fired up with the president winning the election in 2016, and then both chambers of congress also having the republican majority. that will fire them up. of people who voted for the president and are very against -- the super radicalized ones -- they will be the ones as well to come out. it is unclear. the 2016ooking back at election, it is hard to make predictions. ant: and access -- >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and issues that affect you. coming up tuesday morning, a discussion on immigration policy with texas republican congressman louie gohmert and congressman hakeem jeffries will join us to talk about immigration. watch c-span's "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on tuesday morning, join

the discussion. >> in about 15 minute, ehouse returns live for votes and speeches. earlier this afternoon they debated several natural resources bills. later tonight they continue work on homeland security measures, including one that directs the homeland security department to develop a strategy on train, outreach and information sharing for suspicious activity reporting to prevent terrorism. tomorrow debate on votes on a bill to modernize an strength then process of reviewing acquisitions and mergers in the u.s. for national security risks. follow the house live on c-span when members return at 6:30 eastern. until then, more from today's "washington journal." washington journal continues. host: joining us, taught harrison, the defense budget analysis director for the center for strategic and international studies, to talk about the call by the president for a space force. what does the president envisioned by the space force,

and why do you think his call comes now? caller: he is talking -- guest: he is talking about crating a separate military service to put our space forces into alignment. part of the motivation is that right now if you look across the military, all the different organizations that have responsibilities, authorities, and budget to do space, they are fragmented all over the military and intelligence communities. what he is looking to do by this is to integrate all of those existing space forces into one service that will be dedicated and focused to this task. host: is this separate from space exploration? guest: absolutely. this is only about national security space. space expiration is the job of nasa. they are not part of the military. the civil space programs to do science -- that is not going to be affected in any way. this is not to protect us from aliens or to conquer territory

anywhere in space. this has nothing to do with this. that is science fiction. but really, this is just about how the military can better organize, train, and a quick the space capabilities it needs to prevail in conflict here on earth. more aboutll talk the space force. if you have questions about the president's call -- president trump mplet when it comes to defendingmark it's not enough to merely have an american prerns in space. we must have american dominance in space. so important. very importantly, i'm hereby directing the department of defense and pentagon to immediately begin the process

cessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces. that's a big statement. we are going to have the air force and we are going to have the space force. separate but equal. todd harrison, what then? if space is what the president wants to deal with, what are the things we have to look out for in that space? guest: i think of it as the four d's. there are more countries using space, more private companies using space, but we see the number of satellites in space growing exponentially. space has also become more disruptive. in particularies are doing things in space that used to be the exclusive domain of superpowers, dormant like the united states. private companies have the ability to create high-resolution imagery of the

earth, to listen in on what is being transmitted around the earth. that is a new development. space is also getting more disordered. there are not a lot of rules in space, what you can do and cannot do. there are not norms of behavior. good example is in 2007, china conducted an anti-satellite test. they blew up one of their own satellites and created thousands of pieces of space debris that are still in orbit today, and are still threatening other military and civilian satellites. finally, the fourth d is, space is becoming more dangerous. we see countries developing not just things that blow up in space, but that can jam communication signals. cyber attacks take control of your satellites. we are not as prepared as we need to be. a lot of our military satellite -- as general -- as the general in control of strategic forces for the united states has said,

a lot of our satellites are big, juicy targets for adversaries. we have to change the way we operate. we have to improve our defenses. we could lose some of these space capabilities in a crisis. think abouto you the president catching this in terms of american dominance? does this have concerns for you? guest: it is not a choice of words people probably want to hear. there has been a lot of reluctance to do military things in space, to weaponize space, to try to claim territory or claim ownership. some of that is prohibited i the outerspace treaty that we are a signatory to. so are many other countries around the world. you cannot claim territory. there are no borders and space. it does not even make sense to try to claim territory in space, because satellites are always moving over other countries. that is the utility of them, in many cases -- that they can fly over other countries without permission. so it is probably not the best choice of words. but really, it is about

protecting our space assets, so that we can protect u.s. interests here on earth. a lot of people forget that the gps that your phone uses, that little chip in your phone -- that is relying on military satellites. gps is a military satellite constellation. in other countries are developing ways to defeat that, to cause gps to go down and to not work. we need to be better protected against that. union forrding to the concerned scientists, last year about 800 u.s. based satellites currently orbiting the earth. 470 six commercial. 159 military. 150 government. 18 civil. .ou talked about gps what are the capabilities if those satellites are disrupted? guest: wii's satellites for everything from monitoring the weather -- and noaa will tell you one of their biggest honor abilities is cyberattack. there have been documented

instances in the past where what we believe our state actors have hacked into the command and control system for some of our noaa satellites, and could have destroyed those by taking control of them. we use satellites for things like missile mornings. to detect a missile launch coming at the united states so we can respond in time, we rely on space to do that. use satellites for communications of all kinds -- commercial, civil government, and the military as well. communication signals can be jammed from space. we don't have a lot of protections against that right now. our satellite communications that our military uses is not protected. those are all things we need to improve. there are many other missions we use for space as well. imagery, signals intelligence, and gps -- one of the reasons we don't have as many collateral damage victims in conflict today

is that we have precision guided weapons. if we do not have gps -- if we do not have all the great imagery from space that we get from our satellites -- we cannot find and we cannot hit targets precisely, and there would be more collateral damage. it would fundamentally alter and weaken the way we are able to fight and defend the country if we did not have space. host: cap harrison is with the center for strategic and international studies, here to talk about the creation of a space force. on the iowa democrats line, go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. todd, are you there? guest: yes. caller: ok, my first -- i see there is something to do with budget analysis director. this is just a big dog and pony .how, another republican ploy they bankrupt the government with tax cuts, and now we are going to grow government? i am not saying it is not necessary to coordinate and use

technology to protect these assets, but to militarize in a way, or to grow government when they have no intention of paying for it, no way to pay for it -- corporations and rich people get away with all the money. my point is made that it is ludicrous. he is crazy. host: made your point, caller. anst: the budget question is important one. simply creating a space forest is not actually add more money for military space capabilities. what you would be doing is carving out an existing organization and people, resources, infrastructure, budget -- all these organizations that are already working on space issues for the military -- and moving them under a unified single chain of command. you would be adding some overhead, some headquarters staff to that. so there would be some additional expense there, that would be relatively small

compared to about the $10 billion a year we currently ourd unclassified on military space capabilities. it would just be reorganizing where the money is spent within the org chart, not adding a new $10 billion. host: active military, if you want to give your thoughts on this -- north carolina is next, democrats line. richard? caller: yes, i wanted to ask the why would someone a -- of tour of the v.a., why someone does not do a , each veteran administration in each state, and why they have such a problem with doctors. host: caller, appreciate the call. not the topic we are discussing right now. cape canaveral, florida, independent line. caller: hello.

my question is, you are talking about the space force. my son served in the army for more than 10 years. he was in afghanistan. he was at the border of north korea. and then he joined the space force one month before president trump took office. the first italian, they were called, spartans. theyn,t space bata were called, spartans. you are talking about a force that already existed. you can go back to ronald reagan . host: got your call. guest: you are absolutely right. there are forces already in our military. -- army, as your son is in the army already has a space and missile defense command. within that, they have space battalions. they're completely separate and independent from the space forces within the air force. the air force, almost all the

space forces are in air force space command. the navy has space forces of its own. the navy builds and launches and operates a fleet of satellites that the other services use as well. mainly, there 's is are in san diego. there is a program executive office for space. it goes on and on. there are all these different space organizations, space forces, scattered around different parts of the military intelligence community. spy satellites are not operated by the air force. they are operated by the national reconnaissance office. all these different space capabilities -- that is one of the problems we have. there has not been a unity of effort. there has been a lot of disjointed mess, a lot of lack of coordination. there are examples of where one service has gone off and a constellation of communication satellites. another service was supposed to build the radios that can

communicate with the satellites. they got behind and cut the budget for those radios. so we had satellites in space and could not take full advantage because we did not use them.adio to that is what happens when you have these disjointed organizations that are not aligned under one single budget, one single chain of command. in "the washington times" and undersecretary for defense under george w. bush, he says "say no to a space force." has beenhe air force spending 30% of its budget to fund and launch a spy and reconnaissance satellites. it also operates several satellite constellations. they have been doing a good job using the launch services. the air force successfully hundred 20 payloads since 2006. he is making the case that other branches are doing these kind of things. absolutely.

our military has tremendous space capabilities. we should not disregard that at all. but the fact remains that we can do better. we need to do better. our ability to use space is being increasingly threatened by the space capabilities other countries are developing, and we are not responding quickly enough. >> we're going to break away and take you live to the floor of the house. on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order, h.r. 299 by the yeas and nays. h.r. 5783 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the