i view as integrity of darpa. and what was clearly not followed through with since i found the memo over 40 years later in the archives he asked, please, quote, burn this after reading. in 2012-2013 as i was working on the book i interviewed seamoorea in 1978 he had written a book which talked about the failure of pentagon-funded science in vietnam and he was suddenly being contacted by all of the pentagon officials who were interested in doing social science work in iraq andork in afghanistan and found we had done work in vietnam. who knew. i was interviewing sye and have an ongoing conversation about iraq and afghanistan because part of my warning was surprise, surprise looking at revised social science work that darpa and pentagon were funding in afghanistan and iraq.nt and looking -- one of the people i was interviewing and how i ended up in the mit archives was i was interviewing mit professor funded by darpa who was looking at quote not people machine but what he called social physics or prediction of human

again, darpa had nothing to do with gps. indoes anyone think we are -- in danger of overwhelming gps capacity by having a too many users? does anybody know why? microphones? past the microphone. because it is a one to many system. >> correct. passivementioned it was . it's like listening to the radio. we could have a radio in this room, and if we brought we could all listen to it without anyone taking away anybody else's ability to listen. sir, you had a question. >> you mentioned in the timing -- the signals, relativistic solves which manifest because of gravity and the velocity of satellite -- until you very accurate time you were not-- able to correct for that. ithout those -- >> yes. people ask, if relativity. -- is accurate or has any special applications, as you --tioned, we are using both furtherrelativity -- way from the earth's mass. those two adjustments, if we did not make them we would be many miles off in gps. -- we wouldof 1969 to southern national belly. , the newost once triple canopy -- triple calvary mounta

a darpa satellite activityty occurs in geosynchronous orbit which is a very different orbit than the operational environment in the low earth orbit which is currently which restore services. by transitioning this away andng defunding restore l are you going to abandon the low earth orbit and not providing a refueling capability and thatint orbit? >> just like on the international space station where we've demonstrated techniques over time in terms of refueling, we believe we can develop technologies and let the public-private partnership taker technology and build the system to do the activities. at nasa we don't need to do the mission we just need to transform the industry. >> if you could please get this committee across analysis about how that would be more cost-effective given the investment we have made kenny provide that for the committee? >> we would be glad to. >> a mask about the pace missi mission, this is a mission designed to it to get important information about the oceans especially with respect to theh health of various fisheries. and important to all of the coastal ar

manchin asked to restoring health and the proposal works that into a darpa program. i'm sure you know the darpa satellite servicing activity occurs in geosynchronous orbit which of course is a very different orbit funded by operational permits below earth orbit which is currently what restore health services. by transitioning this away, by defunding restored al are you saying you are going to abandon the lower earth orbit and not provide refueling capability in orbit? >> i think what we are saying is the international space station where we have demonstrated technique and godard overtime to refueling as we are doing in orbit today i believe they can stop the technology and let the public or the partnerships build systems to do that. we at nasa don't need to do that. we just need to do the --. >> if you could get this committee a cost analysis about how that will be more cost-effective given the investment we have already made in restore al. can you provide that to the committee? >> i would be glad to. >> let me ask you about the peace mission because this is a missio

this is the thing darpa has given to a canadian company, not u.s. company even know they're capable of doing this. companies have paid with private funds so they can do this. this is not a canadian company has from darpa and i think that's wrong. keep in the u.s. the argument that the canadian company won't be seen as the military service and it's like a united nations space robot i think is sort of baloney. other countries know what we are putting into space and where the u.s. company with u.s. taxpayer dollars to do this. the amendments on my laptop. i withdraw my amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn. are there further amendments to the subcommittee mark? if not, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york, mr. entry for the purpose of offered emotion. >> mr. chairman and move to adopt a set of airport on emerging threats and capabilities as amended. >> questions from the gentlelady of new york, all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it. a quorum being present. the motion is adopted. the committee will now receiv

the proposal to somehow merge the into a darpa program. as i'm sure you know the servicing activity occurs in geosynchronous orbit which is a very different orbit in the operational environment that the low earth orbit which is currently will what restore l services. by transitioning this away, by defunding restore l, are you saying you're going to abandon the low earth orbit and not provide a refueling capability and that orbit? >> i think what were saying is we think, just like we've done on the international space station where we've demonstrated techniques on orbit today, we believe we can develop the technologies and let the public private partnership take our technology to build the system. >> if you could please get this committee a cost analysis about how that actually will be more cost-effective given the investment we've already made in restore, can you provide that for the committee. >> would be glad too. >> let me ask about the pace condition because this is a mission designed to get important information about the oceans, espe

>> the darpa law has been withdrawn. there was policy of the obama administration.s. that is to enforce the law. ainsley: mr. attorney general, we were talking to the president, asking about the russia probe. latest on investigation. deputy torn general has appointed robert mueller to oversee this case. many people are questioning that because he is very good friends with james comey investigated or involved in the investigation. we asked the president about it. he said it was bothersome to him. what do you think? >> we need to clear the air on this and let the system work its will. that is all that can be done at this point. we expect full integrity and good work from every person involved in this investigation. pete: do you have have any concerns, briefly, mr. attorney general, hires by bob mueller. people tied to the clinton foundation, democratic politics, any concerns there? >> mr. mueller is entitled lawfully i guess at this point who he desires but i think he should look for people who have strength and credibility by all people. steve: exit question for you.

we've been trying through darpa and many programs to try to bring technology into washington but i think is an attempt to bring dod and defense out to silicon valley was interesting and through the process of creating what's called di us and its defense innovation experimental incubator that out in siliconvalley , they've started creating all sorts of programs, really exporting, understanding of particular needs that the defense industry, security industry has and one of the sort of outgrowths of that is the partnership between steve blank who's an entrepreneurship professor, a pioneer of the lead startup, he's actually the professor for erica reese who wrote the book and so steve burgess is really sort of the pioneer of this build measure learn mentalityand working with two former army colonels , steve blank started a program called hacking for defense and there's a second one called hacking for diplomacy and it is courses that rolled out to i think 13 different colleges. you mentioned texas, texas a&m. jm you in virginia as this program as well. basically, what this does is it takes fr

technology innovation has been driven for the past 70 years, ever since the defense department and then darpaeason you have a microchip is they had to figure out how to put things was very good and very strong and applying it to government, with smith trying to help run that effort but now you have jared because what he's trying to do is say in every aspect of government and some of the things we've been involved with there and it is really, really old tech. we're still work. >> you could really drive change >> clearly there's opportunities for these tech ceos but we've talked about the clashes on the political and social security. >> it's complicated but that's the way business relationships with governments have been and are supposed to be you have certain conflicting interests and you have certain interests that and tech executives are very good at part be in the -- amazon might say i'm competing against this book store in this realm and cooperating in that realm. and some say we'll have to have a more balanced be a. >> it sound rook the. >> welfare reform, i think the government, the defe

the brain initiative is one where in ih, and assess and darpa have a big role. we are meeting regulate to make sure that is going the way it is supposed to. other areas, we have a pretty good swim lane. nsf does plans. -- plants. we keep pretty good taps on those things. we ask every investigator when they send us a grant, they have to list of their other support. we have to look at that and make sure what they put their does not sound awfully familiar to what they are asking us to do. we will ask them very carefully if that is the case. part, weor the most don't have a lot of unintended overlap, but i think the new tools we have developed is an opportunity to do a better job. i hope to follow up with you on that. understand some are simultaneously applying for other areas. i think that is the weak spot. to say, we have this part of it, you have this part of it. we need all of the research done efficiently. dr. collins: we are with you. i have been in another committee, i am sorry. dr. collins, how much money overall in the u.s., not just the nih, but all the go

will -- and when you think about the department of energy and other arpa types ofagy agencies like darpa for incidence and internet fracturing, was greatly assisted by the department of energy. as you shared extraordinary stories of technology and invasion that's come out-of-the department of energy, arpa e was created about a decade ago and was funded for the first time in '09. as i said, i understand this budgetary process, and i'm going to follow your lead when it comes to i know how the money is appropriated, and i know how the instructions come. so if the result is we want to department of energy to be really focused on pushing these new ideas out, getting them to commercialization, i am incredibly supportive of that -- >> do you think that's a role of the department? >> i do. i think there is a real role to play on getting basic research funded, gas funding, to that to ppoint where you can commercialize it. we're going to argue about, senator franken, whether it's this much or this much or what have you. but i don't think we're going to have an argument about -- if you look at my h

when you think about the department of energy and other arpa-type of agencies that are not directly darpa, for instance, and the internet, hydraulic fracturing was greatly assisted by the department of energy. i mean, as you shared, extraordinary stories about the technology and the innovation that's come out of the department of energy. arpa-e was created about a decade ago and it was funded the first time in 2009. so, my point with this, and listen, again, as i said, i understand this budgetary process. i'm going to follow your lead when it comes to -- i know how the money's promoted. i know how the instructions come. nd so if the result is we want the department of energy to be really focused on pushing these new ideas out, getting them to commercialization, i am incredibly supportive of that. ms. murkowski: do you think that that's a role of the department? mr. perry: i do. i think that there is a real role to play on getting basic research funded, gap funding, to get that to the point where you can commercialize it. we're going to argue about whether is it this much or is it this muc

environment might not benefit from some orderly redistribution of wealth and whether federal agencies like darparsue robotics, the projects that will displace those taxpayers from their jobs. >> the challenge, i think for public policy, is to make sure that workers are equipped to work in the new kinds of jobs that the economy is creating. i think the wrong course of action is to throw in the towel and say well, there is simply nothing that can be done and there is going to be this large, large segment of society that can't contribute to the labor market. >> more on this on special report at 6:00 eastern. follow me on twitter. right after this segment i'll tweet out which modern president of the united states proposed a guaranteed income and what happened when he did. >> bill: i'll be right there. see you later. we'll find out whether or not the new technology creates a job market as well. good stuff, james. see you later today here in washington shannon, what's next? >> shannon: more healthcare defections by gop senators putting the healthcare bill in a precarious position. can they repeal obam

weekend with shane weinberger who reports on -- sharon weinberger who reports on the pentagon agency, darpa. [inaudible conversations]