replenished fairly often because of its half-life. >> okay. what would be fairly often, every year or two? >> about every three months. >> oh. all right. are we aware of any effort to actually mount an attack of a dirty bomb in this country or another country? are we aware where someone's actually attempted, much like in boston where we have the effort to -- unfortunately successful to hurt and kill and maim a lot of people. have you seen use of substances in the air to poison or kill people on subways so we have actual demonstrated uses of technology to hurt people? do we have any documentation about attacks in this country or another country where this was

maybe tried, maybe failed, maybe aborted? >> i do not, sir. there is the general threat that we make every effort to safeguard against. i'm not sure if my colleagues are aware of any attempts to produce a dirty bomb using our sources. >> if you want to follow-up with a classified briefing on the topic, we could go into that in more detail. >> okay. good enough. >> and i'm going to ask a follow-on question. if this is not appropriate to answer in this space, just say so, but people can go on the internet and learn all kinds of things, including how to build weapons and nuclear weapons, pressure cooker bombs, and i

presume dirty bombs. given the access to that kind of information, why do you suppose no one's done it, at least to our knowledge, and certainly not been successful in doing it? maybe it's because of the security measures that we're talking about, in this country pretty good, getting better. maybe it's because that's true in other countries. maybe the -- it's not as easy as it sounds to do and maybe people decide it's too dangerous and they're going to hurt or maim other people, maybe find some way to do it that's less damaging to the perpetrator, although a lot of them don't really seem to care about whether they live or die. but why? why do you suppose we've not seen it attempted. >> we'll start the conversation.

i mean, i think the efforts at nsa, dhs, deserve credit to try to secure these sources. i think where the conversation is going is is there more that we can do though? that's really where the support is coming from. really it's premised on the idea that it only takes one to make a really bad day. >> others please? >> just quickly. i'd like to say that i believe it's some of the efforts that we've taken in putting together regulatory programs as well as other programs that is certainly one of the drivers. we've made it very hard for people to get their hands on these things. >> doctor? >> senator, i would echo a lot of what you've said and we've heard today, but in a different setting i think we can go into

more specifics. >> okay. >> i support dr. gowadia's statement about taking this up in a different environment. >> fair enough. let me ask you does the nrc have any mechanisms to review underscored decisions made by licensees? if a licensee grants unescorted access to an individual with a violent or criminal history, will the nrc be immediately made aware of this action or be able to take immediate action? >> we would be able to inspect it at our next inspection activity. that's when we review the decision making by the licensee staff on trustworthiness and reliability. >> mr. trimbl av y, do you want to react? >> my understanding of the guidelines being reviewed is that various factors were considered but the actual decision was left to the

licensee. so there's no prescription that if someone has convictions for certain things that they are not allowed to have access. >> does that sound satisfactory? should we be concerned about that? >> so i would respectfully defer to my regulatory colleagues and director sartorius' position and support and advocate for his mission because, again, the more secure these sources are, the easy it becomes for the detection of things. >> okay. do you think it would be helpful, again, mr. sartorius, to help to acquire the licensee gets a second opinion from the respective states or the nrc regarding the trustworthiness of an individual? >> senator, i don't think it would, and the reason as a regulatory body, we expect our licensees to perform these

activities. we give them good guidance so that they can follow and so that they can -- they'll repeat the right decisions, but i would say that it's not within our purview to be consultants. we review what the licensee has done and make a decision whether they comply with our regulations. >> in any of your regulations do they permit the licensees to have access when they've made terroristic threats? >> they do not. >> okay. maybe one more question and then we'll start voting in a few minutes. thank you. this will be one for miss harrington and for captain sartorius. this is on security enhancement. i understand the national nuclear global threat reduction

works with the nrc licenses state, local, tribal governments and other federal agencies to build on the existing regulatory requirements by providing voluntary security enhancements. let me ask you, administrator harrington, how many security enhancements has the national nuclear security administration put into place on industrial and construction facilities and a follow-up would be what obstacles stand in your way from installing some form of security upgrades for high risk radiological sources? >> i don't know if these numbers break out strictly the industrial facilities but according to our analysis there are approximately 3,000 buildings in the united states containing high risk radiological sources. of that number, we have already worked in 650 buildings

providing our security upgrade program and we intend to complete another 45 in this fiscal year. so that is, i think, a reasonable accomplishment but that only gets us up to, you know, 700 out of 3,000. we've also recovered -- >> what about the other 2300? >> well, those are in out-year plans, but with the budget environment as it is, we have had to extend the target date for completion farther than we had originally thought would be -- would be possible. the other part of this is the disposition pathway for these sources, and that is often a challenge because you either have to find a secure storage

facility for long-term storage or some other way to safely dispose of those sources it is the -- it is the licensee's responsibility to do that unless the source that they have has no clear disposition pathway in which case we can step in and assist. >> okay. if you have something to add, feel free to do so briefly, otherwise, i'm going to bring us to a close for now. anything else you want to add there on this point? >> not on this point. i think my colleague has said it very carefully. >> okay. >> these are enhancements and we believe that compliance with our regulations provide adequate protection for the public. senator, i do need to correct one statement i made earlier for the record if i could do so quickly. >> sure. >> that is, not all category one sources are inspected on a yearly basis.

the periodicity of the inspection is based on the safety and robustness of the device and some cat 1 sources are not -- are scheduled for periodic inspections at a greater periodicity than one year. three years, four years, five years. >> thanks for that clarification. let me just say this as we come to a close. let me just say our job in this committee is to do oversight. we have responsibility oversight for the department of homeland security. we also have broad responsibility or oversight for the whole federal government and other committees have subcommittees that are responsible for investigation. some of them take it seriously, others do not. we -- it's hard for one committee such as this one to really exercise meritorious oversight over the entire federal government. it's like we have 15, 16 people

and as good as we are and our staffs, it's just a little bit too much for us to handle. but one of the things we can do from time to time is partner with the gio and ask them from time to time to look attic issues, in this case threats, and ask the question, how are we doing, what are we doing well, maybe what are others in other countries doing even better that we can learn from or even particular states. hope and pray that the subject of today's hearing is something that will just always be a subject for a hearing or for speculation and nobody will be hurt or inconvenienced in any way because of an attack of this nature. you never know. and what we can do is try to make sure that we're doing everything we can to hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

and i'm encouraged today to hear that there's a fair amount of work going on to protect our people and to share that information with other nations so they can better protect their own folks. but i certainly don't want to hear someone ask the question why didn't somebody do something about this threat, about the dirty bomb? why didn't somebody do something to protect against it? and i want us to be able to say, well, we worked hard in order to protect our people and our country from a threat of this nature. so, as i said earlier, everything i do i know i can do better. i think that's true of all of us and that's true of every federal program and so our goal is perfection. probably hard to reach, but it's a pretty good goal for us. and so conclude by saying how much we appreciate not just your being here, not just preparing

for the hearing, not just answering my questions but also we appreciate the work you do for our country. thank you for your service to our nation. the hearing record will remain open for 15 days. that's until june 27th at 5:00 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the record and, again, our thanks to each of you and with that -- and to our staffs, majority/minority staff for helping us prepare for this hearing. thank you so much, and with that this hearing is adjourned.

this past 4th of july president obama called on congress to pass immigration legislation. speaking at a naturalization ceremony at the white house on friday, the president said that until congress acts, he will, quote, do everything i can do to keep making our immigration system smarter and more efficient. on cspan's facebook page we're asking should president obama use executive power on immigration? join the conversation at facebook.com/cspan. with live coverage of the u.s. house on cspan and the senate on cspan 2. here on cspan 3 we compliment that by showing you the most relevant hearings and public affairs events. on weekends cspan 3 is home to american history tv including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battle

fields and key events, american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites, history bookshelf with the best known american history writers, the presidency looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief, lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past and our new series, reel america featuring films from the 1930s through the '70s. cspan 3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by local cable provider. watch on on twitter and like us on facebook. mexico's ambassador to the u.s. on his country's efforts to increase oil and gas drilling. he speaks at the center for strategic and international studies in washington. that's live on cspan at 1:30 eastern. at 2:00 p.m. on cspan 2 the

senate gavels into session. they vote on judicial nomination and whether to open more federal land to hunting and fishing. at 4:00 on cspan, a discussion on the recent kidnapping and murder of three israeli teens and the palestinian child that was burned alive and what that means for the israeli/palestinian peace process. that starts at the woodrow wilson center. and here at cspan 3 at 4:00 eastern, a look at the national security agency surveillance and internet security programs. we'll hear from representatives from google and privacy groups. that's live from the new america foundation in washington. >> announcer: now you can dmeep touch with current events from the nation's capitol with cspan radio on audio now.

call 202-626-8888. every weekday listen to a recap of the day's events at 5:00 p.m. eastern on "washington today." you can hear audio of the five networks beginning sundays at noon eastern. cspan radio on audio now. call 202-626-8888. long distance or phone charges may apply. the internet content i think we would all agree should remain free from regulations especially by if not from the fcc's regulations. as susan crawford said it's confusing the conversation from the sidewalk. of course we want the conversation to be free and unregulated. the fcc has no place to regulate material online. they have ensured the pathways stay open. we have the vesttiges of a phone system. they make sure the communication's pathway is open,

available, nondiscriminatory and available for everybody to use. >> it's crucial to think about whether those platforms remain open the way they have historically. the internet has grown up as a network where anyone can communicate, anyone can get online. a teeny company can get access to the network and become like google and facebook, a huge business and it's vital that that not change as the internet evolves. >> more opinions on the fcc's open internet policy and the flow and speed of web traffic tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on cspan 2. hundreds of thousands of pieces of space did he brings are orbiting the earth, things like old satellite parts and used rocket boosters. a house space subcommittee recently looked into the issue of space junk. we'll hear from the general in charge of the air force space command which tracks 23,000 objects that orbit the earth.

the subcommittee on space will come to order. good morning. welcome to space traffic management, how to prevent a real life gravity. in front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biography and truth and testimony disclosure for today's witnesses. before i begin my opening statement, let me say that the topic we're discussing is one that i know is of great interest to chairman steve pilazo and he would be here leading the discussion today if he had not been pulled away by the death of a close friend this week. i also understand he'll be including a statement for the record. i would like to offer my condolences to him and his family during this time. i recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. the focus of this hearing is how to prevent a real life gravity as was imaginatively portrayed

last year, the threat of debris and key orbits around the earth is a real and serious issue. while the movie elevated orbit tall debris to the public's attention, we are no stranger to the topic. we will look at space traffic management and what congress may do to ensure the safety and security of the space environment. there are two important facets of this discussion. the first is an assessment of what we are doing to track and mitigate orbitable debris. the second is what needs to be done without burdenening the space debris without the bureaucratic hurdles. the jscc space is tracking approximately 23,000 objects in orbit around the earth, including 4,000 pay loads of which 1200 are active. the current systems available for tracking cannot detect objects smaller than 4 inches in

size. this means we can't track a fleck of paint traveling at 17,500 miles an hour which in and of itself although small can cause damage. the chinese test in 2007 demonstrated how volatile the space environment can be. this resulted in the largest creation of debris in history. so far almost 3,400 individual objects associated with this event have been cataloged and the list is still growing. additionally, in 22000, cost mos 2251 and active space ship created a debris field that resulted in over 2,000 pieces of debriggs. combined these two events account for almost 1/4 of the events that jscc is tracking. while tracking existing debris is obviously key to this

discussion, we must also focus on prevending the proliferation of these objects in the first place. there are two key agencies involved in the mitigation of debris, the federal communications commission and they have developed plans and i am eager to hear from them today. the faa is responsible for the mitigation of debris as it pertains to launch and re-entry vehicles. they released in november of 2013 directed the department of transportation to execute exclusive authority over these activities. while this was not a change in the status quo, dr. george neil, associate administrator for commercial space transportation at the faa testified before the subcommittee that his agency was ready to start a larger discussion on expansion of their authority to regulate on orbit activities. it is unclear what specific authority the faa is asking for and how it would anticipate working with other agencies

regardless of the administration's plans. we will need to weigh the cost and benefits of increased faa against the possible over regulation of a still very young industry. in 2005 the fcc asserted jurisdiction to regulate debris. the commission based the assertion largely on the communications act of 1934 to encourage, quote, the larger more effective use of radio in the public interest, end quote. although congress has not provided authority for this type of regulation explicitly, there seems to be some ambiguity in the nature of their mandate to utilize it effectively and efficiently. this should be viewed in the fact of separate international and private sector events. tracking and cataloging the space environment may come from key partnerships.

we cannot afford to ignore these important partners. as commercial human space flight increases in the coming decade, we must be sure that the nation can protect the health, welfare and safety of our government astronauts and private space flight participants. it is also imperative that we secure key orbits to protect assets that are critical to our economy. similarly, we cannot allow national security assets to be threatened by the proliferation of debris. the debris events caused by the cosmos and ee rid yum in 2007 demonstrated that the space environment is vulnerable and ever changing. we must be vigilant to ensure that our national interests are protected. i appreciate the efforts of our witnesses and i look forward to hearing from them. i now recognize the ranking member from maryland, miss edwards. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and welcome to -- everyone to today's hearing. mr. chairman, while the accuracy

of the events depicted in the fictional movie "gravity" can be questioned, there's no doubt that it's made the public a little bit more aware of the danger of orbit tall debris. that's a good thing. in the real world it was brought into stark focus by the after math of the 2007 test in china. it put in 150,000 objects larger than one centimeter in size. this has made the environment more hazardous for years to come. so what are we doing to make space travel safe from orbital debris? today they have a role in orbital debris safer. the d.o.d. is responsible for tracking it. the fcc has jurisdiction for mitigating orbital debris

from satellites and faa's office of commercial space transportation regulates orbital debris from launch and re-entry vehicles. however, what isn't quite clear is which agencies have or could have legitimate roles in state's traffic mappingsment. that is the authority to tell a space operator to move a spacecraft should 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 agent sisz or perhaps by a new organization? what needs to happen for the information on space debris and potential collisions to get to the people who need it and when they need it. is the current system for information transfer working or does it need improvement? because the causes and consequences of orbital debris are international in scope, the successful space traffic

management require an international approach. lastly, what liability should the agency or agencies in charge of space traffic management assume if its direction to a satellite operator to move a spacecraft results in a collision? these are just a few of the questions that this subcommittee will need to address if we aim to lay the grouped work for ensuring the safety of future space flight from orbital debris and other spacecraft. mr. chairman, these are complex issues and i hope today's hearing will start to shed light not only on the important issue of orbital debris but the issues congress might consider for space traffic management and regulatory regime. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, miss edwards. i now recognize the ranking member of the full committee from texas, miss johnson, for a statement. >> thank you very much and good morning. i want to welcome our witnesses

to this morning's hearing and i look forward to your 278. i'll be brief in my remarks so that we'll 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 our crewed spacecraft and our commercial and government satellites. it is a growing problem. dealing with the increase in orbital debris will not be easy as our witnesses will testify, the issues associated with this mitigation and its potential removal from orbit are complex. a number of agencies are involved, not all of whom are represented at today's hearing, but i am pleased that the bipartisan nasa reauthorization bill that we recently marked up contains several provisions

related to orbital debris. i believe their conclusion is a start to this complex set of issues. that said i would caution against it 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 this subcommittee is holding this hearing. in close, i want to again welcome our witnesses and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, miss johnson. if there are members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at this point. at this time i would like to introduce our witnesses. our first witness is lieutenant

general john j. raymond. u.s. strategic command. as the u.s. air force's operational space component to u.s. stratcom general raymond leads more than 20,500 personnel responsible for providing missile warning, space superiority, satellite operations, space launch and range operations. as commander j.s.c.c. space he directs all assigned and advanced stratcom space forces, timely, local and global space effects in support of national u.s.s. stratcom and combatant commander objectives. our second witness today is mr. george zamca deputy associate administrator for space commercial transportation at the faa. he came directly from nasa where he served as an astronaut at the

johnson space center. he is a retired colonel in the marine corps. he has more than 5,000 fighter miles. in june 1988 he was recruited as an astronaut. 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 the bureau's work on technical issues including satellite communications and cross border technical situations. he was chief of the bureau's satellite division and chief of the satellite division engineering branch. before joining the commission mr. nelson had various engineering positions in the private sector. our foufrt witness is mr. p.j. blunt, adjunct professor of air and space law at the university of mississippi school of law. he is an ald jungt professor at

montclair university. previously he served as research counsel at the university of mississippi school of law. he teaches space security law, international telecommunications law, human rights law and cyber law. he serves as the executive secretary of international space law. our final witness is mr. brian weeden. as technical video advisor mr. weeden conducts research on space debris, space traffic management, protection of space assets and space governance. prior to joining s.w.s. mr. weeden served on active duty as an officer in the united states air force working on space and intercontinental ballistic operations. as part of the joint operations center he directed the orbital analyst training program and developed tactics, techniques and procedures for improving

space situational awareness. as our witness should 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, representative edwards, members of the subcommittee, it's an honor to appear before you. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the committee and i look forward to working with you to advance our nation's space capabilities. before going further i'd ask if i could be so bold to ask you for a favor and just please pass along my condolences to chairman pilazo. it's my highest honor to represent the 3300 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that make up the joint component. also officers from australia, england and the you oo nighted

kingdom ensure our nation and allies have continued access to the space capabilities that enable the american way of like. j.s.c.c. space is the world's premiere provider of space situational data awareness and products. over the past few years we have bolstered our commercial international partnerships, we've implemented two-way sharing agreements and we've worked to refine our sharing processes. additionally, we are on track to deliver a new command and control system called j.m.s. for short and additional space situational awareness sensors. the combination of which will give us increased capability and improved space situational awareness for the united states and our partners. although maintaining awareness of the space domain is no small task, i am confident that the women of j.s.c.c. space are prepared to meet the challenges with the spirit of dedicated innovation and devotion to duty

providing our nation, our allies, and our joint war fighters assured access to the world's premiere space capabilities. i thank the committee for your continued support as we strive to preserve the space domain and enhance the space capabilities which are so vital to our nation. >> thank you for your timely testimony. the chair next recognize ms. 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 am 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 greatest risk. we flew upside down and backwards.

we had debris strikes and cracks in our windows from various small debris strikes. with regard to orbital debris mitigation, it is helpful to review the operations to which the faa's authority applies and where it 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 of a vehicle. under that authority at the end of launch the faa requires the operator of a launch vehicle to safe their vehicle and ensure there is no post separation contract with their deploying pay load in order to prevent orbital debris generation. the faa imposes a launch collision avoidance analysis with human spacecraft such as the international space station. the f.a.a. does not currently have authority to regulate on orbit. the only agencies with any

regulatory authority in between launch and re-entry are the fcc and noaa for remote sensing satellites. the faa interfaces with the fcc and noaa regularly through pay load reviews. our primary partners in developing effective orbital debris rules are the department of defense and nasa. the nasa orbital debris office has been a strong partner and is an invaluable resource. the d.o.d.'s joint space operation center provides tracking information and debris detection data that we use to evaluate the effectiveness of launch debris mitigation efforts. only the d.o.d. has legislative authority and capability to share space situational awareness information including notifications of impending collisions and near collisions to co-operating space operate orgs but it lacks any space authority. an issue of oversight and enforcement incompetent kress with commercial space

transportation vehicles which will operate differently. rather than travel to and remain in one stable orbit, commercial transportation vehicles will move in between orbits and rendezvous with, attach to and deliver cargo and people to other orbiting space vehicles. these could cause collision that is would create orbital debris. as congress explores the issue of orbital debris and transportation hazards, the faa encourages two possible options separately and in combination. first, it should consider whether a regulatory agency should license this. in that scenario an agent sid would as part of a license evaluation review the operator's plans and debris mitigation measures in advance of operations and in a second scenario that may require additional discussion, we would consider the benefits of an agency with enforcement

authority providing notices of impending hazards and collisions. that agency would serve as a referee advising of impending high risk events and facilitating a safer orbital environment for all commercial and governmental operators. the subcommittee is familiar with the orbital debris environment with the spent rock traveling at different speeds and carrying tremendous energy into any collision. because of minimal drag and objects in orbit tend to stay in orbit for a very long time. tyros 2 was added to the 60-day re-entry collision list. collisions can cause a lot of debris. we talked about the ee rid yum cosmos collision that created over 2000 of the 23,000 tracked objects. orbital debris affects space

flight. i.s.s. crew members have been required to shelter in their life boats at times when hazardous debris was detected with too little warning to plan and carry out a debris avoidance maneuver. as space transportation opportunities continue to advantages and as the risk posed by orbital debris continues, plans for mitigation become ever more critical. it is time to explore the commercial space transportation under the act. this concludes my prepared remarks. i will be pleased to answer any questions you have. >> thank you, mr. zamka. the chair rec kogs niezs mr. nelson for five minutes. >> chairman brooks. ranking member edwards. thank you for inviting me to speak with you about the fcc's role about orbital debris and how we fit into the overall efforts of the united states government with respect to this issue. in 1973 the fcc licensed the first purely private u.s. communication satellites. in the first such satellite

began operations in 1974 slightly more than 40 years ago. under the communications act the fcc is charged with licensing radio communications. it does not stop at national boundaries and was drafted with the understanding that regulation needed to extend outside the territorial boundaries of the united states. at the same time fcc licensing does not extend to u.s. federal government transmitters which are authorized by ntia and the commerce department. fcc licensing and regulation are governed by a core principle of the regulations act that issuing a license requires a finding that the public interest must be served. in that vein the fcc in 2004 recognizing work done by nasa and other agencies adopt a debris mitigation regulations for the satellite services it licenses. the fcc concluded that debris mitigation rules would help preserve the united states

continue affordable access to space, the continued provision of reliable u.s. space-based services as well as the continued safety of persons and property in space and on the surface of the earth. fcc satellite licenses have concluded that one of the terms will be the assignment of an orbital assignment. deviation is 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 plans, 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 expose geo stationary requirements with a recommendation adopted in 2003. and requirement that all satellites be left in a safe configuration. satellite applicant plans are evaluated as a part of the licensing process. the fcc is one of three agencies that license u.s. commercial activities in space. the other two being the faa for launch and re-entry activities and noaa for remote sensing. consistent with long-established radio frequency management processes, the fcc is the licensing authority for radio frequency use by private launch vehicles and remote sensing satellit satellites, however, the fcc has recognized the faa statutory role under the commercial space launch act and it recent bely reiterated that it would not require space transport activities that are subject to faa regulation. the fcc recognized noaa's

statutory role concerning post mission control. the fcc licensing process is independent from noaa and faa processes, the fcc consults with the agencies as needed. consultation is related to the progress of licensing activities. further, fcc's regulations and licensing make use of scientific and technical work done by nasa. the fcc does not operate any orbital debris tracking equipment such as radar and telescopes and like much of commercial satellite industry, the fcc's satellite tracking data are d.o.d.'s jspoc as well as the satellite operators derived from the radio links with the satellites. the efforts to improve space situational awareness of jspoc through the space data association are an important element to an overall debris mitigation strategy. to be clear, data sharing between jspoc is on a spacecraft

operator to spacecraft operator basis. the fcc is not an intermediary in this process. in conclusion, i thank the committee to describe orbital debris mitigation, the source of the fcc's mitigation concerning this important topic. thank you very much. thank you, mr. nelson. the chair now recognizes mr. blount for five minutes. >> chairman brooks, ranking member edwards, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity tim to appear before you today to discuss this important topic. space traffic management is a complex issue and i will try to briefly summarize my written statement. this as a concept contains two different elements. the technical capabilities needed to control space traffic and the legal regime which governs appropriate behavior. i will primarily be discussing the legal aspects of space travel and on the international

obligations of the united states. international space law sets the bounds of appropriate state conduct in outer space. these are broad in scope and largely undefined. the lack of definition means that 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 law grants all states the right of free access to outer space. additionally, under article 9 of the outer space treaty, engage in space activity with due regards to the corresponding interests of other states. and states are given a right and an obligation to seek consultations when there may be harmful interference between space activities. this treaty provision emphasizes coordination in space activities. article 9 also creates an obligation to not harmfully contaminate the space environment. under article 6 of the same treaty states are internationally responsible for the activities of nongovernmental actor and are required to authorize and

continually supervise these activities. this is an extraordinary position in international law which generally does not hold states responsible of their nongovernmental actors. this gives states the responsibility to watch them in space. they require states to engage in safe ak nifts such a manner as to preserve space for use in exploration by all for peaceful purposes. however, this leads the contours of what constitutes responsible behavior up to states. notably, these provisions have failed to set meaningful limits on the creation of orbital debris. the united states has been a leader in the development of international space law and space traffic management should be no different. when provisions of treaties are unclear state practice in regard to those provisions often help to define the content and meaning of those provisions. for example, following the united states lead article 6 --

the article 6 obligation to authorize and supervise has been implemented by states as licensing re geems. 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 frameworks developed to coordinate space traffic management in states. to this end in my written testimony i have identified three key principles to be taken into accounts when developing a domestic space traffic management system. first, mechanisms for data transparency. it is essential to controlling it and coordinating international attention. second, a space traffic management system whether organized in one agency or many needs to ensure that a government agency has unambiguous jurisdiction during all phases of space operations. this provides regulatory predictability which can help foster the commercial space industry and it ensures that the

united states complies with its obligations to continually supervise nongovernmental actors. finally, whatever government entity or entities is vested with the jurisdiction, that agency needs to be vested with technical competence to ensure it can properly overz the operations. jurisdiction will be meaningless without the technical capabilities to do so. maintenance of the space -- a safe and secure space environment is in the national interests of the united states. civil, commercial and military operations are all dependent on a space environment free of interference from other actors. to this end the united states should be a leader in developing a space traffic management system that can foster such an environment both domestically and internationally. mr. chair man, this concludes my statement. thank you again for the opportunity. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. blount. the chair now recognizes mr. weeden for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman brooks. ranking member edwards, distinguished members of the

subcommittee. secure world foundation is dedicated to the long-term sustainability of the space environment so that all human fit at this can continue to use space for benefits here on earth. the growth in space debris increasing congestion present significant challenges to space sustainability. in addressing those challenges, it is a key part of our work. regarding the threat that space debris poses, there are three categories of complementary activities that can help address that challenge. the first is space debris mitigation. limiting the creation of new debris from human activities in space. the second is active debris removal also known as remediation which aims to remove some of the existing pieces of debris to help prevent future growth in the debris population or to reduce the collision risk to satellites and highly congested regions. the third activity is space traffic management 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 situation awareness, broadly defined as characterizing the space environment and its impact on activities in space. the u.s. government's strong efforts on space debris midgation are a good start but need to be part of a more comprehensive approach. my written testimony outlines three major steps that can be taken in this direction. the first is to find ways to harmonize the implementation of the bebrie mitigation guidelines across the various regulatory 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 comprehensive strategy for dealing with existing space debris. third, the subcommittee can work with executive branch and other

committees with jurisdiction to re-examine the roles and responsibilities for space situation 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 situation awareness activities and providing operational space traffic management for the world. i believe the answer is no. while space surveillance began as a national security function, it has evolved into more than just national security. it plays a fundamental role in the breadth of space activities being conducted by not only the military but also civil government agencies and the private sector. thus, i believe it is time for the u.s. government to shift responsibility for part of the ssa mission that directly spo s supports safety. the shift will allow this new entity to focus on building relationships with commercial and foreign actors, take better advantage of private sector

innovation, and establish trusted services with all space actors. the dod would certainly retain responsibility for and a focus on the national security aspects. making this challenge -- making this change is not without considerable challenges. first and foremost is determining which federal department or agency should be assigned this new role. one option is to assign it to an agency that already has existing authority for regulating and licensing private sector space activities. another option is to assign it to a federal agency that already has significant expertise in space operations and space debris. a third option would be to assign it to a new federal agency with both regulatory powers and 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 i believe puts the u.s. government in a better position to harness the

innovation ongoing and improve its own capabilities in orbit. it's very similar to thed od's current approach for satellite communications. in both areas the government focuses its efforts on exclusive niche capabilities the private sector cannot provide. the end result has been an increased capability for the military, lower cost to the taxpayer, and a booming commercial industry. it has become almost right to point out that the space world has changed but in the context 246 hearing it is worth making the point again. the continuing expansion and the type of space a ctivities had completed a complex arena. it's created the possibility for many new uses of space for benefits here on earth. it is vitally important for the u.s. government to evolve its approach to stay abreast of this ongoing change and continue to maintain it's 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 may have. >> thank you, mr. weeden, and i thank the witnesses for their testimony. as an aside, it looks like we're going to have our second set of votes somewhere around 11:30 roughly, 45 minutes from now. hopefully we'll be able to complete these proceedings before those house floor votes are called. reminding members that committee rule limit questioning to five minutes, the chair will at this point open the round of questions. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. as a part of my five minutes and recognizing that the prerogative that the chair has i would like to at this point recognize the falcon rocket team from huntsville, alabama. if you would please stand. we've got coach bobby murphy here with us. members johns a lan, jack as lan, victor murphy, dave green, matt kellogg and jorge estrada.

the competition is tomorrow. they're representing the state of alabama and i want to encourage you all to do what you can to represent our community in as much as we often boast we're the birth place of america's human space flight program, and thank you for being here for this hearing today. this challenge that we're facing today may be one that we need you all to solve tomorrow. with that having been said, let me proceed with my -- well -- [ applause ] with that having been said, let me proceed with my first question. dr. henry hursfeld recent testified before the committee that faa should, quote, clearly be defined and preferably limited to those issues directly related to launching and re re-entry. his comments appear to be inconsistent with the request that the faa is making here today.

can each comment on the statement concerning the faa's potential role in the space debris matter? go ahead. at your leisure. >> chairman, it seems like i might be a liable first guy. the faa's current authority ends at the end of launch. that's the last time an operator has contact with their launch vehicle, and it begins at the beginning of re-entry, that's when the safety checks begin. so that's our current authority. what we have experience with is talking to the operators and dealing with orbital debris mitigation, and we're also there as they are conducting their operations as part of our inspection and enforcement functions, so we have existing experience and credibility with the launch operators. the thing that i will refer to my testimony with that is new that would be worth considering are the new class of vehicles in operation, and so these are

vehicles taking personnel, cargo, and servicing up to human space stations and also servicing satellites. >> i would just add that consistent with what my panelist partner just said we work closely with the fa a a.faa on licensing of space vehicles. we have fa a representation with you as we go. i would just add that we are consistent with the national space policy, we think it's important that you look -- that this hearing happen and that you look at different agencies to be able to take on the lead federal agency role. we're not going to pick one or the other, but i think it is important that you explore that going forward. >> while the fcc hasn't ruled on any of these -- on this issue,

it's probably important to point out faa has had a role in the past, for instance with air transport and human transport issues and the fact that they are involved directly with the launch vehicle situation carrying that through may be an appropriate situation in regard to transport or further launch operations. >> i actually do not answer this question. my testimony is to who should have this authority. i think that there are ways that we can envision either a single agency or fragmented agency authority where we have different agencies handling different functions. however, i do think that general raymond's point about having a lead federal agency is very important. an agency that can coordinate this information, make sure that all the involved parties and stakeholders are coordinated is very important, and i think that currently faa looks like the most appropriate for that, but i don't think that it's necessary that it goes there.

>> i would add that one of the key questions here is what kinds of powers are we talking about. and would that extend to telling satellite operators what to do? that is a very complicated question because a lot of these scenarios when you're getting into potential close approach on these space objects, we don't know a yes or no answer whether two things will collide except in very, very specific cases like for example a planned rendezvous between two satellites. and most of the cases it comes down to statistics and probability, and so you're having to make a judgment call based upon what is your level of risk. and i think the hesitancy by the doctor is to give a government agency the power to somehow tell a private operator what that level of risk should be and what they should do with it. now, i think on the other side, the situations where that would probably need to be exercised

are not as numerous as many people might think. most close approaches are between either two pieces of debris d dethat no one controls or a satellite control and a piece of debris. the only situations where that might come into a play of a mandatory control would be if perhaps human safety was in question. >> thank you. at this point the chair recognizes the ranking member, miss edwards. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to the witnesses. i want to follow up on this. mr. zamka, in your prepared statement you are urging us to look at two issues. one is whether a regulatory agency should authorize transportation on orbit by license and then the second is the benefits of an agency with enforcement authority providing notices regarding impending hazards and collisions, and i guess from my stand point i'm really not prepared to legislate yet because i feel like there's a lot we need to know. i wonder if you might comment about what parties would need to

be at a table and in what venue to begin to explore what congress needs to do in this area and might that be a better approach than going right to identifying an agency that would have authority, sweeping authority that we don't even know about yet. >> yes, ma'am. thank you for that because we really just want to begin the exploration as to what the solution might be and very important part of that is having the right players at the table. so industry certainly who has to deal with the risk and the expense, for instance, of deciding to do a debris maneuver to avoid a collision is a difficult one, and there are a lot of working solutions that are out there amongst commercial operators that are already working, and there are numerous ways of dealing with it shy of regulation, shy of enforcement, and so we don't want to get ahead of any particular solutions that are out there,

but i'd certainly say industry and the agencies that are involved would certainly be good players. >> before i go to mr. nelson, i will -- general raymond, i wonder if you could comment about the role that you would see in a future environment with a whole bunch of other actors at play, both domestically and internationally. what then is the role of the department of defense? >>clearly, ma'am, the department of defense is focused on national security, and space situational awareness is absolutely foundational to everything we do in space for national security purposes. when you have these discussions, one of the things that you need to really be careful about as we go forward is making sure we have the ability to do what we need to do to protect our nation and protect our nation's satellites. >> and mr. nelson? >> yeah. following up on what i said earlier and mr. zamka's comments, i would suggest at least from the point of view of an orbital maneuver situation or

enforcing an orbital maneuver to take place, that at least from the point of view of the folks that we work with, it's in their best interests to move, and that's how they would take a look at it. f if they were aware a potential collision was coming along, i'm sure that they would end up moving that satellite in order to take care of that. it's just inherently in their best interests, especially from a financial point of view. so from having to have somebody that would have to go through and actually force them and say to them to do that, it's probably an unlikely situation to carry through and, further, as you point out, the international aspects of this, we only have a certain percentage of the satellites that are on orbit, and the issue of telling some other foreign country's satellite to have to move is -- raises its own issues. >> thank you. and professor blount, 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 liabilities should they assume when it's direction to a satellite operator to move a spacecraft or its failure to provide a timely alert that results in a collision or debris? >> can i clarify that question, that you're asking about the liability of the federal agency to the space operator? >> either the liability that the agency has or should have. >> i think that liability is a very interesting question because these are obviously very expensive pieces of equipment that are moving at very fast speeds and can cause a lot of damage. and there is -- when you define a federal agency that's going to be in charge, they take on a responsibility, and part of these points that i point out that we should have in the legislation is this idea of

technological capability. and so right now that capability is vested with the dod, and if we name a federal agency, let's say the faa or the fcc, then there becomes a question of where are they getting their data? are they going to have to rely on dod to get their data and then are they going do this collision analysis or are they going to have to rely on dod to do the collision analysis or rely on sda to do the collision analysis? so until the problems of where data comes from and how it's going to be managed by that agency come through, then there are -- it's going to be very difficult to determine who is going to be liable for these actions. i will just quickly add that at the international level, the state is liable, and so the way that we manage our domestic acelti assets is going to be very important the way we react international because we could be on the hook for something a commercial actor does. >> it does seem to me, and mr. chairman, i'll conclude, it does

seem to me that's a fair amount of risk that's inherent when you can't entirely be accurate if it comes to predicting how you move a satellite or how you move a spacecraft. so, you know, these liability issues i think we're going to have to explore if we're going to go shoving responsibility on some other lead agency, and with that i yield. i think, mr. chairman, we have a lot more questions to ask and answer before we come to a point where we need to legislate in this area. thank you. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes mr. bucshon of indiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to focus on what do we do with the debris that's already there, and we're talking mostly about regulating a regulatory climate right now. but i'm interested in, anyone can answer this, what's happening with r & d about how to either capture or deflect the orbit of existing space debris

because i think it seems to me that, you know, 50 years from now we may not even be able to fly in space if we keep going the way we are at all because we won't be able to get out of the way of the stuff flying around the earth. so is there anything going on -- i mean, obviously when you capture the stuff, you have to be going at similar speeds or else it's just going to destroy whatever you try to capture. mr. zamka, maybe you can start? >> yes, sir. it is a difficult problem because of the high speeds involved and essentially you'd have to rendezvous with that particular piece of debris in order to capture it and then bring it down. as part of our center of excellence function, thanks very much for supporting that, but we have six studies in work to begin to characterize that debris, be able to predict where it's going to be better, and then identify potential efforts at remediation, and there are some things that are out there that could increase the drag or use a magnetic field to begin to bring those pieces down sooner,

but it is a difficult problem. probably the most important thing relative to today though is that any plan to remediate debris on orbit is dependent on not creating more debris now. as we've seen, any single accident can create a tremendous amount of debris. >> you point out deflecting the orbit either magnetically or physically is a possibility i guess. it seems like we could probably come up to solve the problem for the bigger stuff but all the little stuff, you know, like the stuff that hit the space shuttle, it's going to be really, really hard to get that stuff out of the orbit it seems like. >> yes, sir. one of the challenges we have is that the human space flight and our telecommunications satellites and a lot of our earth observing are all in that same low earth orbit regime which is where a lot of the debris is. that's where we have to work. >> mr. weeden, you had a comment? >> yes. there's quite a bit of work going on on this within the

scientific and technical community, both on studying the problem and on looking at some technology that is still nearly level but is early stages, but the promising ones that might need to be adapted down the road. nasa works with a number of other space agencies to do studies on this issue and they've done a lot of modeling. one of the big questions the technical community is grappling with is do we go after the big things or the little things because it generally is different types of technology. you're not going to have one solution that does both. we probably -- and doing both means twice as much money probably. and the difference is the big debris is the source of new debris in the future. so removing them you're kind of controlling long-term growth, but the small debris is the current threat to satellites. so removing that is a short-term lowering of risk. and that's kind of a choice between which strategy is more important. and that debate is going on right now within the scientific community.

>> okay. as far as mitigation in the future, and this would apply probably only to u.s. players because we can't control the international community, but is there any talk about penalizing financially people that generate space junk? anyone want to talk about that? i mean, it seems to me if you're a private entity or you're -- and you put something up into space and it generates a bunch of problems, you know, what can we do about that? is there a way to financially address that? >> there have the been discussions and proposals mostly in academic journals in the past of some sort of a tax or something on people that generate debris. the recurring problem is who has authority to put that in place? as you mentioned, it's an international environment. there are more than 60 countries that are now launching satellites and space objects, and each of them has authority over their own private sector activities. >> let me just point out, i'm

not promoting new taxation like if you fly something into space you get taxed ahead of time. however, let me just point out that the reality is if there is not some incentive not to do something, i wouldn't call it a tax, i'd call it a penalty -- say you send something up, it blows up and generates 1,000 pieces of space junk, you know, if you send something up, nothing happens, it comes down, fine. but if -- you know, there has to be some incentive for people not to generate this stuff. >> i would say there is an added complication that in the areas where debris is the worst, mainly lower earth orbit between 600, 800 kilometers, it is mostly government satellites. there's not -- at the moment there's not a lot of private sector activity there. >> but there will be. >> there will be in the future, but at the moment there is not a lot there. so the question is how do you incentivize governments. >> yeah. good luck. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. bucshon.

the chair now recognizes mr. y schweikert of arizona. >> it's terrifying what makes us laugh. first question, and i just want to smak sure i understand some of the hierarchy and the mechanics. first off, a u.s. but private commercial satellite, directv or satellite television or something of that nature. it's put up in space. does it carry insurance? mr. nelson? >> yes. most companies do have insurance on their satellites. larger ones may actually self-insure, so they will put up money -- >> whether they, you know, put up the fund -- but somehow there's an insurance product there. >> yes. >> how about if i'm the french or east indian or, you know, private telecommunication or private cable or television

provider. do they carry insurance? do they have a national indemnity and considering they're often -- >> from different countries have different rules concerning how they go about -- as an example, one i'm 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 indemnification of the crown so to speak. so they -- it depends on the country and what the rules are associated with their activity. >> and, mr. chairman, where i'm trying to head is these are very expensive objects both those from the private and those that are governmental have great, great value. we already know there's sort of an insurance regime of some mix. it may not be, you know, universal in design. so we know we have incentives

because of the value. we know there's some structure out there. so what happens today? how do they communicate today? general, let's say we have -- you see something heading towards my directv satellite. do you communicate with them? >> congressman, thanks for the question, absolutely. we are very interested in maintaining a safe space domain. so my organization and specifically the command center that i have, the joint space operations center located in vandenberg air force base, tracks the 23,000 objects that you've heard about, and of those objects, we -- not only do we track them, but we detect for potential conjunctions. >> what i'm after right now because that was part of our testimony and that was very helpful, is sort of the communication regime right now. so it's the satellite that's providing television for australia. do you communicate with them? >> we do. so if -- where i was going, if

we detect a potential conjunction on any active satellite that's up in space, any country, if we detect a conjunction, we'll make an emergency notification because it's in all of our best interests not to have -- >> now, is it bilateral? does it come the other direction where the private tracking firm that's managing, you know, do they communicate back to you? >> yes, sir. we have two-way sharing agreements with 41 different companies. we have it with five different nations. there is two-way sharing going back and forth. largely though the tracking capabilities that are out there are our tracking capabilities and largely we're the ones doing this for the world. >> and do any of those private firms ever provide their statistics, their statistics saying, hey, we actually believe you missed our orbit by a few yards, a few this, a few degrees. we have some wobble, we have some elliptical. do they share that sort of data back and forth? >> for those we have agreements,

they provide owner -- the address in space, if you will. we track it with the radar. they have the exact address of theirs and they do provide that back and forth. the challenge we have today is that our command and control system that we have doesn't allow us to automatically ingest that. we are putting a new command system in place as we speak, the joint space mission operation center system that will allow that automatic ingestion of owner operator data. >> okay. mr. chairman, as my buddy here and we were talking sort of one off a moment ago, as we see the commercialization of space, we know we have the incentives. we have very valuable octobebjep there. we know we have a need. we know we have sort of a communication structure and we know it's ultimately going to be international. is there a way where we could ever get these parties where they have sort of an automated information exchange back and forth and others are also carrying the cost of this.

so thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> thank you, mr. schweikert. the chair next recognizes mr. hall, the former chair of the science, space, and technology committee. >> mr. chairman, i thank you for holding this hearing. i guess, general raymond, you know, some time ago, maybe 15 years ago, we had a hearing on astronauts -- on asteroids and to our surprise we found out one had just passed in what they said was 15 minutes of the united states. nobody knew about it, no one gave us any warning about it or spoke about it, and i invited people from france, england, japan, and others, japan is the only one that answered because it's a world problem, not just the u.s. but got very little hope from most -- very few of them showed up. we had some good hearings on that and some things that would scare you to death.

i guess give us some kind of a sense of the process that goes in when you want to protect our national security and our commercial assets that could be threatened by orbital debris and what other debris there is. or how much warning did nasa have to avoid their threats that they've had? i think they had one. there have been instances where they have. give us a general answer to my question. if it's too general -- >> sir, we track, as we said, every object. we do that for nasa as well. we have nasa operators on the floor with us. we take very seriously the protection of the international space station. you heard from our previous panelists that the space station had moved 16 times. just last month we recommended to nasa they move it twice. there's a layered approach to doing this. we detect where the debris is and then as it gets into a certain area around the space station, we then put more energy on that debris, refine the

orbital accuracy of our position estimate of that debris, and then we make recommendations with the folks sitting on the floor. so it's something that we take very seriously, and there's a set process with nasa operators. we also do that for all of our dod satellites and again, as i mentioned earlier, for any conjunction that we see is going to hit on an emergency basis, we notify the world. >> i know you must have processes for the government operators to warn them about any possible collision, but what type of work do you have with the private operators? how do they know this or how do they contact you or how do they watch you and listen for you? >> sir, we have a tracking network of about 21 different sensors around the globe that will track what i call element sets or addresses in space of objects, debris, or satellites. we post that on a website,

www.spacetrack.org. anybody can get on there and all of the addresses or a large portion of the things that are in space we put out there publicly for everybody to have. >> and the private operator has just as good a operation as the government operators to know of your work. >> they have that data. for those that enter into agreements with us, we go beyond that and we provide some services to them in addition to that data, and then again on an emergency basis, even for those that don't have agreements -- >> they need to know they have to have that agreement with you. >> they all know and we have 41 different companies now that have it and we've got 5 different nations that we've signed agreements with and there's 5 or 6 more in the hopper right now going through the negotiation of that. >> i think your work is very important and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. hall. the chair next recognizes mr. rohrabacher of california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize.

i had another hearing, a markup from another committee and i will be reading your testimony, and i think this issue is v vitally important for the future of not just the united states but for all of humankind. the debris issue is not a secondary issue. debris is something that will limit humankind's ability to use space for our benefit and to uplift mankind, humankind. and we're getting to a point of saturation now where either we deal with it or we will suffer the consequences of this lim limited -- and this limit on the benefits we can utilize space for. one need only take a 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 agricultural that now depends on space, gps. we have a whole economy based on space that are now in jeopardy because we're not cleaning up our trash, and we need to make sure that we're just not tracking it. s it's like tracking trash in space is not the answer. the answer is eliminating the trash from space and this shouldn't be just something the american taxpayer needs to bear the burden of. we need to make sure that we have an initiative. we should -- hopefully this hearing will provide step number one towards creating international initiative to clear space debris from orbital space, and i would imagine that our friends in the eu and russia

and perhaps -- i can't speak for china considering the fact that they 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're putting all of these wonderful assets that we have invested in and that are currently helping improve the condition of humankind, we're putting them at risk. let me note the chairman, our chairman of the full committee, just mentioned that we talked about near earth objects, and when he was chairman, and i think that we probably have something where we're tracking them a little bit more than what we were then, but i don't think that we have done anything that right now that we could count on to say if we see a near earth object that's going to hit the earth and destroy large numbers

of people, whether or not we have a system in place that we could then activate to deflect that near earth object. i don't believe that system is in place. well, we've got two major threats there. things we should be able to work on with our allies and friends throughout the world in order to achieve this as a human goal, a goal for all of humankind as they say. so thank you very much for your testimony. i will be reading it. i'm sorry that i missed -- and i would be happy to yield to my colleague from maryland. did you want some time? i'd be happy to yield. >> does the gentleman from california have any more questions? >> oh, i'm done. >> all right. thank you. the charitir at this point is gg to entertain a second round of questions and i'm going to defer

my second round at this point and recognize the ranking member from maryland, miss edwards. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and the reason i wanted mr. rohrabacher to stay is because in mr. weeden's testimony he had a recommendation for the executive branch to clarify its strategy for assessing the orbital debris removal, and it really struck a chord because in our committee -- bipartisan committee passed bill a couple weeks ago, we included a provision that require nasa in collaboration with other relevant federal agencies to review the concepts and tech technological options for removing orbital debris from low earth orbit. so getting to this question of not just looking at it and knowing where it is, all very important, but what's going to be our strategy for removing it because we actually need to free up some of that space, too, for all the additional activity that's going on, and so i wonder if any of you have any views, mr. weeden, starting with you,

about what an effective approach nasa might take to address this particular provision assuming that it does become law. >> that's a very interesting question. a very challenging question because at the moment there's no single technology that seems to be the answer. there are a couple different technologies that have some promise, and so i think a first step would probably be to figure out what those technologies are and then look for how are we going to mature those technologies because at the moment they exist, we generally know theoretically they're probably going to work but most of them have not been demonstrated in an operational manner. so identifying what the most promising technologies are and then some sort of a strategy to mature them, do risk reduction, and toward some sort of a demonstration mission on orbit of one or more of these technologies. and i think that's probably

going to have to be an international demonstration mission in nature given the nature that all the debris is international, right? a country can only really touch the things that it owns and so there's going to have to be some level of cooperation there. >> well, given that the united states mostly tracks all of it, i would assume that we should be able to get some cooperation. general raymond, is there a role that dod can play in terms of maturing some of these technologies? >> ma'am, there's a lot of discussions that are going on around the world on this problem, and it is an important issue. i think there are roles that we could help. i have not heard to date though any specific technology that's out there that i see as something near term that's going to be able to solve this problem. >> mr. nelson, anything you wanted to -- >> i think mr. weeden touched on it. the technologies and being able to take the items out of orbit

and getting them out of orbit is very important. obviously, the sooner you get it out, the likelihood is that they won't crash into something else. the issue though comes down to is whether or not you take out -- and you made that mention as well, somebody else's piece of debris. the flags are flying on even if it's not usable, that particular item is -- has the flag of another country. so there probably is going to have to be some sort of treaty work or something along those lines or agreements made between nations in order to be able to effectively work that out. >> well, i know that godard space flight center has some rather robust activity going on now to try to look at ways to reservice some of these decommissioned satellites as a way to get them back in service, not put new ones up, but that, too, is a long way down the line, but something that i think we need to invest in. with that, mr. chairman, i'll

yield. >> thank you. mr. rohrabacher, 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. >> i would just like to suggest that we make this the first step and not just a public relations -- this is a problem. you know, we can do something in congress to work with these folks and to work with people internationally. when i travel overseas, i'm on the foreign affairs committee, i always -- when i go to another country, i go and talk to their space people, and every time i talk to their space people, whether it's russia or japan or europe, they all are in tune with this is a challenge that we -- we're going to have to some day deal with because it's

coming to the point now where it's imperative to deal with it because it's limiting what we can do in space. so let me see, i was just -- okay. have any -- have any of you had any talk with, for example, the russians or the eu or japan on this issue? >> sir, the faa is engaged with a lot of international partners including the european space agency and we have letters of agreement with countries like spain and curacao. because it's such a big international problem, there is international will to attack it, and one thing that we have an opportunity to do here is to identify a civil agency that can represent the united states, which is the biggest operator out in orbit to take a leadership role as we begin to address the problem. >> well, you know, i remember

one of the directors of the space program in russia telling me that they had been thinking about some almost a bulldozer type of thing where you had some kind of a big shield in front of something that would go forward and get ahold of some of this debris. we actually -- are we studying anything that would be -- i mean, there is one idea. i'm not saying it's good or bad. are we really -- you mentioned we don't have any -- is there a program on that is actually trying to develop the technology on this? >> at the moment i am only aware of one nasa-funded program to do some technology development. it refers to what's known as an electrodynamic tether which is a spacecraft that can use the combination of electrical field and the earth's magnetic field

to maneuver. the technology is fairly early stages but it could be one of the more efficient ways of moving around to gather debris. i'm not aware of any other u.s. government funded programs to do the technology development, but i will say that in reference to your question about international efforts, next month there's going to be a meeting hosted by the french space agency that has participation from japan, from nasa, from russia, from a number of the countries to -- it's a three-day workshop looking at technology and engineering solutions for this. >> oh, really? where will that be? >> it will be in paris. they've held this workshop every two years. this is the third instance of it. >> and what days are they? >> it will be june 16th, 17th, 18th, around there. >> okay. mr. chairman, i would suggest that someone from this committee go to that hearing or that meeting. >> is that a request?

>> mr. chairman, he may have to compete with the chairman and the ranking member. >> does the gentleman from california have any more questions? >> that's it. >> all right. let me exercise my prerogative now and ask my question. general raymond, if an event like the cosmos iridium collision happened today how would you respond. can you give the committee a sense of the process that happens to protect our astronauts in the international space station or other commercial assets that could be threatened by such an event? >> yes, sir. thank you for the question. if we -- if an event happened where two satellites collided, it obviously would generate debris. we would detect that debris with our network of sensors around the globe. we would characterize that debris. we would get an orbital element or the address in space of that debris and we would refine that over time and we would put that debris into our catalog. once it's in the catalog as i have discussed earlier, we have

the process in place that we do for every active satellite on orbit. we would screen against that debris to ensure that we provided proper warning if something were to collide. >> that's the vote call but we still have 15 minutes before we have to be on the house floor. quick follow-up question. how long does it take generally speaking for the orbital debris to have its orbit decay to the point where it goes back to earth and it's no longer an issue? >> mr. chairman, there's a lot of factors that are involved in that. >> is there some kind of average, number of years or decades or a range? >> sir, i would -- i don't have that at my fingertips. i don't think there really is. there's so many factors that are involved. it's altitude, size, shape, speed, velocity. there's a whole bunch of things. we do predict re-entries and we track the re-entries. with track those, we warn against them, when they're going

to re-enter but i can't tell you, you know -- i can't give you a time for how many years, but when it gets close, we can characterize that re-entry and we warn against that as well. >> mr. nelson, you wanted to add something? >> yes. the general actually hit on the issues. it's basically the altitude, the shape of the object, the mass of the object, and it can range quite -- there's a very, very large range from, you know, tomorrow to maybe a million years from now. so depending on where that particular object is. so that brings up the issue of basically taking it out of the orbit. >> mr. weeden? >> just to give you some ballpark numbers, at the altitude of the international space station, i would say a rough estimate on the order of months to maybe a very short number of years. when you move up higher let's say around 800 kilometers where most of the remote sensing satellites are and the greatest congestion of debris is and the

collision was and the chinese anti-satellite test was, at that altitude you're talking decades or longer. once you get beyond 1,000 kilometers, for all intents and purposes, it's up there pretty much as far as we're concerned forever. >> thank you. general raymond, as a follow-up to my earlier question to you, faa requested in their written testimony for the authority to require operators to move positions if a possible collision is detected. how would your process change, if at all, if that authority is granted to the faa? >> sir, the faa would still rely on the data we get from our sensors. we'd be providing that data today. again, we warn of those conjunctions. we do not have the authority to make a satellite operator move. i can for dod satellites but i can't make commercial satellites move. they would take our data that we have and use that data in their new role. >> thank you.

any other follow-up on that? yes, mr. zamka. >> yes, sir, if i may. the request to have the ability to have an operator be forced to move, that can be done in a number of ways. earlier is better. earlier interaction, perhaps agree with the operator as part of the licensing process, what the cry ter. >> would be for which they'd move and an industry consensus on the length of time to effect a move. all these things involve probabilities and a lot of expense for the operator. >> i thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for their testimony. the members may have additional questions and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written questions. the witnesses are excused, and this hearing is adjourned.

two discussion this is afternoon to tell you about. at 4:00 p.m. on c-span a

conversation on the recent kidnapping and murder of three israeli teens and a palestinian child who was burned alive. and what that violence means for the israeli/palestinian peace process. that discussion from the woodrow wilson center starts at 4:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. and here on c-span3 at 4:00 eastern, a look at the affect of national security agencies surveillance programs. we'll hear from members of congress and representatives from google and privacy groups. it's live from the new america foundation in washington. the internet i think we should agree should remain free from regulation especially from the fcc's regulation but it's like confusing the conversation for the sidewalk. of course we want the conversation to be free and unregulated and the fcc has no place regulating content online. they have always made sure that the communications pathways stay open so today we have a

regulated phone system or at least we have the vestiges of a regulated phone system. the fcc doesn't regulate what i say to you when i call you, but they do make sure communications pathway is open, affordable, available, nondiscriminatory and there for everybody to use. >> it's crucial to think about whether those platforms remain open the way they have historically. the internet has grown up as a network where anyone can communicate, anyone can get online. a teeny little company can get access to the network and become in some cases like google or facebook a huge business. and it's vital that that not change as the internet evolves. >> more opinions on the fcc's open internet policy and the flow and speed of web traffic tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. >> with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most

relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events, and then on weekends c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary visiting battlefi d battlefields and key events. american artifacts discovering what art fashths reveal about america's past. history bookshelf with the best-known american history writers. the presidency looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past and our new series real america. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. on facebook we are asking should president obama use executive power on immigration?

join the conversation at facebook.com/cspan. paul answered our question on facebook saying not unless it is to order the national guard to the border to forcibly evict the invaders, especially the teenage ones. and from ol go, the problem lies in the monumental prejudice we have against these people who are trying to do the same thing your ancestors did. come here to dream. a senate banking and urban affairs subcommittee recently held a hearing on mass transit in the u.s. and the $86 billion of needed repairs. the highway trust fund, which provides some of the funding for mass transit, is projected to go bankrupt later this summer. new jersey senator robert menendez chairs the hearing. >> good morning. this hearing of the subcommittee on housing, transportation, and community development is called to order. let me thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss what

i believe is one of the most important challenges in our federal transportation program, investing in our transportation infrastructure and supporting 10 billion passenger trips every year is essential to our mobility, our economic development, our air quality, our overall quality of life, our ability to create jobs, and our global competitiveness. the benefits of investing are clear. the fact is we're not investing enough. in 2009 a federal transit administration report found that of the seven largest rail systems, including new jersey transit, and the systems represented by two of our witnesses today, septa and mbta, they had a $50 billion backlog in projects. $50 billion just to make sure that the systems were in reasonably good condition. not state of the art, but adequate. and, frankly, to me, that's

simply unacceptable. investing in our transit systems is not a luxury, it's a necessity. it's a win/win/win. it creates good family-wage jobs. it makes our infrastructure safer, more efficient, more reliable, and it keeps us competitive. just recently my home state of new jersey received an alarming wake-up call. the president of amtrak announced that within 20 years one or both of the tunnels under the hudson river between new jersey and new york will need to be shut down. shutting down the hudson tunnels is unthinkable and not investing in keeping them open is unconscionable. these tunnels are over 100 years old, and to make matters worse, they were flooded with corrosive saltwater during hurricane sandy. within 20 years these tunnels will be closed unless we commit ourselves to investing in keeping them open. according to amtrak, if one of these tunnels were to close,

they would have to reduce train traffic from 24 trains an hour to 6 trains per hour. that's four amtrak trains, two new jersey transit trains per hour. for those of you not familiar with the commute from new jersey into manhattan, let me tell you two transit trains an hour is simply not going to cut it. so we're going -- so we go from having the project needlessly canceled which would have built a new hudson tunnel and allow for 48 trains per hour to a future of closed tunnels and six trains an hour in the heart of the northeast corridor. that's simply unthinkable. losing the hudson tunnels is not something our region can work around. there's no detour. there's no extra roadway capacity for the transit and rail commuters to fall back on. we saw it during sandy when the transit system was inundated. we saw it after 9/11 when people relied on ferry boats to travel to new jersey from manhattan. without a fully functional,

multimodal transportation system, the nation and new jersey is simply stuck in gridlock. but losing one or both of the hudson tunnels would mean nothing less than the complete crippling of the region and would send a terrible sthal around the world about american competitiveness in the global economy. simply because we are unwilling to make the necessary investments in our transit system. the hudson river tunnels are the starkest examples of a failure to invest but every city and town across the country has its own examples, whether large rail or small bus systems, our transit repair needs totally about $86 billion projected by the d.o.t. to grow to $142 billion by 2030 if we don't begin to invest today. at the end of the day we all understand that investing in our infrastructure is not a cheap proposition or politically easy in the current atmosphere. but the cost of inaction is much, much higher.

so i look forward to hearing the perspectives of our witnesses today and working with my colleagues both on this committee and as a member of the finance committee that will have to find the funding mechanisms to address these challenges. let me introduce the first witness of our first panel, mr. dorval carter is the chief counsel for the federal transit administration. in addition to his work at fta, mr. carter previously served in the senior positions at the chicago transit authority a system with significant state of good repair needs. i'll look forward to hearing his testimony which comes with a great depth and breadth of knowledge of the issue. let me say, mr. carter, your full statement will be included in the record without objection. i'd ask you to try to summarize it in five minutes or so so we can get into a dialogue, and with that the floor is yours. >> thank you, chairman menendez. and thank you for inviting me here today to discuss our

nation's serious deficit in public transportation in fa infrastructure as well as to high lie the obama administration's plan to bring our infrastructure into a state of good repair. as you stated in your opening remarks, this is a critical time for transit. transit ridership is at its highest level in generations and that trend is likely to continue as the u.s. population is expected to increase to approximately 400 million by 2050. while growing proportionally older and more urban. the caution i bring today is that the foundation we build on to meet that demand is already fracturing. let's be clear, transit remains one of the safest ways to travel but our aging infrastructure carries hidden costs that we cannot and should not ignore. our 2013 conditions of performance report finds that the backlog in transit maintenance and replacement stands at $86 billion, a 10%

increase since 2010. we will need $2.5 billion more every year from all sources just to maintain the status quo. today it's state and local governments that are governments that are bearing the burden, taking on the cost of annual spending to grow the transit systems. the biggest challenge is the rail system which account for 63% of the repair backlog with most of that due to assets like rail stations, trussels, power, substations and more. they have a direct impact on riders. they undermine the resiliency of the transit systems and drain resources that could be better spent on time and expansion. that's why a state of good repair is fundamental to everything we do at fta. you are going to get a two-for-one opportunity. not only do i speak for the administration but i also speak from a perspective of someone who has worked on the ground

with a transit agency to keep systems in a good state of repair. as you indicated, mr. chairman, i spent half my career in chicago which operates one of the oldest rail systems in the country. part of my job was managing the procurement and warehousing of that agency. from that experience i can tell you that the older a system gets the more challenging the simplest of tasks become. for instance, where do you find parts for 100-year-old equipment? no one makes them anymore, you can't get them off the shelf. your option s are to either cannibalize existing prospects of get them yourself. when hurricane sandy damaged the equally aged path commuter rail system that operates between new jersey and new york, chicago was one of the few places they could turn to for replacement parts. let me suggest that we cannot keep transit systems safe and reliable with the craigslist approach.

instead, we need to make the right investments to get ahead of the problem and keep us there so we are not always a step behind. that means striking a responsible balance between investing in new capital construction and preserving and modernizing the existing infrastructure. one of the best tools we have to prioritize this is the transit asset planning tool. we are grateful for making it a requirement for part of map 21. with better base planning, we can get a more accurate picture of true need enabling local decisionmakers to allocate limited resources effectively system wide. we use transit asset management at cta. it was an invaluable tool. it helped us prioritize unmet needs and support the public funding. it provided a road map so federal, state and local funding partners knew we had a concrete plan to use our resources efficiently and wisely. with your help, we are

looking to bring them nationwide. the latest conditions make the case for sustained investment in the grow america act answers. the administration put forth a plan that builds on investments made through map 21, d.o.t. programs and the american recovery and investment act to address the backlog. the grow america act is the right plan to keep transits safe and reliable now and for future generations. with that, mr. chairman, i conclude my testimony and i'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> just to show the efficiency of transit, you didn't even use your five minutes. let me start off with one of the critical questions before the congress is the funding level of the transportation reauthorization. if federal funding remains flat in the coming years, do you believe that we can make any progress toward eliminating the $86 billion backlog? >> no, sir, i do not.

our condition of performance report indicated we need at least an additional $2.5 billion a year from all sources just to maintain the existing backlog. in order to make any sort of a dent in that backlog, you need somewhere around the neighborhood of $18.5 billion over a four-year period to make it happen. so, in order to address this problem, we have to make significant additional investments in the transit infrastructure and the president proposed ways we think we can do that. >> flat funding doesn't only not meet the backlock issue, it will accumulate greater backlog at greater cost? >> that's correct. >> now, in your testimony, you speak to the excellent work that fta has done for years trying to bring attention to the state of good repair backlog and discuss the creation of a formula-based state of good repair program under map 21. i agree with your assessment of the importance of this program,

but i know some have concerns about the funding increase given the map 21 to the state of good repair. can you speak to the need for having a strong federal state of good repair system? >> absolutely. if you look at the overall percentages for the contributions that the federal government makes to the issue of state of good repair, we actually only provide about 40% of the total contribution. the remaining 60% comes from our state and local governmental partners. it is critical for all of us, federal, state and local to provide a level of funding that is both reliable and sustainable over an extended period of time in order to address this backlog. the stopping and starting of these types of funds makes it difficult for transit anxieties both big and small to properly plan for and to address their capital backlog needs. >> are there certain types of modes or transit systems driving the current backlog?

>> the rail systems make up 60% of the backlog. that's primarily due to the heavy cost of their infrastructure. as you can imagine, replacing power substations and rebuilding train stations and things of that nature is a significant cost. i wouldn't want to diminish the impact this issue has on smaller systems as well. as you can imagine, to a small operator in a rural part of the country who may only have two or three buses, if one of those buses is 20 years old and they failed to maintain that bus is difficult resulting in unreliable service, then the impact to that operator is just as bad as a crumpling infrastructure would be to a boston mta or cta. >> now, in your testimony, you said something i know firsthand from my visits with port authority officials when the path in hoboken, new jersey, was inundated.

and they were showing me the circuit breakers that are so old they are no longer manufactured. they had to resort to shipping things in from chicago. is that an exception? how pervasive is that throughout the system? >> i'm sure the other gms who will speak after me will speak in more detail than i can. i can tell you from my experience from cta, the older transit systems like chicago, philadelphia, boston and others are dealing with the harsh reality their infrastructure is extremely old. replacing parts are difficult to find. it's only by luck that we're able to identify scenarios like the one that occurred with path where there was another system that was able to provide those parts on a temporary basis while path went through the process of having to remanufacture the parts they needed themselves. >> your testimony is more people are choosing to live in urban areas where cars are less

necessary, younger people less reliant on cars than previous generations. it seems those factors are leading to more transit ridership among other elements. could these increasing demands and transit systems result in the sgr backlog growing at a faster rate than the $2.5 billion increase a year that you currently project? is there any modeling going on for these changes in calculating the backlog? >> our condition performance report is based on some modeling we used to forecast what we believe the reasonable growth in transit would be over time. i think it's safe to say as demand increases, the backlog is going to be more and more of a problem. our models suggest that. i think that as we continue to address this problem, we have to deal with the reality of both the challenge of providing adequate level of funding to maintain the existing systems

while dealing with the expansion needs that are required to grow the systems even more. >> finally, asset management, i think we will hear more about this from the next panel. it's one of the key changes authorized by this committee and map 21 was the creation of the transit asset management requirement. what work is being done with transit agencies representing different sizes and models to determine best practices and create a standard that works for different types of systems? >> we are currently in a rule making process that is intended to get significant input from the industry as to how to approach the transit management program. we are also in the process of developing technical assistance for agencies to allow them to be in a better position to implement these type of requirements as well as

developing tools to utilize that the federal government will provide to do the analysis for the development of a transit asset management plan. it's critical that we have good, solid industry input into the process and develop a process and program that will address the various capacities and technical capacities of the various size agencies we'll have to implement. >> senator warren? >> mr. chairman, thank you and thank you for calling this hearing. i have questions for the next two witnesses. i'll just hold until then. >> okay. >> thank you. >> one last final question. workers rights. you know, we think about the challenges of transit systems operating systems and facing fiscal challenges in the state of good repair status. i also think about your testimony says that nationwide almost a third of facilities used by local transit agencies