tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN October 27, 2016 5:07am-10:31am EDT
the man can dream world where we were protect team that this structure in our constitution? and when you look at the constitution, which is the positive document with the declaration as a bat drop, you understand why this republic, by a separation of powers so important? why is federalism so important? why are enumerated powder so important? why is it so important? because you gave up some of your
rights in order to be governed. not all of them. it's that limitation -- i went back and read a lot of justice scalia separation of powers this summer. and they all seem to come back to 1:00 p.m., protecting individual liberty. it wasn't just to have separation of powers. it wasn't just to have enumerated powers. it was an order -- you have these in order to protect liberty. but it starts in the declaration. >> people will talk about the bill of rights does this that is the cake as opposed to 10 amendments in the actual documents in the charter of freedom that we the people what consent to be governed. the structural protections are
what really gave us liberty. >> i did not fully understand that. in the 1980s with ken and john marie, law school because the amendments were big deal in moscow and we didn't read the constitution. but i think the structure is so important and perhaps that is what justice scalia and i thought i'd the very beginning. the other thing was the text. this is a written constitution. this is an common law. this is not like will make it up as we go along where you have to have market to a written document. written amendments are really
good so i think the structure is import. the most important part of the paper limitations built into that structure are critically. that is why we write extensively on the commerce law. you eviscerated the relationship with the national government can do. if you expand that come you go from regulating commerce to economic effects on commerce or whatever. it's a quite different task from regulating commerce. >> you just touched on sort of revisiting cannot get to that in a moment. you've talked about privileges or immunities, made some statements about substantive due process. when you look at different causes in terms to protect in personal liberties come economic
liberties, what causes you to gravitate to due process clause, protection cause, what are their positions? >> whatever's in the constitution. it's all there. the third amendment that we skip over, the second amendment. we want to pretend doesn't exist. the first amendment has commerce on the a lot of respect to religion. what is the establishment of religion. and as the establishment of religion, so you go back to the language. what does that mean? we are obligated to do that. or people's theories. judge brown gave a lecture on that. it can spin off in a totally different when the limitations built into the constitution itself. i think that is quite important.
>> that's great. you talk about enumerated power, structural protections committee mentioned how the privileges or immunities can ignore it even though it's right there. so let's talk about your view. you have been praised and criticized depending which side of the island happened to be on for being perhaps more willing than some of your colleagues to revisit past president. whenever the court has deemed it appropriate over the course of its history revisited preferences in some way. i'm curious to hear your views on this constitutional questions and how would you respond to your critics. that sounded like the last part of that. >> criticism i don't care about. so that is why i read everything
i could get my hands on. the furious all over the place. the goldberg, justice goldberg's theory was basically is to improve liberties come under strict rules, when the windows cases. when they need to overrule cases in order to do what he thinks is the right thing. and you get brandeis. he has his rules, that he overrules a 96 year old precedent. what do you do with plessy versus ferguson? and now, when you get around. you've got lots of precedents out there that have been changed. you have just this ran in -- justice brennan redoing the
document. i'm not saying it overruled anything but it didn't look like it was used a lot. the point is to change a lot of things that when people get what they want, they start yelling. that is like bogeyman or something. i think the constitution itself, the written document is the ultimate, that it is written. [applause] caleb nelson had some nice piece, not saying it's totally right about the very thoughtful. he makes the point. if you have a choice between the statute allows you to choose between amd and the clean slate choose be that the court has 30 chosen a company you can bet decisive because the choices were there to change it.
but if the court has chosen c. by making the anp, and that is erroneous. everybody thinks that does not deserve. now it is applied to something else. let's do something to due process. you get people saying constantly i think that what we have done, let's say the slaughterhouse case was wrongly decided. my point was i had the unfair. i said everybody agrees was wrongly decided. why are we applying it? that's the good simple as that. we do more than just a. we have to say, you know, we have not applied for these reasons. it leaves you wanting an
explanation. i wasn't trying to grandstand and i go back to the smc guy. we owe him an explanation. even if you come up the other way, you owe him the next nation. we all agree is slaughterhouse is wrongly decided. it has had a profound effect on this country. you've know and i know it that when you guarantee citizenship to people, the ladies of citizenship that cannot be impinged on the constitution or trouble lies for many allies -- trivialize or minimize coming out all the privileges of the membership. then every right to the immunities to mean you get to ride the elevator once a week and not as that. that is a heck of a membership.
everybody else's domain and they are in the gym. they are the sauna and i just get to ride the elevator once. that's what i feel about the immunity laws. the battle at gettysburg, i have a personal interest in this. i lived under segregation. we talk about all around these things this is very hard. go back to dread scott. what is the say that no black can be a citizen for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction. he goes on and on about the other stuff. the kansas nebraska act, et cetera. now the third 10, 14, particularly the 14th amendment is guaranteed citizenship. another and now the privileges and immunities of citizenship. we sit here and read about it the constitution. anyway, you said when you get passionate about it?
it is the heart and soul. it's not just theory. it is what nate said all work. it was a way to perfect a big blemish on this country's history. that is the blemish of slavery, the contradiction that we fought war over it. >> is interesting to approach this. it is really once you get what you want, it's a one-way ratchet and then it all becomes settled law, which ought not to be revisited. >> if i were on the court of appeals for the district court, then i have to apply and i did that for the two minutes i was on the d.c. circuit. i would do that. i would faithfully do that. but we are in a different place and i believe we are obligated to think things through, to re-examine ourselves, go back over turf was already plowed, to
torment yourself to make sure you're brave. >> the fact he is to have four cases then the court of 140, 150 cases. how did this come to the end is a positive development or negative development? >> if you think it's rightly decided it's a positive development. if you think we've been wrongly decided cases. you know, i don't know. someone comes to the court thinking they're smart cases and then we wind up doing exactly what we were doing before when i got to the court is close to 120 cases are so and that was a lot of the court had been doing 150 or so at some point. i think around 110 or so would be good. but i don't see any prospects
that are discretionary jurisdiction that that's going to happen anytime soon. also, other than the health care the affordable care at which seems like kind of a misnomer considering all the things going on, the affordable care act was one of the last pieces of major legislation. one of the few pieces of major legislation. it's not like you have a lot of that were the real action was the activity in the agencies and the administrative agencies. i don't know that there's not much legislation going on that requires review. when i first got to the court we have the new bankruptcy code and read quite a few of those cases. at one point we got the criminal area, a ton of litigation there. what we are doing in the area of criminal law and the collateral
review. but i think you're going to get a lot of review in the lower court found that. there's not been major legislation. so i don't know what the source of the litigation. the other thing and i don't know the total impact, but a lot of the pieces have been siphoned off or being deployed it to mediation or arbitration. we have a very light revealed that under the federal arbitration act. so they are not coming up like a normal commercial litigation through the federal court system. they are like off to the side. that may be a cost consideration for the companies to engage. >> you're mentioning before there's very little legislation regardless of whether you like the affordable character don't like the affordable care act. i understand that as a country
that was dawned -- i totally get that. one interesting point is obvious that legislation and many other bills that pass, when they pass to exactly what you just said, which is i'm going to empower some agencies to go out and do good recently. the agencies are off by the fact that lee performing oral last year, and legislative functions can have the tribunal so they're performing a judicial function. how do you approach the sorts of cases when you're trying to interpret law and figure out where the line is. you made reference to justice scalia's statement about how do you approach those cases if you're thinking about taking them out. >> you know, i do my job is to be honest if the cases where
they come to you take it. if there's a split, there is a big issue. it is preserved in you take the case. i don't get into when he may not win. the not my job. my job is to decide cases. the administrative law area is obviously complicated. but it is our job and it is complicated by things like chevron. it is complicated by a willingness to say that the expert agency decide and then get from all this running room. more running room than we were give an article three-judge. so i think you know that i've written extensively in these areas i did not have ax to grind. but i do think that when we don't review things, we abdicate our responsibility is. we are required. there are checks and balances in our system. a part of the check for the
dishes standpoint is to review the cases. you don't review cases when you say we deferred to virtually anything the agency does. that is not a review. we don't do that to a district judge. district judges are article iii judges. they have the same status in courts of appeals of the exact same status we have. but we do that to the agencies. i have written again on this. it's just a constitutional matter, we are obligated to be more exact in in our review. that doesn't mean you don't show them deference. i think we are obligated to do more than wave our hands in a chevron has no review at all. [inaudible] >> which ones? >> t. redub amicus briefs?
>> no. >> this particular party. >> if you have 30 -- there are people, the aclu for example is credible. you may not agree with what they say, but they are good. so that is a good brief you should read. the u.s. government, you've read that. you read the briefs that states that this has sent in that they say 10 states are writing some. but some people, like law professors for a better world [laughter] that is sort of like one-off kind of group. and meantime you might go for it, but they start out -- there was some excellent amicus brief we had about electrical engineer supporting neither party. it had to do with a grid. they were explaining an electrical grid.
i just thought it was just excellent because i didn't know what the heck a grade was that neither party was explaining. said these engineers actually help the court. they were friends of the quarter. you run across these tactical cases, too. somebody, it might be the sordid intellectual property group might explain site a technical packing area. and that is a good brief. for me, a brief it is a route, if it is honest, if you can look at this as an honest broker, you don't agree with that this person, but this is an honest reef. you read it again. if they make a good point, you
will be the next great. but if it's somebody just one-off, you don't spend a lot of time with them. >> we are nearing the end -- we are nearing the end of our time. even jimmy i gather go during the summers and had off on a bus and traveled the country. but tell us a little bit about that experience, some of the great experiences he's had why you do that and how does that help revive you. >> first of all, it's a wonderful country and we fly over most of it. flight destination to destination. i have never been to east tennessee. i grew up in georgia and the thing about segregation we had going on with things like our political correctness and all sorts of things our society does
created fear, that she couldn't talk to each other, you couldn't go any place. so this year and georgia as i couldn't go small town. i do that with my mother now. i wanted to see small towns. i wanted to see our country. now that i can do that without fear, we thought that we would do it. my poor wife let me do it. she came along and we both love it now. we've got the same bus we've had for 17 years. have you ever been to sevierville and dali world. where did they go see what those horses? but anyway, we've been told a lot of different things.
they've been out to the west. we like the mountains. we get down to florida. for most of all you see the citizens of this country. an rv park is very, very democratic with the small d. they're some of everybody there. people camping on the back of a motorcycle, which is really interesting to see. the first time we went we have a 40-foot coach who were next to this teardrop thing that was about the size of this table. this is really embarrassing. but everybody is there. the truck stop, flying jay, pilot you run into people. right after bush v. gore. i love this stuff. i love the people, the truckers, everybody. i love it all. so it could be just two stories. so bush v. gore, whether you
know it or not is a bit controversial, right? you talk about feeling the heat around here. i had to take my bus down to florida the week after bush v. gore. so brunswick georgia shuts out the brunswick, georgia to refuel. it's not like a car. it's a real professional thing when you do it. you have to pitch are fueling gloves on and look around like you know what you're doing. so all these 18 wheelers around and i'm like pretending. this trucker comes up to me and he says anybody ever tell you you look like clarence thomas? and so i said to him, yeah. and he said that it happens all the time. and then he went on about his
business. we were recently on the road. all these things happen. it's great. even the breakdowns are great. we were in pennsylvania. this is about income you're going up this mountains. the bus speed was ending. so finally we pulled into a truck stop in pennsylvania after they got out of new york and we looked around at these two guys, a little mobile band repair and with a half a set of teeth between them. but they knew how to fix diesel motors. they were back on the road. and these guys were great. great to talk to you. you have to try to figure out some things, but this was absolutely wonderful. everything about it i love it.
this is a great country. we've done about 40 states. we've met a lot of people, then a lot of places. it's freedom for me. >> i assume most people don't know who you are. >> most people don't care. >> that's refreshing. >> for me it is. and it also tells you that it shows you the constituency for the constitution. it shows you it's not the city, it's not the people doing all the talking and all the barricading. it shows the person camping out at the back of his motorcycle who wants to be left alone, who wants to enjoy his country, wants to raise his family or her family and they're just friendly. if you go to an rv park, you just one of the air and they want to come and chitchat. they don't know you from a hill of beans, but they're just friendly.
i think it has shown me a part of the country you wouldn't normally see. i would not have seen in georgia and they would not say from washington d.c., which are two very different approaches both in their own way limited purchase. >> at the moment i will bring added me stuck up a special presentation and i would ask afterwards of the people in the audience would remain seated for a few moments while justice thomas leaves. i do have to ask you one more question, which is any chance for a national title for the nebraska cornhuskers this year? >> we will be undefeated until we arrived. last night [laughter] [applause] >> i think we all would agree that we've been treated to a great evening here with justice
thomas. [applause] justice thomas, if you would join me here. we have something to present to you first. this is our defender of the constitution award. we only give one a year and we all might -- we don't do it every year and the threat of rebel defender. the honorable clarence thomas, defender of the constitution award heritage foundation. congratulations. [applause] what i'm about to do ought to be called because the newcastle
award because i'm giving her a set of the commentaries on the constitution written by joseph story, which you can add, probably you already have it in your office. this is for your home or even better for the bus. >> mind if i share with my colleagues? last night -- [laughter] [applause] >> well, i think this might be a better one for the colleagues because it is a short version. [laughter] it is called the familiar exposition of the constitution of the united states by joseph story about a particular interest in this because i was privileged to write the foreword. [applause]
>> after it came up with the idea of reproductive rights a winning research. but recent events have heard about a man is i know i could find information on not and that would also help me figure out what points i wanted to say about it and how to format outline for my piece. >> i took a very methodical approach of this process. you could if you wanted, but i think that really was a piece as dense as this i would say. it's really just a process of group working and reworking. as i was trying to come up with
the actual theme is doing research at the same time in coming up with more ideas for what i could film. i would come up with an idea and that would be a great shot. i think about that and that would give me new ideas something else to focus on slow to do about that. the whole process as other things in scratch and what doesn't work and you keep going until you finally get the finished product.
>> the head of the pentagon's base policy and executives from aerospace companies discuss how the military, nasa and private industries can work together in space that duration. the panel was hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. it is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. i want to thank you for joining us. we certainly have full attendance here. that is great. i think it's a testament to the great panelists we have it today. and todd harrison, director of the new initiative was started here at csis good to aerospace security project. instead of me droning on as i
know to do and try to describe the project which would probably take me 10 minutes, we have a short video we are going to show and i apologize in advance for the narration, but i will let the short video to the explanation for me and then we'll move into a main event today. >> air power and military space systems have revolutionized the way the u.s. military operates in the global economy recently depend on reliable and secure access to space systems. they aerospace security project at csis became a technological budgetary and policy issues affecting aerospace demands. our research is focused in three areas. space security examines the all the military uses of space and how the lack of behavior can affect escalation in deterrence. it explores alternative architectures and new space capabilities can enhance resilience of the u.s. military's recent. air dominance on long-range strike look at the future of air
and missile forces in a contested operating environment that examines the role of unmanned systems and autonomous systems, how these capabilities can be integrated and options for the aaron brown the nuclear triad. commercial and civil space explores international partnerships, efforts to reduce the cost of launch, advances in commercial space technology and policy issues that affect civil and commercial space programs are the goal of the security project is to provide innovative and timely analysis to educate and own decision-makers as new opportunities and technologies emerge, smart policy decisions can ensure the united states continues to lead in the air and space domain. welcome to the aerospace security project. >> albright. now i can officially say that there is something worse than watching yourself on video. it's watching yourself in front of other people.
but now it's got that out of the way, so everything will start getting better from here. it is my pleasure to have this great group of panelists assembled here today. the topic for discussion which is a very timely one is that the u.s. military can leverage commercial space capabilities are improved with leveraging commercial space capabilities in the future. i've asked each of the panel is to prepare some opening remarks, about five minutes each. i'm going to go down the mind introducing each of them and letting them have their opening remarks. after that i'm going to ask a few follow-up questions and then we'll open it up to the audience for your questions you may have for them. i'm going to start my left ear, doug loverro, deputy assistant secretary of defense for space policy. he has been right at the middle of this for many years now. and so, i will turn it over to you.
>> thanks very much, todd. i apologize for being a little bit hoarse today. i am nursing a cold and i'm hoping they give it to both todd and scott. so that they can share my pain. so first of all, thanks very much to everybody for being here and i want to thank todd for bringing us together. i don't think that there are that many surprises that you hear from me today, but more a renunciation of the things that i think we have been talking about quite frankly for the last several years and are now starting to do which is the good part. let me start off talking about some of the challenges that we face and why these challenges are fundamental to what we need to do between the military and the commercial world. the challenges we face are pretty understandable. there were people who want to take space capabilities away
from the u.s. and we don't worry about just as they take the space capabilities away, but they take away the leverage we get from space capabilities and many of you have seen that inaction during your lifetime as for history and ashamed from a war that was constrained to inhale wire, two months of worldwide islamic global basis. clearly when you have people going ahead and doing targeting halfway around the world from places and las vegas are in nevada, you can understand how space plays into even the lowest level of combat going ahead and take you to individual targets versus organizing an entire campaign. space is fundamental. conventional board, everything we do in nuclear war as well. space is fundamental to that as well. we've come to depend upon our space capabilities like no other. you all know that, you've heard to say that people are trying to take that away from nice.
dni clapper has testified in front of congress on the things people are trying to do. they have to figure out a way to make that happen. what could go ahead as some people have suggested previously interned figure out how to find words that no-space, but quite frankly that is not attractive notion. that doesn't mean we should not practice what happens when you lose space for a short time during the battle, but to fight were the way the u.s. wants to fight were without basis really an act that to us because it means our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen and seamen will be put at risk and we don't want to be put at risk. we want them to have the best advantage they can haven't space gives them an advantage. and we maintain that advantage. we could try to do it by building more resilient and more numerous space systems all by ourselves by the u.s. government. that's neither fiscally responsible are quite frank the operationally responsible
because if you do that they tend to all have the same built-in vulnerabilities. if you go ahead and figure out how to bring a diverse set of space capabilities together, that is a much more resilient kind of capability to have because everyone has different weight points come in different vulnerability than advantages to be used in different ways and quite frankly they bring with them a sense a different kind of political dynamic as well as a different kind of resilience dynamic to an equation. we really want to figure out how to ingest these capabilities into an overall architecture. clearly we have been doing this for years already in the commercial satellite communication machine. satellite communications that we use in combat today are commercial satellite communications. but that is not being viewed from a resilient standpoint or a surety standpoint. that is being done from a pure
throughput standpoint. we don't have enough capability to go ahead and do that on military satellite communication. if we really want that to be an operationally resilient capability, when he uses capabilities and figure out how to integrate them into true were planning and operational responsiveness and the network operation so we can easily scale from one communication of her to another. similarly and remote sensing with the rebirth of remote sensing capabilities in the nation and we buy it does images one by one today. if you really want to get them together into a truly robust, resilient war fighting framework, you have to go ahead and do more than just fight images. you have to figure out how to go ahead and pass them cooperatively and process them simultaneously. you have to figure out how to fuse the information together from different races.
we are not just talking about leveraging this commercial services. we're talking about integrating this commercial services. it's not just communications and remote sensing of those bizarre predominant ones. we definitely see a big rise in space situational awareness from a commercial for active than those capabilities go ahead and complement and add to the capabilities that we have in the government today. and again not just the censors, but the ability to fuse the information in new ways and new mentors we would not necessarily think a been a monolithic government-sponsored arrangement. we get from the commercial world the diversity of capability, diversity of vulnerability, diversity of use cases and diversity quite frankly of the way of supplying the capability rather than you would get from a simple monolithic government approach to a problem which is typically what we've had in
space today. we think if we do that and if we do that well, we can create far more resilient space capabilities for the war fighter than we have today. some people ask me, couldn't an adversary do the same thing? i typically answer not easily. the reason is because almost all this commercial space capabilities, in fact the entrepreneurial space capabilities are entirely u.s.-born. we want to keep it that way. we want those people in the u.s. and that leads to how do we as a government so had and enable us to go ahead and get more and more commercials than satellite services, not just the satellite. that means we have to go ahead and change policies with regard to vice and being to make it easier for people to go ahead and invest in advanced space capabilities within the u.s. because that frees up the entrepreneurial spirit we see in the u.s. and allowed the
no-space services to come to the market more quickly, more rapidly, more actually. we see one of the most agile set is that the market right now in space servicing missions. that is a capability that the u.s. government would almost never develop and even if we did it would be a project that would end after one year and we wouldn't fund it. i supposed with a stun commercially and comes forward and we create the right licensing structure becomes a self-supporting capability that we then can go ahead and utilize for government usage. so we have to figure out a way to integrate capabilities, not just leverage them. we have to put the policies in place to attract them and figure out a way to go ahead and work with them as they advance, as they evolve moving forward. these are the things that we want to do as a government in encouraging the commercial space world to move forward. it's the kind of things we need to make sure the space services are all available to our war
fighters, can't be taken away because there are too many sources with too many different strong points versus big points and we can assure our soldiers and sailors to use the space capabilities fall into a conflict. let me stop there and we will do more in the questioning it there. thanks very much. >> thank you. next up is scott paes who is it director of the space policy institute and professor at george washington university's elliott school of international affairs. so while doug was able to give us a military perspective at ascot on the panel to give us a broader policy is. >> thank you. one of the first things i was his relative professor of international affairs despite being a one-time space cadet, why would he talk about this issue. i think one of them as some of the most interesting problems in international affairs these days it is beyond areas of
traditional sovereignty. so things like events on the high seas from the air above the high seas, cyberspace, arctic regions, antarctica. all these areas where we have shared interactions with other countries but where no one is necessarily claiming auburn t. over those areas. we are faced by a number of pressures against the rules-based international order that we've tried to build since world war ii. the institutions the u.s. helped to create and these pressures are coming in some cases from state actors who are looking to practice traditional spheres of influence that don't look at some of the rules we've tried to promote. others particular case of something like isis is a throwback from a search of the academic term, a pre-westphalian form of government where we are not even a nationstate but we try to do something else. and so, the way we behave in
places like outer space also reflects how we behave for think others will behave in other shared areas. for example, russian behavior in ukraine and eastern europe, chinese behavior in the south china sea should give us pause about the degree to which we can rely upon them to follow other areas of international order. there is a thing in the political science world we talk about signaling. in the case of immediate aftermath of world war ii, much to our somewhat resistance, we had to accept the signal that stalin was sending us about what he was going to be doing. in the early days of the side of the cold war, there is skepticism of gorbachev but we took a signals that he was sending an absorbed them and found ways of saying their intentions have really changed since they've undertaken some costly steps. today again facing some resistance because they like to think the world is reasonable and americans can work everything out.
the signals we are seeing from russia to a lesser but also from china are ones that say they don't buy into some of the assumptions we've had over the last decade. the world is becoming a more dangerous place and therefore how we behave in space and other international machines is a cause for concern. if you look at space areas, there's a tendency to think in terms of particular stovepipes. this is that nasa is doing, dod, state department giving a speech. there is a cool launched a private company is going off and doing. there's not a tendency to look at space at today's the way the chinese that are guided in terms of a wonderful phrase a comprehensive national strength. the u.s. is quite impressive comprehensive national strength, but we often don't really act that way and we don't treated in a more integrated way to advance our interests. in part, that is the space community's own fault he can't
space community usual answer is human spaceflight, what was the question as opposed to human spaceflight and exploration as an answer to a question. one of the things i tried to say certainly with students is that space policy is a derivative policy that comes out of u.s. economic and national security and to some extent moral imperatives that what we try to accomplish in space or asked another underlying interests and we have space to advance those interests. so you have to look at where our geopolitical interests these days, economic interest these days, where our symbolic interest that we want to model. i think if you want to be optimistic, the glass is half-full. we have some great assets and great people thinking about them. the glass is half-empty in the sense we haven't been able to bring that together. in particular, if you look on
the civil space side, the lack of a clear path after the end of the space station program is a very, very serious threat, not simply because space enthusiasts are wondering where they are going to go and what the commercial markets will be, but because we have an international partnership. her closest friends and allies that were not able to say what comes next. you all know how space program state. if we are not anyone is coming next, which are really planning is going out of business. the chinese are certainly commenting on this. they know the space station will come to an end in 2024. there have been two international partnership and to some extent that is fine. i don't mind the chinese be no-space as many of you heard me say. i do mind them being up there without me because space is not simply something where we spend our machine for where we send people for photo opportunities. it is also a reflection of what we value.
if u.s. is the most space-bar like country in the world, our security, economy or even her own self-image to some extent depend on this yet we don't treated quite that way and we are looking at a world for a space becomes more important than the norms of behavior and so forth, who is going to write the rules for those dorms? who is going to shape the international order in the machine beyond that of traditional sovereignty. the rules are made by the people who show up, not by the people who stay behind. if we are not partnering with other people and shaping those roles, we are staying behind. many of you know that i'm a critic of much of this administration's human space exploration. i want to make clear that i think the current national space policy is quite good and i would hope that we don't see a dramatic change in the way we saw in 2010. however, if i could surgically
change one thing about the policy, it would be about human space exploration, not merely because in the mood to see us again as some of you may know, but because the current approach doesn't provide a lot of opportunities for partnerships with the commercial sector or with international partners as much as we would like and therefore thus in their ability to shape and mold the direction of the space environment as we might like. in many ways it is some old-fashioned space policy, which is lucky not what can the u.s. to buy a software and its leadership today is about what can we get others to do with us and in order to get people to do things with us, we need to have goals and objectives, whether economic, civil exploration, military, that they can partner with us on. i look forward to a discussion not only of how can the commercials to work and support the military, but how international partnerships with our security and economic
interests can help shape a global rules-based order that we actually would want to live in rather than the one we are heading toward. thanks. >> thank you, scott. and now we will shift our last three panelists are all industry related. and so, we'll start next with don harms, vice president of global sales and marketing at her with satellite systems international and among her many responsibilities, she does strategic planning for commercial satellite programs. if you could give us briefly a perspective from the bow in civil space side, commercial space side comics disney, and particularly you're one of the representatives on the panel who actually build satellites. so with that i will turn it over to dawn. >> yes, thank you. boeing has been in the commercial satellite business
for more than 50 years in the beginning but the first satellite that was launched in 1963. since then, we felt 170 commercial satellites for 50 different customers, 20 different agents and it's a very global business. we also as you know built many numerous government satellites for a massive military customers. so what are those technologies that we might be able to leverage in the commercial sector to the government sector? there are many, but i will tell you a little bit about what we are doing in terms of technology development and maybe you can help find the common ground where we can leverage. one of the most requested requirements from our commercial customers as they go through a period of strong, innovative
changes like we've never seen before the 25 years i've been in business is flexibility on orbit and what does that mean. everybody wants to future proof their business plan. any asset that is something space for 15 years, the technologies can kind of more as business plans change, as requirements change and what does that mean for manufacturer. so what we've done and what we have been doing over many years is developing digital requirements, digital technology. the digital signal processor, which is the core of many of our payload. we have been, since the early 90s with the initial development generation one process there. subsequent to that, there was the.com. where there was a riot from the middle east, a mobile system and
aye and space way. he said generation processors two, three, four and then we had to be js, the wide and global satellite system that took on more higher-level processing capabilities. we leverage that over time with new laws and the current block to wj asks his son and then sold it commercially. and since that time, we have been disrupting ourselves of technology every two years. this is what we need to do, what our customers are demanding. the couple that digital hard, the core of that technology and steering them alike and you can virtually change the frequency, change the bandwidth, change the coverage on the ground, but the satellites anywhere and
reconstitute the business plan. so that is what we are doing in commercial space and i've got to believe there's some applications for the government side there as well. so, other things we are doing in the anti-jam waveform area where we can use them on wideband platforms in any frequencies. their spectrum technologies where we are developing the capability to operate very high throughput satellites without noninterference basis. that is enabling more systems to coexist. just as important as the technology is we are trying to find ways to use commercial contract processes with the government side. i feel there is something we can do to simplify the government contracting processes.
okay, what are the things that we can do to leverage our capabilities and maybe be able to affect some policy changes. one of the biggest issues we see is just the budgetary periods where we believe that the funding should look at longer-term commitment. currently a manual budget, if there could be a commitment for five years at the life of the satellite, it would be extremely helpful for companies like boeing and other manufacturers who are looking at investments in technologies. if there is an able commitment and it's hard to make the strong investment that require capital. we've also heard that the reason for the hesitation by the
department to enter into the long-term contract is because the market conditions could change in the rates would fall and they be static at a higher price. but the commercial market has dirty address that, so there's ways to build and contract in language to depress that type of concern where you would actually adjust their rates based on market conditions. the last thing that i think i would like to bring up is the spectrum asked back. spent them is a scarce resource, the ability to work with the government spectrum and have federal government allowed commercial users to use that spectrum on a non-interference basis would be helpful for business. i'll let the rest of the questions come later.
thanks. >> thank you very much. next up is mercy steinke, senior vice president at the globe. i believe you have a satellite that is sitting somewhere in cape canaveral about to launch. maybe you can tell us a little bit about that as well. >> a beautiful ocean view right now. [inaudible] >> indeed. so i've been with digital globe almost five years. for those of you who don't know before that is in the air force on the operational side of things. sort of a dual perspective here. a couple of things i want to address are how the government can better leverage commercial and then what policy needs changing to make that happen. so just as an overview of where you've an overview for you of all, there are three things i want to talk about. first is delivering actionable insights from multiple source
kind of platform. the second is looking beyond acquisition to actual integration. mr. loverro, i can color wholeheartedly. from a policy is, i will touch on both regulatory modernization and responsible space traffic management. we will start just a few things it does talk about deliverable actionable insights. for those that don't know, digital globe sometimes get painted as the old guy in town and not very flexible but in fact we understand you do not exist alone. if you look at our plant and what is already in action, we have an entry platform and services which is analytics. we believe that is a three lane highway to the future. and so, to make that happen, you need a number of different things, which we are using.
first is data. that data has to be accurate and accuracy impact the number of different things. not just the quality of the image, but the youthful analytics, the meta-data as well as the actual picture. using that good information gives you better analytics and better services on the backend. right now we bring about 70 terabytes of data a day. our future plan for the constellation will bring in about 100 terabytes of information. we have a storage of around 100 petabyte. when i tell you that, i'm telling you we use that for what we are doing with that information. along with that information, you need algorithms. of course digital globe has a great team and we build algorithms to extract information, but we also believe in using the wisdom of other folks building algorithms.
so they can not spend time doing hours and hours of finding a needle in a haystack of needles. so, with that become as predictive analystics as well. just a couple of things i mentioned. we have partnering with frycon and bringing in really great three deimagery that goes with it. -- 3d. we use human landscaping. it is not just imagery or the geo or physical imagery but it is result call information that comes with it. there is entire system or program that's built and it helps identify not just borders of countries but tribal borders and tribal alliances and how medical or water security fits into different areas. a number of different cocoms use
that information. one of the aspectses apply in military environment, if you build a supply line, supply hub somewhere, taking that information into consideration so you who you're negotiating with. maybe you limit the number of tribal leaders in less safe areas. maybe you avoid building another warlord because you have taken all of those things into consideration. couple things that i think, if we look at going beyond acquisition, to actual integration, we've, one of the things we would like to do is really engrain throughout some of the more new capabilities that are out there. if you take just schoolhouses and dod training, think any the schoolhouses they're still using icons imagery in most of the schoolhouses which it is a great bird. if it is not 16 years old but it
is almost 16 years old and still better quality than the other stuff that's out there right now but there is a lot that has progressed since then. so having leaders understand what the capabilities are and starting at that ground level and making sure people know what is out there. there is a program we have called global g ed. anybody with a dot-mil or dot-goff address, can look at this. it has most current information. we imaged, downloaded and had it on website in 11 minutes. the average is around couple hours. if you're one of those guys in forward operating base and you want to get the most current information. it is not just the most current picture but the archive of imagery so you can see changes out there. it is out there. that i'm sure is stuff not being disseminated as well.
so we need to work to disseminate that information better. besides major combatants we have also used that kind of thing for human, humanitarian assistance or natural disasters, those kinds of things as well. i will touch, we can get into greater detail if you like, but up to the on the policy changes that would be really welcome, mr. loverro. no surprise we've been pushing regulatory modernization as well as responsible space lately. that regulatory modernization, it is slow, it's restrictive and it's cumbersome. there is a lot of people working on it but there is a lot of benefit that would come with improvements in that process. the concern with slowness of it, i'm pretty sure rich and i will agree on this one, that slow and cumbersome process just pushes customers to international competitors.
so we've actually, we know that they use the cumbersome process of the u.s. government as a reason not to go with u.s. companies at times so. and then just quickly on space traffic management or responsible space, i think that's a conversation that definitely needs to occur. we've been talking about i think for last year-and-a-half it's grown but it's definitely an area that needs to be discussed. there is a number of different areas we're looking at of different altitudes for maneuverable and not maneuverable satellites or making, particularly if you're an university or 8th grade class, let's learn so make things trackable so we minimize the potential for space debris. things will need to come down more quickly in 25 years as it stands now. >> all right. thank you, marcy. our last panelist, rich leshner,
who is vice president at plan net, formerly planet labs. has the name change officially taken place? >> it's a branding so we're still planet labs corporate institutionally but we go by planet. >> go by planet. rich, i will turn it over to you. you're also in the imagery, remote sensing part of the space market but very different than digitalglobe. i will allow to you explain. >> sure. thank you. nice to see everybody here today. it is always challenging to be the last one on a panel with so many insightful and smart people because you wonder what the heck am i supposed to say after everybody else had such great things to say but i'm going to try maybe abstract out a little bit so i won't necessarily talk about planet lax specifically where small specifically. we want high revisit across the globe ad medium resolution. okay, we got that out there but
i think it is interesting, boeing has been in the space business, for i think a little over 50 years. planet has been in the space business for a little over five years. so what i think you're seeing in industry are companies that range from emerging to established. they're working on space-based platforms that range from small to medium to large. in constellations of single to dozens to hundreds, to multiple of hundreds of satellites in many orbit tall regimes and what that is doing, creating a diversity of information that is being generated about our planet in near real time that is being fed through the kind of tools and devices that marcy mentioned for machine learning and algorithm development and creating, i think, what can reasonably be called an information infrastructure about the habitability and change and sustainability of the planet
that we're living on. i should mention in addition to the ways we see diversity in the space segment, there are many different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. all this activity i think generates an interesting perspective in response to something scott said where often times historically space policy has been a derivative policy-driven by national security or other kinds of civil means but i think the evolution in what we're seeing here is pushing a different perspective which is the commercial space industry is now a partner leg of the stool to our, of our national space capabilities to national security and civil in a way that is more than just being the industrial contractor base which it had been so capably and so critically for so long and i think that sort of pushes on the
question of what can be done that sort of new and different and interesting in the area of policy or plans on the government that can take advantage of what you're seeing from space as it's, from the space companies as they're emerging, right? you're seeing faster development times, aggregated systems. companies plan short orbital lifetimes and people intentionally doing graceful deorbiting and graceful degradation. if you have that suite, if that is sort of he overview of industry in different categories, before you get to questions of integration and being from the data side and inside side or be it from the space side in terms of thinking about what hardware can do for you in a new kind of way, you have to have a bit of period and demonstration, exploration. industry is doing things differently and quickly.
i would say that government, military, civil, sort of doesn't matter, needs to find a way to do rapid demonstrations and get data, information what capabilities can bring. the data and information from the demos can inform planning in a new kind of way. i think we're all used to the historical process of analysis of alternatives and receiving all kinds of information about potential costs and schedule sensitivities around new developments but if you can compliment that, with rapid demonstrations, on different sized platforms from industry that can respond in 12 to 18 months, you can have significantly greater confidence in the decisions and planning you might make when it comes to how you might choose to flexibly design a future arc it being ture. so would you choose a single point solution? where would you fall in the make-buy decision. would you go with disaggregating network, et cetera. that experience and dell station period gives you confidence to have a cities how you want to be
flexible. gives you confidence how quickly or what kind of speed you execute a change in your architecture or update to your architecture and gives you speed and confidence how much of it has to be a series of decisions associated with the satellites or series of decisions associated with products and services that are derived from satellite and other data that can be provided by cloud services. the last thing it does, i think it does gives folks in the government positions the idea to play with subtlety, right? how you choose to go with government-only versus service-based decision for some kinds of things. how you choose to go with dedicated point solutions in single satellite versus disaggregated architecture and you how choose things rapidly in consistently iterative and demonstration capacity could send signals as scott was talking about, associated with the which parts of the architecture you most care about and might respond most as greg
sis civilly to, which once you're tolerated most risk and willing to consider integration from international level as scott and doug were both talking. those are very abstractive points in terms of the question driving the panel, which is, how do we see the government at large and question was specific to the military, i see it by officers recognizing that industry is changing with all of the factors that we mentioned. be choosing to find ways to engage with industry through demonstrations, experiment, data buys and figuring it out in real time and integrating that into the planning so your, now, so your future architectures are integrated as well. because i will close with this. what we're seeing, marcy talked a lot about the kind of things you can bring to the table. what we're seeing in the industry is the evolution of
just data, to information, to insights, to indicators, and then instruments to do something based on the indicators that you receive. that is happening across many market vert kels. the same set of trends and movements happening inside of government decision making, so if we're both seeing that we might have different ends and different objectives what those instruments are but we might as well find ways to work together smartly on part of that core and part of that process. >> thank you. all of the panelists. great opening remarks. i think we've really set the stage here for a good discussion. while the audience is getting their questions ready, i want to start, tee off the discussion here with doug. i will go to you first. you know, from military perspective, if you could reach out to the commercial space industry and direct how they're spending their money, if you could magically make them invest
more or less in certain areas what would you do? where would you like to see commercial companies putting their invests and where they're going in the future? >> well, first of all let me make sure we understand this is your question because i wouldn't actually do that. but, seriously, if, i think the big issue that the government is going to look at as we try to ingest commercial space services is cyber vulnerability. that is the key. we have seen the much ballyhooeded experiments people are doing in anti-satellite activity across the, across the globe but the, but, quite frankly the soft underbelly of any space system its cyber vulnerabilities. this is not just a military statement. this is a commercial statement as well because if you're going
to depend on satellite services they are more than many other services dependent on the security you bring to the cyber network that connects to it. and that has got to be a key area where we as government needs to be concerned about. it will be very hard for us to rely on space services fielded through the commercial, the commercial practices that don't have good cybersecurity beneath them. that is difficult to add on later. that is is something you have to go ahead and address from the get-go. it also tends to be fairly expensive when you do that. so there is this tension that is developing. what is interesting is, if you're a commercial satellite manufacturer, you may not want to go guard against a asat attack, likelihood your satellite gets shot from some sort of asat is quite low. the on other hand the likelihood your network gets attacked in a cyberattack is high.
we see that every day. that is is the commercial world and i think government world should be concerned with, how do we go ahead and inure our satellite capabilities, our space capabilities be they civil, governmental, entrepreneurial, international, how we make sure they're defended against a cyberattack. that is the key area i focus on. >> scott, next i will go to you and in your decades of experience in this area, and i know you may have had a hand in some previous laws and policies enacted here, what has changed fundamentally about the commercial space industry and what does that mean in terms of updating government laws, regulations, policies? what do you think needs to happen right now? >> well i think one of the things that happened is that some of the visions that people had in the, in the reagan administration, early bush
administration, bush 41 have come to fruition. that is, there is the thought if we had more commercial activities in space not only would that spur innovation but would provide pressure on civil and military communities who otherwise would lock into their own ways of being. they would achieve a detente with each other and not move. so the idea of injecting in another innovative force from the, from the private sector was certainly something that we thought about back in, back in the '80s. one of the things that then happened in the 90's you started to see the integration of space with information technologies. now from a kind of a nerdy perspective you realize this makes a lot of sense because photons don't weigh anything, so launch costs, actually high launch costs give advantage to moving information. you saw with the drop of gps prices as it rode the rest of
commercial i.t. waves. gps and gis remote sensing information fusing together. even on the threat side, space and cyber have a high degree of overlap with each other. so there has been that integration which has been the change. the other big change has been the rise of private equity finance and cyber, excuse me, not cyber, of venture-capital financing which in part, people have debates about this, in part has been driven by the quantitative easing that have been done since the financial crisis. driving interest rates down, as people search for yield go into higher risk areas. the private equity and venture capital portion of the activity has been surprising to me, not because people are interested in space and i.t. things but range and depth this has gone on in part driven by macroeconomic conditions as well. so looking forward to the
future, what might come out of this is that the increasing secular trends in the budget of mandatory spending being what it is and the pressure this is putting on all non-defense discretionary spending, we can argue about variations between this or that view of between a white house or a congress or parties or whatever of what programs ought to move or not move but the budget allocations and the budget caps and the overall structure of the federal budget is going to be the grinding pressure point. it is like a glacier coming south, pushing all before it. and so in that environment, the political community is going to find itself dealing with that front and foremost. the operational community and space side, i think on commercial side will be looking for how do they get the most out of, most out of the limited, increasingly limited amount of resources that they have. this in turn is going to drive
deeper questions about what should be done in house and what should be sent out. what intellectual capacities do we reneed to retain in government and which ones we need to let go. we can argue about particular projects. the difficulty for the commercial community in responding to that is going to be, how realistic they are, truthful they are with themselves as where is the new demand coming from and where is it simply government privatization? so some of the, sensing colleagues here, their market segment has seen amazing growth in ways that i didn't predict or didn't see back in the, back in the early '90s when we first started high resolution remote sensing because in the last decade what you've seen is location-based services and people like google and facebook bringing new demand to the market, not just government demand repurposed, say the way in. ga might be doing it by
commercial or noaa buy commercial but actually private sector-driven demand some that sector of the space market is a very different kind of beast then say what is happening i would argue in launch where the government is still the primary driver of this activity although there is a lot of new stuff that is potentially coming along. >> this last question for the three industry panelists, so you can answer in whatever order you wish, what do you see -- several of you hinted at this and talked about some changes you'd like to see on the government side in contracting, in licensing regulations but what are some specific areas where you think there's some quick wins especially given this is a presidential election year, maybe we've got change in administration coming along? are there some quick wins for congress and the new administration next year where they could update laws, where
they could change practices in a way that would both benefit the commercial space industry and also the government? don't forget the mic. >> we'll tag-team this probably. so i would say actually congress is, at least certain committees have made great strides trying to address issues that are cumbersome and weigh on commercial remote sensing and we're incredibly grateful tore that. there is a path forward and we hope it continues into the new administration and new congress. i believe it will. some of the things they're looking at are just regulatory oversight, probably when set up to plus years ago made sense -- 20 years. when every satellite was government classified satellite. now that the world is different, we need to it look what they
really need to oversee and what can we let go? so that conversation is ongoing but i hope 2017 is a year where the answer comes, there is a lot that can be let go. then we focus on things that really are, one, just monitoring of what the companies are doing, so we know much like the fcc oversees commercial or come satellites. when there is truly a very unique national security implication, that we don't disregard that. anything? >> i don't have anything specific on that one. i wanted to steal your thunder earlier when you mentioned space traffic management. >> have at it. >> because i do think that's -- i will answer the question slightly differently to say that it's an area i think we should beware or a little cognizant of the potential downsize of trying
to go for quick wins. looking at space traffic management as an area because it is really important. there are lots of questions unanswered about how authorities might be owned for evaluating debris or conjunction or collision risks associated with new, emerging, large-scale contelllations in multiple different orbits. so there's clearly an emerging need, but if one responds a little too quickly, one could bake in a solution that is not quite right. and creates more headaches than if, if one look a little bit of time and so i think one of the things that the government has a great power to do before it can choose to regulate or before it can choose to do any kind of oversight function is to have a bit of a convening function, and stand there with the warning that some folks are afraid of
that often says, hey, if we don't see certain things evolve we might have to step in and start to regulate but exert that convening function and with it say, what can you industry, do to establish some of your own ideas for rules of the road or norms of behavior that are relevant to the issues that we're going to be facing with traffic management, situational awareness and orbital debris that could alleviate the pressure a little bit to move on the legal or regulatory front but doesn't take away the time and the sense of urgency for people to act and make smart decisions. >> i would agree with the debris mitigation. we would be happy to participate in something like that, that forum like that. and also, we're looking for i think more a lease model, something in acquisition, something to get, get some of
these things moving. we feel the acquisition process is long and protracted and leasing should be simpler and doable in some cases. also regulatorywise i still, not to give away satellite spectrum space spectrum, to preserve it for satellite, not give it to terrestrial would be extremely helpful. >> did you have something? >> in terms of things that for congress, things to suggest, one of them going back to doug's point about i.t. security and so forth, this administration has put finding in for space defense and resilience activities which i think has been a very positive development and i think the next administration would be well-advised to continue some of that work because a lot, lot more needs to be done. the second thing i would say regarding regulations, there is this large issue of negative constellations that richard
referred to. i, been participating in some u.n. discussions on long-term sustainability much space activities and 12 of 16 guidelines eventually reach consensus last june and you know, sometimes the u.n. activities is like watching paint dry. works its way through but when something comes out that actually has consensus and gets out it is fairly powerful and some half of the regulations, guidelines that came out dealt with regulatory issues. i'm reminded because of richard's comment about convening function. guidelines sound like zero disorder and i think you got consensus which is amazing. if you regulate, please talk to the industry that you regulate. talk to other ministries might be involved in doing this think about cost benefit. this stuff sounds really basic but getting other countries to kind of buy in and go, yeah, that's something we need to do is particularly important for
space because any one bad actor can make things really harmful. then the last thing i wanted to mention, commercial sensing regulation was already touched on but i want to get back to sort of the spectrum issue. spectrum is nationally important not only for the space community but many other developing countries. if they don't have access to space, they really don't have their own infrastructure. there is a split, as many people in the room know, between the fcc which responds to itself as a independent commission and everybody else in the agencies who respond to the executive branch. so you have a separation of powers issue going on there between fcc and the agencies which makes getting both into pennsylvania avenue synced up on spectrum to be especially hard. there is a lot of money running around in things like terrestrial mobile broadband and that pressure of that amount of money is immense. so space provides very unique capabilities that i think aren't always recognized or realized by
the commission and when it makes these decisions, and so, not just satellite spectrum but gps, weather, environmental, these are things if they were missing it would be just as devastating as if we were actually attacked by a foreign enemy. so making sure that doesn't mess up is also something that i think the congress as a whole will want to watch. each. major committees which have interest in space also are going to watch the spectrum issue because it touches their abilities. . .
>> thanks very much. normally my stump speech on this includes both commercial and international census is mostly about a commercial discussion today, i left it at that. absolutely. if you look at most of the space nations on the planet most of them tend to be part of our allies. two exceptions to that exist for the rest of them happen to be pretty good allies of the u.s. your most of them do want to partner with the u.s. scott was talking of the international space station earlier. we have a bunch of partners in civil space, and many partners in the military space. in fact, we began a formal substantiation of that about four years ago, five years ago called the combined space operations initiative, which includes five our allies right
now and will probably expand do more in the future. we have been playing wargames with our allies. we just finished one in germany with seven different nations. every one of these nations brings their own robust, capable systems to the floor. i always like to carve my people, some of the most protective communications on the planet, they belong to allies in uk and france as opposed to in the u.s. so there are incredible capabilities out there and all missionaries whether that be into position navigation come and imaging, satellite communications mission area, and every other mission area you can think of the. there are capabilities that our allies bring that can easily be shared and easily be incorporated. we have not thought about doing that in the past and that needs to change. it has been our habit to go
ahead and use just your space capabilities, and that makes no sense at all and both fiscal environment that scott talked about and in the threat environment that i talk about. it makes no sense not to go ahead and marry our capabilities with those are allies. so 100% that we are looking at that. >> down front here, if we could bring a microphone. >> i had a question. john hyden has talked about how he sees a role for usable rocketry for military use. unfortunately, it seems like the air force range are stuck i in e 20th century mindset was the only launch every few months or so and it's an expendable vehicle. i wonder if you see that as a problem and but perhaps you are doing to nudge the air force for two more responsive and innovative range practices to take advances of those
reasonable rocket technologies. >> i don't know that i would call it a problem. i would call it a condition that we have right now. that condition is predicated upon the fact that we haven't found it economic used in military space yet for responsive reusable launch. i often view launch as the most exciting but quite frankly the most boring part of any space mission. it's exciting for those of you who have sat on a launch pad like i in general arm and others have, and marcie. it's a very exciting time. that excitement sometimes tells us that's most important part of the space mission. it's not. that is a trucking operation quite frankly. it's a very high horsepower truck to get things into orbit. what we care about is what we are bringing to orbit come and give what we're bringing to orbit, if you want to go ahead and replenish large constellations of small
satellites, you need that kind of capability. i view that we have a condition of launch that exists today that reflects the space architecture that we have. we don't have the condition of a launch today that reflects the fact that we can't do something, it's that we don't need to do something. the many we need to do it and we might need to do it either commercially, we might need to do it militarily, the minute we need to do something, i'm fully confident that kind of creativity we've seen already in launch, quite frankly with the likes of spacex and rocket labs and orbital-atk and everybody else who is in this after increasing market, i think the solutions will be brought to bear. i am far less worried about how we will launch respond to our next architectural needs that how will our architectures evolve to meet our military needs. i think the launch capabilities will get there. if yo they don't get there on a
federally funded air force base, they would get there on a state-funded launch base, which is quite frankly the way airports compete. i think that's a much better model in the way we compete on launch heads today. >> i want to send the same question down the road and see if any of the other panelists would like to respond, particularly looking at how the advances we are seeing in the launch market, really a means to an end. the objective we're going after is higher launch rates, more responsive launch galore cost launch. with any of you like to comment on how that affects your businesses and the types of capabilities and become economically viable? >> in the commercial satellite this is the low-cost launch is imperative. i think that reusability is attracted to our customers for capturing the low-cost and spacex and others are working on
that. i think that's good. as far as constellations go, like was mentioned, i think it's an imperative. >> i would say, you know, you say reusable but i think part of what you might also be thinking about their wind that discussed is responsive or readily available or some combination of response and readily available. i think whether you're in a small sat world or traditional, what you care about is the opportunity to have a bit of predictability in your schedule, the opportunity to control where you go in terms of orbit, when you go, and to be able to do that in a cost environment that affordable. right now the smaller that community has to mostly be secondary payloads and the opportunistic in giving rides, particularly if it's two orbits that are of the greatest
utility. i do think that some of the companies that doug mentioned and the way that you are seeing the evolution of the smaller satellite launch capability that has these advantages of being responsive, potentially reusable in parts, flexible for schedule and so forth, will only further enable more of the satellite architecture based on those satellites or satellite architecture that can utilize that type of launch capability. so that is a feedback mechanism between the two. >> the only other thing i would add is clearly how we've launched in the past is not necessarily how we will launch in the future. and absolutely have to physically look at all the options. so we'll be looking at a lot of the different options as we go forward. >> let me add one more thing
because i think rich hit on an important point that it didn't you. there is a feedback loop between how would launch in how we build systems. if every launch is $100 million, don't be a cheap lunch today quite frankly, if every launch is several hundred million dollars and you can to maximize the capability on any system in jamaica systems last longer and longer. if launch is cheaper you may change the kind o of system. so that is a feedback loop and i always have to because i'm a satellite guy, i view it from a satellite into think that there are people are launch people as well, i think that neither end is the correct into. you have to view it from both ends. there will be an evolution a long both sides as we see cheaper satellite manufacturing. then you're going to see a striver cheaper launch to match that cheaper satellite. you are not going to launch a 500,000 or satellite one $100 million launcher. that does not make any sense. so there's an interesting
feedback that we are sitting on both ends of that spectrum, the thick of it will take advantage of on both ends of that spectr spectrum. >> i'm toby from review. this is for doug initially and then for anyone else who wants to dive in. a number of the people in this room or at an event this month with a three service secretaries, and they were, unsurprisingly, asked what is the most pressing military issue for the next president. but i was surprised when air force secretary james said space policy. she said that over the next four years there are a number of monumental decisions that need to be made. she did not get into any details. do you want to say without reading her mind what she had in mind? and particularly things that may have involved industry as well as just the government?
>> sure, thanks. that's the second time in about four days i've been asked to read a secretaries mind. secretary james obviously is the principal dod space advisor. so certainly space is on her mind. i have not talked to her about what are the most pressing policy issues that she sees, and thank you for advising the i probably will go talk to her about that. i do think, if i look at them from my perspective, and i haven't spoken much about policy today, i've spoken more about capabilities so let me talk about policy. we talk about them somewhat already. regulatory reform or relaxation is clearly something that we need to go in and do with. i say regulatory relaxation one of only look at one portion of the regulatory environment, which is how we regulate currently remote sensing
capabilities. we also need new regulations in areas we don't have any regulation today. as which talked about for space traffic management. i think there's a regulatory agenda about how with the government regulate space capabilities for the good of all, not just for the good of all of america but for the good of all world, of all nations to scott talked about. how will we go ahead and regulate that to advantage? how we make sure that regulation doesn't disadvantage either our company all our activities? i think that the key question. i don't think anybody knows the answer to that question but i think that's a key question. so that's number one. number two is really the ability, this is not a defense department question, how do we go ahead and integrate non-u.s. government owned and controlled space services into our u.s. government missions? let me give you an example. if we drop a gps guided bomb but we guide it from the galileo
system and it hits the wrong target, whose liability is that? how have we gone ahead and accepted liability for galileo signal versus the gps signal? week until gps. we can bring lethal force to bear today on the target as we can trust gps guidance to the extent that we own it. can we trust non-u.s. government regulated and own systems to go ahead and bring lethal force to bear? either way we do that in telecommunications. we do that in shipping. we do that in a whole bunch of the areas but we've never done in space and we have to think about how to do that can effectively. and the third policy issue that i would talk about, just to complete the triplet, is indemnification. if were going to use commercial capabilities and foreign capabilities, how do we go ahead and indemnify and/or extend indemnification to protect those capabilities?
what is abuse government role in indemnifying to use and protecting that use? we have no policy on that today. you can extend policy. we have in the trust realm but that has not been done yet. so we would need to think about that. some of that is statutory nature, some events of the policy nature i think we've got to attack those things. those are three things i would throw out there, and i will go talk to second to james and find out what was in her mind. thank you. >> i'm going to not attempt to read the secretaries mind on this, and so doug will report back as to what was there. i find some of the comments are little mysterious because i think we have plenty of policy. there may be questions about how to apply it, and so i don't see a large vacuum certainly at a national policy level. so not sure exactly what she's talking about. the things that it would see as being reportedly about all about execution and implementation. things that are really tough,
things like the gps ocx, security breach kind of things. how one goes about affording some the space launch, we capitalization of the space architecture. how to move towards more of a war fighting operations way the general has talked about to do with the sort of real threats, putting that culture in there. every time that dod, or to be for the scientifiscientifi c committee has been asked to sacrifice performance for cost they've gone for performance. on the commercial side you can see people may be going for saving cost. but the military and scientific communities history has always been to go for the extra performance. some managing implementation is probably the most driving issue i think for the national security committee. areas where there might be some overlap or areas that need would come about policy, first of all, regulations for new and emerging innovative activities. i think that's certainly true.
what i find striking is that we don't hear the phrase department of commerce mentioned very much. i'm an ex-number of the department of commerce. my old office is there. i have warm feelings for it but in all the sorts of discussions we haven't regularized commercial space. we don't see that. now a place to go and commercial remote sensing but all of these commercial issues are being dealt with by the transportation department or being asked about with dod. maybe that's just an accident but it seems to me more has to be put the oars. the other area that i think dod does need to think about more a long with state and others is the application of law of armed conflict as applies to space. i went through a bit of an exercise over the last few years along with hi this long-term sustainability stuff within international space code of conduct. the russians were largely opposed to such a code, in part
because sections deal with use of force in space. i didn't agree with the russian positions and obstructionism, but i think the other point in working through some of, sometimes a very complex scenario that arise in the use of force in space. fortunately, we don't have a lot of experience with use of force in space. that's a good thing but also means there's a lot of uncertainties. from an academic standpoint, international humanitarian law, how it applies, liability, indemnification questions that i was mentioning, those are things that i think sums of the academic community and other researchers should be paying more attention to so they can get to a point where they can made into a policy choice for someone at secretary james' level. >> i want to go down the road to the industry folks. from your perspective especially picking up on doug's comments on changing the licensing process
or potential the licensing process for commercial remote sensing, and also this issued use of force in space and indemnification of commercial operators. your systems are being used by dod for war fighting purposes, even if it's indirectly, how's the industry doing this? how are your insurers doing this? and picking up on the licensing part, what specifically could be changed with the current licensing process for commercial remote sensing? >> so here i will speak specifically for digital globe. we are proud of our partnership with the u.s. government and we understand that we will see what happens down the road. it's not something we take lightly and it's a point of discussion. that's a partnership that the company clearly wants to continue and is proud of. so it's part of the mix, and i'll leave it at that.
as far as the regulatory licensing, i hope the next secretary of commerce, and it's a good point, follows in the footsteps of secretary pritzker inroad embraces that leadership position that they have. they are the lead for the decisions with inputs from others, and so hopefully there will be a real understanding that pushing the time frames that stay somewhere near the regulatory time frames and those kinds of things, i hope there's a greater, or a great embrace of that. >> is a time that we move to a regulatory licensing process, where there's a presumption of yes, that you will be approved? if a license have been going for something similar in the past, should it be a presumption that within 90 days you out of print speak with i feel like i just handed you this question. we actually have been pushing for a real change on the whole
mantra of yes unless. right now it's incumbent upon industry to provide we should be able to do something. there are a lot of times when we are pointing out to folks that it actually is happening in this country on their website. so what are you restricting us from it works it needs to be a conversation as we go forward and we understand that, but initiative things going from completely classified in a very airspace centric concept where we are now where there are so many commercial applications in the world is a different place than it was when these regulations were put into place, it's time for that shift, we wholeheartedly agree. >> i think there's a fundamental assumption that the made in the question of should you move to the assumption of the yes subject to some compelling reason to say no, which is that there ought to be or there ought
to remain in place the kind of process associated with dual licensing that exist now. what i would say is it worth challenging assumptions i'll bring this back to the original question to get this point, which is i certainly don't know what was in the secretary's mind come and there are ways in which policy can be fractal so that might be a series of specific do the kinds of questions they need to get to along the lines of what doug was talking about, even if at the national level the framework is roughly correct and there's a couple of a picture questions that you need to take some swings at, and the regulatory confront it might be one of them, space situational awareness might be one of them overall the framework is still right. the other question now is to take it was and is it okay, the framework is to write because we think certain sorts of fundamental assumptions we made is still true. in the case of the specific
application of that assumption with respect to commercial remote sensing there is the fundamental assumption that there should be this interagency review process for national security concerns and everything else. it's worth any discussion environment like this to ask the fundamental question, what if they were sent to a regulatory regime that could find the practices were not incompatible with our international obligations and then otherwise licensed this activity in a way to allow it to be free market-based and commerce based in the same way that lots of other digital information markets are. whether internet-based, social media base, et cetera. to our digital information markets and services that have no or little to no regulatory touch because they never came from space, they never came from the government oan vibrant. space sort of stays there because of the historical precedents they came from the government but maybe that time for that assumption has come for a review and, therefore, the regulatory environment should change as well.
>> a good point you raise. full disclosure, several of us are on this noaa advisory committee's we have, in fact, discussed this before. i am point of asking questions, but you raise a great point, rich. if twitter and facebook have been subject to interagency review with its ever been approved? probably not i would guess, or at least delayed by many years. doug, i'm going to fill this back to you and put you on the spot. what do you think, would you be okay with a licensing regime where does not necessarily an interagency review process? >> so in the best resemblance of a political candidate let me secure to issue. [laughter] and answer with a theoretical problem, and you may be able to figure out where i stand on this. it struck me when don was
speaking that you talk about sol launched in 1963. we did not agree to review process for the satellite and as a result no satellite communication service is subject to a national security review. if the subject of a conservative but not a national security review. and i would posit that as great a threat as remote sensing might be to u.s. forces or to u.s. national security, people accue satellite communications, even u.s. supplied satellite communications remains, for capabilities nefarious to use national interest. and yet we don't subject communications to national security review because we are not used to doing that. we never did it. it's not how it developed. we develop remote-sensing law and licensing practice because it was spring from a government owned capability really that then became a commercial capability following the landsat act.
we viewed it through a different lens. i have to wonder if that lens is the correct lens because as rich says, we don't apply that lens to any other kind of commercial activities in general. there are some structures of itar and missile technology control regulations and those kind of things which we do have, and some of those work well and some of those less well, but there is a different process for those that actually speed through the system. i wonder if we don't need to look at this whole area. i think that is something the next administration needs to deal with is, how have we been treating space in ways that are different than we treat every other domain in terms of how we allow commercial activity to proceed? and should we, therefore, changed the wiki space?
>> -- the way we do space? >> as one of the people who is guilty for writing this section in the 90 to act i couldn't get away with centcom president back in the day. so it was necessary. but you're absolutely right. the things which are different today is globalization, unmanned air vehicles, the plenty of gis and other technologies. all these things which we did have in mind in the early '90s. in the early '90s when the first constructivist licensing regime i would've been thrilled if they were to competitive commercial companies in the market. that would've been great. but a whole bunch of other things have happened since then, and you're right, we subject to these past historical images, filters, which we don't related to other things. the place to fix that i would argue is actually in legislation. we could work around the regulations. we could work around for
national policy directives and so forth and write them in different ways. but the fundamental foundation of the licensing regime is in law. be careful with messing with law because you're not sure of unintended consequences. so the point about consulting, but this is one of the areas where we may do what the next admissions was to deal with. i would say this is something the next congress needs to deal with. and consult with a talk with the administration, industry and so forth, but more and more in these areas i think that congress is going to put a larger and more important role in the next decade than it has in the past. this is odd for a space policy person because i normally look to the executive branch since eisenhower and kennedy were driving that. but i look at things that happen in space expiration, the debate over satellite systems, remote sensing, really the congress believe it or not is probably going to play this larger role. it's somewhat like the joke
congressional leadership is like military intelligence, it's one of those artichokes people make, but it's not a joke. i think remote-sensing which was an area congress led on in 1992 is an area i think congress can and should lead on because this is not fixable solely within the prerogative administration. >> all right. unfortunately we've run out of time. i know we've many other questions in the obvious i suppose we will have to do this again. i want to thank all of the panelists for joining us today, and thank all of you for participating in this discussion. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
>> as the nation elects a new president in november will america have its first foreign-born first lady since the recent athens? or will we have a former president as first gentleman? learn more about the influence of america's presidential spouses from c-span's first ladies now available in paperback. for slaves gives readers looking to personalize and impact of every first lady in american history. first ladies is a continued to c-span's well-regarded biography series and features interviews with the nations leading first lady historians. each chapter offers brief biographies, a 45 presidential spouses and archival photos from their lives. first ladies in paperback published by public affairs is now available at your favorite bookseller and also as an e-book.
>> 2012 presidential candidate mitt romney spoke yesterday at an event hosted by the u.s. chamber of commerce. he talked about the economy and how to improve the business environment in the u.s. we will also from chamber of commerce president tom donohue. this is a half hour. >> and a discussion hosted by the alliance -- >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the chamber. let me start by adding my congratulations to bruce when i came upon the stage i said the first of many efforts to express our appreciation. the award is richly deserved and not just what is done for legal reform but for all the victories he has helped to deliver to the business community and for his willingness after he gets through his first grumpy what do you mean question, to a people
all around this building, key jobs, do what they do far beyond what is his normal responsibility, and all of us are going to particularly miss that. he's been a formidable force on virtually every issue that the chamber fights for from legal reform and all of the issues that lisa making. i'd also like to thank lisa and her team for the great work they're doing to advance legal reform in this time and at this time and in this place. the summit seen says it all. were up against a litigation machine come and aggressive and innovative trial bar has helped create a legal environment that serves its own interests, not the interests of our system of justice or our people or our companies. also have a system that is rife
with prosecution of abuse, over enforcement, over criminalization of business, and where did all of those fines go? we've seen a proliferation of class-action lawsuits that have no merit, that allow unharmed individuals to join suit and that have given rise to serial plaintiffs, data privacy issues have become a bright new frontier, a new business in lawsuit abuse. and an entire industry has cropped up to go to court on financial litigation. as lisa hindsight it in her remarks today, the litigation machine is in overdrive, and it's hobbling our economy, sucking the vitality out of american companies, and undermining our fragile economy and eroding due process rights
for business. that's why legal reform is one of the top priorities of this institution, the chamber of commerce of the united states. but today lisa aspe to talk briefly about another priority, that is the particularly timing line. we are less than two weeks from a major election want to spend the rest of my time discussing not so much that election but once at stake for the business community. every four years people say the same thing. this is one of the most consequential election of our lifetime. this time it may be true. the 2016 campaign has been unpredictable from its start, unprecedented, and at times downright bizarre. i think many of us already for this right to be over, but then we have to deal with the result.
and november 8 will be a real reckoning time for the community, this community and for the country. by the way, in the senate we will be in december and january with some of the runoff in, let's see, we will be in georgia, and i think we will be in louisiana, so stay tuned, more to do. let's consider for a moment some of the things that could be on the line, depending on who is elected and who owns the senate. the supreme court hangs in the balance. more and more major policies impacting business are being decided at a higher score. by the way we sort of like that because we are very dam damned d at it. the next administration could transform a nine seat court with as many as three or four new appointment. harry reid mentioned in the last day or so that he's getting ready to figure out how he could
help get rid of the 60-vote rule. and this is one consequence that we will have to live with, not just for four or eight years, but maybe for 25 years to come. the fate of our economy is at stake. the next president and the congress will inherit one of the slowest, weakest economic recoveries in our history. if history holds, we are headed into a recession. you know you get in every seven or eight years. we are a little behind the curve. we can't afford another four years of same government directed economic policies that have kept us limping along, half of 1%, 1%, 2% at best. the chamber is urging our leaders to make growth the center of their agenda next year. we're talking to both parties. growth won't solve our problems
but we won't be able to solve any of them without it. the size and role of government is poised to grow larger and more intrusive next year. and i would point out that much of the frustration and many of the actions of both parties are driven at that very subject to whoever occupies the white house next is likely to push more executive power. they learned something from president obama and they will try and build on it. we could see taxes rise steeply to pay for a bigger government agenda, and who's likely to bear the brunt of those taxes? any person or business who's achieved little success. meanwhile, our entitlement programs are growing faster than we can pay for them, and threaten the sustainability of our social safety net. and some candidates are talking
about expanding them, not fixing them for the long haul. we may also face a double down on regulation, including obamacare, or even a move forward on the single-payer health care system. and another file used industry can continue to be hobbled by punitive rules. through overregulation and attacks on our capital markets, we could see further constriction on wall street and on the financial markets. we must defend the important role that financial institutions play in fueling our economy, and we must wring out the overregulation that harms consumer lending, small businesses and entrepreneurs. the energy revolution could be stopped right in its tracks. some candidates are calling for restrictions or even outright bans on oil, gas and coal
production on federal lands. we should be developing all types of american energy. doing so will create millions of new good paying jobs, strengthened our national security, and generate a flood of government revenue. our standing in the global economy is clearly in question. the surest way for a country to undermine growth and forfeit leadership in the world is to turn its back on trade. but in our current political environment, trade has become a new third rail. we can't let the trans-pacific partnership, the major trade deal with asia, become a casualty to blame -- lamebrain political writer. will continue to push for a vote on the deal, but this is community must make a broader case for trade with fax and
passion. boosting trade will help millions of businesses, large and small, export their products and services around the world will allow them to grow and hire workers here at home, while giving the u.s. economy a shot in the arm. jan policy the pro-business majority of congress is under threat -- beyond the policy. the chamber doesn't to presidential politics that we aggressively engage in the house and senate races. all of the policy states i've just outlined, they seem like a hinged on the outcome. they will hinge on the outcome of the presidential election. i suggest that what happens in the house and senate can and must serve as a backstop against the policies that harm our economy, and as a means to advance the priorities that will help drive growth for all of us.
that's why the chamber has put it all on the line, to preserve a pro-business majorities in congress, and especially the senate. and now our focus is getting out, if you've been taking a quick nap, the deal here, the guys they get the vote out are going to win. and we have a very aggressive program with hundreds of companies around this country to get ceo, i tell them, send the lobbyists, send of the politicians, send the lawyers to the ballgame and just for once run the company, and tell those people that work for you how important it is that they and their neighbors and their family get out the vote. if we do that, we are going to be a much better position. now let me say that we are very proud of this organization.
it has been a stalwart of everything we stand for. it has given us an opportunity to express our fundamental belief, and to do in the public and to do it in the courts, and to do it as a commitment to reform america's legal system. we can't do that if we don't sustain some power in the house and in the senate. it is my honor now to introduce a man who has a great sense and feel for what i just said. as we enter this new chapter for our nation we need the voices of reason to prevail in the public debate, to provide sensible leadership and to speak up on behalf of businesses with passion, manners, and commonsense. i can think of few people better position to do that than former massachusetts governor mitt
romney. governor romney is a triple threat. 'tis a business leader. even dedicated, dedicated and effective public servant, and he is a good and decent man. he knows what it takes to run a business. he's done it. he knows what it takes to run a state. he's done it. and he is proof that politics don't need to be nasty, and politicians can't indeed abide by strong principles. the route his career he's been guided by faith, values, and integrity. we could use a little more of that today. he's also want to tell the truth and to speak without apology about what he believes. time and again he wonders about threats we face in politics, in policy, and then national security. and time and again he has proven to be right.
when i heard that he was going to be the keynote speaker today i asked lisa, would you listen to my suggestion? occasionally she does. and she said, what do you want me to do was i said, title ii speech, i told you so. [laughter] of course a little too polite for that, but i hope that as our divided nation faces unprecedented challenges in the monster, that our leaders will listen closely to what governor romney has had to say and will say now and in the future. we are honored that he is you with us today to share his thoughts on the political environment and what it means to business. please join me in welcoming governor mitt romney. [applause]
>> thank you. thank you so much. very generous the very kind. great remarks also. thank you. thank you. thank you. very generous. please. thank you, tom. that was a powerful introduction and powerful remarks. it's good to be with you today. i get asked on a regular basis, boy, why aren't you on issue? i ask myself that now it again, too. [laughter] i did that once. he may not know that. i've asked why did you lose? and to do remember the famous line by fritz month after he had the misfortune of running against ronald reagan. he said, all my life i wanted to run for president in the worst way. that's just what i did. [laughter]
i learned from my experience a greater degree of optimism about the future for the country. we are a great people and we are the characteristics which will allow america in my view, to lead the world this century and perhaps beyond. i say that in particular now because we are going through a dramatic change in the nature of competition and enterprise in the world. that change is associate with innovation. we've been innovating on a limited basis over the last 100 years, and now we are shipping it to an exponential basis of change in innovation. because of the ability categorize and collect enormous amounts of data, to process it in devices in our hands that will ultimately injected our bloodstream to look at her health and so forth. our cars will not be driven by humans. they will be driven by machines. the world would change in extraordinary ways that are hard to predict. in an environment like that a nation which is an innovative nation should win.
and that's exactly what we are. no nation as competitive as we are integrating new enterprises can be businesses, new technology. part of it is just in our dna. the great majority of our ancestors that have come to this country have come here for opportunity. what, at the 24th largest market cap high-tech companies in america, 60% of them were started by first or second generation immigrants. it's in our dna, in our culture. our legal system encourages innovation to our bankruptcy laws allow people to take risk without becoming personally devastated if the risk doesn't pay out. our government has no place a heavy and over the years on picking winners and losers, that's allowed people to have the freedom to innovate and create change. our educational system creates not only research centers but students with great skill and capacity.
our financial structure, we have all sorts of the capital. venture capital, lbl capital, mezzanine debt, senior debt, all sorts of financing to people at the benefit is. in my view, this center will remain an american century. the only thing that could mess that up is that if government can't deal with the inevitable challenges that any great society confront. we've had challenges in our past and we ultimately overcome one after the of the. right now we have a whole stack of challenges, and incredibly our federal government seems incapable of dealing with the major challenges that the country faces. if you think for a moment, what do you think are the biggest challenges that america confronts? i've asked a number of people. put a little pull together to get a look at them one by one. let's go through the. as a good republican i will start with debt. the debt held by the public
right now, the governmental debt held by public is about 70, 80% of the gdp. it is forecast over the next few days -- decades to get to the 200% of gdp. you why? at an unsustainable bubble. the reason of course is because a nondiscretionary items in federal spending which represents two-thirds of federal spending, entitlement primarily an interest, those continued to grow at rates which far outstrip the rate of growth of our economy. and yet there is virtually no effort that's been undertaken at least in the last eight years or so to find a way to stop the creep of the growth of these nondiscretionary programs. there's been no proposal that's make any progress at all with regards to medicare and medicaid, social security. we know how to solve those problems. there just isn't the we'll in washington to deal with them. let's take another issue, poverty.
when i was a young man, 19 safety five graduate from high school, l lbj -- percentage of people living in poverty is the same as it was back in 1960s just under 15%. let's take another challenge that we face, and that is tougher competition in the education world. for young people around the world. in 1970 the cost of educating a child k-12, in today's dollars, was $57,000, k-12. today it's $164,000. so we've tripled the amount per student we spend per child going to school. we've doubled the number of educators, doubled the number of people who work per student, and how have the kids down? test scores in english, math and science haven't moved at all.
we know how to fix k-12 education. there just doesn't seem to be the kind of will to actually do what's necessary to fix it. income inequality. income inequality hasn't gotten better. it's gotten worse. and yet no proposals that would suggest how we could really attack the roots of the fact that people i in the middle incomes and lower incomes are not seeing the progress they expect and need. our leaders militarily, another challenge. we are facing a much more assertive china. we are facing an adventuresome russia. someone like peter cyan wrote the book accidental superpower. he said russia will collapse in eight years. russia will collapse in eight years, he writes, and less thus russia takes over population and territory from some other former satellites. that's what they've been doing. of the challenges of course isis and the threat of radical
jihadism around the world. massive challenges and despite all that we continue to shrink our military footprint and capacity. another challenge that is not being met. i mention one more and that is the ability of americans to compete. american competitiveness and how we made it more attracted to compete in america or less attractive? i think you know the answer to that. when you hear about companies doing something called in versions, that suggests that people are deciding it's better to be outside america and inside america. wing politicians are saying we've got to make it illegal for them to do that, or tax them when they get sick of we've got to stop them from leaving. if they are leaving, don't try to keep from leaving. instead figure out how to make them want to stay. make it more attractive to be here in this country. are taxes on the regulatory and private, our legal if i become all these things are making it harder for enterprises to stay and what to come and go and to thrive. i was in denmark a couple years ago giving a speech.
before buying iraq's i sat next to go to the told me that he owned i think the six or eight different companies. they went through scandinavian parts of europe, and he was telling about the taxes are in denmark for impartially. i said why don't you move to the united states and breaks and businesses of there? he said i would never go to the u.s. because of the litigation department in the u.s. these are a wakeup call concerns. and yet we don't seem to be able to deal with them. i fault a lot of us have been in the political environment not to make a clue how important is to deal with these things and to let out proposals to address them. i've watched the presidential debates and looked at the give-and-take. there's been almost no discussion of those things i just described. the national debt and how to deal with it and reforming entitlements. i don't think either candidate for president has said they're
going to reform entitlements one way or the other. deal with poverty, the roots of poverty. we know how to eliminate intergenerational poverty but we don't. we know what it takes to fix education, but we don't. we know what it takes to actually raise wages. as you know people on the other side of the out have made that the centerpiece of their campaigns, which is the idea income inequality and the lack of progress for middle income families. it's something which gosh, i kick myself as a republican nominee for president not having done a better job communicating this. let me describe what i mean. when you speak as you did in the primary to people who are strong republicans, conservatives, he began to speak in shorthand because they've heard the kind of remarks that i may, they forget time and again and asked what you mean. what i'm talking to making america the attractive place in the world for occupant doors, and bound want to make america a
terrific place for small business and big business, when i want to see corporations thrive and grow in america, what my primary figures, something which they can connect with. but the audience at large, they think the reason talking about business is because all i care about is which people and business leaders. look, rich people and business people do what whether republicans or democrats are in charge. the real people who suffer when business is leading, or not successful, other people in the middle class. if you want to get wages up in america for middle income americans, there's only one way i know how to do that in real terms, and you can create inflation and you can transfer money from one person to the other but you don't have any real income growth in that case. the only way to get real incomes up for the middle class of america is by having more businesses want to hire more
people. because of in the businesses have to compete with each other to hire people that are qualified, and in the competition they cut debate more than moment to get the best people. so wages go up. the reason we republicans talk about making america attractive for business to grow and thrive and for investment to be successful is because we want to raise wages for middle income americans and we know that's the only way to do it. the reason i'm a conservative is not because of the 1% or the corporate losses. the reason i'm an american is for all the people of this country and recognizing that business is thriving and growing will create more jobs, raise wages, allow us to care for our seniors can get a better education for our kids, and a lot of the kind of military that can defend american interests around the world. i love this country. i love what we represent the i
love what we are. i love what we've accomplished as a nation. i don't shrink from signs that america is the greatest nation initiate of the earth. no other nation has had the strength and capacity and goodness of heart to do what america has done. but i know we face extraordinary challenges. we are not making progress against those challenges as we should in washington. states are by the way. states figured it out. our voters and legislators, republican and democrat are getting the job done. time and again. but the federal government is just not getting the job done. so i salute tom entertained, lisa, those of you who are here today, whether you're republican or democrat, just fight to take on the real challenges and deal with them. and get these things resolve so that the energy and passion of the american people and create the businesses and grow the enterprises that will hire more people, lead wire wages for the american people and make sure
that we can finance and maintain the great strength that is america. thanks so much. great to be with you today. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you, governor. we solicited a few questions, our members, and i'm going to take the liberty of asking you. general counsel seem to have an increasingly important role in helping to guide corporate strategy. in the boardroom much more now and then decisions that are being made. as a former governor and an american entrepreneur, what advice would you give to general counsel's to guide them into 2017? >> i think it's helpful that
general counsel have a perspective on what's happening globally, and perspective of what's happening in technology, what's happening in international competition. we face competition. american is in competition. business understands that the states understand that the states compete with each other. i became governor, arnold schwarzenegger was a billboard in massachusetts with him and a t-shirt fighting his muscles and this has come to california. it's like this is republican governor poaching from me. i put up billboards in his state outside the airport with me in a t-shirt and he said smaller muscles not much room lower taxes, come to massachusetts. [applause] i think people that are then the legal world have the ability to create a perspective on what's happening globally, and competition and technology and illegal if i but and to help the enterprise make the choice as to what it's best to grow and
thrive. and right now i think legal counsel has to make a very strong pitch to be involved in what's going on in washington, to help people understand that if they want to see their enterprise add employment, and jobs and raise wages, bu that te to make it more attractive for the enterprise to do their business in the u.s. as oppose to make it less attractive. what's been happening over the last decade or so through regulatory change, through tax policy go through litigation at the federal level has making it less attractive. that's why businesses are going. i think legal counsel has the capacity to stand back from a day to day of operation in the business and gain a perspective on what's happening on a more global basis and help inform the board and for management of some of those issues. >> thank you. ..
the games were admired in scandal because there've been allegations of bribery to have the games go to salt lake. the governor of the state, mike levin, approached me and said your take on the reins of the olympics here in my business career was largely with turnaround. businesses in trouble when invested in and try to turn them around. that background he was helpful for the olympics and long story short i took the job. why did i go to the olympics?
i wasn't a great way. my sons, i've got five voice. they know the kind of athleticism i don't have. for my oldest son heard i took the olympic job, he said i've called the brothers this morning. we want you to know there's not a circumstance that could have conceived of it would put you on the front page of the sports section. [laughter] i did it because i believe the olympics was one of the few places left on the planet where young people could see the great qualities of the human spirit on display. determination, sacrifice, teamwork, sportsmanship and so forth. when the games were over, i got real difficulty in financial difficulty. "the boston globe" written articles saying the governor has gone off and help rescue the olympics doctor would come and
interstate on track our state on track and i was persuaded by a number of swing to come back and do that and now i was in public service. i find the translation to be far more normal and easy than you might expect. if you assume you're in this is that whatever you say has to get done on dramatically by the enterprise. you're the boss or the ceo. those of you who are ceos understand that it's far from the truth. you've got customers come in unions, board of directors board of directors, bankers. the list goes on and on. you've got people inside the enterprise to what your job. it's a complicated process. the political environment you are dealing with is a lot like public service. i was able to translate some of those skills across the aisle to get it done in my state and i loved it. i love being governor.
it is a fabulous experience. we accomplished a lot. i had the good fortune of having my legislature in the opposite party's hands. i speak of the house at the democrat peer may send president as a democrat. it taught me from the very beginning that i can force my way through. i had to learn to find common ground. wish we had more people that had that experience to work successfully doing a and it allowed us find some common ground. i got a lot done and i happen to think some of those skills are so essential now appear are we over time? let me say this. it's an honor to be with you. you have worked to do. i think america has all of the elements that are essential for us to lead in this century. i'm optimistic that people like you are concerned about the direction the country is headed in 100 different. if you get the chance to run for president, do it.
it's a great experience. you'll love it. [laughter] on the right are rooting for you. congratulations to you. let's make sure america remains the hope of the earth. >> bobby kennedy's last words were on chicago. the next day he was due to go to chicago to meet with the powerful mayor richard daley. the chief of staff to barack obama tells me that there was a 70% or greater chance that his dad would've endorsed bobby kennedy for president during a trip to chicago. >> bobby kennedy beat richard nixon the way i think he would have, america would've been a different place. some of the issues we are revisiting today, racial tension and international discord might
be a little bit different if we try to address them to years ago. >> i came with an idea of the rights. i went and researched and presented as an artist i know i could find information on and that would help me figure out what points i wanted to say about it and how to format outline for my piece. >> i think i took a methodical approach to this process. you could if you wanted, but the piece says this i say it's really the process of reworking and we're working. as i was trying to come up with my actual thing, i was doing research at the same time i was coming up with more ideas for what i could film. that would be a great shot. i think about that.
something else to focus on. i do research about that. the whole process is about scratching what doesn't work and you just keep going until you finally get paid >> caceres income your message to washington d.c. tell us the most urgent issue for the new president and congress to address in 2017. our competition is open to all middle-school or high school students grades six through 12 with $100,000 awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone or in a group of up to three to produce a five to seven and a documentary on issues so that did. and explore opposing opinions. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 50 students in 53 teachers in the grand prize of $5000 will go to the team with the best overall entry. this year's deadline is january 20, 2017. mark your calendar and help
spread the word to cell phone makers. more information, go to our website, student cam.org. >> a discussion hosted by the alliance defending freedom, all business owners stacked about the conflict between religious beliefs until the right laws. this is just under an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> welcome, everyone had great to see you here today. the latest installation of delight defending freedom american culture at a symposium series. a couple housekeeping items at
lunch, coffee, water over there. restrooms to the right and we are going to get started. my name is kerri kupec, legal counsel for abs. abs is the largest religious freedom in the world and today to introduce behind many of the stories you've heard about in the news. these are creative professionals at the washington designer, can tacky printed in the phoenix arts video owner who have been taught for dinner speech on religious freedom aside this is not a supreme court judge said in an earlier case the price of citizenship is included a lot for business, livelihood and threat of jail and criminal penalties. the title of today's event is conscience and creative professionals. you may be wondering why we decided to host a panel at this time. for starters, conscience has gotten a lot of buzz in the last
three. if any of you have been a winner, we are in the midst of a most unusual presidential race and there have been many calls to vote your conscience. we've also heard a lot of doughnuts me to violate my conscience. today you will meet people who could be your neighbors, who could be you and who have done just that. they are there to tell your stories, what conscience means to them and what is at stake. not just for them, but all americans. these cases are across the country currently at the united states supreme court in the colorado kicker in this case. i will be talking about it a little bit later. before it gets started a brief snapshot of where each cases that. when adam sinned in lexington
kentucky but the outfitters in print shops. he declined expressive shirts at the price festival hosted by the and services organization that gets heated to not commit the messages on the shirt. he nevertheless offered to connect the organization for the same price he would've charged. however, that same organization founded playing with the urban county human rights commission and illegal discrimination. the commission ruled against blaine however the kentucky's dave rolled in favor and it should be noted this is the only win in these cases the fire. in short, declining to print the shirts was based upon a message of the festival and not on the sexual orientation of its represented members. point of fact, there's nothing before the commission that the sexual orientation of any individual that had contact with
the original survivor deadbolts are with the originals is ever deadbolt or played any part in this case. the state is appealing the ruling and her arguments have not yet been scheduled at the kentucky court of appeals. barronell stutzman on arlene's flowers in washington for many years i might lean hard for her entire career circuit employed people who identified as lgbt. despite this and the aclu of washington attorney general alleges guilty of unlawful discrimination because she declined to create custom floral arrangement for one same-sex ceremony for the long-time customer in france. she asked for a direct appeal to the washington state supreme court. her case will be argued their november 15th, just a few weeks away. briand and chill them out. i am blocking them, but here they are. they own the phoenix custom ours judeo that specializes in campaigning hand-lettered with
other events. they are challenging an ordinance that would force them to use the artistic talent to promote same-sex ceremonies. the ordinance forbids proprietors of publicly expressing christian belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for explaining why they hold that view. violation of this ordinance can result in up to $2500 in fines and six months in jail per day for each day the artist is found to be in noncompliance. it should be noted that their case is a little bit of a different one. it is a pre-enforcement challenge. they are challenging the law for fear of what it will do. this is some thing called a boss that allows the distance to challenge the law, a law that threatens free done before like i said the government enforces it again then. we just got this recently the state trial court denied their request for a preliminary
injunction which just means this would've prevented the ordinance from being applied against them as the case moves forward. arguments have not been scheduled at the trial court and they have appealed that ruling. jack is not here today. he's the colorado cake artist i mentioned earlier. he's on map these cake shop for many years. because of his religious beliefs he politely declined to create one custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple and offer the customer anything else in the shop. he was sued by the customer, the colorado court of appeals and the colorado supreme court declined to take the case. he's now asked the united states supreme court to take his case. we should hear if they will decide to take it probably sometime in january. he's not with us today like i said that we will be talking about it later on. molly hemingway is currently not being sued are suing anyone for her belief.
she's a senior editor at the federalist bridge is a frequent on-air news commentator amonte and journalists. i'm sure you've seen her talking about the election. her work has appeared including "the wall street journal," "usa today," los angeles times and i could go on and on. before molly can started, we will be here to the former chief for the city of atlanta. is not an artist, but he knows what it's like to lose his career because of his belief. please join me in welcoming cochran. [applause] >> afternoon, everyone. it is good for us to be here. they're a couple of other housekeeping items. in the event of an emergency and there is a need for evacuation,
please let us make an orderly evacuation down the stairs to my left and if there is a need or an occurrence of emergency, to the 9-1-1. i'm not a creative artist or creative professional, but i do know what it's like to lose my career for speaking out standing on my religious beliefs. i'm honored to start this conversation with a shorter version of a story. i was born in shreveport, louisiana in the early 1960s, one of six kids. my dad left my mother and my mother raised all six of us by yourself you should never remarried. when i was five years old after hearing sirens blazing outside of our door, we ran out the door
fighting the fire and her neighbor's house. i was smitten on that day and at that moment and i look at my mom and brothers and sisters and said i want to be a fireman when i grow up. and those days, they would come true in the united face of america if they believed in and had faith in god, if we go to school and get a good education. i don't know why they always said good in front of education, but they said get a good education and treat other children like you want to be treated. they said all of your dreams would come true. it is those principles in serving god faithfully as a christian throughout my life that led to my family and career. in 1981, my childhood dream came through. i became the first african-american for the shreveport fire power, one of the first.
however, because i was one of the first african-american i faced many obstacles because of my race. some of the stations that were designated just for the black firefighters. i had to wash the dishes in scalding hot water and soap and the captain now it's checked to make sure it was hot enough. there was the designated that in some of the fire stations. all the fire station staffers did not have a black firefighter on the shift i did not have a black firefighter, it helps to have a designated bed so the firefighters signed duty on the other shift could make sure they were not sleeping on mattresses that were thought to him by a black firefighter. i faced a constant barrage of racial slurs. but i also had an insatiable belief that the goddess that i had been taught as a child i would eventually overcome those
racial barriers and through hard work and and a mic and eventually become rocket eyes doesn't equal to my shreveport firefighter brothers. sure enough in 1999 i became the first african-american appointed to fire chief in the city of shreveport. in 2000 those blessed to become the fire chief in atlanta, georgia. because of what i had previously experienced, i made a promise to myself than under my leadership, no one would ever have to go through the horrors of discrimination to die in third because i was different from the majority. using a strategic planning team i created the doctrine through a collaborative approach which established a culture of justice or other members of the department and how we were to serve our community and one another. the task force included all people groups and demographics of the department including
women and members who identified themselves as lgbt. one of our core values that we identified to really create a culture where everyone looked forward to coming to work every day and eliminated any barriers that would hinder us from getting our very best was a core value we call it isn't three. we want an atmosphere where there is no racism, sexism, cronyism, nepotism, favoritism for territorial studies so that we could have the department that we all believed in our hearts that we could become. after 20 months of service under the leadership of the honorable mayor shirley franklin i was appointed by president barack obama and confirmed by the u.s. senate as the united states fired in a straighter, the nation's highest-ranking fire official. during the senate confirmation hearing a few of the members remarked it was the most bipartisan and least controversial hearing they had ever experienced.
less than one year later the honorable mayor, kasim read recruited me back to atlanta and i assumed my duties as fire chief of the city. in 2012 i was internationally recognized by my professional association, the international association of fire chief says the career fire chief of the year. but in late 2014, my 34 year career came to an abrupt halt when i was suspended for 30 days without pay after the city of atlanta's officials who disagreed with judeo-christian beliefs about marriage learned that i had mentioned those beliefs and a book written on my own time for a christian and bible study. during the suspension, the city launched in the best edition to determine whether my religious beliefs caused me to discriminate against anyone. i welcome the investigation because i was confident that a
just examination of a work towards inclusion, tolerance and justice would dispel any concerns regarding my leadership integrity. my faith does not teach me to discriminate against anyone, but rather it actually reinforces and instructs me to love everyone without condition and to recognize the inherent dignity and work of all peoples and to lay down my life if it was necessary for anyone in my community. after concluding its investigation, the city determined that i've never discriminated against anyone. nevertheless, on january 6th, 2015, the city of atlanta at terminated anyway. it is still in the world to me that the very faith and patriotism that inspired my professional achievement is what the government ultimately his to bring my childhood dream come
true fairytale career to an end. i simply wrote a book to encourage and inspire men to fulfill their purpose is as husbands, fathers and community leaders, just a few paragraphs in a 162 page book address biblical teachings on marriage and sexuality versus taking straight from the holy bible. get atlanta city officials, including mayor reid made it clear that it was those religious beliefs that resulted in my suspension, termination and ultimate investigation they really exonerated me of their concerns. following my termination and atlantic city councilman david n. end quote, when you are a city employee and your thoughts, beliefs and opinions are different than that of the cities, we have to check them out the door, end quote. the city's actions do not
reflect the true tolerance and diversity that has always set america apart from other nations. equal rights and true tolerance means that regardless of your position on marriage, you should be able to peaceably live out your piece and not be marginalized or suffered discrimination at the hands of the government. i strongly encourage you, ladies and gentlemen, to consider this perspective today is to hear from creative professionals that have similar experience. thank you so much for your participation. [applause] >> by mollie hemingway. it's a real honor to be here with these brave people who are dealing with these very serious issues. i'm a journalist who's interested in religious liberty and i've written about it at
great length. so my times when you write about religious liberty, it's dry, talking about the underlying principles of faith, talking to attorneys and we get a glimmer of the people involved in it. it's a real treat today to hear from people whose cases are at play and also for many of us who are not journalists, we think about how we would handle a situation if our beliefs, our deeply held beliefs came into conflict with the government and this gives us a chance to see how various people have engaged that and how they've come to deal with those problems i write this government stands in scope and size. i just have a couple questions for our panelists here and maybe we can begin with you, blane. it's always fun to go first. you are more than a t-shirt printer. you are a t-shirt designer. can you explain the distinction. >> from the beginning it was always about the design. we started the company of his
back in college. one thing that i couldn't stand as christian t-shirts. they were the worst. they were so cheesy. an example would be the slogan back then was how they cope and a smile, so they would change it and say have jesus in a smile. it was awful. the kind of sat out to say let's create something that people actually want to wear. 20 years later that's really what's going on in the company. people call it since i've got a bible verse for a camp coming up that we want to impress this on the kids. so we will take that in create something off of that. our hope is that kids will actually want to wear it after the event, that it speaks a clear message that when they get home they will take it out of the drawer and where it verses be embarrassed of it and say i don't want to put that on. it was always about design from the beginning. >> right. we need to tell a little bit about relationship that is suing
you. robert ingersoll. i love working with rob. he would come and anti-what kind of event he was celebrating, whether whispered they are anniversary or party. he would tell me that the men he would pick out these initial bases and containers and he would hand them to me and say do your thing, which i absolutely loved because i got to get out of the box and make something different and unique. i love doing arrangements for rob and he thoroughly enjoyed them. we have a good relationship. >> can you tell us a little bit about what happened that led to this lawsuit? >> rob had been in twice before asking for me and told the girls he was going to get married so i knew i.t. was coming in. i went home and talked to my husband and we discuss it at length. the thing that our faith teaches
us is marriage as between a man at one end and it symbolizes christ and its relationship to the church. so in rabkin and he talked to me about his wedding, i put my hand on robson is that i'm sorry i can't be your wedding because of my relationship with jesus christ. he said he did. he talked about his mom walking down the aisle and why he decided to get married after dealing with kirk for so long. we talked about how he got engaged. we just chit chatted for a while. would you recommend another florist. i said sure and i recommended three that i knew would do a good job. bob and i hugged each other and rob left. he went home and told his partner. his partner, kirk, put something on facebook was simply she has a right to believe, but she hurt our feelings and it went viral. we have five nines in our business and we are two weeks solid we had nothing but death
threats, bombing threats, computer threats, ticketing threats. i had to contact the police and give security system then. i had to change the way i go to work and come home and even today we are in constant dread of new customers coming and that might harm us. the attorney general and the aclu without a complaint from rob filed a lawsuit against us personally and corporately. so we basically right now if we lose our lawsuit coming to aclu attorney fees are up for a million dollars now and will probably be over two by the time it's finished. we stand to lose everything would work for about >> discussing religious liberty on an npr program a few years back and somehow the topic of your case came not in the person who i was talking with said something about how you are nothing or the name you get, you
couldn't throw some sticks and flowers in a jar. i mention that the case involved a customer he has served for nine years amid the assert faithfully. this is a distinction on the type of service being provided. they seem to remember the host and/or the other participants said wade, really? that's totally different. this is totally different than the type of case that has been presented in the media. i want to ask you about the thing about throwing sticks and flowers in a jar. is that how you would describe your work as a creative professional. >> i hope not. when we do weddings, they are very involved. i spent hours and months of the bride and groom can find out what their ideas, what they want to commend the wedding wedding, what message they want, and what event they want to have. we spend all of that time to create something that is perfect for that man symbolized as what they are to each other and their
ceremony. many times they will help the bride get dressed all so buttons on a taxpayer in a great asset they come in. there's a lot of involvement in a wedding. for me to create something that would celebrate something that is totally against my beliefs, that would dishonor christ and that is some unit could not do. >> banks. joanna and briand, can you tell us about how your business got started? >> we got started about a year ago, may of last year. we have been working together and played in this business since january 2015. we officially filed in may and we both, had been artists on around for a while, just doing that in our spare time and decided we wanted to make a business about it. >> you have different specialties. >> yes.
i am the painter artist at the studio and joanna is the calligrapher. >> how did you meet or how did you get to know that you are both interested in this? >> would go to the same church and we met in a group that we were talking. i was getting ready to start the business on my own just doing calligraphy, but i wanted that painting element. i am not a painter, so i was really struggling with that. in talking with her, she was new to the group and looking for work and i found out she was a painter and so i thought i wonder if she would want to work on something like this. so i talked with her about it and she was like i've never done something small skillet that, but i'll give it a try. so i saw the first thing she created it was absolutely what i was looking for. so from there we started collaborating and it just went from there. >> what is a band like having a business together? would you enjoy about it? >> it's been a blast.
we love creating art together, and especially because we pull ideas from each other and we just kind of most of the art we do is custom so our clients will bring a pen idea of the kind of take that idea together and put it into some custom and unique and beautiful for them, their events, their homes, whatever that piece of art is for. it's been really fun to work together. >> can you tell us about the products are creating? >> we create all sorts of things. the majority of our business customers for weddings. we will do invitation, signs, menus, place cards, all backed up, all that to course, all that to court staff that makes it special. >> rate. back to you. just a second here. pardon me.
right there on top. that's great. sometimes people are criticizing your case saying what you are doing is just a t-shirt and you should be able to just print a t-shirt. would you say to that criticism? >> well, i kind of scratch my head at the idea that it's just a t-shirt and after this example up there without that imagine i just had a checkmark on the shirt. you look at it a little closer and you see that it's been a key solution. suddenly, just an image that has no words on it, just a checkmark suddenly there is power behind the logo appeared suddenly your mind is flooded with ideas for this vintage michael jordan or lebron james or a sport senior partner, shoes. the company spent millions of dollars to promote something on t-shirts.
it's a very credible advertising avenue. so i would disagree with that because companies, businesses across the country spend millions of dollars to use t-shirts to speak a message. >> was this the first time you've ever turn down work? >> no. does consistently and the judge noticed in our case that we had declined messages over and over again throughout the years. even churches. i've had people come in one case somebody wanted to have jesus on a pirate ship. her silly stuff that you all the time see. >> i think it's a great idea. >> autumn wind, we've had to call messages over the years paired i've always had enough to where it is a local company who will honor whatever price i gave, so it's our normal practice to send it to the company. just so they have a place to go if it's something my conscious
autonomy. >> in the case we are dealing with here, did you do that and what happened? >> yes. i mentioned the other company. i said it was something they would handle the order, same price, but that is when the conversation ended. they hung up and that was it. >> were they able to get t-shirts? >> goodness for them they got the shirts for free because other companies stepped in and took care of that. they were taking care of. that is the end goal. >> what about you, were you able to refer to another business? >> absolutely. i recommended three florists and i chose them very carefully because i knew they wanted custom work that was designed for an and i wanted them to do a good job. >> there was something else he did that gave me pause. the harassment that your company received 20 to stand, was that difficult for you knowing that
this effect to people other than you? >> it was very difficult for me. the things that came through the mail, things that couldn't repeat. but it's okay because the message that comes to my mind is god will fly their hearts with the truth. so people that spew out that kind of hate are very hurtful inside. so it's okay. >> this is great as you guys are starting their business to think about all the joy that can come from this. but why do you like about the notch for numerous? >> i think they are part of it obviously is getting to create.
we love what we do and we enjoyed getting to take those ideas that any of our clients brain and just make something really beautiful and unique out of there. i think as millennial entrepreneurs, we bring a unique dead and a fresh twist to the art we create so we are able to kind of look at traditional art and add something fresh to it and make it modern and new and the brides really love it and all of our clients. it's really fun. >> there's something interesting about your case, which actually i'm not even sure if you can talk about, which is the nature of the question means you can't talk about your beliefs on marriage. i'm wondering actually your attorney is here. i think this is an interesting
interesting -- this is perhaps something -- i think of it as a private citizen we all wonder what would happen if the government came after us or if laws were passed or somehow came into being that would affect our ability to practice their religion or speak our minds on things. all of these cases are ominously chilling, but this seems to me very chilling. what should people take away from the case? >> of the very good point. to understand the nature of the law they are challenging. it says that no business can publish any communication that states or implies someone is unwelcome, unacceptable or undesirable. that type of language is so broad that it could prevent a business from posting on their
own website. i disagree with same-sex marriage because that could make someone feel unwelcome. we just flip it around. we could prevent a business from posting on the website that says i agree with christianity because that could make someone feel unwelcome. it is very scary when the government has the power to tell anyone you compose. you can post that men. it's of those messages is to unwelcome and are not acceptable. we no longer live in a free marketplace of ideas. we live in a society where the government can tell us what to say and believe. that should be concerning for not just people of faith, but people all believe when the government can tell us what they can say. >> one other thing. the state trial court in their ruling defined that limit our injunction difficult things to
say about there is nothing about custom wedding invitations made for same-sex couples is expressive later. that's the creation of custom lettering or artwork displayed with products that does not constitute expressive speech. that seems insane to me. >> it is a bit strange. i have no creativity at all. i can't -- but i do write words. you would think the words communicate messages encoded in team. it's a strange world that we live in that when you can put on an invitation the word come join the celebration of this marriage and that does it communicate a message. that's why we feel pretty confident in our case. >> there's nothing that message in creative expression. that's very interesting also. >> i'm going to sit down and get off the couch here.
>> maybe you can do with little update. the cake baker in colorado. the federalist just wrote a piece on that case which is very limited in very limited and uninteresting. tell us where things stand with us. >> is a -- for many years, like i said earlier he declined one custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. i can't create something that violates my belief promoting the message of which i disagree which would be marriage. the commission ruled against them on the lawsuit was filed. what was disturbing to me is what the commission said about this 302nd polite exchange. they compared him to
perpetrators of the holocaust and slaveowners. this is extra incentive because jack's father had fought in world war ii and god answered. i believe it was omaha beach. he ended up receiving a purple heart later on. but he refused to stop there because he wanted to go one with his troops and he ended up being part of the group that was his first delivery from the concentration camp. you can imagine how jack must've felt when the commission compared him to the very people whose father sought a liberated people from. another thing interesting is that the same people -- the same commission, there were three bakeries there. there were a lot of bakeries in that area. someone went to those bakeries and asked them to create custom cakes expressing religious views that disagreed with same-sex
marriage. the same commission that wrote against jackson at the same exact statute so that was okay. it was just okay. and so, you look about them have to to wonder what is going on here. we asked the supreme court now to look good that case and there's no question this guy is the cake artist. it was season two of cake box if you've seen that show. it was god's work that was featured in the commercials promoting the show. if you were to go back and look at commercials that is jack's hand. be enforced by the government to make everyone promote a message and being called to really horrific things along the way. we will see what happens if the supreme court decides to take that or not. >> you alluded to the sovereignty that you're being sued in both your personal capacity and corporate capacity.
and because washington state where you live as a community property state that means your husband would also stand to lose everything in his name. with respect to visit his unprecedented level of attack on the person practicing her religious liberty. you are offered a settlement and you declined to take it. can you tell us why? >> i wasn't offered a settlement. i was offered an ultimatum. either you will do as i tell you to do, you will think away i think. you will perform the way i think you should perform and if you don't, i'm going to destroy you. i don't call that a settlement. i believe in the constitution. it's not just us.
it is all of us whether religious or not. soon we will have absolutely nothing to stand up for. [applause] unless you have anything else to carry. >> i was thinking you could hear a little bit about their perspective on this we talked earlier about your faith, motivating you, driving new, inspiring to do what you do. how is that played out even now? >> you know, all of my life since i became a christian from an early age, my family has been heavily involved in sunday school, vacation bible school,
breaches have caused the bank and non. one of those terms that describe our faith is the living faith, which is a faith that when you live it out to faith and obedience and there's evidence that israel. going up in poverty in shreveport, louisiana, when the welfare checks and food stamps groceries ran out and having utilities cut off from time to time, you know, having a dream that i wanted to be a firefighter one day, having a dream that i would be a father and has been one day. i would've thought that your faith and obedience to that would cause all that stuff to happen especially in the united states of america. living out that saved, i'm one of those american christians that my life has proved it is a living faith that he came we may
life more abundantly. none of my children know what it's like to eat mayonnaise sandwiches and sugar water because we were none of groceries. they don't know what light for water to be turned off and lights to be turned off because we have a living faith. i became a firefighter. in fact they became the highest fire official in the united states of america because the living faith. and our faith, if we believe that, we should do that now. it should be a public demonstration of our faith so that when people are asked so curious how was that you can have this life, we can point them to jesus christ. at as a matter of fact, jesus said if you deny any public way, i'll deny you before my father in heaven. we have to make a choice according to the way i was raised. you've got to make a choice between your faith in your job, you choose your faith and that's
what i did. >> for the rest of the panelists i can't imagine that you had a lot of advance thought or preparation going into the battle your face you or did you question or did you think this might happen or what happened when the site came to you? >> i can say for my next. this personally and from what i've learned over over my life and you really don't think about the totality of preparation until you've actually passed out on having made that decision. but god has been preparing me for that element all of my life. i believe he never puts us in those circumstances unless he's convinced it is hard that he is adequately prepared us for it. >> speaking personally i am a christian and when i took my confirmation vows, we take a pledge in the lutheran church
that you'll suffer up to and including death rather than renounce the faith. i was thought that sounded romantic, like something that used to happen to christians or people in far-off lands. the older i've got, the more i've realized that the suffering happening globally can in fact deal with loss of life but it frequently deals with loss of reputation. he thinks you didn't realize were possible. one thing that's very interesting about your cases, they seem to have the strength that allows them to fight these battles. where do you find your source of strength? >> my source -- we've all been
through trials and tribulations of life that it got us to where we are. they aren't necessarily things we want to go through but were put through. a couple things that i've been through, i had some really hard times in my life which i won't go into, but right after i was married i found out i had rescues her and my father passed away. i think god took all those things that i didn't understand to use them through prepared me for what i have today. all i had to offer him was my sins. he says of his seeking out their obedient, he will take care of us. >> do you have anything to add? >> what was the question again? i got caught up. >> i cry every time she talks.
i think it is interesting. other people -- we are all learning about these cases and we are all wondering when this fight might come to us. you guys are already experiencing the fight. how did the strength to take to sign? could be so much easier to us, and you guys are not doing that. i'm curious where the strength is coming from. >> definitely through our relationship with jesus christ. my life and my worship of god is not just confined to a building. it's how i've lived my life, how i love my wife come in the tv shows i watch, how i treat my neighbors. all of that is an act of worship. if at the end of the day god can look at me and say well done my good and faithful servant, that is the hope of his journey i'm on. it is really the word of god. you talk about god preparing new for something and just the more you read the scriptures and you get the truth of god, it's kind of like god helps keep you in the right societies, but god
doesn't change. so he's not strength. he's the thing i go back to him say whatever it takes, whatever the cost is, i'm okay with this because my hope is in you, not in man. >> another thing i'm curious about from each of you is whether you have received support from surprising supporters. so often want to talk about these issues it seems there are extreme sides and extreme partisanship on this topic. if that's how it has been in your life or have you received support from people who disagree personally the superrich are right to religious expression? >> definitely happened with us. locally, some of our employees who are, some were still employed at the once why would a company called and said if you need me to stand up with you and kind of explain this, i'll do it. people willing to do that.
nationally, there was a lesbian on the company came in support of the said that you need to stand up because we don't want to print messages that the government would require us to print. they get it. they understand that it's not just a christian issue that when the government wants to enforce such as printers and artists to do things against her conscience, that's not okay. that is kind of the line. absolutely we got support on both sides. even people that disagree with my position still understood my right to be able to do this. >> a gentleman right after this happened called and said i am a subset of men i've got $5000 in savings and i will give it to you because they think what they are doing to you is wrong. i know i'll be ostracized by the community, but i don't care. we had to lesbian women who dealt with us for years and they continue to come in today and
said you'd never, ever treated as poorly. you've always respected as and we appreciate it and we'll continue to shop here. so there is encouragement in that. the cards in the letters of the phone calls in the prayers are overwhelming. there's many blessings that come from this. >> i thought it might be fine because i see there are some people who were done for randa hill. you have been here before. he went through senate confirmation hearing and there was an interesting thing said to you at that time. do you want to talk about that? >> first of all, one of the greatest experiences i've ever had in my life. i am with the entire process how the staffers at fema and the department of homeland security really prepared me for days and days and days to actually meet with the staffers first.
they grilled and drilled and i saw the tough questions. and they were so tough by the time i got in front of the senate homeland purity committee, it was a whole that easier than i had anticipated. but the questions they were asking were directly associated with my court conviction of what firefighters do in our country and that is lay their lives on the line in the prevention and training that is necessary through an emergency preparedness, that is necessary to take our profession to the highest level. across both sides of the aisle, they were very pleased with my responses and they had very favorable comments. it was one of the shortest that they said they divert your with the least controversial.
that was an honor for me. >> if only you could be honored for everything. but he didn't have your hearing, you are asked why you are willing to take on this work, why you wanted to do this work, how much it would disrupt your life. what did you tell them? >> you know, i believe in our constitution. i've personalize the preamble of the united states constitution, especially the part from our profession insured gymnastic tranquility. the fire service responsibility is to our country, insure domestic tranquility. through my participation in our professional associations, over the years i felt i had a firm grasp on the national issues that impact them to emergency services industry and i had relationships that i could use to collaborate and partner to
make a difference at the federal level. >> senator carper in that hearing that he thought the best exemplified what it meant to have a heart to be surveyed and he asked you where he thought that came from. what did you tell them? >> it came from my faith. i was raised that way. when you come from meager beginnings in your hope is god in the constitution and it actually works, it really drives your motive for everything you do in life. >> rhianna angelina, anything else you would like to add here? >> i've heard you talk about this before, what would you say to her? >> i'd be so excited to see her
off. i would hug him. i would catch up on his life and i was there and another 10 years. i miss him. >> well, i think that concludes our time for now. if you're interested in coming up and chatting with people sitting here today, i know they would more than welcome it. i would more than welcome. i appreciate you all coming out on this launch day, especially on the streets around here. it's a little hard to get in today. thank you and we look forward to talking to you again soon. [applause] [inaudible conversations]