tv Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Announces Doomsday Clock Adjustment CSPAN January 30, 2017 2:08am-2:59am EST
in every nuclear state and a lack of global action in response to climate change. every year, the clock is set by the renowned scientists and security experts to consider whether the planet is safer a year today -- compared to a year ago. in making the decision, a group that includes 15 nobel laureates. at today's event, we are delighted to have with us thomas, a member of the board of sponsors who holds the rank of career ambassador and has served the u.s. as ambassador to the united nations, the russian federation, india, israel, el salvador, nigeria, and jordan. david is a member of the science and security board, expert on climate change, and retired admiral is professor of meteorology and professor of international affairs at penn state university.
department. he is an internationally renowned theoretical physicist and is the author of the forthcoming book, "the greatest story ever told so far: why are we here? " john is the one who pulled together and health development statement of this important announcement that can be found at the bulletin's website, bulletin.org. an op-ed by lawrence and david that highlights the points we are going to make today can be found on the new york times website. i am the executive director and publisher of the bulletin of
atomic scientists and am delighted to be with you here today. make no mistake, this has been a difficult year. the clock statement on our website makes clear that over the course of 2016, the global security landscape dark and the international community failed to come to grips with humanity ies most pressing threats -- nuclear weapons and climate change. today, greater depth on the key issues we are focusing on. but perhaps most troubling has been two concerns that are adding to an already challenging global landscape. the first has been the cavalier and reckless language used across the globe especially in the united states during and after the presidential campaign with nuclear threats. the second is a growing disregard to scientific expertise. expertise that is needed when
regarded to pressing challenges including climate change. there is a troubling propensity to discount or outright reject expert advice related to international security, including the conclusions of intelligence experts. the board concludes in no uncertain terms that words matter in ensuring the safety and security of our planet. they are not the same as actions but they matter a lot, especially when the risk of accident and miscalculation is so high. they have the ability to the walked back, but so as we have seen, influential actors alter their behavior in ways that do not promote confidence and steady or smart decision-making. in 2016, the board warned that three minutes to midnight is far
too close. since then, inaction and brinksmanship have continued. saber rattling and loose but dangerous rhetoric have become almost commonplace. to convey its concern about the unique moment and issue a call to leaders and citizens across the globe, to put the world on a safer footing, the board takes the unprecedented step, the first time in its history, moving the clock 30 seconds closer to midnight. we move the clock a half minute closer to midnight. it is now 2.5 minutes to midnight.
and then if i can ask my colleagues to return to the podium, we can continue. thomas: nuclear weapons have been at the center of our concern for many, many years. predictability andcontinuity are prized when it comes to nuclear weapons policy. because the results of miscommunication or miscalculation could be so catastrophic. unfortunately, nuclear volatility has been and continues to be the order of the day. north korea's continued nuclear weapons development, the steady march of the arsenal modification program in the nuclear weapons states, simmering tension between nuclear armed india and pakistan, and stagnation in arms
control, are all of considerable concern. north korea conducted two weapons tests, the second in september, yielding twice the explosive power of the first. in january, that test took place. in his 2017 new year's statement, kim jong un declared that he would soon test a missile with intercontinental range. nuclear stockpiles is underway in all nuclear states. russia is building new silo-based missiles. the class of nuclear missile submarines and new rail mobile missiles as it revamps other intercontinental ballistic missiles. the united states forges ahead with plans to modernize each part of its triad.
bombers, land-based missiles, and nuclear missile carrying submarines, adding new capabilities such as cruise missiles with increased ranges. as it improves the survivability of its own nuclear forces, china is helping pakistan build submarine platforms. pakistan and india continue to expand the number of weapons and the sophistication of their nuclear arsenals. perhaps in the view of many, posing the greatest danger for potential nuclear use. nuclear rhetoric is now loose and destabilizing. during the election campaign and as president trump engaged in casual talk about nuclear weapons, suggesting south korea and japan might acquire their own nuclear weapons to compete with north korea, we are more than ever impressed, as rachel
has just told you, that words matter, words count. the iran nuclear deal has been successful in accomplishing the goals during its first year. but it's future is in doubt under the new administration. there are observers and indeed analysts out there who have proposed that rather than tearing up the deal, principles specifically related to enrichment should be made part of a new international gold standard. u.s. and russia are at loggerheads on arms control and disarmament with little prospect of reduction negotiations resuming.
let us hope the new president and president putin can take their relationship to something further and more meaningful in the area of nuclear arms reduction. thank you very much. david: climate change should not be a partisan issue. the well-established physics are not liberal nor conservative in character. the planet will continue to warm up to ultimately dangerous levels so long as carbon dioxide continues to be pumped into the atmosphere, irrespective of political leadership. the current political situation in the united states is of particular concern. the trump administration needs to state clearly and unequivocally that it accepts climate change caused by human activity as reality. no problem can be solved unless its existence is first recognized. there are no alternative facts here. let me just go through a few specifics that caused the board to remain concerned and continue concerned about climate change. from global efforts to limit --
global efforts to limit climate change have ultimately produced mixed results over the past year. the paris agreement did go into effect in 2016 and countries are taking some actions to bring down emissions of greenhouse gases. there are also encouraging signs that global annual emissions were flat this past year in 2016, although right now there is no assurance this heralds a breaking point. continued warming of the world, unfortunately as measured in 2016 underscored one clear fact. nothing is fundamentally amiss with the scientific understanding of climate physics. human activity is the primary cause of climate change. and unless carbon dioxide emissions are dramatically reduced, global warming will continue to threaten the future of humanity. 2016 was the warmest year on record and it broke the record of 2015, which broke the record of 2014. in fact, 16 of the 17 warmest
years on record have been recorded since 2001. this is much longer than anyone one period of la nina or el nino or any other observation. from local effects in the united states, we have seen catastrophic floods in houston, baton rouge, north carolina, maryland. the rain bombs continue. at the north pole we have experience multiple occasions in which the temperature is being at war -- at or near freezing. this is 30 to 40 degrees warmer than average case. this happens again and again. more and more of the research in greenland and antarctica plunged to greater and faster sea level rise. our intelligence community in 2016 highlighted six impacts of the threat of climate change. stability of countries, heightened tensions, adverse effects on food prices and availability, increased risk to human health, the negative impact on investments and economic competitiveness, and potential climate discontinuities in secondary surprises here.
unfortunately in 2016 the international community did not take the steps needed to begin the path toward a net zero carbon emissions world. the marrakesh climate change conference produced little progress beyond the emissions goals pledged at paris. as mentioned, the political situation in the united states is of particular concern. the trump administration has put forward candidates for cabinet level positions who foreshadow the possibility of the new administration will be over in a -- will be openly hostile toward progress of even the most modest efforts to avert climate change. climate change should not be a partisan political issue. the well-established physics of the earth are neither liberal nor conservative in character. the international leaders need to refocus attention on achieving the additional carbon emissions and carbon emission
reductions that are needed to capitalize on the promise of the paris accord here. in summary, the united states as a very first step needs to make clear, unequivocal statements in the trump administration that it accepts climate change caused by humanactivity as a scientific reality. alternative facts will not make the challenges of climate change magically go away. thank you very much. lawrence: i want to thank you all for coming to what i believe is a particularly historic day. in addition to the factors that have long driven the clock, at lease since i have been share, namely nuclear weapons and climate change, we continue to monitor the threats arising from new emerging technologies. and over the past year, two in particular have begun to stand out. cyber technology and
biotechnology. in december, u.s. intelligence agencies concluded that russia had intervened in the 2016 u.s. presidential campaign to help donald trump in ways that highlight the vulnerability of critical information systems in cyberspace. information monocultures, fake news, and the hacking and release of politically sensitive emails, may have had an impact on the perceived legitimacy of the electoral process in the united states. hacking is not new, but the question of whether the fabric of democracy may be imperiled by reducing the faith in the integrity of elections and the very information on which to an informed public can base their voting became suspect. it is at this level cyber technology begins to represent a deeper global threat.
such attacks at the democratic process represent just one near-term threat associated with the modern world's increased reliance on the internet and information technology. in the longer term, there are also causes for concern. sophisticated hacking, whether by private groups or governmental entities, may have the potential to create grave and broad impacts. threatening national or international financial activities, national electronic power grids, and plants, including nuclear power plants, and the personal freedoms that are based on the privacy of individuals at the core of democracy. autonomous intelligence systems are evolving at a rapid pace as the introduction of self driving vehicles demonstrates. while these do offer great opportunities, they also present possible threats. from economic threats as a greater rate of fraction of the workforce may be replaced by the machine learning systems, to the more immediate danger that military systems may come to rely more heavily on such systems and could result in inadvertent or malicious aggressive actions. in this sense there is an intimate relationship between reliance on nuclear arsenal and the need to maintain command and control in these systems. lastly, on the biotechnology front, new technology that
allows precise dna manipulation also holds a great hope for curing disease, but makes the ability to engage in malicious activities potentially much more accessible to groups and governments that do not have sophisticated biological laboratory infrastructures. technological innovation is occurring at a speed that challenges society's ability to keep pace. even as many citizens lose faith in the institutions upon which they must rely to make scientific information work for them, rather than against them. to return to the themes that led us to this moment, i want to emphasize the historical significance of today. the doomsday clock is closer to midnight than it has ever been in the lifetime of almost everyone in this room. the last time it was closer was 64 years ago, in 1953, after the then-soviet union exploded its first hydrogen bomb, creating the modern arms race. more than that, this is the first time the words and stated policies of one or two people
placed in high positions have so impacted our perception of the existential threats we believe the world faces. this is a time of great opportunity and great potential challenge. expert advice is crucial if governments are to effectively deal with complex global threats. the bulletin is extremely concerned about the willingness of governments, including the current u.s. administration, to ignore or discount science, empirical evidence, and considered expertise during the decision-making process. facts are stubborn things. they must be taken into account if the future of humanity is to be preserved. in 2016, world leaders not only failed to deal adequately with those threats, they also increased the threat of nuclear war and unchecked climate change through a variety of provocative statements and actions, including careless rhetoric about the use of nuclear
weapons. and in fact, threatened perhaps treaties like the nonproliferation treaty by considering modernization of nuclear weapons, which may require nuclear testing. we call on these leaders, particularly russia and the united states, to refocus on reducing existential risk. in no small part consulting with top-level experts and taking scientific research and empirical reality into account. in particular, u.s. and russian leaders need to come together to negotiate nuclear arms reductions. they need to consider reducing the alert level of nuclear weapons, which risk catastrophic accidents. they need to not embark on modernization programs, which are expensive and destabilizing. and they need to engage countries like north korea and discourage proliferation in countries like pakistan and
india. to step back further from the brink will require leaders who have both vision and restraint. president trump and president putin, who claim great respect for each other, can choose to act orry about that. statesmen orer as petulant children. the issues are too important to be left in the hands of a few. we call upon all people to speak out and send a message to leaders that you will not allow them to threaten the future of you and your children. to summarize, we have set the clock to 2.5 minutes to midnight. clock.e the doomsday
we feel it allows the opportunity to reach the global and to raisen icon the profile of existential threats the public needs to be aware of to act responsibly. the future of the clock and our future is in your hands. thank you. >> with that, we have concluded our statements. if you have questions, we have time for them. you have to wait for the microphone. just to clarify, you said is shouldn't be left in leaders. of one or two i know you meant trump, but did you mean putin?
>> i think that rather than picking favorites we hope you'll pick the lot and tell people is the congregation of this set of that set us on the trail of moving us forward. >> the current situation and the yearsion of the last few has been dangerous and potentially unstable but what we are seeing on top of all these is a new verbal response by world leaders which is a great concern. that is new and recent [video clip] and it played -- it played a role in causing us to move the clock forward. > that is a combination of not only very loose talk about very very dangerous weapons but
simultaneously inactive and of basicsregarding facts. basic looking for expertise or of ultimate and acceptance factual expertise. multiple categories, whenever we take all of that aboard, advance the clock 30 seconds. weren't, salt and they i hope we have created, the notion that the scientific method as a nonscientist but a great respecter of science, is now irrelevant, is in itself a disastrous and self-defeating conclusion.
>> i am from already america news and i have two questions. what is your response to this upgrading an arsenal that the united states has -- and russian have plans to. you said technology surpasses society's ability to keep up with it. mean the lessening of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism affects the way technology may be used or misused? disregard for science play into that? one of the implications the ?ublic doesn't understand him think it is obvious that major efforts to reemphasize in
rebuild the nuclear arsenal in the face of a complete abandonment of a long history that goes back to the cuban missile crisis and before. leaving the past to reduce the total above 60,002 down around 14,000 has much more work to be done. proposed that a thousand or 900 be the target for the next reduction. that might also include reserve and dismantled weapons in one way or another so it is a true measure of nuclear weapons on both sides. it has gotten stuck over mr. pretends interest and no longer talking about the question. rather than go up it is the time
to build down. >> let me expand on that. there are close to 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world. united states and weapon -- 96 and russia have 5000 workable weapons. they ensure each year that a safeguard is workable. there is no rational reason to need a greater arsenal than 5000 weapons. already, it is excessive, far more than the world needs. that's the first thing. but the second thing is that the nonproliferation treaty not only required countries that do not have nuclear weapons to not obtain them, but required the new year states in the world to work toward disarmament. we are continuing to risk violating the treaty by not moving toward that goal and an explicit effort to modernize weapons, which will put pressure on this country and russia to test weapons, will be a radical
and dangerous new move, which i think would be a very clear violation of that treaty. if we expect non-nuclear states to not want to obtain nuclear weapons, we have to demonstrate that we believe they are not important, and by modernizing, we demonstrate exactly the opposite. to answer the question about technology, it is a many faceted area. technology is evolving in ways that are, in the current climate, changing at incredible rates. there is, as you and i pointed out, a new connection between evolving technology and the nature of democratic institutions and the ability of governments to manipulate information that is of great concern. but there are key questions that need to be addressed. fortune favors the prepared mind. and we can -- while it is true that one might not say there is an existential threat associated with new cyber and artificial intelligence technology and
biotechnology, it is easy to foresee possible existential threats. it is important to think in advance how we might create institutions that control them, which is one of the reasons to have urged governments to create such institutions to explore those possibilities, because it will be too late once they are out. rachel: lawrence, if i can pick up on that and elaborate, we focused today particularly on the threats. at the heart of what the bulletin of atomic sciences is about is identifying scientific advancements that have the potential to, as we have come to learn, destroy the planet, but also make it a significantly better place, safer and more healthy. and so, there is enormous optimism in technological advancement. if we can focus on ensuring that the negative consequences of that advancement are lessened
and reduced, it will be a safer and healthier place. and we feel that it is imperative that we focus on these risks so that they don't come to fruition and we are able to reap the benefits of technological evolution. our founders in 1945 witnessed the horror of nuclear tests. they also understood the potential of nuclear power, a green energy, if you will, that had the potential to electrify the planet. but they understood then that there was no way we would be able to realize that benefit if we couldn't contain and address those risks. i think climate change fits in perfectly with that. technological advancements have allowed billions across the planet to come out of poverty. it's a very enormous -- the car -- enormous benefits that it brings. but if we are not attentive to the risks, we can destroy the
planet. for these new emerging technologies, we feel it is our responsibility to start a conversation about what kinds of institutions, as was mentioned, need to be built now, so that we can continue to benefit from cyber, the benefits of cyber technology, artificial intelligence, that will bring so much advancement, but so much risk if we don't pay closer attention and build the institutions that are required now. lawrence: let me add to that beautiful statement by reinforcing the statements tom and david also made. that policy that is sensible requires facts to be facts. the bulletin of the atomic science has that name because one of the things that we want to do is to be there to provide the facts as the basis of policy, not to make policies, but sensible policies cannot be made unless we all accept that facts are facts. people can have their own opinions, but not their own fax -- facts. the best thing we can do is
promote for the public and world leaders what those facts are so that sensible and rational decisions can be taken place that will take us back from the brink. rachel: thank you. yes, please. >> thank you so much. i am martin, security program director at his additions for -- at physicians for social responsibility. i understand the bulletin will be having a briefing on capitol hill later today. it is my sincere hope, i was hoping i would see here today, the chairs and ranking members of senate armed services and house armed services. i hope they make an appearance. my question for you is, if they were here, congress obviously plays a role in the movement of the clock. how would you advise them?
david: i will just start. i'm sure my colleagues will have thoughts on this regard. and i will talk mostly about climate change on this. we have seen eight years of what happens when an administration by itself, really without any congressional support, tries to move climate risk and the management of climate risk going forward. little bits and pieces can be done, but as we all know, our constitution is pretty clear on who passes laws and who has the budget, you know, and for extra credit, it is not the administration, it's not the executive branch. it is congress. if you want real change, congress has to be on board. and the congress, when they are motivated to do so, they are extremely constructive. i come from the navy. the navy loves to take credit for nuclear power on submarines. the fact of the matter is the navy went kicking and screaming into this. congress made them do it. now, of course, they take full credit for it. for climate and nuclear arms
reduction, for the management of innovative and new as we have -- and new technologies as we have talked about it, significant upside but also significant risks, we need congress to thoughtfully engage with the administration to collectively work on what is best for our country and the world, so we can manage the risk of climate change in a way while -- that we get ourselves to a zero carbon economy and do so while maintaining our economy and frankly increasing our quality of life. that is not, in my opinion, going to happen unless and until the congress becomes actively engaged in this challenge. thomas: perhaps i can jump in. maybe lawrence and rachel will have things to say, too. the answer to your really fine question is how much time do we have. the really interesting thing i would put at the top of the list, first and foremost, you look very carefully at the new proposals and ideas for enlarging and changing the nuclear posture.
look at some of the things that lawrence mentioned. can we increase decision-making time? can we find more stability in the deployment and arrangement of our deterrent on both sides, separation of missiles and were -- warheads and things of that sort, wise things that have been suggested by real experts in the area. can we get reduction negotiations begun again between the u.s. and russia? can we, as a result of that, begin to include the other states, china? britain? france? india? pakistan? israel? because they are going to have to join? the third question is can we get nuclear test ban treaty ratified? i agree with lawrence that the nonproliferation treaty says we will not build up. it says we will move toward
eliminating. and so, testing is a primary function of building up and not eliminating. the test ban treaty adds to that. that is under threat these days, mindlessly under threat, because we are still ahead. and being ahead means freezing in this area and the combination of our ability to improve and strengthen and make secure the existing arsenal without testing is a proven fact now. finally, i'm sitting next to a naval officer. i was a naval officer. ratification of the law of the sea treaty will begin to remove one of the obstacles, the south china sea, that we professed adherence but we ought to move, and of course the arctic, as the admiral just reminded me, is an important piece of that. i could go on, but let me leave those on the top of your list, if i can. lawrence: let me add, we set
specific actions can take place. some of those actions, i am not sure congress is aware of it. the public isn't aware of. the fact that we have large fractions of our nuclear weapons on high alert status means, it raises the possibility of an accidental nuclear war. which is almost happened a number of times in its history. it's interesting. the last two presidents, obama and george bush before him, before they came into office, argued the alert status should be changed. it was never changed. that is something the administration can do unilaterally to make this world safer. the other thing is that we are in a time where there is a lot of talk of spending trillions of dollars on a variety of things, including infrastructure programs and some fraction of that maybe on a wall. the modernization of nuclear weapons could cost up to $1 trillion. it is a devastatingly large economic program that has limited rationality.
congress can choose to spend money in better ways and by choosing to not embark on modernization, there will be a huge impact. tom mentioned it, but maybe people don't realize this country has not ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty. it is one of several countries that hasn't. we have not ratified the treaty. ratifying the treaty would go a long way into something congress could do. rachel: sorry about that. if you could stand and introduce yourself. >> maybe this seems trivial, but why the decision to only move it 30 seconds? is it not as severe as 1953? is that something we will never approach? >> there is always a question every year. maybe rachel can add on to this. there were several factors.
the world is a more dangerous place and one concern was the verbiage happening. but it is now only six or seven days into a new administration and actions do speak louder than words. we wanted to send a message that things are not going in the right direction. it is the derivative of the clock that actually matters more than its absolute value. the point is, 30 seconds or one minute, this is historic, and i want to emphasize that. the clock has not been closer to midnight in 64 years. a lot older than you are. we felt that things are inching in a more dangerous path but we try not to act on the moment. based on policies this week and next week, we can decide again next year what to do. things are getting worse and it seemed appropriate to point out they are getting worse.
rachel: around the new year, you might remember the foreign minister of pakistan tweeted out a blustery statement about pakistan's nuclear capabilities as a result of fake news, a fake news story out of israel. the bulletin felt it was imperative that at this moment, in a very threatening environment, much of which we captured when we moved the clock from five minutes to three minutes to midnight. much of which we are talking about now, not all, but much, are things that drove the clock from five to three. but there's something different happening. the words being used are very careless. there is a sense that they do not matter and we do not need to take them seriously. and yet we can see evidence of leaders and countries taking action based on words.
because they are suggesting a direction. so, how do we convey concerns about that? how do we stay true to our heritage, which has looked at actions taken, treaties signed, reductions happening, and speak about and acknowledge that that is what we are looking at, but that we are very concerned about the direction of the statements being made because they suggest a worrying trend? that is what the board has spent considerable time discussing in the meetings and conversations we have had around-the-clock time. we have never moved the clock a half minute, 30 seconds. so, this, we recognized, would be very new, and we anticipated a question and we hope that this change, if you will, in quantity, this change of moving half a minute, would drive a question like that. the bulletin felt that it was actually quite important to say
words do matter and they do count, especially when the stakes are so high. risks of accident and miscommunication are so high. and the expertise needed -- it has to be so precise in so many of the things that we're talking about. and so, this half minute was something that we felt very strong and comfortable with, because it suggested this new introduction of a new set of factors that we had not considered before. thank you for the question. yes, please. >> from slate magazine. could you compare the level threat and type of threat to the early 1950's, the last time the clock was this close. how the nature of the threats we face are similar? >> i am the only person here who is conscious and alive in the
1950's, much to your good fortune. and my aging. i will tell you that the explosion, not just of the hydrogen bomb but of the 15 megaton bomb by the soviet union was unnerving and spectacularly difficult problem but compounded as it was in the 1960's, by the cuban missile crisis which pointed out that not only do words matter but actions matter. words in that case were to mask and hide what was going on with respect to the deployment of cuba. clearly to mask and hide the fact that obviously now from the facts, local authority for use in circumstances of uncertainty, if i could put it that way, was delegated in a situation which compounded and increased the unnerving impact of that set of
concerns. we are equally concerned by one, the potential for growth rather than reduction. the potential for words being taken at face value. the potential for our words about reality science and analytical conclusions of merit not being taken as seriously as importantly as they must be. if anything, while my memory is getting more fragile with age, the comparison that rachel gave you and lawrence and david here have so explained is in my view a real one. it takes is back in comparative terms to an age of great uncertainty. uncertainty when we believed that hiding under desks could help us deal with the nuclear danger. uncertainty only felt building
more weapons was the answer and the race took us to 70,000. 1500 is an unfathomably large number. why in the hell would you want to have 50,000 combined on both sides in a race to see the counting game somehow provided you with some benefits? it is a call on our part for sanity. for science, for realism. for cogent and sensible leadership that we are here today. >> let me add two things. one is, as tom just said, 1953 was the beginning of an arms race. a dangerous arms race. this is, in recent memory, the first time we are beginning of
another arms race. the words and modernization program of the superpowers, the nuclear superpowers, suggests that we may be in that sense in a similar time, equally irrationally. the second thing is since i have been chair, there is a difference between now and 1953. the bulletin looks of things beyond the nuclear weapon. climate change is a key factor. when we look at the world, we are extreme the concerned about the effect of climate change. that impacts on our decisions. the world faces existential threats we did not face 60 or 70 years ago, and as i mentioned, there are new emerging, existential threats. there's a whole slate of things we have to face with our eyes
wide open, if we are going to prevent, deal with and lead to improvements, rather than perils. >> in 1953, many scientists thought that the ocean would take up all of the carbon dioxide and everything was going to be fine. we throughout the 1950's, learned that that was not the case. the curve showed that the atmosphere was accumulating larger amounts of carbon dioxide. as lawrence has mentioned that this threat is continuing to accelerate, so in addition to everything that has been said about a potential restarting of an arms race with nuclear weapons, this risk of climate change and the fact that although the science community
understands it, they understand it's threat, the political community has not taken this to account. a combination of all of these is why we see at the bulletin the clock back to levels not seen in over 60 years. >> where at the end of our time -- we are at the end of our time. to learn more, you can see the statement which is available on our site, at the bulletin.org. we urge you end to take a look at that. we appreciate your interest in it. if this announcements help generate conversation, we think it is a first step. thank you very much. [applause]
>> tomorrow the atlantic council takes a look at the iran nuclear agreement and its future under the truck administration. it will include keynote address from connecticut; chris murphy, a member of the senate foreign relations committee. that is at noon on c-span3. also watch online at c-span.org around that same time on --pan2, the watch institute the washington institute for near east policy us the discussion -- posts the discussion. that gets underway at 12:30 eastern. the state of the net conference was held here in washington dc and at monday. on the communicators we will speak with three attendees on upcoming issues facing the internet area the former special counsel to the fcc, mark jemison, key
advisor on the trunk transition, talk about future communications with the and acting assistant general mary record on the u.s. efforts to counter online radicalization. >> everybody likes net neutrality but they don't like the ability to be a referee on the field and make sure that networks are fast, fair, and open. >> there we a lot of improvements with the fcc. its vision needs to be focused and its structure needs to adapt as well. >> efforts of google, facebook, and others to create counter messaging because the government is uniquely not been a good decision to be a counter messenger. that is an area where the private sector has really started to step up. >> watch at 8:00 eastern on two. >> next supreme court oral argument on the refusal to register trademarks that can be seen as disparaging violates free speech under the first amendment. this is