saturation where we deal with it or we will suffer the consequences of this limited on

the benefits that we can utilize space for. one may only look at how we rely on space for weather. 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. and gps and we have whole economies based on space that are now in jeopardy because we are not cleaning up the trash. we need to make sure that we are just just tracking it. tracking trash in space isn't the answer. what the answer is eliminating the track from space. this shouldn't be something the american taxpayer needs to bear the burden of. we need an initiative and hopefully this hearing provides

step number one toward creating an international initiative to clear space debris from orbital space. and i would imagine our friend in the eu and russia and perhaps, i cannot speak for china considering the fact they have 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 are putting all of these wonderful assets that we have invested in and are currently helping improve the condition of human kind, we are putting them at risk. let me note, the chairman of the full committee just mentioned that we talked about near-earth objects. when we was chairman, i think we

had something where we are tracking them more than what we were then. but i don't think we have done anything we can count on to say if we see an earth object that is going to hit the earth and destroy large numbers of people whether or not we have a system in place we can activate to deflect that near-earth object. ...

>> 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. i am going to affirm my second round at this point and recognize the ranking member from maryland, ms. edwards. >> thank you very much, mr. mr. chairman. the reason i wanted mr. or barker to stay, mr. weed is testimony, there was a recommendation for these second branch to clarify this strategy for assessing the or metal debris removal, and it struck a chord because in our committee passed bill just a couple of weeks ago we actually included a provision in there which would require nasa, in collaboration with other relevant federal agencies to review the concepts and technological options for removing or debris from low report. and then getting to this question of not just looking at

it and knowing where it is, all very important, will be our strategy for removing it. we need to free up some of the space from of the additional activity. so i wonder if any of you have of you about what an effective approach that nasa might take to address this particular provision, assuming that it does become law. >> that is an interesting and challenging question. at the moment there is no single technology that seems to be the answer. there are a couple of different technologies that have promised. and so i think of first step would probably be to figure out what the technologies are and then look for how we're going to mature those technologies. at the moment they exist. we generally no theoretically it will work, but most have not been demonstrated in an

operational manner. in identifying what is the most promising technology and then some sort of a strategy to mature, do risk reduction and some sort of demonstration mission on all but no one more of these technologies. i think that is probably going to have to be in international demonstration mission in nature given the nature that all the debris is international. a country can only really touch the things that it owns. and so there is going to have to be some level of cooperation there. >> given that the united states mostly tracks all of it, i would assume that we should be able to get some cooperation. general, is there a role that the department of defense can play in terms of maturing some of these technologies? >> man, there is lot of discussion around the world on this problem. it is an important issue. i think that there are roles that we could help. i have not heard today in a specific technology that is out

there that i see as something near term that would solve this problem. >> a think this was touched on. the technologies and being able to take the items out of orbit and getting them out of orbit is very important obviously assuming you get it out. the likelihood is that they will not crash into something else. the issue it comes down to is whether or not you take out somebody else's piece of debris. even if it is not usable, that particular item has the flag of another country. so probably will have to be some sort of treaty or something along those lines or agree with me between nations that ought to be able to effectively work that out. >> well, i know that doddered

space flight center has activities going on silicon with three service some of these decommission satellites as a way to get them back in service. that too is a long way down the line but something had think we need to invest in. with that, mr. chairman, i hills. >> thank you. we have time for another round of questions on your end. if you have any additional questions the house floor vote has not yet been called. >> the first step in not just a public-relations. we can do something that congress to work for these folks .

and every time, whether it's rush georgia plant -- japan or europe, they all are in tune with the this is a challenge that we are going to have to sunday deal with. it is going to the point now where it is imperative to deal with it because it is limiting what we can do in space. okay. at any of you and any talk with, for example, the russians or the eu with japan on this issue? >> the fa is in days of the lot of international partners, including the european space agency, letters of agreement with countries like spain. there is, because it is such a big international problem, there is international will to attack it.

one thing that we have an opportunity to do here is to identify a single agency that can represent the united states which is the biggest operator out in orbit. >> you know, i remember one of the directors a bulldozer to of thing. a big shield, something that would go forward and get a hold of some of this debris. we actually, are we steadying anything? there is one idea. i'm not saying that it's cover bad. you mentioned that we don't have any. is there a program that is actually trying to develop the technology? >> at the moment i am only aware

of one nasa-funded parent to do technology development. the spacecraft that can use the combination of electrical field and the magnetic field to maneuver the technology is fairly early stages, but it could be one of the more efficient ways of moving around. i am not aware of any other u.s. government-funded program to do the technology development, i will say that in reference to your questions about international efforts, next month there will be a meeting hosted that has participation from japan, nasa, russia, number of the country's commendatory daywork shop. >> it will be in paris. they adelle this workshop every two years.

it will be june 16th, 17th, 18th, around there. >> mr. chairman, i would suggest that someone from this committee go to that hearing. >> i request -- >> mr. chairman, you may have to compete with the chairmen and ranking member. >> the agenda from california have anymore questions? >> let me exercise my organelle. as my question. general arraignment, in an event like the cosmos, iridium pollution happens today, how was gcc respond? specifically, can you give the committee a sense of what goes into or to protect are not -- master not or the national security and security assets the could be turned by such an event ? >> thank you for the question. if we, if an event happened it would generate to breed.

we would detect that with a network of sensors and characterize that debris to market and orbital elements and refine and over time and put that degree. we have the process in place that we do for every active satellite on orbit. we would screen against the to bury to insure that we can provide a proper warning if something were to collide. >> that is the above call, but we still have 15 minutes before we have to be on the house floor . how long does it take for the rural debris to have ordered to pay to the board goes back to earth and it is no longer an issue?

>> i don't think there really is . >> we track those reentries. we tracked them when they re-enter. when it gets close working characterize the reentry. >> you wanted to have something. >> yes. it is basically the altitude it can range -- is a very large range from small to marry a million years from now.

i would say a rough estimate on the order of monster may be very short number of years. when you move up higher, 800 kilometers the collision was in the chinese satellite was, at that altitude you are talking dick is a longer. for all intents and purposes pretty much as far as we're concerned. >> the general, has a follow-up to my earlier question to you faa requests in the written testimony how would your process change if at all if the authority is granted? >> the faa would still rely on a daily from sensors. again, we warn of those. we do not have the authority to make some -- make a satellite operator move.

i can't -- dealer the satellites, but i can't make commercial satellites. it would take our data that we have and use that data. >> thank you. >> if i may, the request to have an operator be forced to move can be done a number waves. probably best of all would be an industry based consensus on the real time to affect a move. all of these things involve probabilities. >> i think the witnesses for their valuable testimony we will

ask you to respond to those additional comments in written questions. witnesses are excused, and this hearing is adjourned. >> next on c-span2 congressman john delaney and highway trust fund. congressman charles dent on extend emergency unemployment insurance. later a congressional hearing on local marijuana laws.

>> c-span newest book sundays at eight a collection of interviews . >> this country was built upon people who have come and emigrated to this country. no ability to get a job or in education. when i first came and across the border between mexico and the united states. it was the just find a job. the very same hands that are now doing brain surgery, i was pulling weeds. >> one of 21 unique voices. c-span sundays at 8:00 published by public affairs books now available at your favorite books

>> c-span providing live coverage pound. every weekend book tv, now for 15 years the only network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. >> expected that the funding shortfall will force a delay in payments sometime this summer. maryland congressman john delaney discussed his proposal on washington journal. by publis books, now available at your favorite bookseller. washington journal continues. host: >> host: a represents the sixth district. dem >> prior to running for office h district. thomas mann, tell us about your background. prior to running for

office i was an entrepreneur and business person. i started to companies in the financial services industry. infirst company i started 1993. i took it public in 1996 and assaulted a 1999. it is a company that focused on midsizedsmall to mr health care businesses. my background is in starting businesses. i grew up in north jersey. my father was a union electrician. my parents did not go to college . he worked for hart to give me an opportunity. host: to bring a financial expertise to congress? guest: i think so. as someone who started to financial services companies from scratch. both companies were pioneering

at the time. capital services became the largest lender to small sized businesses in the united states. i had about 800 employees when i left. i created about 2000 jobs over the company's history. a lot of granular experience in starting some are raising capital, financing these businesses, and financing our clients. when i left, we had about $15 billion in assets. host: what made you want to come o congress? guest guest: that my experience would be helpful. i thought i understood how the private sector work, but i thought we needed to take that approach to strengthen our economy and create jobs. we are at a very significant inflection point in our economy. i think the debate we have in washington is overly focused on tax policy and the size of government. it is not really focused as

precisely as it could be around what is really happening in the economy. if think about what is happened over the last 20 years of globalization and technology, it is unduly -- it has utterly transformed the face of the economy. think from a public policy perspective we are preparing our country to compete as successfully as it could in that world. that is really the perspective i think i bring to the congress, which is how to make sure the country competes. we like to talk about the jobs crisis we have in this country, but what we don't talk about is how we actually create jobs and have decent standard of living. delivery to do that is successfully competing in what is increasingly a global tech elegy world. we need to set public policies that enable the country to do that. only through that we be able to create the jobs and one in this country.

is one of those policies that you would advocate? if i were setting the domestic agenda for the country, my number one economic writer artie would be investing in our infrastructure. i say that for a couple of reasons. first, if you think about competitiveness, improving our transportation, our communication, our energy, water, even educational infrastructure in this country is so critical for us to be will to compete in the future right in this global technology part of the world where people can do business anywhere in the world. after really bring to bear a strong portfolio of infrastructure that will allow businesses to compete. that helps individuals in improving the quality of their day. if you care about long-term competitiveness, infrastructure should do the top of the agenda. should be the top of the

agenda. we're either creating high skill jobs are low skilled jobs. when not creating midscale jobs for people can have a decent standard of living, you don't have to work two jobs. there's a real shores of those jobs. infrastructure more than anything else creates those kinds of jobs. third, infrastructure is probably the second best investment we make as a nation. every dollar we spend on infrastructure, we get about a dollar 92 of economic growth. if you're thinking about things a government has proven it is good at, and if you're thinking that things that turn out to be a good return on investment and position the country to be competitive, infrastructure is the top of that list. i think there's a lot of bipartisan support in that area. we have 31 house republicans, 31 house democrats, and it was introduced in the senate about two months ago. we have about half a dozen and republican

senators on the bill. an incentive for private companies to invest in this infrastructure fund. the incentive is tied into their overseas earnings, which brings in a whole debate about what has gone on with you as corporate rash being overseas, the pfize transaction that was announced a few weeks ago. that is a problem. would be reforming our international tax system to do with the problem. encourages u.s. companies to invest in this fund. the incentive is that they get to bring back a certain amount of their overseas cash to the united states tax-free if they put money in the fund. particularly, the bonds to by our 50 year term, you have one interest rate and they're not guaranteed by the federal government.

it brings together two important pieces of public policy that each party has been pushing for for a long time. our republican colleagues have wanted to create mass for the cash to come back to united states. there've been hundred percent right about that. if there's a bipartisan agreement, let's start with the cash overseas. we keep hearing about all this cash sitting overseas that we can't bring back paraguay kelly bring it back? why don't we pass something? the specific reason we can't bring it back is that the u.s. has a special tax provision. when they went to repatriate her bring that after-tax overseas earnings back to the united states, you have to pay for united states tax.

most countries have a system that's as you make money overseas, you pay the tax, you bring it back to the homeland, tax-free. ago, when bigears companies made 10% of their .rofits overseas it is really creating a barrier, because these companies are basically saying, i have lower cost of capital. we should fix that system. there've been a lot of proposals out there to fix that system. i didn't agree with everything in there, but i thought it was incredibly thoughtful approach. he addressed a, the president talked about it, we really should be focusing on fixing the international tax system. i personally think there is a golden opportunity to take some of that money overseas, because there's a huge revenue opportunity associated with

giving that money home, and using some of that for public policy like investing in infrastructure. that is a natural deal that we should be focused on, particularly in the context of the highway trust fund, which we will have to deal with. thisf the vote projects in country are going to stop as a result. thinking about that, forcing functions. the forcingut function creates a really big opportunity for congress to do something enormously positive for the u.s. economy, which is to fix international tax system, get that money flowing back to the united states. think about it trillion dollars of capital flowing back toward country. take some of that infrastructure fund i have been talking about. wouldn't it be amazing if we

could bring back cash without the government increasing its debt or deficits come increase the net investment we have an infrastructure in this country? that would be a double bottom line when for this country. an op-ed in the wall street journal, we must stop driving businesses out of the country in pursuit of lower tax rates.

guest: he talks about couple of things. it would be great to talk about the loophole he was talking about. i have to believe every major investment firm in the united states, the day after the pfizer deal was announced, was burning the midnight oil and analyzing this opportunity on behalf of their clients. i think every major u.s. corporation is looking hard right now at what pfizer is doing. the scale of the transaction is what is taking people back. you have an obligation to do what is in the best interest of your shareholders. if you can do a transaction that

lozier tax legally that doesn't mean you are going to do it, you have to look at it. that is the first thing. think the inversion provision or provision of the tax code that allows the inversion can and should be looked at and potentially loopholes closed. that is the superficial issue. the more embedded issue is what is going on with the international tax system and the fact that it discourages the flow of capital back to the united states. the pfizer inversion is premised on two things. one, them using the loophole to accomplish this inversion. fact --has to the the do with the fact that pfizer has a lot of cash overseas. issueis a much deeper than just the inversion. if you look at the trends, with

$2 trillion sitting overseas pretty soon there will be more cash sitting overseas than there is in the united states. if the u.s. company makes have -- half their earnings overseas and half in the united states, they pay their dividends to shareholders out of the u.s. , and they also borrow their money to the extent they borrow money in the united states. half the money overseas, half the money united states, they do not have a lot of uses for the money overseas. the overseas cash is growing. it is a situation where cash is piling overseas. bye of them are doing it exploiting some of these loopholes, which i think should be cold -- should be closed. correctly if you create international property in the united states? are you able to ship it overseas without a fair market value of that?

the --ld be enclosing should be closing these loopholes. companies make money overseas, they pay overseas cash, it is really a low tax rate and they want to bring the money back. if they pay a decent tax rate overseas they ought to be able to float back to the united states tax rate. increase the competitiveness of u.s. corporations and prevent a lot of these inversion deals. maryland,crat from serves on the joint economic committee's. talking about some financial issues but all congressional issues are on the table. rick from tennessee on our democrat line. caller: it started with bush senior and maybe before that,

nasa. and coming to fruition with clinton -- i lost my job and making mexico and was 1000 dollars per week. i went back to school and ended up in a job where i wasn't making anywhere near that. are companies all over america this has happened to. it kind of touches base with what you are saying, they're making more money out of the as ary but we are losing country. if you could touch on the -- the government is .asically an oligarchy we do not have a read -- a free press.

host: two issues, the trade and media. guest: i do agree with you the polarization of the media, which sells which is why they do is unfortunate because it leads to polarize asian of the country. we cherish free speech in this country. hopefully our habits will change over time. things that don't make sense ultimately don't continue. the intense polarization is the ideological orientation where

people give you the answer before listening to the facts. you start saying something that people put into a box and say yes or no. it is a bad approach to informing our citizens create i think over time that will change. the first part of the question is about trade. we have a lot of trade agreements coming up. i think what we think about trade we have to do two things. we have to be focused on making sure the united states is as bad -- is as competitive as possible. competitiveness is really important because this country will not create jobs that have a rising standard of living unless we are competing successfully. there's a whole portfolio of things we need to do from a policy perspective to make us compete more successfully. have a national energy policy that allows us to keep our prices low.

it is part of that portfolio. and doing things to continue to reform the educational system, we have a good bill coming up in the congress ealing with charter schools. a whole bunch of things to do to make ourselves competitive. we need to be doing that. as i think about trade we have to acknowledge that we are in a global world that is becoming more interconnected because of technology. when i graduated from high school 30 years ago there were 6 billion people in the world and about one billion of them were in a global economy. 16% of the world participated in an interconnected way and the rest were localized. today we have 7 billion people in the world and 5 million of them are in this global interconnected economy. we cannot reverse that's nor would we want to because during that century of time we made major improvements as a world in terms of lifting people out of poverty, billions of people come out of abject poverty because of

globalization, which is enhanced by technology. but it has heard the united states in many ways. that hurt the united states in many ways. it has been enormously -- what it has hurt the united states in many way. enormously destructive. that is a huge challenge, how do we replace those jobs with other jobs that need a decent standard of living? i think a competitive agenda allows us to do that. i think that will be one of the big debates in congress over the next couple of years. some of the big trade agreements that are coming up, making sure that we can exist in a global economy and our businesses can thrive and trade with other countries. these trade agreements are really important that they have to be tied to thinking about how do u.s. companies compete on our

soil to create the kind of jobs you are talking about. delaney, offtive of twitter -- guest: in terms of the funds that are in the highway trust fund, the highway trust fund has been historically financed with the cap tax.led it is a tax that gets charged on our consumption of gasoline. the first problem is we haven't raised the tax since 1992. even though we have been increasing -- we have been increasing our investment in transportation and highways and roads. we haven't raised the sorts of revenues to pay for that. that is our first problem. patternsd problem is

have changed. cars are more fuel-efficient and people are driving less. cars thate electric don't use any gas and the use the roads and technically don't pay anything to use the roads. like many things in this world, as i like to talk about the globalization of technology, the and of technology innovation has outpaced congressional response to the changing world area we have the highway trust fund supported with the tax that brings and two thirds of that. that is the essence of the problems we have with the highway trust fund. we probably can't raise it enough. the second thing is to come up with a way of charging vehicles for my miles driven has not tied to gas consumption. if you are an electric car you

will have to pay something to use the roads but it won't be typed using gasoline. you have to integrate technology into cars -- the third solution is to find a new source of revenues to enhance the highway trust funds on top of the cap tax -- on top of the gas tax. i think we need to do all three .f those things look at fixing framework for funding it. we have to do transportation improvements every year. the gas tax will probably be part of that equation long-term. we are going to have to think

about ways of charging vehicles that don't use a lot of gas, charging urban dwellers who do not drive a lot the benefit from the roads because of all the goods and services that are coming in the highways. worked a new framework to this out. there are a lot of concerns and debate on this. i propose using this international earnings to do that. host: next call for john delaney comes from here in washington on our republican line. please go ahead. call, i was hearing about these the polls. who enforces these? i am a colored man who pays taxes.

i hear these people so you don't have to pay because of a loophole. i think we are losing money because of that. the rich people are going through these loopholes and then they save millions of dollars of money. the second part is the foreign policy, the immigration reform. they reside here illegally. americans pay services for these illegal and then we provide full medical health care.

why is that? about the's talk first part, the loopholes, then don't the immigration question, which is obviously a very important question. when loopholes we are are a provision of the tax code that was designed for something, somebody is using it for something else. we should be enforcing and closing these loopholes because they are not fair to americans. is in charge of enforcing these things. it takes congressional action to close these loopholes because we in chart -- we in congress changed the law. he came up with a tax law that was designed for one thing and people use it for something else. that -- legally about allowed to do that because the provision wasn't drafted right or we didn't think about how people should use them. it should be more bipartisan support for closing these loopholes. the number of these things would make you sick if you saw them. which is why some people have proposed things, like warren

buffett has proposed a rule that says everyone pays the minimum tax. if your tax rate is really low you have to gross it up to a certain number so everyone else is paying a fair tax. i support things like that. immigration, to you touched upon a couple of components with our immigration system. people in this country who we are provided services to a lot contributing x citizens. we have to fix the system. we have had a lot of problems over time with our immigration system. as we all know this country was built by immigrants and it is one of the great assets of the united states, that the majority of the world wants to come here. i referenced earlier how there are 7 billion people in the world. them had theof opportunity, they would go to the united states. no other country has anything like this. weis one of the main reasons

have been so successful as a nation. we have to recognize this is a great strength of arms, people shores,come to our build businesses here, it is a huge blessing have a summation. a lot of people came to this country and are now documented. that was something we failed at doing and we should have enforce our borders and made sure people immigrated appropriately to this country for a long time. we should be doing that now so we do not have more of this problem. i think we need to look at the reality of this situation. no one even knows what the number range is. we should be creating a path for these people to have citizenship. they should be getting ahead of other people.

similar to what was approved in the u.s. senate. i think it is fair, i think it is moral, and it is the bottom line. we need to be doing that. then we need to fix our visa system. the senate has approved an immigration bill. it makes a significant investment in those things. it deals with some of the visa issues they have and create a path for existing residents -- this is a bipartisan agreement. unfortunately it hasn't been taken up by the house of representatives and that is a tragedy. are waitingoncerns

for this. what we really need to be doing is acting on the senate immigration bill in the house of representatives and congress would improve -- would approve an immigration bill. to the road ould sn it a we would be on the path toward fixing the system thahet systeme rightfully concerned about. and everything you are saying, you know, is a legitimatemate cn concern. thank you for the question. >> host: the group called citizens for tax justice said ao a press release after you introduced your bill. the head of the past -- press release. press delany's biasll that we have talked about will provide the greatest benefits to corporations that are engaging in accounting schemes to make their u.s. profits appear to be generated in offshore tax havens

further encouraging sacked tax avoidance and resulting in a revenue loss in the long run. >> right. and it goes back to what i saidi ideology. the problem with ideology is,e l people give you an answer before facts.k at the and some of those responses thae have come out when i have actually engage of people when t it was dead it did not cle understand what the bill was whl there everyday heard arguing something with the international tax system and somehow it musttd be unfairly benefiting companie. so this is on non fact based analysis. as i said in my comments before, there are some things going on with what u.s. corporations are doing in terms of shifting shif naofits overseas, mostly aroundo property within develop intellectual property.tual prort it becomes valuable. they shifted overseas without paying fair value for it in makp high profits on it

internationally.ationa thatllan id spa wy lorong, and e going after those companies in closing those loopholes. i think that activity is a minority of the problems going on. some people look at some of that activity and extrapolate and the insume this yis what is happenin with every company. that is just not the case. if you look at most large u.s.ik corporations, they make about half of their earnings internationally. and through, you know, stores, starbucks, all over the world, they're making the money in foreign markets. we have a tax system that doesxm double tax these companies. they have to pay locally and when it goes back. when you go back to what i said earlier where 30 years ago there were a small number of the world affected global will be played monday international they had nothing to do with the money. a huge percentage, and they have of a lot of investment overseaad

opportunities.ent many of these markets are growing. and so they don't want to payth the double tax. av there will do that if theyweh are forced to pay the double tax we have to fix this. and there are some companiesthee doing things that aree inapprop inappropriate, and we should be doubly resources and enforcingur our laws so that those companies cannot do those things,ding including potentially prosecuting officers and executives in those companies to release and the message, we will not the mess around with the tax system. the fact of we have to do that thhould lso not prevent us from fixing the real problem, which is what i described. so i think that response is an ideological response, not based' on any serious analysis. it ses a don't. view it as serious. >> representative john delaney. please come back and we have more time.

>> pennsylvania congressman charles dent has introduced a bill to rod emergency unemployment insurance and encourage job creation. he talked about what was in his host: on your screen isnal. representative charlie dent, a republican from pennsylvania. you are ocribeda you are often described as a moderate republican. what does that term mean to you? >> i have often considered myself a center-right congressman from the center right district in the center-right country. i guess what that restriction ians to me is i am part of thes governing one of the republicant party. a lot of folks believe we have the whoation to govern. i believe in more limited govero government, strong nationalgoven defense and personal responsibility.- obli i think those types of ideas or values are in keeping with what many americans turned the erican country feel. that would be my to sent answer.

>> you have been working on a you have been working on: unemployment insurance. legislatione a growth act. it acknowledges the economy is still -- isn't still in a very good place. fact that we can continue to extend unemployment benefits. emergency unemployment benefits extend as far as 98 weeks. today an individual can receive up to 73 weeks in some states. we should allow for the continuation of emergency unemployment benefit program until the end of this year at 40 weeks. that is 40 weeks or 10 months. of we should deal with the

underlying problem that unemployment -- we are not creating enough jobs in the economy. one, approval of the keystone xl pipeline, which many would estimate would be 40,000 jobs both erect and indirect, for , and we medical tax talk about restoring the nature of full-time work. defined as 30 is hours. we take it back to 40 hours because we know many americans -- their hours are being reduced below 30 hours. let's deal with these job getting an job saving measures and pay for it by stopping the double debt on unemployment benefits being collected simultaneously with this opinion -- with disability benefits. there's a presumption you are not going back to work.

host: potential passing? guest, mark meadows has been a key ally on this issue. sopoe are working hard to bud build momentum and support.there another is some interest on thee democratic side of the aisle for eatingecause many of the job-creating proposals to enjoy support. support particularly in the senate from zero elizabeth warren and al franken, and others. a lot of demofrcrats who want tl eliminate that tax as well as in the house. and also the keystone pipeline. it is clear. so i think if we get an opportunity to vote on this legislation it will have a good shot atis passing. >> it is an election year.

how much more alleges that you will receive? su >> i think we will have to see. some. we have to deal with the numberr of issues from trade to the medicare got fixed, sustainablee growth rate, make sure our to ma doctorkes can get paid for the services rendered. transportation bill. we will have to confront that there is a the highway trust fund, likely to go bust or be insolvent sometime this summer, probably july or early august. pr is working on a proposal. we have to deal with transportation, trade issues, particularly with what is happening in europe. we have an aggressive trade agenda and will have to afford these least some of these issues which will require some level of bipartisan cooperation. >> congressman, we have talked to a lot of members of congresss

on this program. read a lot of articles. i don't think i have never met or talked or read somebody who supports the medical device tax. do you think there is -- could that possibly as a stand-alone be repealed? does that create waves? >> yes, i think it could. a debate over repealing the-- c? medical device tax is a debate among -- the debate is really about how to pay for the repeal. most republicans say i don't believe we shouldn't pay for aor tax, this particular punitive taxes should never have been imposed in the first place. that is the debate. debat bl were almost able to delay ita will reopen the government backn in october. making a change. we are keeping at it. a lot of folks want to repeal it .

wisely the senator insisted on it during the health care one heal debates. and so that was -- often credited to him or blind, if yos will, for the device tax being in the health care.arlie dents n >> in his fifth term and represents the 15th district the th disvania. >> it is a wonderful district. goes from the delaware river says south and eastern, south ot , right to the susquehanna. 3-mile line at the extreme southwest. , allentown, bethlehem, the burroughsth. some of very large confectionars district. a lot of biotechnology, science, cement producing. a lot going on as well as a lot of logistical companies. >> congressman dancers and theh: the propriions committee in the

ethics committee.mittee e talking congressional issues. we will begin with gerald in toe cincinnati on democratsgi line.r >> caller: good morning. my question is, i heard you speaking about unemployment insurance. you know, i have been out of work. i am a veteran and everything. laid off from my job by no means of my own, but what i would lik. to know, and then sherman to cover uninsured benefits. >> host: i think we got the point. >> guest: the senate is trying ryhe sate is t which i have some concerns with to expand theith. unemployment program for an additional two months and wouldt do it right attractively.ld alst

i don't think that's a good way to go. i mentioned previously, my proposal would extend and a blunt an offense on the efasedown basis until the end on theiton year. not 73 weeks or year-and-a-halfa .en months a person could collect up to tes months of the state and federal unemployment benefits combined through the end of the year. i think that is a smart way to o proceed. as i mentioned previously, wewee will tie that to job-creating ob jobs saving measures.which we should deal with the underlying problem.owth in econm so let's to those two things.th thankan you for your call. >> host: next call comes from john in atlanta on our republican line. >> caller: how are you doing this morning? i just want to tell you, we could get some money for the transportation bill if the their taxes. president obama.

$450 million. john kerry didn't want to payt y import tax. he get people of the ira's. and then on the recovery act you have 51 million going to denmar .mill 91 million going to japan. 100,000 to new zealand, russia 100 twitter.com/booktv, germanye for robert 40 million, spain 100 million, great britain -- >> host: we get your point. bring this to a conclusion. >> caller: see if that might help if we could change that a little bit to get as --guest: >> guest: in answer to yourn anr question about transportation and now we will find it, i mention a few moments ago the highway trust fund is urgingtrun insolvency. of july, late july, early august.

congress going to have to fix this. they will have to do it in twos. steps. it will have to temporarily we o because oncegram the program goes insolvent projects will stop around the ie country. we can't have that happen. anywhere from ten to $15 billion to basically carry the highway trust fund over into the new year, maybe march of january. so that is the first thing. second, we will have to pass a longer-term surface transportation bill. we will have to fund it.ng to hd that is really the question.ly e that is what your question deals with. specifically you just said the s propssman talking what his proposal. effo. give him credit for is effort. there is talk about using federal royalty revenues thatoun come upg the other coastal shef and put that into the trust fun.

then there will be other ideas. we will have to find awe are gnt sustainableo funding source.rce .. to shore up this trust fund. i think we are going to have that conversation fairly soon. others bit the bullet and passed some pretty significant transportation legislation. i suspect washington is now on the verge having to do something similar. stay tuned. whatever we want to do we want to make sure that those of who are using the roads are those that will be largely paying for it. i believe that will be the focus going forward. all theseking at options as we speak, he will have a bit more to say. tweet --