and so both of those procedures happen successfully, that student had a plea bargain and so he is a richard sex offender and was charged and convicted of those crimes and he was also expelled from the university. and the last piece i would say about that is there still are other parts. i accompanied her to grand jury. i went with her when the sentencing happened and was

there to also explain some of the other bits and pieces of things, crime victim compensation and where's he going to be on probation after she get in touch with those people, and all the pieces that continued after both matters are closed. finally, just is a better, she is still a student and she still impacted. just because those two processes have concluded, her life continues to be impacted by what happened to her. so there i am still a resource over on campus. i just think vestibule is a great word. sometimes i think of a hub, having that person who has the knowledge of although the systems and can really lay out for a survivor what their options are in an accurate and in an informed way i think is really important. important. >> let's do a second round. senator blumenthal. >> thanks very much mr. chairman. i think that is a very apt and articulate description of the way the process can work.

ideally. if the survivor chooses to go to the criminal justice system, but not all survivors may have the decisiveness that this woman evidently did. and so i wonder what you tell women, let's talk about women because they are the majority of victims or survivors, about the consequences, the timetable, do you encourage them to go to the criminal justice system? >> again, we are always going with what they look like. i feel as though i can very comfortably recommend law enforcement to them. and if what they're disclosing to me i know to be a crime in oregon statute, i am informing them of that. one of -- >> do you have an obligation to report that crime? >> i do not. one of the things that is really

important about the option program with la law enforcements there taking delayed reports. there's no timeframe within which somebody has to report, and that the -- they didn't won't take report. they will take them. on campus we have worked with students in the title ix process who have reported in the delayed way as well. it is true there's no longer any physical evidence when a delay has been made, but there are other kinds of evidence that can still be collected. to i would say sort of cautiously yes, i recommend law enforcement. mostly i'm wanting to do what they would like. but again in partnership with the you have options program, most people imagine, 76% of our students who are reporting crimes have interaction with law enforcement. so most students because they can give information only report to law enforcement are at least exploring that option. have been our police department

has the name and information of these offenders. what i will just say finally because most survivors if they are not willing to go forward for themselves for their own process, they learned there somebody else who was offended against by the same person, they're much more willing to do that. and so again just giving information to law enforcement in the first place is highly valuable. >> i think that's a very important point that survivors can be persuaded, at least to provide the information even if they don't pursue a prosecution in the event that the assailant does it again, then they may want to proceed to corroborate or to pursue a second case against the same person. i've heard that also on various campuses in connecticut that survivors may be more willing to come forward, and they want

forensic evidence to be preserved. and by the way, you said it wouldn't be available if they didn't pursue the criminal execution, not if they go to a hospital there's likely to be forensic evidence, and they can be preserved even if they don't pursue it at that point. i want to shift to an area that was raised at the close of the testimony offered in response to my question, the transfer process and student records. i'm sure you found commitment goes on another coast, the experience recently again tragically unfortunately the university of virginia, the murder of hannah graham by an accused individual, jesse mathieu junior, who has been apprehended, and who evidently

committed various offenses at other schools, and his records were not transferred to schools when he was transferred. i think i'm probably putting it oversimplistic doing -- over simplistically, but the schools were you it was not informed of bad expenses involving him at prior schools which would have been useful to them. your testimony states that if a student is found responsible and is expelled, that student could move to another school and opened again. we know that most rapes are committed, as we observed here just now but if you repeat offenders, so unfortunately that's not only a possible outcome, it may well be a probable all. and you mentioned the academic records are protected which prevents the school from which

the student is transferred from sharing that information but i assume you're talking about furba. so it may have a chilling effect in practice but the law has a specific exception for this purpose but, unfortunately, schools do not to disclose the information unless they are asked. which is a barrier. so i wonder if you could tell me, and maybe chief zoner may have some insight on this weather cornell or southern oregon university have a policy for asking schools from which a student is transferring about the reason for their dismissal, they're leaving the school, if it's in the record.

i know that's kind of a long winded question, but i would broaden it to all three of the members of this bill. i hope you understand what the question is. spent i think as to what the question is. so to the white house yes, cornell in its transfer procedures to look into students battled academic records but also behavioral records as well. >> and ask for those records of the school for which a student is transferring? >> correct. >> thank you. your school? >> i'm not entirely to on the process. to the best of my knowledge we do as well. >> ms. langhammer, do you know -- [inaudible] >> yes. [inaudible] >> there were instances you were referring to where there was actually a college in rhode island, providence college, where someone transferred to i believe it was oregon, and just

the very situation you are describing. and i think that definitely needs some attention in the legislation. i would recommend that. i think it is a great point you are bringing up. >> really, we think about it, it is critically important because a school may be really happy to get rid of a rapist. they can't deal with the proof. the student doesn't want to pursue in the criminal justice process but there's a rapist on the contest -- on campus, a serial predator, and he is gone the schools as well, we have done a job, we got rid of him. thingies onto another school. schools ought to be asking this question when someone comes to them, especially if there's some potential disciplinary problem involved in the original school.

what was the reason? did it involve sexual assault? because they can protect a whole lot of students on their own campuses if they simply ask this question, which is very much a permissible under ferpa. it is not precluded from a school to ask that question. and so i think it behooves schools around the country to be somewhat more inquisitive and responsible. so if the long winded preface to my question indicates that it seems like a technical issue, but it has real consequences. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me ask a few more question. we are running a little short on time, so i invite chief zoner and ms. langhammer to supplement

their answers for the record in writing afterwards, but want to touch on a couple of things. the bill encourages, requires universities to develop a memorandum of understanding with local law enforcement. chief zoner come you have suggested that a memorandum of understanding, for a memorandum of understanding say, may not be the best that way but there are more balanced alternatives. in order to have the legislation not have wiggle room where colleges and universities can do what you do nothing, how would you recommend that we expand the requirement or redefined the requirement to make sure we are achieving what i think we all recognize we should achieve if a memorandum of understanding isn't the exactly pertinent term? >> i want to clarify. i think memorandums of understanding can be very helpful and very useful in many

situations. one of the concerns that i have is different campuses have different levels of security and/or law enforcement available to them in their own construct, and then a single agency or multiple agencies that are responsible on the outset. so when you look at the memorandum of understanding as the only tool by which you are going to communicate, it takes a great amount of effort in a lot of cases to make sure that those are signed. and again i'm going to reiterate that governmental agencies have no obligation. you can sign anything you want and there's no repercussions for someone who doesn't engage in the behavior that the memorandum is there. the institutions can be left floundering as good intent to try to make things happen. in addition, the law enforcement agencies on campus are also responsible employees, so have

to report and started that title ix clock ticking. it's a different relationship than what my colleague described over here. so we have a lot of different levels of security and law enforcement on campus. we have a lot of different interactions with different agencies on campuses and off campuses, and encouraging people to reach agreements is definitely a best practice. whether it's through an m.o.u. or whether methodologies, by hosting conferences the get local law enforcement together on a regular basis, opening up information and database sharing so we are all sharing this information amongst each other so we can talk intelligently amongst each other and share that information, providing records, bridges and gap so are information can be automatically shared sources and can be flagged across governmental and campus for criminal activity.

would all be very good places to invest time and money. >> you mentioned that your law enforcement officers a quote responsible officials, a term of art under title ix the triggers that title ix clock to begin to run. you mentioned in your testimony that delay in title ix investigations is not allowed even when law enforcement is on the case. arthur hallmarks of a case -- are their hallmarks of a case or other law enforcement investigation that would justify some degree of flexibility in pursuing the title ix path so that there is not interference with the law enforcement have? particularly investigate apart. the title ix path with respect to the quality of life and protection of the student and all that, student life management peace can't be stopped.

but has been a problem for you to have two investigations basically taking place at the same witnesses at the same time and pumping into each of the? >> yes, it has been problematic. and thankfully where they very good relationship with her on campus judicial administrators in working with us as we are working with the district attorney's office as well. we do our best to navigate to support the victim throughout this and allow the victim to have a say in which direction it's going and what is emphasized. certainly the our interests in the criminal proceedings to protect a potential future case because the statute of limitations is much longer, that would raise an eyebrow as administrative proceedings before. i did go into more detail in that written statement about what those concerns are. >> it's also possible for defense counsel representing an assailant to use the timeline process to delay, degrade, inhibit the law enforcement

investigation. >> correct. i mentioned earlier that is part of why we end up getting less cooperation in administrative proceedings because with a looming criminal case people are reluctant to share information. >> ms. langhammer, you said something very interesting that you said the question of not should colleges be mandated, the question is how do we create a system where the victims choices are the priority and the process is designed to work in the best interest of the victim. what are the hallmarks of such a system? >> i think, first, accurate information from the beginning. and i think again looking at the ashland model, i think having everyone present at the beginning so that he victim knows -- >> prior to a commitment to go -- >> the right. informed choice. here i am, law enforcement officer. this is what will happen if you go forward.

we will still work closely with university is also sitting right here. this is the process you can expect if you go through this on campus. you also have the option to just do me some basic information. i don't even have to use your name. that's law enforcement speaking. so i think all of those options and keeping, that's winning about the victim being in the driver's seat. and i believe that with the kind of scenario, and i understand why many more victims choose to go forward. because they do feel they are in charge and did you feel they have choices. and they also feel like, we keep hearing again and again have victims feel. this timeframe is being thrown at them but they feel out of control. as you stated senator, it's another kind of out of control, lack of consent and re- victimization in a sense. and was a certain thing is not working, we think it's because it's not working in

collaboration with all of the systems they need to be at the table and the need to work together. that's what a true m.o.u. is. that's what a memorandum of understanding is. we believe this should be mandatory. we are working, developing them as we speak with all the institutions in rhode island, day one is that we're about to complete our first one. it's been a give and take. and we think this is important here at university expert we think this is important and we been at the table with all of those folks, including their local law enforcement. that's i believe what needs to happen and how we built an ideal system of response, where the victim is part of that team. it's not a dual approach, okay, i'm going to straddle this intel process and this law enforcement peace, and here's the date i have to go to this and here's another date. i have exams now. know, the victim should be deciding how that entire process goes forward and should have he her or his eyes open the entire

time. >> final question. you spent many years in this area. you've been a great leader. you have in particular spent many years dealing with the plague of domestic violence, domestic sexual assault. are there lessons that we should take from the experience we have had? that is undoubtedly come out of the shadows and is now treated much more seriously in which law enforcement is engage with the advocacy community for effectively. does that provide any models for the? >> i think with both issues, and they often overlap, they really do, many victims we see at day one have also expressed severe domestic violence. i think the lessons are that, and my colleague from ashland addressed this, that we really need to listen to victims. we need to listen to what they are saying. we need to train our personnel

long forsman's, prosecution of anyone who is interacting with the victim in trauma informed forensic interviewing so that they really learn to understand how the victim is impacted. in domestic violence we keep asking the question, why does she stay? why did she go back? and i think the more we learn to listen to what the victim experience is, the more as law enforcement, the more as university administrators we will craft our approach to really be in tune with what the victim needs. >> very good words, and a hearing on, the record will stay open for an additional week if anybody wishes to add anything to it. i very much appreciate not only the testimony of this panel of witnesses but the life's work that has led up to the testimony may be so meaningful for all of

us. and i appreciate my i guess seven colleagues have participated in this hearing for subcommittee hearing, that's a lot of attention, particularly in the waning days of this congress. is everybody is virtually wildly busy doing things. and i particularly want to recognize our incoming chairman, senator grassley, and thank him for the positive and enthusiastic remarks that he made at the outset of the ring, and for his work with senator mccaskill and others as they put this bill together. so with that we will adjourn, and thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> up next on c-span2, a house aviation subcommittee investigates the drone technology and its potential commercial use. and the senate is back in and is expected to move forward with the house passed defense programs bill. live senate coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern. >> secretary of state john kerry asked the senate foreign relations committee this week to give president obama expanded authority to use military force against the militant group isis. the committee will debate an authorization for use of military force measure this morning and will have live coverage on c-span3 at 10 a.m. eastern. >> here are some of the programs

you find this weekend on c-span networks.

>> find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us do what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a tweet at c-span hashtag comments. join a c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> online retailer amazon said it has begun testing drones in other countries. and will divert its research to other countries if the faa doesn't loosen u.s. restrictions. a house panel investigates the drone technology and looks at safety concerns. we'll hear from officials from the faa, the air line pilots association and a commercial drone startup company. new jersey congressman frank lobiondo chairs this hearing on aviation. >> good morning. the committee will come to order. i like to ask unanimous consent

that members not on the committee in addition to members not on the subcommittee be permitted to set with the subcommittee at today's hearing. there's a great deal of interest, and offer just one and ask questions. without objections ordered. i'd like to thank all of you for being here. the united states has long been the global leader in aviation. we're all very proud of that. american leadership in aerospace manufacturing, air transportation, flight safety, and technological innovation is tremendous. the aviation industry contributes billions of dollars to our economy, supports millions of jobs throughout our country, and is a source of pride for americans. unmanned aerial systems have been increasingly in the news. but they are not truly new. it's been almost 100 years since the u.s. military began developing the first uas. like other new technologies, uas offer both exciting opportunities and daunting

challenges. the previous faa reauthorization law contained provisions directing the faa to take steps towards safely integrating uas into our nation's airspace by september 2015. among other things, we directed the faa to create test sites and regulations for uas. the results so far appear mixed and i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the faa's efforts. there are many issues surrounding uas we need to consider. the first and foremost is safety. our nation's safety record is the result of decades of hard work by thousands, and also some hard lessons learned. safety is the cornerstone of the u.s. aviation industry, and without it, the uas industry cannot succeed, period. thus, i get very concerned when i read in the washington post that the faa is receiving about

25 reports each month from pilots about uas flying too close to their aircraft, sometimes even near major airports. protecting privacy is equally important as we further integrate and deploy uas, whether by individual hobbyists or in commercial applications. i know the faa and aviation industry are taking this issue very seriously, and congress will continue to be actively engaged. we can all agree that uas represent a tremendous economic opportunity. the faa estimates that $89 billion will be invested globally in uas over the next 10 years, and major u.s. companies have begun investing in uas technology. there are many valuable applications in real estate, agriculture, medical transport, and infrastructure maintenance, with many more on the horizon. it is not hard to imagine uas making existing industries more

efficient and giving rise to entirely new ones. all of this could mean new jobs and vast economic opportunities for the american people. so it also concerns me when i read in the wall street journal about major u.s. companies taking their uas r&d activities to foreign countries, such as a canada and australia, because faa regulations are too burdensome. it also concerns me that road builders in germany and farmers in france today are enjoying economic benefits from uas because safety regulators there have found ways to permit such flights. i can't help but wonder that if the germans, french, and canadians can do some of these things today, then why can't we also be doing them? our face more than us?

i don't think so. are they better than us? i don't think so. so we really need these questions answered. i hope to get a better understanding of this issue during today's hearing. as i said earlier, safety is paramount and the challenges are difficult. but if there is a country that is up to the challenges of safe uas integration, it is certainly the united states of america. we have the very best engineers, smartest inventors, creative minds, and knowledgeable regulators to ensure american leadership in aviation in the decades ahead. i know this because many of our best and brightest minds in aviation work at the faa tech center in my district. the faa tech center is a one-stop-shop for the best and brightest to research, develop, demonstrate, and validate new aviation technologies and data sources. it has had a role in many advances in flight safety, including air traffic control, which is key to safe uas

integration. it's a place where new ideas are developed and old ones are improved. work on uas is underway there already, and i fully expect their contributions will continue to be invaluable. i am interested in hearing today where we are in terms of the uas industry and what lies ahead, what progress the government has or hasn't made, what industry and the faa need, and how we in congress can help as we consider the next faa reauthorization bill. and i talk with mr. larsen and members of the committee and chairman shuster. we are really looking at this very closely because as we prepare the next faa authorization bill, we are going to be looking for substantial improvements and advancements in this particular area and will delete a specific language if necessary if we don't see these advances in a timely way. i look forward to hearing from

our witnesses on these topics, and thank them for joining us today. before i recognize my colleague mr. larsen force comments i'd like to ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend the remarks and include extraneous material for the record for this hearing. without objection, so ordered. i would now like to yield to mr. larsen for his opening remarks. >> thank you for calling today's hearing on u.s. immigration oversight and competitiveness but i appreciate you holding this hearing at our request and safety is a must be the faa's number one priority. certainly is one. i know it's yours as well. we've looked at unmanned aircraft system for uas twice earlier this year but last week's report of numerous near collisions between uas and manned aircraft are a stark reminder that the faa must be prepared to ensure u.s. operations are safe. both of those in the air and people on the ground. this hearing is timely.

the uas industry has great potential to drive economic growth and create jobs including in washington state where i'm from, which is an episode of r&d. there's no doubt are some near-term challenge. for example, the faa says it receives about 25 reports each month from pilots as he unmanned aircraft or model aircraft operating near their aircraft including some near collisions. but we rise to challenges. we do not shrink from them and i want you to consider these headlines with cautionary tales. planes crash in the air, man killed. that's from the wyoming state tribune. two killed in a crash in air, trenton evening times. crash in air kills two wind machines collide in practice like the all these headlines are from 1917, 1917 and 1920. i found more than 80 stories of this kind alone all written before 1921. these reports could have caused the american public to give up on developing things that fly, the called machines.

but we didn't. have we given up on commercial aircraft then we wouldn't have the safe and efficient airline that we have today. while on your collusion headlines look like undeniable challenges that must be addressed, we have to keep moving for to ensure progress and competitiveness. but let's be clear, it must never come at the expense of safety. help guide this effort the last authorization set forth specific requirements am also for the faa to integrate uas in the international airspace. we've heard a number of concerns of industry the faa is not moving quickly enough. the department of transportation inspector general reported in june at the edge conclude work 49 milestones in act by the agency, the agency with the unscheduled on the remaining milestones. the bill require requires the fo osha rule on small uas on august. august 14 of this year. we expect that role soon. the bill required of a to establish test standards.

while this test ranges up and running, we hear those are not being utilized as much as they can be. however given the magnitude of the safety obligation and incorporate this technology into our sophisticated and crowded airspace, we have to give credit where credit is due in the faa is proceeding with caution and is making progress. for example, section 333 of the act gave the faa authority offers certain operations on an interim basis in advance of the final rule on small uas. the faa is beginning to use its authority and has granted several exemptions. we must ensure the agency allows prudent testing and operations begin safely even if on a limited basis. we've heard concerns from other countries afford more flexible environment to test and operate uas. so we must hold the safety paramount, we did not want you follow -- falls needlessly die. argosy and other major concerns

must be addressed and i should the public's concern. we are working to concern these are addressed in proper channels. within the passages which seem faa make progress on implementing nextgen capabilities with a strong bipartisan support of the subcommittee under the leadership of chairman lobiondo. our work shows the output necessary at the is collaboration with stakeholders, especially pilots and air traffic controls will be directly affected by new technologies. our goal is to go to uas integration should be, keep it on track so we are not here in 2024 talking about a plan to integrate uas into the airspace. finally, mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent and written remarks of meyer into the record. >> without objection, so ordered to spank thank you, mr. chairman but i look for to over panels about why we're here today, what we can unique integration of uas

on track and to ensure safety to thank you. >> very pleased to welcome chairman of the full committee, mr. bill shuster, thank them for his tremendous interest and of all in this issue and the faa authorization bill. mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by saying welcome to our panel is just a who is interested in hearing your testimony and your views on this issue. i sure mr. lobiondo's views on safety. safety is in the sky simply paramount. that has to be first and foremost so we in congress are very interested in uas. in the last that we directed the faa to save integrate that into our airspace by september 2015. the uas industry cannot develop unless it's proven safe, and based on the opening statements by the chairman and the ranking member, republicans democrats are united in our views about the priority and importance of safety.

we also understand the uas are an exciting technology with the potential to transform parts of our economy. i'm intrigued by how uas might improve our mode of transportation. for example, uas might be used for certain kind of bridge inspections without closing lanes for traffic stopping before requiring workers requiring to climb up to hide space. the uas answered 180 acres of land in less than an hour during construction projects. uas can safely help us get more bang out of the taxpayers buck on infrastructure projects. and with that in mind it's our responsibility to look at this and take a close look at this technology. i know there's challenges to get this right. i'm confident the american inventors, engineers and entrepreneurs are up to the challenge. as we work towards safe integration of uas we cannot let a few irresponsible individuals

jeopardizes the safety of the many and set back potential a promising technology. so glad you're all here today and thank you for holding this hearing, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. shuster. i want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses today. our first panel will include ms. peggy gilligan to associate a ministry for aviation safety for the federal aviation administration, such all things the uas. mr. matthew hampton, assistant inspector general for aviation audits for the u.s. department of transportation, office of the inspector general. dr. gerald dillingham, director of civil aviation issues for the u.s. government accountability office. captain lee moak was president of air line pilots association. mr. jesse kallman, head of business development and regulatory affairs for air where. dr. nicholas roy, and ms. gilligan, you are recognized to we welcome your remarks.

>> thank you, chairman lobiondo, for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to discuss unmanned aircraft systems, or what we know as the uas. in the faa modernization reform act congress mandated the safe and efficient integration of uas international airspace system. administered aware to in announcing his initiatives identified integration of uas and commercial space operations in to the nass as one of the stoppers and we're working hard to meet those mandates. in the act of congress mandated the second of transportation consultant government partners and industry stakeholders to develop a conference of plan and find a roadmap for uas integration. of the documents have been published and outlined the path ahead for uas. as called for in the statute these documents set out a phased approach that must be carried out public to ensure safety is not compromised. consistent with congressional directions we announced six uas

sites to aid in uas integration. as required we set out that once the site operational within six month of selection to we surpassed that go with the first test at operational within four months and three more sites operational within six months of their selection. now all six sites a fully operational and have established the research agenda to get information from the test sites willook at the key questions abt unmanned aircraft system interface and airspace as was with air traffic control. the faa technical center in atlantic city is going a key role in data collection and analysis will continue to make significant contributions to uas integration as we work closely with the test sites to identify the data that will be the most useful to the faa. we are moving forward with uas integration to rulemaking as mandated by the act, yet they initiate rulemaking to permit civil operation of small uas in the airspace. we agree the project is taking

too long but i'm pleased to say we believe we have a balanced proposal that is currently under executive review. in the meantime and consistent with the act, we are looking at activities that do not pose risks to others who operate in the airspace, to the general public with the national security come and they can be operated safely without an air worthiness certificate. once the sector of transportation is able to make that determination, faa grants release from other regulations. we have authorized 11 operators including five exemptions we've issued today to conduct commercial uas activity and the national airspace covering activities such a survey, inspection and moviemaking. we continue to facilitate u.s. of uas by public entities. fas offers views of unmanned aircraft for important safety missions such as firefighting in border security. working closer with the departments of defense and homeland security and other agencies, we are taking advantage of the extensive

federal investment that has been made in these systems. in addition more than 35 law enforcement agencies and operate unmanned aircraft a certificate of authorization. we are working with law enforcement agencies to address the unauthorized use of uas. for their often in the best position to help us deter, detect and investigate such activities. we are working hard to educate the public about the requirements for operating uas in the national airspace and we believe opportunities like this will help us in that endeavor. but that has proven to be a challenge. unlike traditional manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft are widely available for purchase by individuals who may not realize they're entering the national airspace system or that they must comply with faa regulations. they may not appreciate the significant safety risk that is presented by unauthorized or unsaved u.s. operations in the national airspace. just as you directed in the 20 told act, faa can and will take enforcement action against

anyone breaks a uas in a way that endangers the safety of the national airspace. but we continue to lead with education because we believe the vast majority of uas operators want to comply with faa regulation. we remain committed to serve as world leaders in this segment of the aviation industry. the united states is proud to lead the remotely-piloted aircraft systems panel recently formed by the international civil aviation organization. the u.s. will be leading the way to establish standards and recommended practices, procedures and guidance materials to facilitate safe, the safe integration of remotely-piloted aircraft systems around the world. together with our international partners we will facilitate integration at the international level while continue to lead the world in aviation safety. mr. chairman, this concludes my testimony. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much. mr. hampton. >> chairman shuster, chairman lobiondo, ranking member

larsen and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on faa efforts to integrate unmanned aircraft systems, or uas into the national airspace system. the increasing demand for uas systems has enormous economic implications and competitive implications for our nation's. as you know the faa modernization and reform act was the catalyst for u.s. technology. the actor directed you is to advance steps with equal safely integrating uas technology by 2015. in june we report on faa efforts and made 11 recommendations specifically aimed at helping faa to more effectively meet the goals. my testimony today will focus on faa is progress in the permitting the act's provisions at the challenges the agency faces in safely integrating uas technology. today at the a is complete more than half of the 17 uas requirements in the act and this includes selecting the test sites as well as publishing a roadmap outlining agency plans.

in addition using the authority granted in the act as the recent authorized 11 companies to operate uas into commercial operation. however, faa is behind schedule on the act's remaining requirements. many of which are key to advancing uas integration. for example, faa missed the act of 2014 deadline for issuing a final rule on small uas systems. these are systems waiting less than 55 pounds. while at the expects to issue a proposed rule soon come it will likely generate a significant amount of public comment that the agency will lead to consider before issuing a final rule. as a result it is uncertain when a final rule will be published. ultimately, faa will not meet the ask overarching goal to save integrate uas technology by september 2015. as fa works to him in the tax provisions, the agency also faces significant technological regulatory and management challenges. on the technological front the

evolution of the tech and avoid tech is there my. the risk of lost links in a lost links in is when operate loses connectivity with an unmanned aircraft remains high. furthermore, establishing secure radio frequency spectrum to support u.s.a. communications has proven difficult to address. faa, dot and nasa has several important research projects underway but a remake of the when the technology will be robust enough to support save uas operations. regulatory challenges has also affected progress today. although faa is offers limited uas operations on a case-by-case basis, it has not yet position to certified civil uas operations on a large scale. faa has worked with a special advisor committee for more than nine years but has not yet reach consensus with stakeholders on minimum performance and design standard for uas technology. much work remains to

requirements for qualification, ground control stations and communication links for uas systems. finally, i would like to turn to the management challenges and areas that need attention. at the a lacks the training, tools and procedures air traffic controllers need to manage uas operation to faa lacks the standard databases to collect and analyze safety data from current uas operators and the severity based classification for incident reporting. data from faa the uas test sites will provide critical information related to certification, air traffic control and voice technologies i discussed earlier, all of these can inform faa decisions. other important and much-needed steps include publication of the small uas rule and developing an integrated budget document that code identifies funding requirements in the near and midterm. in conclusion uas will be and remain a front and center issue that requires significant management attention to it

remains uncertain wind and that what pays u.s. technology can be fully and safely integrated into our airspace. now is the time for faa to build on the knowledgebase to make informed decisions, set priorities, defy critical path issues and develop the basic regulatory framework for integrating uas technology into national airspace system. we will continue to monitor at the is progress on these issues and keep the subcommittee apprised of our efforts. mr. chairman, this concludes my prepared statement to i will be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. >> thank you, mr. hampton. that's common well, okay, we leave it at that for right now. dr. dillingham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member larsen, chairman shuster, members of the subcommittee. my statement this one is based on our ongoing work for the subcommittee and focuses on three areas. first of the is progress towards

meeting the unmanned aerial systems provisions of the 2012 faa reauthorization act. second, key research and public activities needed to support unmanned systems integration. and third, how other countries have progressed toward integrating unmanned systems into their airspace. regarding the 2012 act, the act includes a 1 17 specific provisions for faa to achieve safe, unmanned systems integration by september 2015. while faa has completed most of these provisions, the key ones remain an additional actions are needed to effectively leverage the complete provisions of the integration effort. for example, a critical step for allowing commercial operation is a publication of a final rule. to develop the rule faa must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. however, as you've heard the nprm has been significantly delayed. given the time that it is generally required for rulemaking, and the tens of

thousands of comments expected on this nprm, the consensus of opinion is that the integration will likely slip from the mandated deadline of september 2015 until 2017, or even later. the delay in the final rule which will establish operational and certification requirements could contribute to unmanned systems continue to operate and safely and illegally and lead to additional enforcement activity for faa scarce resources. additionally, without a small unmanned system rule, u.s. businesses they continue to take the testing in research and development activities outside of the u.s. regarding research and development activities, the key technology issues remain essentially the same as they have been since the beginning of the unmanned systems era, including detect and avoid, command and control, airworthiness, ma and spectrum issues. to our wide range of stakeholders involved in addressing these issues and

there's been some notable progress, couldn't establish and of test sites. however in spite of progress in research and development, the role of the six test sites remain unclear. the designation and operation startup of the six test sites reviewed by many as a major step forward in acquiring the necessary data to address the technological and operational challenges associate with integration. our primary work suggest this department has not lived up to its promise. the test site operators told us they were significantly underutilized by faa and the private sector, and that they were unclear as to what r&d and operational data was needed by faa to support the integration initiative. however our work suggest faa has provided some guidance to the test sites regarding anita research and development and data needs. at the eight officials said federal law prevents them from

casting the test site for specific data. according to faa, the law does not allow the agency to give direction to the site or accept voluntary services without payment. as we continue our study we will be trying to better understand the relationship between the test site, faa and anita research and development and that the test sites can achieve their best use. regarding development in foreign countries, as is the case in the u.s., many countries around the world of commercial operation under some restrictions. also similar to the u.s., foreign countries are experiencing problems with illegal and unsafe, unmanned systems operations. however, a 2014 study and up eliminate observation have revealed that several countries, including japan and australia, the united kingdom and canada have progressed further than the united states with regulations supported commercial operations to small unmanned vehicles.

but the regulations governing unmanned systems are not consistent worldwide. some countries such as canada are easing operating restrictions through a risk management approach of other countries such as india are increasing unmanned systems restrictions. our ongoing study for the subcommittee will look further at the expenses of other countries for potential lessons learned for the united states. mr. chairman, ranking member larsen, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. >> thank you, dr. dillingham. captain moak. >> thank you, chairman lobiondo, ranking member larsen, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide our perspectives on the critical importance of safely integrating an and aircraft systems into the national airspace system. our country's national airspace is the most dynamic and diverse on the planet, and also i want

to underscore this, the safest and we need to protect it and maintain it, deliver the safest, most sufficient air transportation possible. uas and remotely-piloted aircraft systems include aircraft ranging in size from a small bird to as large as an airliner. some uas the craft are operate completely entente mostly. their flight proud this computer program and the device operates without a pilot. other uas aircraft are flown remotely by publishing an operational center or control stations that can be located at the launch and recovery site or perhaps thousands of miles away. alpa supports the safe use of unmanned aircraft systems. we recognize the potential benefit to our nation's economic competitiveness but we also recognize the potential for a safety risk if we don't treat them as what they are, airplanes

in airspace. we have all seen photos of the damage that can be caused when airplanes by a bird strike in flight. unmanned aircraft can be much smaller or much larger than birds, but they harbor added risks in that they carry batteries, motors and other hard metal components. this was a bird strike. please take a look at this on a commercial airplane, and this next photo of the military airplanes and counter with an unmanned aerial vehicle. we must not allow pressure to rapidly integrate uas into the nas to rush a process that must be solely focused on safety. standards and technology must be in place to ensure the same high level of safety as currently present in the nas before uas rpa can be authorized, occupied the same airspace as airliner operating in areas where it

might inadvertently strayed into airspace use by commercial flight. we also need to make certain that uas pilots are properly trained and understand the consequences of possible malfunction. i knew i would be speaking before you today so i went online last thursday and purchased this quad copter for the committee for just a few hundred dollars. i received it two days later. and as the marketing promised, it was ready to fly in a few minutes and i was flying it in my office. this uas can carry a camera. it has a gps which with the purpose of additional software can be used to preprogram a flight plan. it has the capability, this one, to fly as high as 6600 feet for 15 minutes. that means it could easily end up in the same airspace i occupy when i'm on approach to land at newark or at seattle or any

other airport ear if we took this aircraft out in the courtyard building, it has the capability of life from this courtyard to the final approach path at reagan national airport, and from the park at the end of the runway, that's reagan airport, that's that park, you can see it would be even easier to fly right in to the aircraft zone. now, a well-trained and experienced flight crew is the most important safety component of the commercial air transportation system. a pilot in the cockpit of an aircraft can see that he could feel come he can smell and he can hear indications of a problem and begin to form a course of action long before even the most sophisticated indicator verify trouble. without a pilot on board we lose this event but as a result it's essential that uas pile is our highly trained, qualified and monitored to meet the a quote status of pilot who operate manned aircraft.

we also need to make certain that a u.s. aircraft can't strayed into areas where it poses a hazard if the operator loses control that it behaves like it's supposed to and if there's a very, the aircraft doesn't endanger other aircraft or people on the ground. the uas isn't it to be operate in civil airspace or could unintentionally be flown into our airspace, airline pilots need to be able to see them on our cockpit displays, and controllers need the ability to see them on their radar scopes. uas aircraft also need to be equipped with collision avoidance capability. and, finally, the faa resources are limited, and the agency must have a long-term sustained source of funding as well as realistic timelines and a systematic approach that builds the path of uas integration based on safety. we appreciate the opportunity to testify today. we look forward to working with congress to ensure that safety is so paramount in bringing uas

into the national airspace. >> thank you, captain moak. mr. kallman. >> chairman lobiondo, ranking member larsen, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify here today. i am at a business development and regulatory affairs for air where, a san francisco based on the developing flight control systems for commercial unmanned aircraft from enabling compass use commercial uavs to collect, analyze and disseminate data for a growing number of commercial applications around the world. we face over $40 million from some of the world's leading venture capital firms and our team has more than doubled over the last year. i also serve on support of a small uav coalition which is when earlier this year to promote safe commercial operation to small uavs in the tray. this is a critical time for the industry and airware. the small coalition and others in the committee would like to ensure that united states

becomes a global leader for commercial uav technology development and operations while maintaining the safest airspace in the world. today i will focus on three key issues for the subcommittee. one, the current state of uav technology and potential application in a variety of industries. number two, the need for risk based approach to uav regulations. third, the effect of current and expected regulations on u.s. businesses. first, the uav industry is one of the fastest growing markets in the united states. many today maybe someone with a small consumer uavs use for personal enjoyment or for talk of the, but i would like to focus on the commercial great uavs which are tackling some of the biggest problems across a variety of industries. commercial uavs are being used for disaster management of oil and gas exploration, search and rescue, inspection of wind turbines, surveying crops. these are equipped with many technological features to ensure safety and reliability of operations such as geo fencing

systems which keep the uav within a certain altitude and distance limits as well as away from sensitive areas. also contended management systems which indicates of initial onboard an aircraft enable the uav to automatically turn to a safe landing location. these technologies are developing an increasing rapid rate. they're enabling safe operations around the world today. ..