they have had a direct impact on the effort to increase research on iss. delays have already resulted in a loss of sponsored research and increased cost of beverages thousand dollars and do not forget your crabcakes. additional increases are likely as a result of the most recent failure to absorb these increases has san continue to of the challenging to raise additional funds for science from the external forces. for example those that receive contributions but to face an increase of commitment specifically in 2014 received commitments of over $12 million. it also faces challenges of

competition for available crude time and heavy demand for key facilities to limit the amount and type of experiment that can come to iss the crouton is already allocated at 100% to redress the challenge now is dependent on commercial crew providers who promised the capabilities as planned. with these capabilities nasa can had a crew member to devote most of the time to research to double the research time. however many technical challenges than the ability to fund the program could delay the efforts. finally even if they can navigate the challenges challenges, demonstrating a return on investment is difficult and scientific research. in the short term it is essential that the continued to make progress to achieve

the goal of the increased role and we reported that nasa could do more to define and assess on progress and for example, by assigning a measurable targets to the annual performance the tricks. they concurred and agreed to take action and respondent in conclusion it will likely require continued investment through 2024 and as a result to reassure the capabilities are being used to support scientific gains is critical furthermore to mr. duke and communicating the return on investment to help support nasa to achieve the shared goal to sustained commercial markets in low earth orbit. this concludes my prepared remarks i am happy to take any questions you may have.

>> now live a lie to you recognize the doctor to present his testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman. cook met -- cavorting thank you for the opportunity to discuss this research is the only platform of its kind and it is the essential to the nasa exploration goals. to prepare for the hearing here last for specific questions. i will address each opportunities and challenges. the augustine commission face the three stressors prolonged exposure to galactic radio shack a prolonged periods to microgravity and confinement in close quarters all of these are present in the iss environment. marsha an operation in that

war stressors which they did enviro the gravitational field with more than one-third of our zero new york. unless they limit the centrifuge a day are limited descending and those to mars with no knowledge a over their responses a gravitational field less than hers. two challenges dominate the landscape we can reasonably anticipate it will become worse as the facility ages and the demand to perform maintenance become more acute it is of matter of case sponsored research compete for resources with better coordination is needed. ask about critical areas of research the national research council survey that

was completed 2011 at congress a request summarized 65 higher priority tasks and the steady created research plans to build a research enterprise with the goal of the human mission to mars. to ask about prairies' prioritize the research is not a new concept we have been to read that close at 15 years but it is and scientific it is something like this the fundamental research or transitional research takes precedence over the research program purpose of the answer to the question has to be provided by government. once those priorities are

sequenced can be prioritized the research? absolutely. the survey provides a very detailed scheme and criteria led to do so. the process operations is well understood cases receive 50 percent followed by human research then technology and what resources remain are devoted to biology and physical science. and the criteria that they should consider. with a simple yes or no question with a robust program exclamation point absolutely did transformation it was nothing short of remarkable.

i have provided several examples but there are large gaps to of mars that would be one year or longer in the recently reported on this topic first they found the extension through 2024 would not provide enough time to mitigate human health risks perspire not prepared to except that conclusion ted these risks a task analysis of future operations it did not address for additional research.

has the better to quantifier utility is the good metric but we need to look at the efficiency of the research in their research cheyenne is considered with a six person crew read the seventh member. my top recommendations are prioritized refused the essential resources with the nominal responsibility is research. and to extend biological experiments to incorporate marsh said gravity. bet i am very optimistic that nasa can deliver another decade of research. thank you for your support of the program and the opportunity to appear.

>> thank you mr. pawelczyk all witnesses thanks for your testimony and members are reminded committee rules to limit questioning to five minutes and the chair recognizes himself. this question is for mr. gerstenmaier end mr. elbon the spacex mission had day docking mechanism with water filtration device and then do spacesuit on board. can you explain the impact of loss of these items and how do you plan to mitigate the impact? >> starting with the docking adaptor that is scheduled for the crew was lost we wanted to have two units in orbit before we began cruz flights we believe we can

support them schedules to be as simple as us bear or a backup to work with the contract to get that on time but the docking adaptor is the cargo flight when it docker is sufficient to support the program and they can accommodate that the biggest impact is the cost to manufacture a third unit from the spare parts that remain with the multi filtration said the a japanese his fur vehicle flies and i guess we should get a new one manufactured thing studio steepening work of bowing to expedite the work. we have been trending down on doriden estate -- the space station and we will continue to monitor that

carefully. the boss of the space to we will now reconfigure one. we will do repairs and have that available. and then to look at the orbital sciences corporation and to carry spacesuits is in the future read mitigated all your concerns but the impact is not significant we can accommodate. >> i will add to what he said the most difficult and involvement is the docking adaptor. in the third unit the parts are available to put the plan together to replace the one that was lost and we're

working very closely to undersea and though water filtration issue to get those ready to launch on the next resupply vehicle and i a agree we are in good shape >> next question is a the aerospace safety and buys every panel is reviewing the objectives for continuing you san clearly articulate to ensure the cost in safety risk is balanced given that human spaceflight is risky it needs to be weighed against the value to be gained what are nasa objective to expand operations through 2020 for? >> in then to ruth talk

about the microgravity environment than have that risk mitigated to launder endeavors we have detailed investigations with their courage when your expedition to redress many of those issues and concerns moving forward. >> what is inside does nasa had been to the mishap been performed at spacex looking at the challenger accident and columbia you believe the investigation benefited from independent reviews separate from the program or the contractors? >> meyer understanding since the faa granted the license to spacex they are leading

the accident investigation with the orbital mishap that nasa has us separate review to get to their roots cause there but there is and the same accident investigation that we're currently conducting with the contractor last accident investigation that is the way it is intended to be hispanic that completes my questions for girl. >> thank you to the witness is. mr. merges report of september 2014 with of budget of $3 billion per

year that it is reiterated through the testimony but i am curious, mr. gerstenmaier, talk to the basis of crew and cargo transportation costs and i would note there has been three cargo mishaps in the last eight months does that factor into your projection for cost? it seems that alone will shoot the cost up as one could expect over the course of operations through 2024. so it would be helpful to know your basis for the estimated cost it respond to

the challenges mr. martin has laid out in the 2014 report. >> we have been working aggressively with cost control and consolidated some contracts to raise smaller number and also using competition into attempt to root drive down the cost rate now rewritten a blackout period through the never to contract award. we have good competition from that activity and will help us to hold the costs down for career actively working and aware of those issues as they have the objective strategies for it to remove cost for the program every think we can hold that cost down from what we have done and seen.

>> mr virgin -- mr. march said your 2013 report is your assessment that the projections are overly optimistic? and with your analysis with your mishap failures in terms of looking at the cost? >> diane not sure how many accidents are factored in but i do think the cost objections are optimistic. over the life of the program there is and 8% increase annually from 2011 to 2013 there was a 26% increase for the iss no moving forward extending the life of the station through 2024 that 59% of expenses will be four

crew and cargo transportation and that is the big piece of the pie. >> for the panel if you look at the rationale to include research and technology to benefit society to establish commercial crab row and cargo if you believe what that top priority should be bin to figure out first, ed dr. pawelczyk? >> that is a great question in extremely important for the said committee to take on. release the idea of discovery science the big questions to have been inserted.

so of a piece of research equipment when it was largely used in the nobel prize winning awards. social have a return on investment gives a translation and we have contended in the scientific community it is not our job to sequence those priorities but the job of the executive branch or the legislative branch to you have been clearer you said mars is very important but it is the and nestle will maintain the fundamental research program so you have already told us

mars is the answer edward you look at the research the remains to be done over the risk in the red most of them or half of them are associated with the extended duration on mars with three years' duration and. so to provide extended research capability the iss is our choice for that and that is how it should be used. >> thank you. >> i will recognize mr. brooks. >> mr. gerstenmaier, it in light of the recent launch failures for the development production of the commercially provided vehicles that service the iss is part of the a accident investigation with

spacex. >> we have the representatives as part of that to be actively involved what occurred on the cargo vehicle within the hardware changes that need to be made somewhere actively involved to transition that information directly into the crew program. >> i appreciate that response and and i experience it has a tremendous amount of insight and expertise and i encourage an asset to show a the leadership of what they're doing to assist with a commercial crew to being more successful than they have been. retrospect to both mr. elbon

and mr. gerstenmaier the loss of the spacex vehicle is a big loss as a replacement space to -- spacesuit for the iss whether the implications for the loss of the suit? >> as i describe your there we will take one hit inside or been refurbishing of their then develop a capability to transport suits on all vehicles to bring up as needed. >>. >> with the analysis necessary to make sure the space station with the capabilities. >> what is the cost of the

lost space suit? >> i can take that for a the record we have 38 available and we will not replace that it will not be replaced. . .

transparent investigation?

are they investigating without nasa's role? i think he he could go into greater detail. under the contracts the faa gives the license. under the contract the contractor leads the investigation and review. unlike past challenger where nasa themselves would need an independent investigation board. nasa is a member, or an advisory member of their review board. they they are not leading the activity. perhaps phil could go deeper on that. they are participating with the ntsb. they developed a fault tree just as nasa has done. the way they work that is that all three entities all have to

agree that this item is closed and not contributing to the accident. it's by consensus and the engineering team led by spacex but fully represented by the government and the government can't say whether we accept or do not accept their explanation for what the root cause was. it's a fairly effective way for us and we can do our own independent research on the side. we can make sure we are representing the government. the best from nasa participating along with the contractor let activity. >> do you feel confident that there is that transparency and that we as a body of congress will be able to see that transparency? >> so far it has been extremely transparent. we had the same transparency with the orbital investigation. it has been effective. we can show direct evidence of

how that transparency is and how it's being implemented. >> thank you. >> now i would like to recognize the gentleman from florida mr. posey. >> thank you mr. chairman. we know that planning for the iss began 20 years before it was actualized and now were less than ten years out from the administration's proposed extension in 2024. does nasa have plans for some station in lower earth orbit before then? perhaps private partnerships? does nasa intend to leave any station entirely to other companies? >> we are looking to see if we

can leave that to commercial companies. we are allowing them to do investigations on station to see if they can get a market return and it make sense to do that. we believe the agency's role is to push further out in space and go into the region around the moon. we will move our research and our endeavors into that region. it helps the agency get prepared to take bigger missions toward mars. at this point we are envisioning a lower orbit that would be private sector activity. we'll use the remaining station to let the private sector understand their research and investigation to see if it helps them from a fundamental research standpoint. >> that's great to hear. >> our government is investing in capital. those capsules are optimized to get crews back and forth. what role capsules play once the space station reaches the end of its life?

for the commercial crew program and the cargo program, the companies have an interest beyond just the nassau need. there building these capsules and will be able to operate them for their own purposes. they can use this transportation to deliver cargo to it, they can deliver crew to it etc. outside of cetera outside of the government. this will essentially allow the private sector to get transportation services on its own to these companies that we've enabled as these initial startups. >> that's great. >> the space shuttle and x-37 are both example of reusable spacecraft. they they have had track records of success. have they completely rolled out the use of reusable vehicles for crew or cargo in the future? >> the simple answer is no.

in case of the o'ryan vehicle it's geared toward deep space activities where carrying wings makes it difficult to reenter the atmosphere. the deepest base vehicle will usually be a capsule type vehicle but for lower space orbit it will be winged vehicles and they have many advantages as we saw through the shuttle program. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yelled back. >> a bike to recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. mr. meyer. >> thank you chairman. >> on the one hand we've had three unfortunate losses that we previously mentioned. on the other hand our commercial space industry is getting ready to grow exponentially. we are adding great value to our economy and civilization with satellites, internet, space to her's and even mars. can we put we put this in the proper perspective compared to train and airline and automobile accidents?

all the transportation accidents in history, are we looking at the relatively two or three that have come up in the right perspective compared to the last 150 years question. >> that's an interesting question. i think the positive thing is in all three of these cases there have been no loss of life. that means our basic process and procedures are in line. we did the right thing. i think the right thing is to not get so fixated on the problem but how can we learn from the problem. as an emerging industry the more we fly the more we solve problems. the impacts are not devastating they hurt research but they are

recoverable. the real tragedy will be if we don't learn from these events and don't understand the engineering behind the failure and improve the industry overall. just as the aviation industry has suffered a lot of failures throughout its history, the reason for success today and the safety we have in the aircraft industry is a result of lessons learned and those lessons being applied to build better and safer aircraft. we need to do the same thing in the space industry. we need to learn from these events, internalize it not be afraid of it, internalize it, not be afraid of it, figure out how to make design changes and build a more robust transportation system. i see see this as a painful but may be necessary learning process. it's excellent to learn on cargo. we do not want to learn on crew. we will learn from cargo and apply those to crew. >> thank you for your optimistic attitude. why you have the microphone up the safety panel has determined some key safety concerns.

how do you address the concerns about orbital debris? >> we have shielding on board that can protect from some debris but we cannot protect from all debris. we've recently implemented some changes to the progress vehicle. it had new debris shields on that progress and we are continuing to improve the debris protection capability. we we actively train on orbit just as we train interestingly we train for evacuations of space stations in case we get hit by debris that penetrates the pressure cell. it is our howard highest risk and we are protected with the shielding levels that we can at the station. >> thank you very much. >> you testified that the life

space is particularly hard and a lot of scientist left the field. you have any have any concerns about the expertise in that field? especially as we think about missions to mars? >> thank you very much for the question. i'd say the short answer is no. you are absolutely right. those particular functions were very hard hit and we saw about an 80% detriment in the science portfolios and in the physical sciences. one of the great things that has happened since 2011 is that nasa has reinstituted a ground-based program. if you look at the numbers of people who are applying, there in the hundreds for solicitation right now. there's active funding that is happening and bringing research up to the station. you are starting to see that coming back but what's even more interesting is you are seeing may be some of youngest scientists that have schooled in the entrepreneurial

spirit saying this is something i'd like to take an opportunity and check out. the iss research conference this week was about three times bigger than it was a year ago. there is a growing spirit. we need to continue to feed that spirit and i think great things will happen. >> thank you for your enthusiasm. >> i'd like to recognize the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you to all of our panelists for coming in testifying before this committee. i appreciate your long and distinguished service at nasa going back to negotiating with the russians and other things in the '90s. that's really where i'd like to start today. when you think about right now given the recent accidents that we've gone through, we are seeing how important our

reliance is on things like the russian progress, cargo spacecraft and of course the rushing crew spacecraft. given how the relationship has changed between the united states and russia, and we've even heard that the russians have talked about pulling out of the international space station, what is your judgment on how this relation can go forward? how is it going on the civil space side given the strained relations in other areas? can you share your opinion? >> on the civil space i'd, the relationship between the united states and nasa and the russians is very strong. we exchanged data every day back and forth. we passed many commands to the space station russian command through uss. we use their assets for transportation re- boost.

we depend on each other for operations in space and the relationship is extremely strong and transparent. in spite of the governmental tensions between the two governments it is a strong relationship. the challenge of doing space travel transcends a bit. we are working together very effectively. the recent progress and we are sharing data and working together to fly on the 23rd of this month. they have been open with us and sharing data with us in helping us understand. they understand our need and the relationship is very strong in the civil space. >> how confident are you they will be willing to partner with us beyond 2020? >> when their federal space program gets approved later this year there will be a continuation to support the russian space station through

2024. >> we have heard that it has a report indicating the operations of the iss are going to become more ethical because of the ability to take replacement parts to the space station. recently, boeing had a report that might not have contradicted but some of those issues were discussed. can you share with us their position? they say beyond 2020 things get really difficult. your reports that 2028. can you share with us how 28. can you share with us how you're dealing with those issues? >> the study that we did looked at things like the structural integrity of the elements on board, the ability to survive penetration and came to the conclusion that through 2028 is completely feasible relative to the hardware that is on board. the other part of the question was the logistics we supply to replace boxes that fail in orbit and to supply the crew.

based on the logistics model that nasa laid out and is using for the procurement and that kind of volume is sufficient to support the logistics we supply that's necessary based on our analysis. we think through 2028 is 28 is completely doable. >> thank you for that testimony. i appreciated mr. posey's question about what comes next after the iss. clearly whether it's 2020 or 2028, we could lose partners. we don't know when we might lose certain partners. we have we might lose certain partners. we have to think about what comes next. i would like to follow up with that by asking if nasa can provide a report to congress on its plans with a post iss

station? this question was about commercial and things like that and that's interesting as well but it would have to be tested and certified. can you provide a timeline to congress for that? >> the way we need to think about that is that the next private space station will not be as massive as the space station we have today. it could be as small as there's been discussion by spacex using something called dragon lab. we've talked to orbital about using their cargo vehicle as a temporary space station in lower earth orbit. when we think about

the private sector taking over we don't need to think about this massive investment of a space station. they can learn what research benefits them, if it's in the pharmaceutical area or protein crystal growth, they can create an environment to do that. nasa's role is to move that human presence further and we want to go into the region around the moon. there may be a habitation supported by the private sector but nasa's next focus is in the vicinity of the moon. >> roger that, i yield back. >> thank you. i want to recognize the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you mr. chairman chairman and thank you to the panelist. mr. administrator it's good to see you. some days you're here after we've had successes and disappointments and i appreciate appreciate the fact we keep moving forward. it's not easy, these are a risky business that you are in. we recognize that. we don't want to have many disappointments. we want to have mostly successes.

i became more comfortable in understanding the kind of oversight that goes with the contractor led investigation process. that in fact you are very involved, and there has to be some kind of sign off as part of all of this because often times we have everybody looking over everybody else's shoulder. this seems to be a sensible way to approach it and i appreciate that. my. my questions are generally for you ms. oakley and dr.. what our research is doing on the space station that will help us as we move forward in sending our astronauts to mars, and for you, so we have the researcher and the futurist if you will sitting next to the one that has to figure out how do you pay for

it and what's the return. i'd like to have you answer, generally, how do you see the space station advancing our goal of going to mars and i'd like to ask you miss oakley, what do you see in terms of the cost and benefit from an accountant's point of view? >> i'll turn it over to you to. >> to make sure miss oakley has time, i will be brief. there are there are three issues we are dealing with. the biological changes that we see in this continuous reduced gravity environment. it is this very energetic radiation environment that we understand to a large extent from the standpoint of solid tumor. when we look look at the interaction of things, effects of the brain accelerated cardiovascular -- is this why you have one kelly on the ground

and one in the air? >> it is because genetically they are identical. the changes in space give you a chance to talk about the variation because of the space environment. of course there are the behavioral issues as well. we are moving in that futuristic role. the iss works in concert with the ground. when we begin to go to interplanetary operations, those crewmembers will work autonomously from the ground. it's just a just a matter of distance. how people function independent of this will be very different than how we operate on the iss today. >> the bottom line is nasa does need a robust science team on this base station to achieve those long-term exploration go goals. however nasa has to be able to pay for it in the congress has to be able to pay for it. that relies on robust participation to be able to do

some of the things nasa can divert funding to the long-term exploration. being able to establish those markets to do some of the research that will be required to support those longer duration flights will be essential in getting them to pay for it will also be essential. going to mars is expensive. >> are you comfortable with the accounting and auditing that has gone on to date on this program? the numbers? >> on the international space station program? i haven't looked specifically as at the accounting associated with that. i haven't seen any costs associated with extending it beyond 2020. i think that will be key for the understanding of

approving the funding and for everybody getting a good understanding of what it will take to do the extension, to do the science that's required and to do it safely. >> thank you. >> just one more question to mr. martin we've had some incidents now where there have been some failures. we had had some schools in colorado that had experiments on both the orbital launch and most recently on the space x. it was the same school. they did it twice and lost both. how do we account for the cargo that's lost? is there any compensation to those schools or people? >> there is not. i think they lost over $650,000 in cases. nasa said they lost over $100

million. that's gone. the taxpayers will pay for that. >> pay for that. >> thank you all for being here. i yield back. >> thank you sir. now i would like to recognize mr. martin. >> as a police officer who does investigations on accidents, we have seen a big change in her accident investigation over the last 50 years. i would expect to have seen a big change in investigations over space problems over the last 60 years. it hasn't been easy going to space in the 1960s and it isn't easy today. can you have me an idea of how those investigations go today and how we can move through the process and make sure were hitting the points and coming safer as we move through the investigation and also making sure we can go quicker. the faster we can move the faster we can do more of this.

>> our under thinning is we have to be careful we don't jump to conclusions or assume we know what the failure is. we do a methodical process where we gather all the data. we need to make sure the time synchronization is critical and that's not easy. these events occur in milliseconds so if you have a camera that's running you have to make sure the time on that camera is identical to the one that's coming from the spacecraft. is the timing of when the event occurred recorded on the spacecraft or is it recorded after it's received on the ground. the radio delay time is important. it's important to get the timing down and then do the methodical process of fault tree. we brainstorm.

you lay out all the potential failures that could occur or contribute to the event. which one has to occur with another event and the team meticulously goes through and crosses out those events as they move forward. in terms of speed, what we are seeing with space axes because they are a vertically integrated company and do all their work in house, they immediately went to testing certain components. even though they they showed up on the fault tree they said let's held a test rig right now and will be prepared to go test. even the short number of days between the event and now they're in the laboratory doing some stress test on components that may contribute to this methodical process i laid out. i think the advantage in this bead pieces, we can use tools and analysis, we have software and physical hardware tests in a much faster time than we did before. >> i agree, i talked to to spacex several times since the incident and the virgin and

spaceship company were jumping on it quickly. they were learning things very fast. it seems to me the investigation process and now with private companies being involved, it seems like it is going a bit faster. that is a good thing. we want to make it safer. i know everyone wants to make it as safe as they possibly can and that's the truth. spaceflight still is in its infancy. we are still learning and we will be for hundreds of years yet. the faster we can get through some of these investigations the faster we can move and progress. dr., i had one question for you because i think there was some good conversation there that we've got an astronaut working

today and we've got one on the ground. i think we will get some good information there on what effects are on the body when we actually send people to mars on such a long, prolong spaceflight. can you give us an idea of what we will look at in the next 35 years or maybe shorter of when we are going to go to mars and the effects on the body, not not just radiation but the time in space? >> i apologize, i forgot my crystal ball this morning. i'll do the best i can. >> your kinesiologist, you should know this. [laughter] >> we have mentioned a couple of those risks we are seeing in a radiation realm. what's been interesting to look at, if i talk to, if i talk to ten years ago i would've told you that i expected to see about 50% bone loss loss from a human being. we thought that would be what gravity confers. we've seen with some of the implementation strategies for countermeasures on the iss that were looking better than that. i'm not willing to say we have

completely mitigated at this point but some of the loading strategies are considerably better. we've also seen some newly emergent concerns. we've had a number of ground taste research protocols. this is a great example of how nasa quickly identified a problem immediately engaged the community to affect solutions. >> very good. i yield back. >> i'd like to recognize mr. johnson from ohio. >> thank you folks, i'm a big fan of space exploration. i'm a big buck rogers fan and star trek and all of those things. growing up of them as kids. i say that jokingly but i can say that sitting in my living room floor between the summer of my ninth and tenth grade year and watching neil armstrong land

on the moon captivated me as it did the rest of the world. i've never gotten over that. i have i have tremendous respect for what you folks do and the discoveries we are making through our space exploration process. just one question to start off with, the iss is not yet been extended by congress. however, the administration has proposed to extend until 2024. how many of our international partners have agreed to extension and what steps does nasa taking to build a coalition of taking to build a coalition of our international partners for an extension? >> the canadian space agency has agreed to extend to 2024 so we

have one partner on board. they do a lot of the robotic activities. as i described earlier, the russians, potentially by the end of this year could be on board with an extension 22024. the japanese are actively looking at an extension and could do that by the end of this year or the start of their next fiscal year which is in april 2016. the japanese are actively working that and we are working with them. the european space agency are again working through their budget process. they've committed to support us on the orion capsule, as you know, the teams in ohio are working with them on the module that sits under the orion capsule. they're not committed to the station yet but we hope they will do that in 2017.

they're working on getting all the member states in the member countries to approve. they are just working on their governmental process. i think all partners are headed toward an extension. >> a quick follow-up, how significant of a partner are the russians? we are pretty dependent on them right now in terms of getting there and back, correct? >> yes were back, correct? >> yes were dependent upon them for crude transportation. we also use them for all to do the adjustments in the reboot station. they are dependent upon us for solar array or power generation. they also use us for commands and other activities. we are mutually dependent back and forth. >> are you having a discussion i'm sure you've heard the testimony of the potential incoming new chairman of the joint chiefs who has stated the russians are our biggest security risks and security threat.

we are in a dichotomy with the russians. are you concerned about that? >> what's your backup plan? >> first of of all, from a civil space standpoint we have a very strong relationship with the russians and will continue to do that. i think we need to look at what happens if the russians pull out in certain key areas as we are working hard on the commercial crew program, we want to end our soul reliance on the transportation system as soon as we can in funding is absolutely important for that to happen. we are moving out on transportation. the other areas i described where we are dependent, we have workarounds and we can put systems in place to recoup that if we have to. i think it's advantageous to us if we can cooperate. there are real advantages to it. that's it. that's the right way to go

forward. these and endeavors require cooperation but we shouldn't be naïve that if we can't continue on without a certain partner. >> i guess we've had some failures with commercial avenue and i'm sure you are, but i hope there's a lot of discussion going on because if we continue to experience similar failures like we had with the commercial cargo program and the russians were to back out, our options become smaller and fewer. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you i'd like to recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you very much mr. chairman.

i remember when the space station was first approved. it only one by one vote in this committee. i'm glad glad i voted for it. don't disappoint me. don't disappoint me now. does anyone here know the level of co2 that is in the atmosphere of the space station? we have an internal atmosphere. what element do we put co2? there's a lot of talk of co2 in the planet. what does what does co2 do in the space station? >> we've been holding out low because the potential hype problems. i think were were running about 3 millimeters of mercury of partial pressure co2

onboard. >> how does that compare to the co2 we have in our atmosphere? >> it slightly higher than we have in the room here. we've typically allowed prior to any problems associated with vision, we allowed it to go up on the order of six mm or so. that's dramatically higher dramatically higher than the environment here. it's slightly higher on board the space station the we see here. >> have there been any health related problems that this increased level of co2 that astronauts breathe in during their time in the space station as compared to what they would breathe in here? >> again, were not sure but it could can contribute to the cranial problems which relates to the eye and vision problem we just mentioned. you could have headaches or physiological problems. again we

try to control that is low as we can. we have a russian a russian device that removes carbon dioxide in the u.s. the right that removes carbon dioxide. we also have some absorbent material that also removes it. we have a next generation of system that will fly on the iran capsule and we can use that to remove co2. >> we are actually exhaling co2 all the time self were in an enclosed environment we have to be very concerned with what the human body itself is exhaling. in terms of the future of the space station, do we have plans to expand and put different elements on the space station at this point? >> currently currently on the u.s. side, we just reconfigured

the permanent multipurpose module from one location to another location. that was to make room for a docking adapter we discussed earlier to let commercial vehicles come. that's about all were going to do on the u.s. side. there is no major new additions coming. the russians have talked about a solar power platform to provide solar power energy for their segment. they also talked about a multi- purpose logistics module so they may add some new modules but on the u.s. side we don't have any major additions planned. >> the company has invested a significant amount of money with the inflatable's and space habitat. is there any use of this technology? >> it will be added to the space station next year as a demonstration capability. a demonstration capability. this is an expandable module they'll be added to the outside of the space station. i i will stay there for about a year or year and a half. its purpose is to investigate

the advantage of a expandable model. we hope to learn what we can gain from the expandable technology. has very thick walls so it may be better thermally and the acoustic environment may be better. we hope to get it and orbit test those claims confirm if the module technology is something we want to use going forward. >> it might also be cheaper than the traditional lay of building a space station which is something we should be concerned about. let me note that orbital debris continues to be, and always was, and expanding concern. i believe this is something nasa should look at not just in terms of space station but we should be thinking about international

cooperative effort to deal with the debris problem. that is is something this committee should be dealing with at least in the time ahead. second and lastly let me note that your report on your cooperation with russia during this time. when there are frictions going on between the united states and russia i think demonstrates a very wonderful aspect of space and that is that once you get up there you look back down on the earth and some of those problems don't seem as important or were able to put it in perspective. i'm glad we are in the russians are able to put it in perspective to the point that we can work together and create a better world why while we are

doing it. thank you for demonstrating that to all of us. >> i want to think witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for all their questions. if we had time i would've liked to go through a second round but it will remain open for two weeks for additional comments. you can also submit written questions from members. the committee is still waiting for nasa's response to the commercial crew hearing from six months ago. please send back a message that these delays are not acceptable. the witnesses are excused in this hearing is adjourned. thank you.

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

intimidate and silence internet commentary. this this is an hour-long briefing. >> we like to welcome you to our

briefing today entitled will frivolous lawsuits be the end of the internet. it's hosted in conjunction with the internet caucus. would like to thank our cochairs thank you for the caucus for hosting this. just a little little bit of housekeeping, the twitter hashtag for the event today is #slapptalk if you want to tweet or follow along. the information for all the panelists is on your program. we also have a number of events coming up this month. next week we have an event on music streaming. we are announcing more throughout the lie and maybe a little bit into august. so with with that, i will introduce our panel. we have amy austen from the washington city paper. next to her we have laurent

crenshaw from yelp. we have the senior policy counsel and at the end we have kevin goldberg we are looking forward to hearing from all of you. feel free to jump in. decimate defamation suits have been an issue with the rise of glass door trip advisor, facebook and others where there reviewing businesses it has come to a situation where individuals are at risk of being sued by those companies about whom they're writing reviews on this platform. while media platforms might be prepared for those types of suits, individuals are

intimidated by these lawsuits. they are scared of the cost of these drawn out legal processes and they are intimidated to take those reviews down. not. not only them but other people might think twice about speaking out against a business if they see someone else getting drug into a lawsuit. there's this chilling effect of fear of free speech on the internet recently we introduced the speak free act of 2015. it was brought in may by a number of cosponsors. we'll talk about that but let's unpack some of the legal and political issues as well as freedom of speech online. i want to to remind everyone in the audience that the advisory committee and caucus don't take any positions on these reviews

so we try to have a balanced discussion. i might play devils advocate and feel free to jump in and ask questions of each other. what that i'd like to turn to kevin who has done a lot of work in this case. in plain english why does this matter to people? >> thank you my name is kevin goldberg. i'm in an attorney and among my clients are the old school slap subjects. the american american society new that it is media as well. that includes the city paper. i'm also on the board of the public participation project which is an organization dedicated to raise awareness about anti- slap lawsuits. i clearly have a position on this issue that these are very important method of free speech. why is is it that you should

care? we will hear a very personal story from amy and i have some backup if she doesn't get to the part i really want to tell that shows you just how egregious this can be. it really does affect everybody. that's something to know when we focus today in regard to the internet. that's the biggest change in the last five years. it's not like they've only come around in the last five years, slap lawsuits have been around forever but now everybody is able to reach out to the entire world. the. the region and the anti- slap the statutes are important is that they level the playing field for you or i will we say something critical about someone who's bigger than us, more powerful than us and has more money than us. i work primarily with media organizations. a lot of them don't want to be sued. it's a drain on their time and resources. it's emotional stressful even if you know

you're going to win. even from the lawyers position i get stressed out when i have a client threatened with a lawsuit. i'd love to be a guy who sits here like in the movie and says forget this, we'll get that tossed out a court in days. it's not a problem, you will win. that's not will win. that's not real life. real life is you get a lawsuit the clock starts ticking in regard to your attorney. lawyers aren't cheap, time isn't cheap. every minute you spend defending this is a minute you are not working. every time you spend is a dime you're a dime you're not spending somewhere else. all this to defend what is in most cases of frivolous lawsuit that is designed to keep you from criticizing someone else. that's why it's so important. you may win the suit but it will take its toll. these anti- lap statutes are in 30 states but not at the federal

court system and not in every state. they give you that ability to knock out the frivolous suit more quickly and in some instances get your fees paid for. if somebody brings a big corporation brings a suit against you, great you may win and they may understand it will get knocked out quickly. but they might think twice if they actually have to pay you for that time and money. that's why this is really, really important for everybody. >> would you like to talk a little bit about your experience amy. >> sure. i'm amy austen and i'm a publisher of the washington city paper. the city paper is a local alternative media and is about 113 papers media companies like

city paper across the united states. our job, our focus, our passion is to cover local news. we local news. we cover local news and culture for cities across the united states. our news companies are part of this association. the washington city paper which is your local news source was sued. we wrote a fantastic story so let's start at the beginning. we wrote this incredible story about the redskins and it was called the cranky like full of let me get the name right cranky redskins fan guide. this was in the fall of 2011.

it was published right after a big loss to the philadelphia eagles. it was a monday night football game and we completely screwed up the game. that thursday we came out with this piece. there's a sports writer named dave mckenna who wrote it and he just took all his knowledge about dan snyder and the redskins and all the ways in which he had wronged the team and the way he had spent his life and wrapped it up into one very funny guide. the piece stands the test of time and everything in it was accurate. it got sort of normal play at the time. we published it and people enjoyed it. there was some talk about it but then we soon after got a letter

from dan snyder that came in this is sort of a money line, it was sent, sent, we were owned at the time by an investment firm. i think it's an important part of the story is that our ownership was in flux. so he wrote the letter to an investment firm and as kevin said, media organizations were aware that we can be sued at

>> you can tell that how -- tell us how that is changed. people can write whatever they want.

>> sure. i'm head of federal public policy. you you have not heard of it before, website that that's people to businesses in places. currently currently about a hundred and 42 million unique monthly visitors and 32 countries start 11 years ago. and as a part of that process connecting people it has also become a site for aggregating and assigning ratings. so for example we are here in washington dc right now. i think that the rayburn cafeteria has about a two star rating on yelp. yeah. so whether it is restaurants or dry cleaners or plumbers or businesses in general or

places in general they have a yelp page generally speaking and ratings that are there. and and it does not just apply for yelp. you have sites like trip advisor for travel and hotels and things around the world. you have a sock stock a site that has come up for doctors and finding out the best doctors the mighty around you. google does it as well. even facebook as well. if you go on to a business page you will see ratings for businesses, and people leave opinions. so really the rise of social media platforms and the internet there has also been the rise of the review culture that yelp has been of the front of which is where individuals have had the ability and opportunity to share their opinion, to

share their fact-based experience with the particular business or particular place and they do it really for the greater sort of community service, for the good. why do i go i go on to yelp and rate a particular business? it's not because i'm receiving compensation but because i want to let everyone else on the internet, my neighbors and others know the experience that i have their. in the past you might ask a neighbor, ask your friend, use word-of-mouth, use word-of-mouth, means of figuring out what is the best of what is around you. now thankfully we have the internet so we can get this broader more ire it experience out of it and to make better purchasing decisions or just make better decisions in general. but along with that obviously when you have a platform and the internet in general which is really this bastion of free speech where you can go and sort of express your opinions and

the first amendment or under just in general but is protected by the first amendment you are occasionally going to have the circumstances at times where people will not necessarily tell the truth. it might not be a fast paced experience, but in general under those circumstances platforms like yelp, trip advisor, amazon, so amazon, so many others already have within their terms of service mechanisms and tools that allow those type of statements and reviews to either be flagged or for business owners to respond. really the way that the platform works it helps to ensure especially in the case of yelp that it is an honest firsthand experience now, a lot of people might think also that review platforms are places where people kind of go to complain to my go to just

leave a bad experience. but at least in the case of yelp we have found that about 75 percent or so are actually three stars and above. so you know you might think in your head going to go there and really didn't have business that didn't give me good service, but often times is people that are going just to share their experience with the greater internet society. so i i say all that because you do at times unfortunately have instances where business owners or individuals have not agreed with the statements that have been made. it was mentioned from the standpoint of the city paper. well look at the internet platforms as basically obviously online digital media. the continuation. and unfortunately my some business owners have decided to go the route where

individuals have decided to go the route by threatening or attempting to sue people based off of whether it's a yelp review or trip advisor review or sock stock opinion and the fact of the matter is that most of the time these are individuals firsthand experiences or opinions. i went here. i experienced this. maybe it was a bad experience. you say it was a a bad experience but generally is still your firsthand opinion unfortunately you have this group of individuals that sometimes decides to use litigation as a response rather than actually trying to engage and better customer service. that is what we sort of saw happening. it has continued to happen. and what we worry about obviously and why we have been a big supporter of anti- legislation is that while we know and as kevin said before, most of these lawsuits, the people that are out there trying for to threatening to sue or are

going forward and suing someone and falling under this mental, they don't necessarily expected to go to trial. they don't even necessarily expect to win. with the hope with the hope is that you would rather remove your review and never speak either ill or anything at all about that company again rather than a spend thousands of dollars of the tens of thousands of dollars to actually defend your statement in court. you might think about man, is my review of the cafeteria really worth -- maybe it's not a good case because it's a government owned entity. but, you know if we were talking about -- was a good -- 18th st. lounge. my review of 18th street lounge worth you know, potentially thousands of

dollars in litigation and defending it? unfortunately most people most of the time if you are an average citizen i just decided to share that opinion will say no has probably not. i would i would rather take it down and have to go through that process. and one community obviously feel that is wrong because you have the right to share the opinion. you're opinion. you're honest, fact-based opinion commanded is protected by the first amendment. that is the first.. and then we also are concerned about the overall effect because even if it does not is not you if you are not the one experiencing that suit or threat directly, you tell your friends about it, say to someone else i got threatened with a lawsuit based off of my review of restaurant. then it poisons the internet ecosystem as a whole. you know we all look at the internet as really being this bastion of freedom of speech where you can go and share your opinion share your you know, experiences. and so we in particular worry about slap suits

really infringing upon your ability and that experience clicks actually it's funny. hard to mike to mike especially since you have not been able to speak yet but we talked a lot about people whom i stop i stop and think before they say something in the fact that anti- slap helps you continue with that thought. but what about the times you don't even stop to think? how many of you don't actually have to show hand, hand not your hand silently so angry at something that you joined a twitter and grant. you don't even think. my flight was delayed again. you suck, insert airline name here. your cable company your guy was supposed to be here five,@six. you know you've done it. you you know you've done it. you have all done it, and you have not even thought. probably protected. a lot of

the stuff is protected. it is not the plan majority. the probably not going to sue you, what if they did? >> i. i jenny rest mucin here representing the american association for justice. some justice. some of you probably know it but if you don't we are the world's largest trial bar formed in 1947. we are committed to ensuring that -- committed to ensuring all people individuals, consumers families, patients coworkers have access to all reports in order to enforce the rights. so are talking about slabs and how to define a slap i agree with i agree with much of what they're saying. i want to highlight two points that i think you should think about because this is important. one cop meritless lawsuit. the person bringing person bringing them has no expectation that they will win in court every they are bringing it to bully and harassment silence. and that is wrong. you'll have a right a right to bring frivolous things in a court of law. second is that usually

except but larger media defendants usually there is a disparity and resources between the two parties. the person bringing the slap as tremendous resources. they can make frivolous filings in a court of law because they can pay for them. whereas the them. whereas the david in the situation, the smaller litigant that is a serious economic threat to them. those two points are important, and i stress them because and how we define a slap lawsuit those two points get lost. i am here today. i will be presenting an opposing view on a a bill that was introduced, the speaks react because i disagree that there is concern and something should be addressed but i but i disagree with the way the slap is defined. we have serious concerns that as it is defined broadly it will be applied to lawsuits that you do not

intended to apply to. such cases as whistleblower whistleblower law or civil rights lawsuits or security lawsuits a lot of lawsuits that arise out of statements that are by nobody's imagination something you would consider a slap lawsuit. >> that's a great segue to talking about the state of legislation. we have 28 states and washington and a territory or two that have their own anti- slap legislation but they are different in each state. state. some of them are broad and some are quite narrow. and then and then we have this new federal legislation which we have had in the past. i would like to here from the panelists how this is different from passed legislation them how it differs from the state legislation, what is the purpose of introducing at the federal level. >> go-ahead. >> i will start off a little bit. from our from our standpoint there is the need for federal anti- slap legislation because given

the sort of nature of the internet in general you can often times have circumstances where you have parties in different jurisdictions. that is often obviously something that would necessitate itself more to the federal side rather than the state. and also because of the differences in the nature of the state laws that are in place. 20 as you mentioned 28 states with an anti-slap on the books. some are really the books. some are really good like the state of california. the state of texas. they have really good anti-slap law, and i believe that the speaks react itself was actually modeled on those two pieces of legislation. then you have states like new york state that does not have a very good anti- slap

law relatively narrow in scope. the same in pennsylvania. what you sometimes end up have happening there is form shopping. basically if you are a party looking to sue someone make a slap motion based off of -- yakima make a slap motion you look to see either if you can find a state without an anti-slap law or one that has a relatively weak one. and so from a yelp standpoint in particular when you're looking at statements made on the internet having a federal standard at least baseline standard for when it comes the first amendment anti-slap protection we think is crucial to ensuring that the speech and statements you make online are protected. >> just to pick up on a a couple points, and one more example of a state law that has recently been change that is narrow in florida which only applies to lawsuits brought by government officials against a private individual which has been broadened to give

more protection you have other states out there. you mentioned stronger and weaker and maryland has a week a week anti- slap law. virginia has none. dc has one that has recently been held to not apply when you're in a federal court proceeding. you have this big gap. i am a defendant to read dan snyder decides to sue is a resident of virginia and do it in federal court because it's not just dc. now that the federal court cannot apply the anti-slap anti- slap law there is a huge loophole undercutting state law. that is why we need this legislation to fill in the other states that don't have them and also fill in the protections that exist in some states. >> this is actually relevant in our case. the suit was initially filed in new york which as you heard did not have as good a law as dc for anti- slap. and in the case was moved to dc. i felt much more like i had

a club in my hand when the suit was moved to dc because there was an anti- slap law here to help protect against these frivolous lawsuits. >> we talk about what the states are doing mina 28 states that have some kind of slap law. they all very and that echoes the.that there is not consensus on how to define a a slap lawsuit. some are very narrow like pennsylvania that only applies to environmental issues. some are quite broad. but even california has this language in the statute that it must be an expression made in furtherance of your constitutional right to potential. any kind of change. something that i think is really extraordinary. the speaks react has to have a removal provision term of

state-based claims filed in state court. he when there is not diversity jurisdiction. so it's one thing to have a rule to apply to this diversity of citizenship. it's quite another to tell states where taking these cases out of your state court and putting them in federal court. our constitution is based on a system of a system of federalism. our framers not specifically authorize things they left for the state. all these dates have different slap statutes. some have decided to not slap slap, some have ruled them to be unconstitutional. others have tried to dressed very narrow statutes. what happens if you pass this big broad federal bill that removes cases the federal court? they are effectively preempted because you can

remove them to federal court there is. there's no longer a statute that applies to them. so that is very troubling to us. the issue of tort law, and all law and also the case with you here medical malpractice, defamation all exists because of state law. there law. there is no federal tort law. at the state cause of action the speaks react to changes that because it's something that belongs in federal court. in addition what i want to say is -- >> and then i want to jump in for a minute. >> yeah. >> others this problem. when you look at what states are doing what they have decided to do including the states that have ruled it to be unconstitutional what are the unintended consequences of putting abroad, federal bill that cramps all of those? that is where our organization comes in. there are significant concerns that the bill will apply to the cases i just

listed of individuals, not the goliath bringing first 25 frivolous lawsuits but the david who is going after the goliath in a whistleblower action employment discrimination action action, those kind of cases are the ones we want to help protect. i know. a lot of people probably want to comment. >> great. yeah. great. yeah. i will jump in and response. i think that we fundamentally differ already in regard to she described it as being overly broad. there are specific exemptions that are already within the bill and particular limitations whether dealing with commercial parties dealing with statements that are made about governmental actors, statements that involve state or federal and then also those that are made about environmental and other areas. the bill itself is really we think, narrowly tailored in the scope and regard to the conversation. obviously conversation. obviously when you're

talking about the question of what is a slap suit there are a lot of things that could be deemed or considered slap suits, but that is because it ultimately comes back to one particular area that we have been talking about the constitution and your first amendment right to speak and to be protected in regard to what you say. if you're making a fact-based statement if you are sharing your opinion in a manner that is not defamatory you know, i'm not going to go down the road of what is defamation because it's pretty clear on the federal level and the states what the standard of defamation is. what we are talking about here is whether or not if you're in an area that does not have an up-to-date law on the books because really it is just the fact that anti-slap law in general is not kept pace with the speed of the internet, how far along we are in regard to how communication happens how people express their opinion online and in many

instances state laws of not caught up. even within those 28 states there are differences. the other 22 states the real question is that, you know how we are not talking about all of those claims being immediately moved to federal court and being on the onus of federal judges. it would allow for removal. basically say, you're in california. california has a great anti-slap a great anti- slap law. why would you bother filing a claim in federal court in that instance if it's a state -based matter? but if you are in arkansas where there is not an anti-slap law that you are being hit with something that is on its face a slap suit then this then this would allow for the opportunity of removal with the answer that question. question. if it's something that going through and looking at it when you file your pleading and you say what has happened and you know, as a defendant you make this motion and a very expedited process you can figure out, okay this is a slap a slap

suit. a judge can figure that out and throw it out or at least on that.and then because of the fact that a slap suit was filed against you and you have had to spend thousands of dollars if not tens of thousands of dollars attorneys fees then at least, you know, have the other party pay that off or provide some sort of compensation so that you are not left with your speech having been threatened, with your time having been taken away and the tens of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees afterward. that is why we feel that this is really important and why in particular we support this and don't think that it is overly broad. we think that when you were talking about what a slap suit is basically a meritless lawsuit that infringes upon your first amendment right to free speech, the fact of the matter is a lot of speech happens on the internet. don't get me wrong but it should receive the same protection as somewhat someone like amy received or the city paper received

because what they did was in print. >> i would like to follow-up on that was something i don't think we have been clear on the effect of the special motion to dismiss. it is not -- we have, you know we need to be clear. it is not as simple as i'm the defendant. i've been served with what i believe is a frivolous lawsuit and i file my i file my motion to dismiss and this goes away. if i can show specifically the bill allows me as the defendant to file a special motion in this mess if i have made an oral or written statement or other expression in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public concern and there are certain exemptions. that exemptions. that is similar to the california law where you talked about a statement made in furthering the rights of the petition which

are at the core of the first amendment. so what i do as a defendant's show that i have made this type of statement. that is statement. that is my first response, but that is not the end of the case. i don't when there. what happens is now the plaintiff still gets his or her -- in spite of the apple. apple. the difference now is the standard has risen. now they risen. now they have to show that the lawsuit in question you know they have to show that the claim is likely to succeed on merit. it is harder. i think so. clearly it is about the.is, they are not kicked out of court. this is important to remember. what it does if on the defendant and i make a statement and i am suit and statement and i am suit and otherwise i back down, that's a big burden. now the burden shifts to the person bringing the lawsuit that would otherwise restrict my constitutional right to free speech command we do this all the time. as the core as the core of the number one biggest first amendment lawsuit. say it with me, new york

times versus sullivan was all about shifting the balance were one side of the other recognizing that certain truths might -- we want the truth to come out and inevitably we will hear falsehoods. the opposite decision is, we want to keep the fall set out. we are going to an effect keeps all the truth out. the balance burden shifting which is what i think this bill does. >> i agree it shifts burden, this bill. the question is are you only burdening people who bring slap law suits and the answer is no. you're burdening people who have legitimate were the lawsuits are now have to fight these motions. the most illustrative is the use of the slap statute gone bad. i'm sure people in this room have seen the hbo documentary going clear. there was a woman featured if you remember. do you remember? she bought a lawsuit against the church of scientology. if you are a legal geek like me you look at what happened this is what happened. she brought she brought a very legitimate harassment lawsuit against the church

of scientology. she was never a member or so she could bring a a lawsuit. the church has used texas is anti- slap statute to cripple your case. even in cases where she could meet this burden this much higher burden of proving that she has legitimate case the judge agree with her and ruled against the church of scientology. her case has been on appeal for over a year. she never had she never had a chance of discovery the basic element of building or factual case. if the speak free act was law not only would she have the burden but her case could have been removed in federal court and likely would have been because it would have given the church of scientology the right to remove that case to federal court where i'm sure her appeal process would be even longer than the state of texas just because of judicial vacancies and overburdening of the federal court. when you think about it it is shifting the burden. that is exactly the.when we say he should not strengthen

the constitutional rights of some by violating the constitutional rights of others, and that is why the washington state supreme court struck down its slap statute saying that their statute is unconstitutional. i will read a read a great quote from that. basically saying that the legislature may enact anti- slap legislation to prevent litigants from abusing the judicial process by filing frivolous lawsuits for improper purchases. we agree. the constitutional conundrum is that it seeks to protect one group of citizen constitutional rights of expression of petition by coming off another constitutional civil rights of petition a jury trial. congress cannot pass a law that protects one at the expense of another.

you're right to petition for a real grievance and you're right to a civil jury trial. >> you think it's unconstitutional? clicks yes. clicks you want this? >> i recognize it's a broad bill. no doubt about it. the issue i think you are making with regard to the appeal is one of andrew lockridge which is provided in statute. that allows someone to go to court, to go on appeal which exists in a lot of first amendment lawsuits and has for years. move on a a motion for summary judgment and i can immediately go to court and is a reason for that as well

i have a defendant on an anti- slap if i have to vent immediately go discovery even though i think the key first amendment issue of my having been slapped has been answer the wrong way. of course the penalty is on me. the plaintiff, you make these decisions all the time it's a different position to be in versus making the choice yourself. that otherwise being drawn and enforced in the court court with the fight out of you -- >> i would like to bring this back and follow-up. and amy's case you knew who was getting sued. on the internet you often have people hiding behind usernames for some kind of anonymizing screen. what happens in that case, does the bill address that those people have the right to anonymity and where to platforms: the play.

>> i will try to respond. in regard to washington state specifically you have to look at that decision by the state supreme court and the washington state microcosm responding specifically to the washington state constitution and what was specified there and that there were issues of concern in regard to how the bill of been drafted to being conforming to the washington state constitution. and again, we disagree with the jam the.of that applying of the federal level. we don't think that they have the same raised concerns. in regard to infringing upon the rights of individuals to make these type of petitions and claims, let's put this more in the morning the

context or at least what i think is context. if you are suing someone for defamation, generally speaking you are either a business of some kind or you're probably a public figure. that is normally 25 these are are the types of people that we are typically talking about that are filing these type of suits. is is it eliminating their ability to file this type of suit? the already established this bill is not. it raises certain procedural and -- procedural processes in regard to the substantive question of whether or not you're violating the person's first amendment right. generally at the end of the day were talking about either a business or someone with the resources available to use them to intimidate you with a meritless lawsuit. on the other end i have i think like 12 people are so on this page. for example a woman katie and from chicago who wrote a review on a window shade company and then ended up getting a slap suit or sake you bringing

it had a a negative experience was a back auto trading and got slap suit filed against him or lease goldberg who was sued by beverly hills dentist about negative yelp experience. so what do these people have in common? that they wrote about their experience. were talking about instances and dealings with the dentist and dealings with the dr.'s office -- excuse me, dealings with an auto company, window shade company. it goes to the topic that you can have slap suits that deal with the deal with a breath of different issues but ultimately it comes back to that sort of first amendment question of whether or not your speech is being infringed upon. to your question, miranda and regard to anonymity yelp fundamentally believes that your -- and we think it has been proven time again in court that individuals have the right to anonymity

in regard to statements from a fact-based statements or experiences that they make about a particular person think more business or you know especially on the internet. and where this comes in the play let's say you had a bad experience with a dr. or maybe your a man and went to a dr. about man things or woman and you went to a gynecologist and whatnot. you had a bad experience and you want to share that experience a sensitive matter an area of medicine so you don't want to attach a name to it. yelp as a platform and others allow you to have that anonymity and what the build is in particular is it allows us to protect that anonymity and then at the very least the plaintiff for the party take the steps of

present for preventing evidence to show that it is necessary. we do with the case those along these lines. the carpet cleaning company filed a motion to get yelp to root breach the anonymity of seven individuals who posted negative reviews about the business. we fought it. honestly we lost the first two times in virginia in the state course because of the quirkiness of virginia law. the laws not being up to date within the state and threatening the anonymity.

and that meeting one out side of the job randomly. real first-hand experiences and we had to take it to the supreme court of virginia and ultimately we did not win on substantive grounds. we did when. going to the anonymity of the users. to prove or to get the access to that person's information but at least there are processes in place to provide your i was greater protections. >> or want to echo point. this idea from a a david versus goliath and that

these two are meritless nothing in the speak react limit the scope. nothing limits it. so i think that that is something to consider. we are talking about anonymous reviews. i'm guessing the head of the speak for you that you are talking about some of the personally identifiable information we didn't have any opposition the provision. that's clear. we were concerned about the scope of this bill how it is designed to quickly and with prejudice get rid of lawsuits and that the scope is so broad that you are capturing cases that you are not meaning to. a legitimate harassment lawsuit that she is now having to spend tons of resources and appellate counsel on to try to fight what is essentially a meritless slap motion. >> we promise to get you out quickly.

ten minutes. would like to open up to questions. we should have a roving have a roving mic. in the white jacket. >> high. katie bogdan. can you give us -- can you quantify how big, how many lawsuits there are? how many, you know, have a increased? give us some sort of trend line of how big of a problem this is becoming? thanks. >> quantify how big the problem is. >> i have some statistics only for california. i am going to admit right now i will review my notes. there notes. there is no way i was remembering all the