roots conference from new orleans with new jersey center cory booker and pennsylvania lieutenant gubernatorial candidate john federman. friday more from the net roots conference with elizabeth warren, kamala harris and deborah holland. this week in prime time on c-span, she spent the ordered and free c-span radio app. >> next, president trump's proposal to create a so-called space force, a six new venture branch of the armed forces is a focus of discussion at the brookings institution. we will do from scholars and former pentagon official. this is about an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning, everyone and welcome to brookings. i michael hill the foreign policy program. frank rose as well who will introduce him second with the rest of the panel and i'd like to welcome you and thank you for coming out on monday when the net season since life and what is that if people want to go on vacation and you cannot to talk with us about a space force. we are delighted you about a month ago president trump at a white house event turned to chairman of the chief joe dunford and said i want a space force. can you make that happen? i want to get president trump credit. it's a big idea. it's a good idea for a president to have. it's a good debate to have but as a think president trump may have learned since it statement he doesn't get to make this decision quite that fast by himself. we are here today to join some additional voices to this process. the congress has been considering the idea, , has shon some interesting idea but reluctance great a space force

immediately i think it's safe to say. with you more about that in the course of the conversation. just another word or two a brief introduction from it i will introduce the panelist and we will have a few rounds of conversation amongst ourselves before going to you roughly halfway through for q&a. that's the basic format. as you know the united states has four four military servicen the department of defense plus one more, the coast guard in the department of homeland security. the idea of creating a a space force would create a six military service, and you can see the argument why. space is a huge domain. in fact, if we think of where all our satellites are, just out what's going geosynchronous orbit were satellites stay at the same place continuously that's over 20,000 miles above the earth surface of the space where sound like sharon is far larger than the earth itself or all the other domains of the army, navy, air force and marine corps. you can see the logic for this come just basic geographical grounds. you can also see the logic for separate space force on physics

grants. objects in space move much differently than objects anywhere else and even the atmosphere which seems close to space in some sense is governed by entirely different laws of movement, for airplanes, vis-à-vis satellites in orbit. also space is becoming a very, very important area of military activity. that's been true for 60 years so there's nothing hugely different about that except now we plan to use space and we have been using space in a more tactical way for targeting and we have competitors name of russia and china and whether compassion to do is almost as well if not as well as the united states in the near future and, therefore, space is becoming more competitive. there are a lot of reasons why one would see a taste for giving more attention to space and to think all of would agree with that, but some people would say this is an argument for a space force, a separate military service. there are arguments against a

space force would probably be part of the smalls military service. it's not clear why that would have bureaucratic and administrative and budgetary efficiency for the department of defense. it's not clear why space can't do well within the air force, although we have two former air force offices today, at least one of whom will cast some doubt as to whether traditional air force is capable of properly highlighting and exercising space as a separate domain. these are some of the arguments you hear a lot more about. i'm going to moderate and now get myself out of the picture but let me first to report about each of our pedals. deborah lee james to my left with secretary of the air force in the obama administration and in that role not only was she responsible for many space assets but she was the principal military space advisor, a dual habit position for the secretary of the air force, had a distinguished grid before that with saic with house armed services committee and were delighted to have the honorable secretary james with us today.

just your left is brian weeden who began his career as an air force officer with icbm and minuteman siloed work, and spent about a decade in the air force, now with the secure world foundation right next door but also in other places around the country and the world. they work a military space issues and we are thrilled to have him as well picky caddis undergraduate degree in electrical engineering and his phd in science and public policy from george washington university. so looks at the speech from both multiple perspective. frank rose, my colleague, was like secretary james in the obama administration. yet the important job of assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance. the compliance part i think being an important and welcome addition during his tenure. before you had that job he was a deputy assistant secretary focus directly on space issues at stake. he's been living and breathing these issues for a long time.

we are thrilled to have them at brookings. finally, steve jakes to my far left with the most, who present been in the air force as i mentioned as a long-standing space officer and has many perspectives on how about different issues have been handled by broad air force and department of defense with space not being its own military service. just one last bite a reminder. some of you may recall for a while space did have its own combatant command based out in colorado, and this was true until 2002 because in 2002 we decide to great northcom and at that point at least it was seen as a zero-sum game if you added one combatant commands you had to subtract another. northcom was seen as essential after the 9/11 attacks to space command then reverted back to subordinate command within other part of the military service structure and combatant command structure. so the question before the jury today is should it now not only have separate command perhaps

but more to the point, what president trump is proposing,, should it be its own military service? i didn't separate from army air force navy marines, coast guard. so thank you for being here. without further ado i'm going to pose a big broad simple question to each panelist and ask them to give their short answer first and then will come back and get some of the more nuanced responses and consideration such woolly but secretary james come if you could begin with your thoughts on whether there should be a separate space force. >> so in my very short response, and thank you for putting this panel on, my very short response is no, i do not believe that we should have a separate space force. and i come down to a fundamental issue as to why i think this is so. i always like to begin with asking what exactly is the problem that we're trying to solve. and then if a major reorganization is the answer, great. sometimes that's just the ticket, but other times it will

mask with the true problems may be. so for me having been secretary of the air force for the three final years of the obama administration, there were four key areas that i would hear people talk about an criticisms of the air force management of space. the first key criticism was money, that the air force was not devoting enough money, time and attention to space but it basically came down to money. and to that i say, if money is your issue, space force is not your answer. during my time of service we pumped by $5.5 billion more ino the space enterprise, and the fy '19 budget alone, there's at least $7 billion more on top of that. i would argue space is getting a lot of time and attention and money. i gave it a lot of time and attention. i know sector wilson is doing the same. if money is your issue, congressman to appropriate more. space force is not your answer.

the second key area that was frequently raise is that the acquisition system is too slow. by the way i agree, the acquisition system across the board in dod is too slow but if slowness is your problem i would argue space force is not your answer. rather, the answer is continue do exactly what is being done, tried and decision-making, and power your program managers more use the authorities congress is given to do more creative and quick things. these are the answers, quick prototyping, et cetera. space force is doctor solution. the third thing is more focused on the people of the space enterprise. that's another criticism i've heard. once again i say say if people is your problem, space force is not a solution. rather, better solutions to the people issues could be reform of the defense officer personal management act which by the witness what its way through congress which will not only space enterprise but other career fields as will benefit to

be more done with the sector of the air force is instructions on promotion boards. they could review requirements of the staff across the air force to make room for more space personnel to be integrated with those staff excellence again i say if people issue issue, the ten to 35,000 people at the space enterprise would get totally lost in the bureaucracy of the air force with a brand-new space force. finally, or fighting focus, that is the final thing. and by the way that is the key thing driving the president with this announcement, or fighting focus. by the way, i agree, if you look back over the 20-25 years, i think we've done a lot more in the last five but if or fighting focus issue issue, space force is not your answer. a military service trains organize and equips. it doesn't work like. the combatant commands to the war fight. just as you heard michael say, i

would support a full unified command. it would be the equivalent of a stratcom. i was up with a forward to focus solely on space. the ndaa has a sub unified command which is the next level down. i am much more in favor of that approach doesn't think that would really be the ticket for solving the problem that everyone is mostly focused on. so in conclusion we will get a glimpse of what the pentagon is going. they will come out with the first report on this matter. none of them are in favor of the space force that i see none of the top leaders but they are stuck. the president has said it and it will be interesting to see how they now deal with it. >> thank you very, very concise and pc and a great start. brian come over you. >> thank you, mike. let me reorganize my thoughts. i would say over all i very much understand the challenges that

are driving interest in space force entity think we have change but i am, think, cautious, maybe skeptical of that, the space force is the answer to solve those problems. i would highlight what's going on in the space domain is three big trends. globalization, commercialization, and militarization divorcing a lot more country get involved in space, doing lots of different things in space. some are doing a a full spectrm that the as is. some are doing just a piece of civil or commercial or national security. we are also seeing the commercial space sector finally take off and is probably going to eclipse the government activity space for the first and i continue to outstrip them. finally, , militarizing come whizzing space go from a largely strict domain to us mike suggested or pointed out, basically be integrated all levels of warfare and being an essential component of pretty much every military operation here on earth in the near

future. at all of those are driving changes. the question is is the current make up which has the air force be the lead for the military component of space, is it still the right method to go forward? to build on something deborah talked about i would highlight a couple other things. at the moment i really don't know what space force is. it doesn't have a lot of definition to it and at this point that means it means everything to everybody. can be whatever you want it to be. some people are talking but it would be this war fighting element, while at for that that's not what an opera, training and equipment service does. they build things and the recruit people have trained people to cooperate with them and then turned over to were fighting commenced that was often does the mission. at the moment that is a stratcom. the house bill -- so, congress is proposing to strip that two new sub unified command for space. i agree. i think that is an important

step forward. that will take care of the war fighting part. well, so, war fighting, but the people talked about the space force will do all these new things that are currently not being done. i for crazy ideas anything from riding shotgun on commercial lunar mining missions to space space solar power to everything else, ideas that event around for a long time that the traditional military is often said no to. in my mind that takes the focus off of what the real mission should be, which is support to military operation and activities here on earth. and finally i would just say i'm cautious that we're going to spend all this time on what is really a major reorganization instead of spending time fixing the problem. there has been growing concern, all these trends and increased concerns about adversaries in

space, and visit actions from russia and china at the need to do something about that. i'm not convinced spend the next year or two years or three years or more with a lot of time and effort doing a big reorganization to then be able to tackle making the change to address this problem is really the best way forward as opposed to actually addressing them. and finally i will just say there are other options. this debate has been going on for a long time. space force is on the most independent side of the spectrum, a little less independent, notion of a space corps which would still be related to the air force, four administered functions but would have some independents like the marine corps. are other ideas like a space gard or something like a coast guard for space where it would have a peacetime role and then what transition to a military role. it's not clear to me that the argument has been made that the space force is the answer to address all these challenges. >> thank you.

if i go to frank, one quick factual matter at of what to -- steve or frank may want to comment on this one to get the mac and the second budget to get a sense of what we're talking about. the space force comedy agree with secretary james, would be personal? if i could remind people of the numbers. the active-duty army is roughly 500,000 soldiers and another slighty more than 500,000 reservists and cards men and women. more than 1 million people in uniform. the air force and navy are each a little over 300,000 active-duty uniformed. the marine corps on the less than 200,000. that's the pecking order in terms of size. the coast guard is 40,000-ish. i space force would be similar in size to a coast guard more than to any of the militant service to is that a fair agreement we will have across-the-board? >> i think a build itself is roughly 40,000 which includes military as well as contractor and coast guard is also rent ten or $11 billion budget which is

where the air force budget, at least done classified budget. so it's on the same order of magnitude. >> thanks very much, michael. it's great to be here today. let me start by saying i'm undecided with regards to whether the idea of a space force is a good idea or not. i don't discount the possibility that trump was watching star wars, saw the death star and said i need to get me one of those. but in reality, this is a very serious issue. it is primarily driven by the development of anti-satellite capabilities by russia, china, and others. this is something that president obama himself was very focus on the last two years of the administration. so it's a serious issue. i think brian and debbie did a nice job talking about the concerns.

the pro-i would say is familiar about is this the right way to deal with the threat. and that's really what we need to be focused on. now, i do have some concerns about the space force specifically, how it was rolled out. it's very clear that there was almost no consultation whatsoever with the department of defense. and this was a decision by the president which was made on the fly. we cannot make serious national security decisions on the fly. we need to think them through. the second concern that i have is about integration. when i was in government i really focused on the strategic capabilities issues, space, cyber, nuclear, conventional

strike. and what i came away with from my time in government is that we have seen increasing integration across these strategic capabilities. and this is something that secretary mattis, i know, is concerned about. let me read a quote. this is from a letter that he wrote to congress last year with regards to the proposal to create a space core. he said, quote, a space core would likely present a narrower and even parochial approach to space operations versus an integrated path that we are all in. so that's a big concern. if we were to do a space force, how would we ensure the integration across domains? i think really in many ways that's the fundamental question and strategic capabilities area.

i'm not sure if a space force solves that problem. and finally let me say this. i don't think there's a strictly military solution to the challenges we face in space. i think military is part of the response, but we also need a role for diplomacy with the establishment of rules of the road or rules of response behavior, number one. and number two, we need to make sure we are engaging the russians and the chinese diplomatically. i know it feels good to hit the russians and the chinese over the head with a two by four and tell them how bad they are. there's a lot, they are doing a lot of bad things, but we also need to find a way to engage them diplomatically, special on things like minimizing the creation of debris in outer

space. and one of my strong recommendations to the trump administration is a restart the bilateral dialogue we have with both russia and china on space security. thanks. >> thank you very much, frank. state, over to you, my friend. >> angst, mike. i was a little surprised that i thought today's debate was about whether bryce harper would be traded tomorrow or not. now we're here speak what is your view on that? >> and why on record? i could see him go and i could see him stay. [laughing] >> he or select break on the space force. preach on space force, less ambiguous views. so lets you didn't. >> happy to do that. and thanks again for bringing us together. this is an important event, an important time in our nation's history. i will echo sector heather wilson's view that whether it's

popular or not, this is important time to have this debate. we've had this often on overtime. it's good we having it today and is being done at the top level so that's good. all kidding aside from the likes of like stephen colbert and seth meyers, space force is not a simple and it's not a joke. it's something that really important to talk about. to answer your question, i will say this. i am a single bellybutton kind of person. i think a focal point is needed. i think, indeed, we need a new focus, empowered, properly resourced space force, space corps, space agency. we must have a focus, empowered person on top inside the national security establishment. that is my strong view. how you do that, , how you carve it up as a force or court or agency i think that sort of debatable and there are pros and cons but we don't have that.

recently didn't have that. people have been preaching this for a long time. it's not there. so in my view, something has to happen along those lines and it needs to be done now. i say this as an air force brat since birth. my dad was a listed 26 use in the air force as an aircraft maintenance guy. i say this this as a retired air force officer myself, and the totality of my career i spent in this specific domain out in los angeles, in the nro, across the pentagon working through legislation, et cetera. i've been lucky to be wrapped around or be supporting just brilliant, you know, people that i was a young guy type, senior folks, seen a lot of things happening at high levels. and as an air force officer i find it difficult to be critical of my former employer in service.

but as a lot of you folks know, you know, when you're in the acquisition business and you are dealing with, let's say, an upcoming major competition within industry, you're pulling together source selection team. whether it's a big acquisition or a a small acquisition, there are a lot of criteria you put out in these applications. technical, schedule, performance, cost. what's one of the key criteria? past performance. past performance is believed by the government to be an excellent predictor of the future, and you want to pick someone who you know is going to be able to ensure that the government gets success in the future. so with that said my feeling is that 40 plus years of past performance across the government over the years is currently on a path that is a losing proposition. something has to change. my feeling is a new focus

properly empowered, properly resourced space force is a good answer. i know, we all know as we said every succeeding year our military services, are increasing reliance upon space system to ensure our national security. we don't need to dwell upon the missions that we also know as we've said before that other nations are becoming more militarized in space. we are still the world's based -- but compared our adversaries, not much. why are they gaining? because they get it. they understand space is critical to their nations security. and secondly, our own u.s. leadership, as the years have come and gone come notwithstanding individual decisions that seemed to have made sense at the time, the cumulative effect seems to be that, over time, some of our

nation's leaders have just assumed that in a passive way that the space systems will always be there. the lack of a focal point, in my opinion, is really necessary. so what is the resulting map of that? are the other addresses gaining on us or not you can come to that conclusion yourself if you'd like. we can spend a lot of time talking about commission after commissions views on this. oftentimes they were good studies, summarily ignored by the administrations coming in behind them. but again it's about the incremental decisions of the past, cumulatively, and unintended at the time i think contribute to our we are today. in general, and i will conclude on this, i think it's in two separate categories but there intimately related, that is focus and about leadership as i

said, and the workforce, the professional cadre of space professionals over the years has dramatically been deluded. >> fantastic opening round. i did want to play a very small role ntf wanted if question of the people go down, embellish and development of the original arguments, respond to anything they've heard but i want at one more question to the next as a do that come which is as we think about the evolution of the air force, a service at some been around since 1947, we think of an air force that in early decades we associate with curtis lemay and strategic bombing and nuclear deterrence and then they use a big bombers in vietnam as well as shorter range of systems. and in my very imperfect absent of defamation that evolution that was one big tiger in more recent decades critics hwasong-10 city air force is basically now run by the fighter mafia so to speak and it's been hard for the bomber committee, the unmanned community and the space community to have an equal voice or an adequate voice to against an asking that question

partly to request any kind of verification with i am right, and if i am right, or the proponents of keeping space within the air force how to elevate the voice? how do we, secretary james, how do we continue the momentum that you try to create and develop of having space get a greater voice in a service that is still largely dominated by short range combat aircraft specialists? >> first of all i will tell you, and i was in osd in the 1990s in addition to my time in the '80s on the house armed services committee where i was only five years old when i started because i always update my software to talk with his long career of mine but i will say there are tribes within the pentagon. there are tribes within the air force and so are their tribes within the navy in the army and right on down the line. so i would say it is way better and much more integrated now than it was the pentagon of the

1990s, the military services of the 1990s, the joint news is better than it's ever been and i'm sure in the years to come and will continue to improve. but tribes are sort of the fact of life, and creating a space force won't reduce those tribes. it will simply create another entity which i've no doubt would do its best to organize, train and equip an advocate and whatnot, but you're missing i'm not in favor or it would be too small. i think would get lost in the shuffle of the three, four big services that currently are in the department of defense. remember coast guard is under a separate department of government and frequently if the coast guard, and were here would partake the coast guard struggles within that department. i would also say that using the logic of space is too important, which it is, therefore, we need to separate it out to be its own secretary military service.

if that logic persuade you, then i would argue you would also have to be in favor of a nuclear force. you'd have to pull the nuclear forces out of the air force and the navy, set them up and i've heard it said, believe i've think it's too, , nuclear overte didn't get enough attention. i certainly tried to change that. a lot of changes were put in place but we didn't create a whole separate force for just the nuclear enterprise of the air force and the navy. similarly, i could argue there is no single bellybutton for air. with aircraft in air force equipment in the army and the navy. shared we pull all those out and create a separate force for air and air error alone so that isy integrated? my point is this. you can organize and reorganize in any way you could think of, but the real question is, is it worth it? you go through a major realization for anybody who's ever been through it, you will spend years your brine say one,

two, three. i bet it is 515. look at dhs, the thrashing that is going on. eventually it will settle out but you will go through years of thrashing. if it -- will it help you achieve your goals and address the real challenges that we have on our plate? again, i come down to i don't think so. i wouldn't vote in favor of it. and the last thing i want to say is, and i did this come as a public were always very openly talk about our challenges, and we are as we testify before the congress and the our challenges in the space enterprise. and what you've heard about our adversaries catching up to us, getting closer to us technologically, being able to threaten certain assets, all of this is true but it a don't wao leave any doubt in anyone's mind, we are the number one, what are the number one country

in space and in every other domain. so don't let all of this discussion of challenges and whatnot ever confuse that point in your mind. we need to do more so we continue to stay had? you that we do. but we are already ahead. every of the country looks at us with envy, so please don't ever forget that as you hear us debate these possibilities. .. he we did our

stuff in space and had to be driven back to a mission how do we support forces on earth and enhance our national priorities here on earth. one of the concerns is as a speak geek myself. you take the space geeks and put them by themselves they'll focus on what they want to do in space that's not necessarily connected back with the u.s. and earthment and second piece on the acquisition front. focusing on building better satellites, more resilient satellites, capable satellites is great, but that's only part of the equation. the satellites are only as good as how well they can be used and so, what often gets missed

is their end user segment. one of the concerns about having the space acquisitions firewalled off, what happens with the connection of let's say, for example, gps. gps is only greatly used because we have gps receivers built in every bomb, every tank, every airplane, every ship that can make use of that, things like satellite communications. how does this integrate itself with the end user terminals and end user segment acquisition processes. that's a concern for me if we're going to go off and make this totally separate. >> thank you. >> let me just build on the point that deb and brian made about integration. i think integration is key. we need to make sure that space is connected and fully integrated with the other domains. and at this point let me give a shout out to deb. when she was secretary of the air force, she put for the

first time ever a space operator, general jay raymond, now the head of air force space command as the deputy chief of staff which was typically a jet fighter position. that's the thing we need to see. my personal opinion i would like to see the next chief of staff at the air force be a space operator or come from the nonfighter community. because at the end of the day when you look at where our military is going overall, that integration is going to be the key to our success. >> all good points. one thing i want to point out. all of this from a leadership position. the end game product, i would certainly agree with with the other speakers. on the operational said, we as

a nation have become stronger and stronger. notwithstanding the divorce or the nro from the air force some 12, 13 years ago, there is voluntary cooperation is taking place between the military services and the nro and i'm pleased to see that. the leadership is essential and i believe at the end of the day that position needs to be legislated. because the legislation at least puts something in place. it wear certainly as administrations come and go, they can choose to play with it, choose to take it seriously and choose to not take it that seriously. through all of this time in our nation's history we've not had a legislative person in charge of space. the director of nro, all the way up until today has always been an assigned position, not a confirmed position. the director of the nro for 50 years was duel headed with the

air force position. you take people like john mclucas, jim plummer, pete aldridge, marty fagan, pete hall, jeff harris and those folks. those folks were always undersecretary of the air force position, secretary of the air force positions, and then later, unfortunately as assistant secretaries of the air force which i think was one of these steps down, but still, that position was the confirmed position in which the director of the nro worked. that person was duel-- dual headed and that's not anymore. under the rumsfeld position, they had from an authority standpoint, make focal point standpoint and from a prerl empowered person standpoint, that's a contributor to where

we are today. >> mike, can i build on that, you talk about there's no one in charge at the pentagon. debby, in addition to the secretary of the air force, you were senior advisor on space and the question i have for you is, in that role as principal advisor as space, do you feel like you had the necessary authorities to make decisions? >> well, it would have been great to have more authorities. the biggest authority i had that i tried to exercise well and forcefully, i had the power of the mouth and the power of advocacy and the power of sitting at the table to include the white house and the inner agency and for that to go down. i would say the single belly

button for space is the single belly button is the secretary. is that we would collaborate with one another, that we won't simply dictate, we will coordinate and try to work things out because we are mutually supportive. we, the military services are supposed to be mutually supportive of one another. the process was if there were disagreements, you would go to a body that was usually headed up by the deputy secretary of defense who would then hear the arguments and ultimately make a judgment call and then all of us would march in lock step. so, again, when it came to a space issue, and even i went against my own service at times. i would write issue papers and we would have this category or that category, and i would

yield to my undersecretary to yield to the air force and i'm trying to search my mind if i ever lost one. when i would use that power of the mouth, the power of advocacy, he was very much on board for doubling down on space and this is how, at least from a money perspective, we did five and a half billion dollars more. i will remind you at a time when we were just out of sequestration and money was very tight and now that money is less tight, they're pumping more money into space. renamed as the space center, i believe is the new name, that was created during this period that i'm speaking about. a new training plan was put down for our space personnel, so that they would graduate from simply being able to operate satellites to being able to figure out how to maneuver and play the chess game that you play in a war fight scenario, how would you actually defend the

constellation. we're now doing more war gaming that relates to space, so all of these changes, again, i'm referring back to my tenure, there's been more since. we're moving, absolutely, in the right direction, i believe. and again, a space force and a thrashing and a major reorg. >> this is for me to speak to and i want to ask my final question before we go to the audience. roughly what percent of overall full-time space specialists would be in the air force? so i realize and this is a point brian real harped on which is important. that's really not a great way to ask the question because you want to think about people who are doing space, but integrated to whatever else the service is doing. i don't want to oversimplify the question except i want a feel whether the air force accounts for half, two-thirds, 90%, of all the full-time people. i realize some of the numbers may be verging on classifications as well. i'm not looking for a precise

answer, but can somebody help us with a rough ballpark? >> as i said, they list on websites including military and civilians. number i've heard space professionals working on satellites is somewhere in the area of several thousand in air force base command. the army probably has the biggest chunk, the fa-40's which are sort of their space integration people. and those number several thousand as well. and then the next biggest chunk is probably at nro where they don't talk about total numbers, but you can probably imagine several hundred, maybe a few thousand there. >> any from that or is that a good frame work? >> i think it's reasonable. the only thing i would add to it, there's a believe that the air force 90% of the top line budget. that's not correct. you take a look at the entire

budget across the national security domain and the air force component of that is under 50%. >> right. so my last question, again, on the panel, what happens next, or if you prefer what should happen next, not so much in the substantive outcome, we've spoken to that, but in terms of process. so we know that congress has been seriously considering president trump's serious ideas. the debate's not so bad that we're having and the fact that we have a little bit of a hickup for president trump's vision may not be so bad either. i know the debate is not over. what happens next or what do you expect will happen next in this debate as we consider whether to create a space force or agency or space core or a space command or what have you? secretary james? >> well, i would say first, we have the ndaa working its way through and is on the verge of being approved. i think that will be approved and that does direct a

subunified command under strat com. what this would do in practical terms, it would empower the current air force space command commander who is general raymond, it would give him more power over jointness within the space community. that is to say that those army and to a degree, navy personnel who were involved with space, he would have a greater say on those personnel and the whole war fighting aspect, so pretty much, i'll call it a done deal. there is also requirements that this command, this new subunified command, war fighting strategy policy, new report to congress and et cetera. i also managed-- also mention there's a done deal that there are docma reform and creases-- addresses the critics.

and so i consider that to be a very positive step. on the executive branch side the next step is what will the department of defense say? they've been working on a report. i understand that the report was, let's say, 90% written and then when the president made his pronouncement, they literally had to throw it out and start over. so what will this report say? it's due later this week. will it come out on time or not or roughly on time? that's a question. but i suspect one possibility that they're going to do is they're going to layout different options and i think the -- the care that must be taken there is that if all of these options are adopted, you could create inadvertently, a frankenstein's monster because the options don't necessarily work together with one another smoothly, so the options could be everything from either the subunified command or a full up combatant command. it could be having a space

agency, which would be kind of an if you acquisition arm. it could be a space corps more designed to focus on people and organized train and equip. and there could be an socom model which could be like a subunified command or approaching combatant command. i think you'll see all of these in the report, but as always it will be the first report so it will be 10,000 foot level and there will be tons of questions and how in the world would you implement all of this? which would be then the follow on work. >> fantastic. brian. so, you know, when the announcement was made, i think those of us that kind of know how this works and imagined fy 20 would really be the first time we saw anything real happening in terms of movement towards a space force and that's just because of the planning process. so, as mentioned the shanahan report, which was directed by congress, is due to wrap up

this month. the next step then is going to be for the administration to figure out what it wants to put in its fiscal year 20 budget request to congress and that usually comes out around february. and so, then that leads into the debate next year, in the spring and into this time next year about what's going to happen. on the congress, chairman rogers, chair of the house armed services committee has been one of the people pushing this whole issue within congress. he's the one that led several hearings and led for language and previous ndaa that led to the shanahan study. it was reported by politico, he plans to introduce space force legislation around the january time frame so then it can be discussed and possibly integrated into the fy20 discussion. so that's really my understanding when we're going to see this take shape, if any, is the findings from the shanahan report are going to

then influence the trump administration's fy20 budget request which will then go to congress and we will be having this debate for real starting next spring. >> super. frank. >> let me say that ultimately it will be the congress who makes the decision whether to create a space force or not. and i think it's going to be very, very important that congress have a very solid and in depth debate on the pros and cons of this. my thought is is this, because the proposal is so identifiable with president trump, after the november elections, there will be a quote, reflexive anti-trump sentiment and we will be, excuse me, become

engaged in a partisan debate. that is not the right way to go. in my view, we need to have a serious debate on the pros and cons of the space force. yes, it does come from president trump. he has embraced it. but a lot of democrats have embraced the idea of a space force, including congressman cooper, the ranking democrat on the house armed services subcommittee for strategic forces. so, let's have a serious discussion, led by congress, that seeks to come up with a bipartisan solution. because as i noted a little bit earlier, president obama himself was very, very concerned about the threat to our space system. and i spent a lot of my time

during the last two years of the obama administration sitting in the white house situation room with debby going through all the things that we needed to do with regards to responding to this threat. and i would hate to see this debate overcome bipartisan considerations. >> good points made by all. you know, really as has been suggested. this is an apolitical issue. we have republican congress beating up on republican administration. it just happens to be these are the people that are involved tod today. i believe as debby has said there's a lot going on inside the administration, looking to work on the answers coming from the hill. there's a package being con t

contemplated right now. the space counsel is a new entity we have not touched upon, but it is an element that we would consider to be a positive element. so there's focus in the white house on this and as we've mentioned, it's apolitical on the hill. chairman vice ranking cooper is just as involved as mike rogers is, as is max thornberry. they're solid on the senate part, but not shown opposition to speak of. so, the cycle is going to -- this is not going to go away. i believe chairman rogers will be resolved to boarding some kind of legislation. >> high money on that. >> absolutely. thank you, let's go to you. please rate for a microphone once i call on you and identify yourself. we'll take about three questions per round. we'll start in the first two rows and then the gentleman in the sixth round.

>> i look at the panel here and i see no pafaces that look as hold as mine does. maybe about the air force, i was born before world war ii. when we went from a core, the army air corps to the air force, i'm wondering whether you see any the situation was different than than today. were there any considerations then that might be applicable cod in making this decision or transition. >> thank you, right behind you. thank you for having this panel today. i wanted to pick up on secretary james' point about momentum and the air force presumably had things they want

to do in space. based on your experience, when you look at a two-year process to original the dod or air force, how likely is it to disrupt or slow down or potentially roll back some momentum in the air force and how difficult will it be for them to stay focused on doing some of the things they're doing in space? >> thank you, and then one more here, sixth row. gentleman in the white shirt. >> thank you, i'm with talk media news. my question follows up on the gentleman in the air force. 70 years ago was a brilliant airlift and gave creation of the air force. it proved as the advocates said there was a separate entity for the air force. will it take something like a berlin airlift challenge to spur forward any kind of development of a space force, space corps, whatever you want to call it?

thank you. >> so to answer why we give the floor first to secretary james because she had a question addressed to her and then i want more questions with the historic flavor and like me, he's one of the older people on the panel. secretary over to you. >> i think it's a virtual certainty. if a space force is legislated and goes through, it's a virtual certainty that it will be a huge undertaking. it will consume a lot of time, effort, thinking. absolutely it will be, call it a distraction. it could be the best thing since sliced parade. it can't help, but slow the momentum, but they're focused on getting things done. who is going to report to who and how do we get the directives written and all the things going into creating a

brand new bureaucracy. a military department would be a new bureaucracy that would have to be create. an example, the new undersecretary for acquisition and technology and it's now only finalizing the plan. they've announced they'll be reducing head counts. that is causing rifts, a lot of shuffling around. so that's a small example of a bureaucratic organization and it's caused a lot. to elinore's credit she's done the right thing, pushed a lot of authorities down and taken a lot of the checkers checking the checkers out of the move. whether the reorg could happen

she's make the right move to speed things up and to focus on innovation. but again, i think it's a virtual certainty that it will distract people and that the momentum will be challenged. >> steve, over to you and then over to frank and brian. >> thanks. >> you know, the rumsfeld commission said be careful, there could be another pearl harbor in space. pearl harbor was very visible. space is invisible, you can nt see it. we know there are threats on our systems out there and there are increasing threats to our systems. how do we handle that? that's a key element that concerns me is it worth the trouble to pull together a new organization? i believe it is. i believe it's the return you get on your investment in overtime will play off. i worry about tribalism that

debby mentioned. people will tend to hold back on dollars and hold back on people. i remember talking recent to an air force tech sergeant his while career and he was concerned about what would happen to him. he was concerned about his friends, colleagues and folks in the air force. it's going to take a few years for this to happen if it happens at all. am i going to get a choice to stay, a choice to opt out? all of these things are rippling down to the actual work force. so these are things to be concerned about and with proper leadership and authority, which is easy to say, governance is hard to do, i personally think it's worth the effort. >> you had mentioned a pberlin airlift moment and i would argue we've had that, china's

2007 test. the question now is to how do we respond to this threat? believe me, this issue has senior government attention from the president on down. from my perspective we need to be deliberative and get this right. we cannot make rash judgments because i think if we make rash judgments on the fly, we could actually hurt our ability to respond effectively to the threat. >> i'll just pick up on that theme quick and use another example, another one that i'm intimately familiar with, the joint operation center. i was a captain at shine mountain for the unit first base control squad doing surveillance and tracking. around that time they made a decision to create a new operational center that integrated what we did along with the people that did command and control of all space assets and threat

monitoring as well as integration with war fighter. they put this in a traumatic experience and it was like changing an engine in an airplane while flying and you can't stop the mission to make this big change. ten years later we've basically undone that change. they've devolved back to the base control squadron and it's down to the national space center and renamed it as the combined space operation center to focus on space integration of the war fighter, which is an important mission. and even as a relatively small change like the creation of an aoc for space, can take many years, it's extremely difficult to do, particularly if it had to keep doing the mission and the creation of the space force is orders more complicated than

one change. >> super. let's go to a second round of questions and we'll start in the second row and then take the gentleman on the aisles in the fourth and fifth rows. >> hi, thank you, cnbc, how expensive could the creation of the space force look like? are you tracking new military economy, new ranks, equipment, uniforms, those types of logistical questions? >> great questions. that will be important. back here. >> i'm sorry. larry from checker communications. i'm wondering is there enough focus on space? this is an administration that's kind of withdrawing from trade, climate, you know, it's making withdrawals along with the globalization stuff out there. this is within of the areas that they're pushing forward. is there enough focus on space?

are we worried at all? and i think this has kind of been talked about in tangent. do we have something to fill that void. >> i'm a senior at american university and the program at cis with todd harrison. my question, if there's a unified space group, whether a force or a unified command or a core, to what degree should we incorporate intelligence assets like maybe the nro, or the-- special agency and et cetera, i'm not asking you to name specifics, but can you comment between title ten and title 50

to which they're integrated in the space environment, what that should look like. >> i think this time we'll go in reverse, and brian will tackle -- when we talk about a space corps, i'm assuming the model is the marine corps, a separate service within the department of the navy in that case, so it's the space corps presumably would be separate service under the area of the face force i'm guessing. >> i'll just-- all of those things about the new uniforms, twitter is one of the best things i thought in the next month those base uniforms. all of those little things, do you have an economy, how do you do proposal schedules and career path. that's the bureaucratic minutia that's figuring out the

questionsment what is the logo, what is the vision statement and what do our uniforms look like? and to your point, i would answer that yes and no. i would say i think there's a lot of attention, as frank mentioned towards the end of the obama administration there was presidential attention on the national security space issue and how to deal with threats. i think we've made a lot of progress in the national security side and particularly the military. what i've not seen on the diplomatic side is what frank was talking about. there's thousands and thousands of people and billions and billions of dollars focused on the military equipment and hardware side. what are we putting into the diplomatic discussions and the other piece of the military. we talked about national strategy. dime, democratic military, economic. i think that the space council is helping and to have somebody

like the executive secretary who knows his way around this and the integration function across the different department agencies can help and that's got to be packbacked up for resources and it's on the military side and not particularly the other piece of the equation. >> right, let me just build on the point that brian just made. i actually think that the trump administration has done a good job on focusing attention with regards to outer space. i think reestablishing the national space council as the executive director and vice-president as the chair has done a good job at integrating national security, civil and commercial space. additionally with regards to their overarching national security documents, the nuclear posture review, the national security strategy, the national defense strategy. they have incorporated space in

all of those reviews. my big egest concern about this administration's approach to space has really been the lack of diplomatic engagement. not to toot my own horn, but when i was assistant secretary and deputy assistant secretary we had numerous engagements with allies and friends on space security issues. my understanding is that those dialogs have been largely d dormant over the last 18 months and we also engaged russia and china. while i'm 100% behind the idea that we need to develop capabilities to defend our systems, we also need to talk to russia and china. during the obama administration is it we established talks in a

bilateral space security dialog with the russians. we actually made some decent progress especially on the debris issue. overall, i think the trump administration has done a decent job on providing focus on space, but the point is the lack of focus of levels of the state department to advance space dim diplomacy issues. >> steve. >> i agree with everything you said, frank, and within that, once again not to keep beating the same drum. a single focused authorized person in national security space is essential to help prosecute that kind of a campaign. the bigger body polotic doesn't have that and it's in the

nation's best interest in many cases to bring it back. for years we were combined and the leadership was focused. the policy crowd should be inside the national security apparatus. so i think that-- i hate to keep saying the same thing over and over again, what we used to have, we don't have that today and that's a large reason why we're talking about it right now. i'm hopeful that whatever happens next year, something's going-- >> over to you. >> i don't know how much of a cost to set up a separate military service or a separate military corps, but if anybody thinks you're going to do it on the cheap. i've never seen anything done on the cheap. >> number one, it will cost more than they ever predict, even if they try to do it judiciously. >> you say that sounds good from a business perspective, but it will put that new entity

at a disadvantage bureaucratically and that's facts of life. whatever happens, you've heard my opinion, i don't think that a space force should take place. i think there's other ways particularly the combat and command, but if there's a new military service called a space force. i hope it will not only carve out a piece, i hope they'll fold in the army assets, the navy piece. i hope it will be a comprehensive move and by the way, i suspect the leaders of the army, navy and nro are really trying to fly under the radar on this one because they're trying to hold on and that will be another bureaucratic mess. if you're going to do it. do it right and co comprehensively.

whether it's a force, a corps, do it comprehensivcomprehensive i don't think we need a separate space defense agency. which would be like a new acquisition, or organization, ala the mda, the missile defense agency. again, if the idea is speed it up, with all due respect, mda doesn't have a huge track record of speed. they're nod considered -- not considered to be, they're not exactly the poster child of speed and agility. so, the way to do it on acquisition, i think there's other ways and they're on the right track, let them do it and don't lose the momentum. >> another round, we'll go to the woman about the 10th row on the aisle and then come back here with eighth and fourth

rows. >> with inside the air force. i wanted to ask for you to flesh out some ideas on disruption and distraction. i understand that any major reform would have a inheren inh disruption. does it have to be an inherent distraction that comes along with that. if you say yes to that could you break down how you see that playing out. how is the mission going to be distracted. and will it affect the ongoing efforts to improve acquisition, et cetera. what are ways you think that, i guess, how do you see that playing out? how do you think the focus can be improved through the process itself? >> and we had a question a couple of rows up. >> thank you.

we're discussing this-- i'm charl i'm charles-- when we discussed the space program we didn't discuss the purpose, ordinarily just a deterrent to other nations disrupting indications and assets in space. would there be kill sats or space to ground weapons? what would be the ultimate purpose of such a force. >> super, and then one more question and third row before going back to the panel. >> stanley rappaport. the first question i'd like to ask, what is the nature of a space war? and should one have the same prohibitions of treaty prohibitions against starting a space war as you do with regard to nuclear war? because you need a space force and those are the two

questions. >> super. . >> okay. maybe this time we can just start with debby and work down. >> so when it comes to disruption and distraction, i know the human beings who are charged with leading are going to do their absolute best to not have it be a huge disruption and distraction, but i continue to believe it will be no matter how much they try to mitigate that disruption and distraction. first of all, here we are worried about enough money for the space enterprise. we're worried about enough money for the military generally on readiness and modernization issues, creating a new bureaucracy is certainly going to take money and you already heard me say, anybody who thinks this can be done on the cheap, i think they're wrong. i think it will sap resources away that could otherwise go to capabilities. i think there will be a ton of work force issues. you heard steve talk about what one technical sergeant, what was on his mind.

i can tell you the day after the president's announcement that there shall be a space force, the top leaders of the air force put out an all hands memo to the enfire force. basically to try to reassure people to say, hey, this will be done deliberatively and do it right. the work force, the uniforms and civilians say, what does it mean for me? can i stay, can i go? will i get laid off? what if i want to transfer? a million questions come up in the mind of the human beings who are doing the real work and that's a distraction and then finally i'll say the myriad of details which people joke about, the economy -- academies and what not people joke about. there are much more important details that would need to be worked out. directives have to be written and coordinated and these things take time and they will

by nature just become a distraction and a certain amount of disruption. and i also think this is a deadly serious topic and everybody has said that and it would be a shame if something so important as a new military service focused on space were somehow born out of ridicule. i think that that would be just a tremendous shame. finally, what is the nature. space force? beats the heck out of me. let's hope one of my panelists can take that one on. >> thank you. and what is the mission of the space force? what does it set out to do? and that's the number one question and i haven't heard anyone provide a concrete example of that from congress or from the administration. i'll pick up the last question, what is space war? because i think that's something that has-- there's not a lot of good information out there about that. unfortunately, most of our thinking of that comes from "star wars" and other hollywood

versions which is not the reality, obviously. in this case, i'll echo, the general, there's not going to be a war in space. there's going to be space as an extension of conflict. what does he mean by that? as we mentioned earlier in the discussion, space capabilities provide things and services and data used for military operations on earth. what we're going to see is a growing incentives to countries to disrupt, deny, destroy those space capabilities as conflicts on earth. to give you an example, we talk about some of the open source reporting on russian gps jammers deployed to eastern ukraine and used to disrupt gps and satellite communication services used by the ukrainians, that's an anti-satellite capability. it's not showing the satellite, but it's disrupting the ability to use that service in the military operation. of course, you could go further

away with the satellite. as far as the legal context, quickly, i'll say the u.n. charter prohibits in space. it's only under consideration of self-defense, true on earth as it is in space. the question is how that applies to military activity in space as well as of the rest of the laws of armed conflict. there's a project underway, actually two projects i'm involved with. how national law applies to military in space and one run by mcgill university in canada and one from australia and there's exeter in the u.k. and those two projects are set to figure out, what does self-defense mean in the case of satellites. what is proportionality. what is the protection of neutral and third parties. all of these questions we've resolved in the domain, maritime domain and the land

domain mostly have good ideas on what does it mean in space contacts and that's another big question that's unanswered. >> thanks, frank. >> yeah, let me address the last point and that's what's the legal regime for outer space. now, brian is absolutely correct. the u.n. carter. at least from the perspective, u.n. charter applies to outer space, but there's also the outer space treaty. the only thing that outer space treaty says about militarization or weaponization, you can't place nuclear weapons or wmd in outer space and limited test ban from 1953 which prohibits nuclear weapons being detonated in outer space. there have been proposals, specifically by russia and china for legally binding arms control regime in outer space. in 2008, the russians and the chinese introduced the

prevention of placement of weapons in outer space treaty known by the term ppwt. now, the united states and most of our allies have had serious concerns about this treaty for three reasons. one, it doesn't define what a weapon in outer space is. for example, during the 1980's, the soviets made the case that the mechanical arm on the space shuttle built by canada, i would note, was a weapon in outer space. secondly, it is totally silent on terrestrial based anti-satellite based weapons like the ones china tested in 2007 to destroy one of its satellites. and finally, it's not effectively verifiable and even the russians and the chinese have agreed that with current technologies, they could not

verify the ppwt. in my view, the response is not a legally binding treaty for a variety of reasons. where i think the international community should focus its final and efforts is developing norms of behavior. and i think this is an area where we've seen a lot of progress, for example we have the u.n. debris mitigation guidelines back in 2007. there was a group of government experts sponsored by the u.n. i serve as the u.s. rep, which came out with a number of recommendations about how to entrance security and stability in outer space. and i think the united states has done some really good work with china. especially towards the end of the obama administration, on the issue of destroying objects in outer space that create lots of debris. so i would agree that we're in

a fundamentally different space environment than we were 50 years ago because of the changes in the space environment, the outer space treaty needs some help and my recommendation to the trump administration is that they devote some considerable effort in developing north. it doesn't necessarily need to be a big multilateral enterprise. you can exposure norms unilaterally, bilaterally and multilaterally. i think the key objective is find things that work. and because as deb said, we are the leading space faring nation, we can lead by example in many ways. now, i think we also need to

bring other powers on board and that is critical and that's one of the reasons again, i think it's important to engage russia and china and despite our differences with russia and china, and believe me, we've got a lot of differences, we are able, when we have mutual interests, to get things done. especially on issues like debris generation in outer space. >> thank you, frank, and steve. >> agree, agree, agree again. [laughter] >> indeed, if the rule comes out that the department needs to establish a new agency department and what not, the team will get together and they'll do their level best, they will go after putting together a space force, a space corps, you name it, and you should all be assured that if something like that were to happen, our operational forces will be solid. they will be just fine. they will continue to work closely. they'll work cooperatively with

one another as they are doing today. and this all ties, again, to the need in a-- from an international standpoint that this all starts at the white house. the white house has got to stay proactive. the reliance that every country is increasingly becoming dependent upon outer space continues to go up higher. not every country is totally aware, i guess, of some of the ramifications. so like nuclear, there should be a nuclear deterrence of this whole thing. the behavior that starts at the top and flow down throughout the structure to ensure that we are properly organized for any equipment to make it happen. >> we have time for maybe one last question at the back of the room. and i see two hands. very brief final answers and concluding thoughts. the woman in the red hair and the woman an all the way back on the aisle. >> laura cummings with the national academy.

i was wondering with the presidential space directives two and three where they charge the department of commerce with creating free situational and tracking management capabilities i've heard department of commerce higher ups talk about the fact that space wars could be used for enforcement abilities for space traffic management and kind of the leverage behind the creation of that and i was wondering if you could speak to that and whether or not you think that's necessary or something that could fall into the air force capabilities. >> great, thank you. and finally, last question. >> hi. one of the major complaints i've heard from folks on the hill about the air force is that space acquisitions, there are too many people involved in making decisions and that has slowed the process down. do you agree with that complaint? and what would be the way to address it? >> super. so we'll begin with steve and

give the secretary the last word and any brief answers and very brief concluding thoughts. we've got about four minutes left. >> i'll keep it short. thank you. as far as the commerce question, personal view is i think it's a very good start. there will be a great amount of taking place in commerce to shepherd this and a great amount of activity going on with the department of defense, i think that's a healthy way doing. secondly as far as the acquisition business is concerned, there are demonstrated activities in the past that have cycles of indefinite aoa's for example, with nondecisions are made and what not. that's something that always can be freshened up on and i believe that a properly empowered leader will be making those decisions earlier. >> thank you. >> let me just say i think that transitioning the ssa or space situational awareness commerce is the right move.

however, i think that commerce needs support from dod, nasa, and the state department to ensure that that's done effectively. let me just conclude with a couple of remarks. one, there's no doubt we face some real challenges in the space domain, especially the russian and chinese, a-sats developments. but i think it's important to note that this problem cannot be solved by military means alone. diplomatic engagement with both our allies and also potential adversaries like russia and china is going to be key. we're also going to need to develop norms of behavior, to regulate this environment, and finally, with regards to the internal dod reorganization, some type of reorganization will eventually take place.

a premium needs to be placed on ensuring that space is integrated with other strategic capabilities, especially cyber and nuclear. >> thank you. >> so i wrote a whole dissertation on this and i could go on for hours. but i'll simply say i agree it's good, it's a good move. it's not done yet though because requires changes to authorities and only congress can make. the house has that largely backed plan and the senate just came out with the act which did not back the authorities to the commerce department so it's dbd is what it's going to happen on. and as far as the dod helping to enforce that. i'm not sure what was meant by that. in a regulatory role, the currently air force doesn't have a regulatory role to play, they have an informational role, information what's going on in space. the intent was that the space force might have a regulatory

function like the coast guard and the peace time the coast guard actually has law enforcement and safety function to do in addition to military role. i'm not sure that's where the space force is going. could have meant enforcement the way the u.s. navy enforces lines of communications, open seas. and that's an enforcement by arou armed force, armed force, that is something i would have concerns about. >> and the secretary-- >> the point that brian just made is a perfect example of a particular which will take enormous amount of time for a certain number of people across the inner agency to debate for however long. that's one example-- and it's a small example of a distraction. i say all of these reorg's will settle out and they can be worth if, but you have to say what is the question--

what is the issue you're trying to solve. in this case the proposed transfer of the space traffic management role was very well coordinated. people were largely on board with it and the idea of it was to take it off of the shoulders of the war fighters so that they could focus on the war fighting mission. so, that's an example of a-- i'll say a modest reorg which as you heard, it has a million questions associated with it and it's not a done deal yet. it's one example. at least it's designed to specifically solve a specific problem. i come back to the space force in and of itself won't solve any of the problem that people said they need to take on and finally the question about the space and missile command have too many people involved, you know, are they, as i said, pillar of speed and innovation? no. they have not been historically. they're slow and methodical and with good reason. they're building billion dollar

systems and they want to get it right. they, like all other parts of government are reacting to the period of time in the past when there were scandals or disasters and of course, what do we do when there are scandals or disasters? we tighten things up. so, it's been a gradual, i'll say loosening, that's been going on. general thompson was sent in, who does not come from the space community, but sentenced it specifically to be a change agen agent. he had been successful ands' a change agent. he's making important changes. i don't know if it involves reducing the number of people or not, but certainly, he was sent in there to speed things up and to focus on speed and innovation. >> two very quick things for me before i ask you to join with me in thanking the panelist.

underscoring what frank said, there's no solution in space. and satellites will be more vulnerable than in the pastment we can try to defend them, diversify make them more redundant. i'm not suggesting we give up on the idea of using satellites, but bear in mind, space is going to be a contested environment and there are a lot of advancements in attacking when satellites are in a trajectory. that's for future space, it doesn't weigh in for or against a space force is desirable, but it will have to be integrated off satellites and operations integrated with air breathing platforms and integrated and i think we have to accept a greater uncertainty which satellites are available to us at any moment. that's my personal editorial review. and as you thank the panel, thank my colleague ian in

helping in brookings and please help me now in thanking the panel. [applaus [applause]. [inaudible conversations] >> c-span where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. and the senate about to gavel in. senators scheduled to vote later today on the nomination of brit grant, to the 11th

circuit court. also, in the senate today work on a four-month extension of the national flood insurance program. and a package of four federal spending bills for the fiscal year. and later in the week the senate may also work on the defense programs and policy bill. taking you live now to the floor of the senate here on c-span2. senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. sovereign lord of the universe, we pray today for our lawmakers. use them for your glory, providing them with wisdom to live with integrity. through their labors, enable us to live trusting in the unfolding of yourvi