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. ..

would be subject to minimal regulatory requirements where as a larger aircraft over populated areas where require highly reliable avionics, additional training, and felt they mechanisms like a parachute. even the types of risks models used to allow commercial operations in europe today including france and. i am please the faa's stated its intention to f switch to this test model. the critical question is how quickly can it be implemented? finally i would like to discuss the effect of delayed regulation on u.s. businesses. france allows low risk commercial application that has canada, united kingdom, australia and many other countries. the united states typically a leader in aviation is one of only a few countries that prohibits commercial operations. small and large businesses are moving casting and operations abroad. more regulations are more

advanced. delayed and overly restrictive regulations are not just slowing growth of the industry. the largest industries and corporations in america see this technology as a key for the remaining market place. strategic investments from the largest corporations in america, general elector, across many different business units. u.s. farmers could not keep up with foreign competitors if they are not allowed to use the technology. technology will have a major impact on the economy. in the next few years of immigration conservative estimates include creating 70,000 jobs and adding $13.6 billion into the economy. u.s. loses $10 billion in potential economic impact. we want the jobs, economic benefits and core intellectual properties by this work to be here. no matter the outcome today, technology will create jobs.

it will save lives and will grow the economy is of those countries with foresight to act. the united states is poised to lead the way, we have the talent and work force to create the technology needed to integrate into the most complex aerospace. that quickly before a major opportunity is lost. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. >> ranking member larsen and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the unmanned aviation industry. i am a professor in the department of aeronautics and astronautics at mit, i need a research team on unmanned aerial vehicles with flight in populated environments. i worked with google for project wind, a tax delivery system. i turned down my full time in september this year. i am speaking solely for myself and cannot speak for am i to the war google. the u.s. does lead the world in

you ave development but testing technology for commercial applications and training next generation of engineers are more difficult in the u.s. than others. >> is around small commercialization are quite different compared to a large primarily military you aves. the u.s. is the leader in this case still will focus on small ones. the vast majority of small u.s. navys are tall aircraft like small airplanes or helicopters. small uavs exists because of gps receivers or batteries leading to smaller and cheaper ones that are easy for anyone to fly. those offering to use these for commercial use, most commercial vehicles can fly simple missions with the same reliability as a toy. a lot of uses made the news in this country and other countries but for the most part prototypes, the current civil market around the world is tiny, hundreds to a couple thousand

vehicles. real technology gaps are limiting the use of uavs. it is a pretty good road map for what technology is needed for growth. let me give you examples liz know what it is like, this can in happens to uavs too. they need to be sensors and al gore rhythms to let you know where they are and to know about ground obstacles and aircraft around them and how to avoid collisions. we needed no radio technologies to make sure the pilot can control the vehicle at all times. as the number of uavs grows the air traffic management infrastructure must coordinate a large number of uavs through the national airspace system. and unmanned vehicle only makes sense when the operational cost is less than a man aircraft. on board the the intelligence is needed to drive down human labor costs in more applications. the point is another wave of technology is required for imaging, agriculture, emergency response, u.s. researchers and

companies lead these ended the technology areas. we have a demonstrated track record in algorithms, sensors and communication but there are hurdles. from the rights and the exchange of hundred years ago in ohio to hewlett-packard to apple, creation myths of the most successful technology companies in the world is the small team of investors tinkering in a garage. it is not vote point of the garages of the test anywhere that is safe and this accelerate the development cycle. is much harder to test uav technology in the u.s. and other countries. there are a number of authorization mechanisms but there's a considerable bought for entry for people who want to work on the technology. current processes might be right for authorizing uav pipeline inspection across the length of more dakota but their owners for a two person start premium. unfortunately there isn't a single set of rules or procedures i can point to that can be adopted for another country that can work here but there may be ideas to the land. a clear definition of legal test flights instead of a case by case approval process will lead

engineers know where they can set up their garage and start to work. secondly and most importantly the u.s. position of leadership depends on our ability to train engineers and scientists with skills necessary to develop the requisite technologies. growing number of universities teach in uav technology to undergrads. to learn the foundation requires real flight. some institutions have access to one of the improved test sites. they're too few and the costs are substantial. same process is that access test areas limit how education institutions provide training in uav technology. the support for basic research in uav technology is diminishing. much of the progress in unmanned vehicles is funded by forward thinking program managers, these program managers not only funded the technology to enable a uav class but to students running at uavs today. these students will solve the technology challenges, university out by the u.s. are acting as training grounds for a

generation of researchers ending debaters for companies. let me conclude by saying the u.s. is not lagging other countries regardless of demonstrations. the same technical details are in any country before commercial and the 12s become a reality in everyday life. this may allow other countries to get the u.s. in technology development for engineers to carry that development. thank you for this opportunity. >> thank you. chairman schuster. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we appreciate you bringing your expertise but it is important to point out that on this subcommittee, we have members that had expert case, we have pilots on the subcommittee. i think i got them all down here. scott perry, the helicopter pilot, we are joined next

conquest by a pilot and congressman jeff denim when he served in the arab force as an aircraft mechanic and we have a lot of expertise here is that brought folks who understand what you are saying and so it will be important as we move forward listening to you but listening to the experts we have on the subcommittee is very beneficial to us and i am happy they are here and with a sand table to help us go through this. in your written testimony you stated commercial uav operators should hold a commercial pilot's license and instrument ratings and we heard the skills to fly uavs are significantly different from those to fly at passenger jet. some parts of a curriculum really seemed have little relevance, they need to operate technology recovery techniques if they plan on flying quad

copters. what would be the relevance? how to benefit safety and scientific basis for your recommendation. >> on another committee we had the air force where they were working initially all of their uas pilots coming out of the pilot pipeline but as the need for more uas operators for the u.s. air force increased they set up a separate uav track and that track they do go through basic skills of flying for a couple reasons. one is to want to stand in there in aerospace and make sure they're operating the uas properly. the air force briefed us on that. it is a good model. with the faa has been doing, treating these as an airplane

and going through the process of certifying the aircraft and the operator, the person trying to operate it, the company and the pilots and then monitoring and oversight of all that is one of the precepts, foundations of having continuing with a national aerospace. should they recover from a stall or each of that, there is room for that in any curriculum. i agree with you on that but we need to be focused on the safety part of it. >> it doesn't make sense. the second thing is we have some reports from newspapers and other media sources that leak out the proposed rulemaking. this question to captain moak, there appears to be not to be permitted to operate beyond line of sight and if that rate case

my concern is it would almost eliminate the benefits the uas system brings to us. beyond the line of sight? >> news stories all the time but two recent ones, one at jfk and one at heathrow and this would be a different hearing if it had gone down the engine of an aircraft. it would be catastrophic and we would have a different hearing today. what is important is it is operated in that method that you are talking about their needs to be a way to have pilots that are flying and able to see it. it is difficult if not impossible to see this because much like other things in the air if there is not relative motion, your i can't pick it up. on the air space issue for helicopters, 500 feet and below

is where helicopters's lifelike and lots of other planes operate so i would suggest this. if we are going to be operating beyond line of sight in kinsley dense areas, lots of airplanes there needs to be away for air-traffic control to see it, for airplanes to see it, the person operating get to communicate with air traffic control and the airplanes in the arianna and i believe with that you could easily operate beyond line of sight. we have experts over here, if you are in an area not populated by a their airplanes of course you cannot operate in that manner but the only thing would be what do you do with a lost lane which happens quite a bit in the military? >> based on what mr. moak said could you comment? >> taking a risk based approach,

in the case of beyond line of site operations you would be in an area with higher risks but if you mitigate that through technology, for example in france today when they are doing for flight operations is they are operating at low altitudes weather isn't generally aviation traffic or commercial traffic and they are enhancing it through technology, cameras on board a system where an operator can actually see if there's other traffic in the area to the point where loss lanes and areas utilizing technology i mentioned earlier for contingency management. in the case we do lose link with the operator you are able to preprogram so the uav knows how to respond in those cases a depending what the environment is in knows what a safe location is to return to. these other technologies that are already in place today. >> one more minute to let mr. rory respond to that.

>> my answer is consistent in this sense the on line of sight, risk-based profile makes a lot of sense. it is more feasible in unpopulated environments. technology issues there need to be contingency plans. it is a challenge and as the vehicle returns that is a technology question that needs to be interest but these are doable. >> and we all agree with that. this can be done and as we move forward making sure looking at technology and safety aspect, one size doesn't fit all. thank you. >> mr. morrison. >> thank you. i am going to focus my initial questions on this end of the table and folks on my side of the aisle have some questions but i wanted to talk about the

technology side. have you looked at the use of the six test sites and made any assessment whether they are being used as much as they can then give you made that assessment what would you suggest be done otherwise? >> i personally haven't done an assessment. mit was involved in setting up the new test site. i go back to mit to september so a been a bit busy, haven't looked at what is available but we hope to find there is in. >> given research and study, what would be an ideal environment? >> good question. one of the limitations is the distance with which one has to go to get to the flights, the

jonas on setting operations. in an ideal world i described in my written testimony the ability to designate local test areas or flight areas with clear rules so that for instance if you are more the 150 -- if you are 150 meters from hurt people on the ground or ground structure, and the air space. if you had the ability to do that, that would allow presumably you could not do that in downtown cambridge but you could go further afield to an area where you take your students more easily than air force bases and 5. >> any comments hunt generally what the invited -- ideal environment for test sites would look like? >> the important thing for test site is in the ease of access those small companies and large companies have the same opportunities to utilize the air space. safety is of utmost importance

of doing that safely through for example issuing a note, there is testing going on in these areas but insuring these areas of for companies to get that approval and come and utilize that space quickly and rapidly and at low cost to these companies. >> we will talk to the test sites about where that is happening. you talk a little about the risk based approach and what it would look like. is there any scenario in the private sector where you can envision a test to operations scenario. the armed services committee, we broke through the be certain things to act on things. and get to a test at these test

sites in certain cases? >> that could be very valuable land organizations like nasa ames are looking at things like this. to allow companies to bring their technology to showcase what it is capable of doing and insuring that a response safely in a variety of scenarios will be very important to have and there should be infrastructure for that. >> hi completely agree. is essential because there will be operational scenarioss that can't be represented in the test site so for instance as a commercial application for infrastructure, package delivery and so on, they are going to recover more urban environments protesting. as they stand at these markets, the operation is an important part of that. >> coming down to ms. gilligan on the test sites and the

issues, designated from nevada the test site, what about the others. is that something tests is request, trying to conclude they ought to have these? >> we offer it as a technique put the test sites to expand attracting industry into those locations. we did it in nevada, offered a candidate, we are ready whenever they are ready and that retraining the disney needs to demonstrate they have the skill level to one of our engineers and the designee will actually approved the operation for the test sites. that will help expand the attraction for industry to come to those test sites. >> essentially -- >> it is individual designees.

not necessary it be an operational designation because there isn't that level of demand that we have seen. as demand expense we think an organizational model makes sense and we can move to that. >> i yield back, mr. chairman and look forward to the rest of the question. thanks. >> thank you. ms. gilligan, the question i will try to get to is the effectiveness interaction with an aa and the test sites. there is a lot of f a a activity with the test sites in section 333 and so on. the respective roles of the faa a tech center, test site, centers of excellence, cooperative research and development, agreements, section 333 in terms of how they are getting us towards integration, seems like there's a lot of stuff out here but we are

getting ready for reports centers are frustrated because there is not the interaction they were expecting and not getting results. can you talk about this? >> i would be glad to. we have conferences with all of the test site so we have begun to alleviate those early concerns. test sites got off to a slower start than we were anticipating as they came to understand what it was they have undertaken. we are seeing good movement. they have approved flight operations underway. and they were all getting under way. the improvement mr. larsen referred to was the ability for test sites to have a designated readiness representative who can work for companies that want to use the test sites we believe will the long way to increasing

be of appeal of the test sites to the company's my colleagues on the panel talked about and in research in these areas we think that will be an important improvement. >> does the aphasic plan to use these assets in a coordinated fashion? >> we are looking at what our research needs are to the extent they can help us fulfills those for funding to the research, we will look to use the test sites. right now at a a has not placed research at any of the test sites because as i say we reset up in accordance with what we saw in the act which was to allow industry which as my colleagues have said is difficult for industry to have access to air space for the purpose of research and development. we believe test site topper but perfect opportunity to meet those research needs in the u.s. so we are working with the test sites to expand the ability for them to attract that kind of

research. again if faa a research needs can be met the test sites we will look to fund projects as well. >> when you say you are working with test sites to expand that opportunity, can you tell me more about that? >> to keep them well informed about under the agreements, we now have individuals from the test center travelling to each of the test sites to work more closely on what it is we might be looking for to research data through the test sites and the designees, we believe, once the test sites take advantage of the ability to be on-site we think that will open the doors for industry to take advantage of the test sites. >> tell us a little bit about how you are engaging with u.s. companies that might want to do research and development in the u.s. versus overseas.

excuse me. some of these reports, media reports that companies are frustrated. are you interacting with these companies? how are we keeping them to keep the jobs here? >> staff in our office interacting with industry constantly so there is a large conference in new mexico, a yearly conference, we are well represented and reaching out not only in public sessions but private meetings with manufacturers to try to understand their needs and where they can meet those needs. the recent newspaper report that you saw, we have been working with an applicant, looking at the exemption under part 333 as well as what we are recommending, that they seek certain certification for their vehicles under special certification rules for the purposes of research and we think we can enable them to

accomplish what they need to accomplish through the test sites and their own certification. >> obviously there are a lot of areas of interest we as the committee want to keep our fingers run while keeping save the paramount the economic opportunities in an economy that can desperately use it is at the top of our list. >> miss dillingham, the anti deficiency act, you can't give direction to someone utilizing a test site because you are providing an uncompensated service. have your lawyers looked at that to see whether there is a way around that? or are we going to need to legislate to fix that? >> our lawyers have looked at it at this point and that is the advice they have given us. i will ask them to look more

closely to see if there are some alternatives but at this point we are again supporting the test sites by trying to make attractive to industry, really interested. >> i have heard from -- you use the test flights and there is a bureaucratic process and if we want to run one flight and want to modify something and run another you can't do it, change eight parameters during another flight. >> we are working with the test sites and asked them to coming with a proposal we are calling up broad authorization. they are working on that proposal so we can address these concerns. >> you get the test site, we get those parameters in place, come back in another 30 days if you want to run a little modified effort. they should be able to do it on at test site, do multiple operations with different parameters, useful for your people to observe, useful for

their development or greatly facilitate things so i hope we can do that quickly. why aren't there more test sites? why couldn't we have more? we limited to six. it doesn't cost anything, right? >> a does cost. speaking in terms of personnel monitoring. >> people who work closely, there is a resources. >> i don't consider them geographically dispersed. a small startup has to travel 1,000 miles to test site. another thing we ought to look at. are we seriously pursuing a risk based approach? which makes so much sense to me living in the west, knowing that there are vast areas with agriculture where you could be operating safely and there are no potential conflict or virtually none. >> we are using a risk based approach as we look at those requests for exemption, to make sure we understand what is the level of risk and what

limitations need to be added. one of the panelists referred to it, we have applicants who want to certify the system, using the same risk based approach. we are looking at certification rules and what are the risks that need to be addressed by design standards and what standards can we pick from the standards that exist. >> it makes a lot of sense as a starting point for risk-based approach in terms of density and operations, proximity to secondary, tertiary, critical airspace, that is, i hope you are seriously working on that. there's one other question, staff provided something they say in the case of the film industry after they got section 333 they have to get a separate operating authorization which is not yet been granted. >> they need approval to operate

in the air space, and operations cannot have gotten that approval for one particular location but we agree that under the exemptions process we might be able to make that more efficient as well, looking closely at how we deal with that. >> to the panel, transponders. house small can a useful transponder be these days? >> the smaller transponders are the size of a cellphone, may be smaller. >> what cellphone? >> those are the smaller systems. there are costs associated but it could be a helpful technology when you are at a higher altitude when there could be of the traffic in the area. >> we said over a certain altitude get a transponder in certain kinds of critical aerospace, got to have a transponder. right now these things are

visible. improved radar systems. that is correct. then this last swing, that is a problem with the military. you think you have got that nailed in terms of having a geo spacial restriction and that is all somehow programmed in and these things can find us a harbor point remotely and they know the links, they will go to that point. >> typically house that would work is manufacturers of vehicles know what a safe amount of lost time is and for examples they can specify certain applications where loss of think is critical and if there's any lost link it needs to immediately return to the lending location in a way that is safe. a lot of these systems are so highly autonomous that interruptions in the link may not be as important in an area where is controlled so it is

depending on the risk of the situation in houston program a lot of that to the actual avionics system. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. meadows. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up on what you were just sharing. and talked a lot about technology and where we are and we see an aircraft sitting in front, is it possible to put in the type of technology or expand on the types of technologies that would increase safety and yet not require an aircraft license as the gentleman to your right is advocating, it would keep us safe? what other technologies are out there? >> i mentioned two, the technology which is common in the industry to be used on vehicles as small as the ones you see here, and a managing

functionality, the loss link, functionality should the vehicle no longer be able to make it self aware of where it is, it knows how to land safely. there's a lot of great research, that professor roy talked about. that is a critical piece, high risk applications, with other traffic in the area. >> how confident i use that if we do not change our regulatory scheme, and will own this type a scale of 1-10 being most confident. the things we are going to lose out. >> i am pretty confident. we are seeing highly skilled

manufacturers in europe surpassing the companies because of their ability to rate, do frequent testing, a lot of research on their products where they are able to actually go two or three generations in their product where u.s. company may only be able to do it once so we are starting to see that. >> they are doing a lot more testing in europe or canada or other places and we are here. >> a lot of them, many manufacturers have easy access to testing facilities. >> let me come to you from an f a a standpoint. we have some six sites we are talking about but if there is sell much work going on in these foreign countries are you gathering data in terms of commercial activity from them? successes, failures? are we just more focused on the united states in not using their learning from their mistakes or successes.

>> there's a lot of coordination at the international level in terms of what should we as an industry should be setting standards for these operations and sharing experience we are seeing around the world but i want to comment on the vast differences in the complexity of our air space and aviation system over is the other countries where we are seeing that there is easier access. we have ten times the number of registered airplanes than our friends to the north. we have multiple times the numbers of operation. >> that is without a doubt. there are certainly areas where the risk would be minimal. i learned today i probably violated a federal law by taking pictures of a golf course. we are in more danger of somebody getting hit by a golf ball then there is from a drone that flew over to take the

pictures. and me not looked at it on a risk based assessment and open up the testing so that our airline pilots can feel comfortable with what we have but not keep it so confined? >> we are working closely with the test site in north dakota with that in mind. recognition that there is a lower level of air-traffic over most of the state of north dakota and how they can broaden access for the test flight. yes, we agree there are areas this can be accomplished and we're working with the test sites on how to expand that. >> have we implemented any recommendations we received from foreign countries that would actually help alleviate some of this? are we gathering data? >> i am not aware we have recommendations from foreign countries that would address this but we are learning from their experience. >> if we are learning and not implementing that is not doing any good. >> what i was going to say is

we're learning from them and looking at how we can implement what they learned in the system. we continue to look for ways to do this safely. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. meadows. i thank the members for watching the clock. we get ourselves on the clock. we have a lot of folks who want to ask questions. i will go to mr. titus. >> i represent las vegas though there was a lot of enthusiasm in nevada for the development of drones, a lot of open space, a very creative gaming industry that wants to provide service by the pool with these things. the potential is great. we applied to become a test center. we got that. i was supportive of that and we were working on it but the enthusiasm is starting to wane

because the test site is not producing like we thought it would. i hear ms. gilligan being positive about it but the things that i hear from people who briefed me from nevada are in line for -- they just don't think it is getting off the ground so to speak and i heard ms. gilligan say about three times we are working on this so we can start to address the concerns. that doesn't give me a lot of comfort. i don't think working on it to address the concerns is going to get us there in time to be competitive. i don't know that it goes to canada instead of one of our test centers. seems to me there are three problems that i hear over and over from different folks from nevada come and talk to me. they don't know what information

should be collected. how to put it together or what procedures should be followed. i heard that you are working on establishing that but there is no timeframe for when that will be done so that could be who knows when that might be? second problem they seem to have is speeding up the process, we heard some reference to is that. have to do it over every single time. it takes so long. i wonder that we couldn't prioritize for the test site over and there is because that seems to be where we want to put our emphasis. the problem of intellectual property, companies that come and test their that give this information to be a a and the public. to address these questions, would you give us your perspective? >> i would be glad to.

if i could start with the last one first, that is why we are pleased to see nevada stepped out to begin the approval process for a designee. they believe that using a designee will allow them to act to bring industry into the site without having to put in jeopardy the intellectual property that i know the folks who wanted to work it that side have had. that is an important step forward. i believe the approval for that designee should be completed this month so with that the test site will see that they can market that they had the ability for industry to bring their research projects to this test site and not put at risk the intellectual property that was the concern earlier on. that is an important improvement to take that on. in terms -- we do prioritize the request. all of the test sites have

approved authorities for air space. there are some that are still pending and we are working through those because we agreed to test sites have been designated at the location where we can take advantage of what a week can learn to integrate you a f safely -- uas safely. i forgot the first one. >> what information? >> we saw these sites primarily and continue to see them primarily to the place where industry can give the research and development they want to do, the work that our colleagues on the panel talked about. in terms of the data and the faa a needs, that is a valuable piece of information for test sites to have. with applications for the centers of excellence we identified research needs that the faa has in our bi weekly conference calls with the test

sites as well as the visits that were made by the staff from the technical center. we are working with the test site operators to make sure we and they understand what could be helpful based on the work that they are seeing at the test sites. >> you hit on the key points. same stories we have heard from the test sites. we had the opportunity to interview half of them and visit some of the test sites and those of the key issues. in terms of increasing their value and their capacity to input, ms. gilligan, as faa a fulfills those fingers, that will go a long way but i think sort of key to this is something about looking at this entire deficiency law and is there a

way that funds could be made available to pay for research or support research at the test sites and also in terms of the idea we only have six test sites, our information suggests that in canada for example they are ready to designator a very large aerospace, a to 18,000, 18,000 feet for testing beyond visual line of sight. perhaps as we move towards the next stage of this, not only additional tests sites and maximum use of the current one that we again think in terms of risk based approach to it. >> mr. chairman, appreciate the opportunity to question. i don't sit on the subcommittee

but i have a great interest in it. from the context of safety juxtaposed with the industry and the things that we are missing out on as well as the time it has taken to come by the rule, my mindset as many, looking at an article in the local paper, november 14th of this year not long ago at 4:30 in the afternoon on a wednesday so it is not on the weekend, e m s helicopter from a guy i used to fly within the military at 6 or 700 feet encountered uas about 50 feet from the aircraft, pretty strong evasive maneuver to make sure he didn't hit the aircraft. he was patient -- coming back from having a patient on bullish. not just ems but reports from kennedy where in the same month,

november 16th one came within ten feet of the left wing of the delta airline flight which is concerning and so we want everybody to -- people who use them for business and so on to access the air space but we need to make sure we and stand what the rules are and that they make sense. one question for you, mr. moak, what is the cost of the engines on the aircraft you fly? >> millions and millions of dollars. literally over a million of dollars just for the engine. if it is out, if the uas were to fly through it or hit it, just to be clear because i think maybe this wasn't clear, it has geo coding in it, the ability to do these things, when it loses lincoln is supposed to come back so this going through an engine would do that damage that we

showed in the earlier picture. to be clear we are all over this risk based security, risk-based approach to it and we also commend the steady hand of the faa in making sure they are safe, but again we have a different conversation if it ran into that helicopter or it was ten feet closer to that delta jet. >> ms. gilligan, can i ask questions? would specification if you can enumerate his b.f. a contemplating to incorporate into uas to reject and avoid, pilots don't look straight ahead, you have to look almost 360 degrees, you can't look behind you. if you could address all weather capability of uas and the anonymous operation of the

aircraft were to hit the other aircraft how do we know who owned it and maybe liability instead is germane to this current conversation. >> thank you. on the question of standards we have several groups, industry groups, through the rtc a we had a special committee working on uas standards and they will put out their first standards this time next year. the final standards come a year after that which is a standard process when you set new design standards. in the meantime we have applicants who have gone certification for their vehicles, working out of our los angeles aircraft certification office. we are approaching the certification bases by looking at the current regulations and identifying those that are appropriate for this technology. as it relates to the small uas we have a new will coming out shortly and will make proposals

around a number of these areas and we will look for comments on those as well. >> for instance letting us grow or after hours of darkness, required lighting, proximity warning or something of that magnitude and if you could address the anonymous components or the ability to track if there is a liability issue. >> we do not have existing standards for the design or manufacture of unmanned aerial systems for civil use. that is why we are working with international recognized standards setting organizations to define working with the industry. what should those standards be key to the work is underway and the community agrees needs to be well developed to address the risks you are talking about. the other issue which is something we are seeing, the operation of small uass fundamentally by people who are

able to buy them but had no aviation history or experience to in many cases don't even realize they have a responsibility to know that they are operating in the national airspace system. our first approach is through education. we are doing a tremendous out reach, working with manufacturers who are voluntarily putting information into the box about what those responsibilities are. if you operate a small uas, they are directing people who buy them to look at the modeling, the american modelers association web site which task tremendous if the operation please vehicles. not many folks who buy these are modelers as you and i might have understood that which is about building the airplane and the july of that. they are as captain moak indicates you purchase these easily and flatten after you get

them to your home. >> thank you for holding this hearing on the future of unmanned aircraft systems and i thank all the witnesses. i am at the office end of the system. i live in the state of connecticut where we have the most congested airspace in the country. at the forefront of aerospace design, a and in workers of my state but also serious risk. it is hard to be reflective during a benediction when the drone is overhead. it brought home what the reality of that is so i want to turn to one of my favorite topics which is next gen. several of view, it goes to your point, i don't think we can rely on the hobbyists here to take the time modelers have always

taken because they see themselves in the aviation space. these are people who are enjoying toys and don't have that sense of responsibility of if seagulls can take down an aircraft how do we take something out of metal? all it takes is one horrific accidents. i would like to think you can you talk a little bit about how you see what we need to do in next gen to keep your pilots and all the passengers safe in this country, what we need to be doing and how quickly, what resources, how we need to integrate them. you are next on the other importance of integrating these together which i think is tremendously important. >> we work with the unmanned aircraft systems groups. they shouldn't be defined by this. they had the concerns we have of

one of these causing an accident. the risk based approach we're working with them on. next gen and the larger type of systems that would be in the air space, there has to be a way for the pilot in the cockpit to be in the same air space to see it. there has to be a way for our controllers who keep the air space very safe to see it on their scopes in their control room. currently we do that in and out with next gen coming on line and on top of that, these technological challenges we are facing here calling through a process, the same process to certify aircraft and operators that we will be able to do that at some point but now they are defined by this. the air space gets more crowded,

not less, and how they're integrated in that, that is the focus with next gen. >> this integration effort of next gen. >> a lot of discussions are focused on the smaller u.s.. they are operating today, the authorized -- they are 500 in the you a's on the border. albuquerque center, los angeles sender and the only preliminary works began to look at the air traffic control systems and adjustments had to be made. in particular automations systems take a look at the 2.4 billion system, the flight planning system has to be

adjusted. another one we talk about is the voice switch. most of the discussion has been about pilots talk to controllers, that discussion is with the person operating the system on the ground. agreed deal of work has to be done to think about how assistance in the air traffic control system have to be adjusted. some work has begun in its infancy and it has to be done now. i think the planning and requirements adjustments something has to be done quickly. >> if anyone has thought on the funding it is appropriate to go to the industry to seek the resources to realize the safety and opportunity for industry if anyone would care to get into that i would love to hear your thoughts. >> your time is just about up.

thank you, mr. chairman. we start with mr. dillingham. we created section 333 to push the faa to allow small u.s. operations before finalizing larue. the stated goal was to approve these petitions within 120 days, only seven according to my figures have been granted to date in 6 the applications passed the 120 day window. what is the status of these petitions and can we expect to see more timely response to them especially with regard to areas you designated as the test site? it seems obvious in these areas there is a presence, you can dedicate airspace to that and you can streamline around test centers. >> yes. i am pleased that were

additional exemptions today, there were 12 exemptions that were granted. >> 200 files. >> over 160 but we will confirm that number and having said that we agree we need to speed this up little bit. each of them is somewhat more unique and we were anticipating but we are learning quickly as we have gone through this first set. we actually believe the statute intended them to be separate from the test sites. they are for commercial service which is not the reason for the test sites. >> the commercial service. i am worried about the cat being out of the bag. i have to talk on my christmas list, quite a few people do. at some point there will be so many of these that are out, we won't know who owns them. you can look back to the fcc and the walkie-talkies that came with a card you have to

register. and this is a more dangerous and something you need to be putting priority on when there are too many of these capable beyond a couple hundred feet. i should guffaws to 6,000 feet. we have a problem and failure to regulate we have a genie out of the bottle. you studied this, how can we speed this up? things move that internet speed, these are considered tech devices. silicon valley get stuff done in weeks, not years. >> this is a situation -- as you pointed out, we are talking

about civilians, regular public using this kind of platform this and there are already existing regulations the modelers follow but the public has not adhered to. >> resources to in force that against tens of thousands of these that are sold this christmas. it is going to be a difficult or impossible task because the a a already has so many calls on its resources, i think probably this is one of the best steps, education for the public that there are rules and regulations they are going to follow and when we see public announcements of individuals being fined or otherwise the faa a acting on them, that has to be -- >> existing regulations assuming they were enforced, if i have

acquired copter and go to my friend's ranch and films and year around the deer fear i am legal at that point. i post that to my blog that has google ads on it and i probably crossed into a gray area of commercial use. that is a lot of fine line distinctions to have to educate the public about. >> i can't argue with that. you are right. >> i will give you an opportunity to answer my question or concern that we are operating at the speed of the internet and if our regulations can't keep up technology and there are so many of those out there, we are going to have a dangerous situation. is there a sense of urgency? >> there is in the faa. as i commented in my opening remarks, the rule has been delayed beyond what any of us

think is acceptable but we believe our balanced proposal will be out shortly and we will start to get the comments and finalize those rules. .. >> i really can't tell you exactly what the time frame is. but as i said, i think all of us who are involved in the project understand how important it is to get this out as quickly as we can now. >> i would be remiss in my oversight respondent here if i

didn't get a date at this hearing so we can measure progress toward that. what are some of your goals in the next year? >> for the rulemaking, the department of transportation has a public web site which shows the rules scheduled for release by the end of this year. once the rule is released, it will go out for public comment. that period will last between 60-90 days, depending on what the community asks for. there is some concern we will get a substantial number of comments which will delay how quickly we can get to the final rule, but we'll certainly keep the committee informed of how we are progressing once we are able to publish the rule. >> to the point earlier, how are we going to make sure these rules are copesetic with the next gen? is putting adsb in every drone, is that going to be one of the answers? would that allow them to interoperate? >> well, sir, i can't really comment on what's in the rule because it is a pending

rulemaking. but as i said, we have the industry very tightly involved with us in terming what should be the -- determining what should be the design standards for these kinds of platforms when they are to be certified by the faa. so we'll base our decisions on what the community recommends. >> one of my concerns for drones and the commercial development of them is if you require something like adsb and there's no low cost solution to that, are we throwing up another impediment? because the low cost solution to adsb doesn't exist right now for private aircraft. do you see any be progress in that field? -- any progress in that field? >> well, again, the industry, members of the committees who are advising us know they must address the risks that are posed by the ability to sense and avoid other aircraft and for the unmanned platform to be able to be seen by both controllers and pilots in the system. they are looking, working hard

on what exactly those technology solutions can be, and we're sure they'll find them. >> i know you don't want to comment on the rule because it's not been released, but can you give us some indication, is it going to be risk-based, or to what degree will you incorporate those recommendations of a risk-based strategy? >> i can tell you that we did take a risk-based approach. it is the approach we use now for all of our standards. we also look at performance standards rather than directing particular technology solutions, for example. and those are just the general policies that we follow. >> so i've got a question for mr. kalliman or dr. roy here. some experts have talked about integrating privacy by design. you know, we're talking about safety, what about privacy here? this is a concern, genuine concern that the larger public has, i think. are you aware of any technology solutions to the privacy issue?

>> to the privacy issue, and i think it's important to state that privacy is definitely one of the things most important for the uav industry and a lot of the companies in it. and to your point on privacy by design, i think a lot of manufacturers are doing things like restricting, for example, where cameras and cannot turn on aboard the aircraft, protecting that valuable information. but ultimately, i feel that privacy is really independent of the type of technology that's collecting that information. i feel that privacy is really about what information is private, what information is public and insuring that we protect that independent of the different types of collection methods. >> dr. roy? >> i'd also like to add that privacy is a little bit of a moving target, and it varies from not just country to country, but across the u.s. as well. it's really a question of expectations. i think that when we talk about -- your suggestion of privacy technology, i think so long as the public understands

what information is being collected and has clarity into that, then that will go a long way towards actually defining privacy. >> quick question. i don't know if there'll be time for an answers, but one of the things in addition to a ceiling that i would like to see is a floor. what's a reasonable expectation on your property if something's an inch above the ground, is it trespassing? if it's ten feet above the ground, is it trespassing? you have the right to engage a trespasser, so that's something i would like to see considered along the privacy lines. and i think my time has expired. >> it has. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. larson. mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i understand because of the number of folks you have and the number of folks we have we'll kind of go two to your side and one to our side and get through this. i want to yield a little bit of time to mr. defazio who has a question, and then i'll take the rest of the five minutes. >> i thank the gentleman.

try and do this quickly. you know, when we see these things in the new york air space, have we found anybody operating illegally who was putting people at risk? i mean, you've talked about some commercial violations. have you caught anybody who's, like, put people at risk with one of those things? >> i can't make the correlation, sir, to some of the reports that we had and some of the cases -- >> right. because we don't know who's operating them, who owns them or anything. how about a system where we require registration, licensure with user fees? the user fees help you with the deficiencies in your budget, and you vary the license according to the uses and the weight and the capabilities so the cost, you know, would be appropriate so it's not going to be burdensome on, you know, little, small -- so anyway, think about that. there's no real answer now, but i think that's the way to go. we need to know who has these things, who's operating them and, you know, people are putting people at risk, taking a plane down, they've got to be

prosecuted. thank you. >> thank you. mr. hampton, the faa uas working has recommended the immigration office be placed at a higher level within faa. have you looked at or do you have an assessment whether you think moving the office would help coordinate efforts better across the agency? >> sorry about that. that's a very good question. in industry that's a very significant concern. at this time i think we're more concerned about outcomes, and as going forward in the reauthorization process, i think we'd have to look a year from now and see the outcomes and whether things have advanced. we're going to quickly, faa's going to quickly move from a situation from actually planning to actual execution on a number of fronts, so i think we'd have to wait and about a year from now and see where we've gone with the execution of the rule, whether we've gone where faa's response to a number of our

recommendations on developing and executing a framework for collecting data, where we've come with the test sites. so i think that's a very real possibility. i think the key -- i'm not really too concerned about how faa's organized and structured, but outcomes, sir. and i think that's a very, very good question. the office was structured and does a very good job of coordinating. a year ago we were concerned about staffing levels. they've staffed up. we're also concerned about the requirements of what, what's important for it to actually begin to develop the regulatory framework to control their training, so requirements and the position of the office to execute things and make things happen with a sense of urgency. so i think we'd have to take a look at that in about six months to a year, sir. >> all right. for the record, i'm hopeful we'll be done with this reauthorization well before that year is up. >> yes, sir. >> dr. dillingham, from your discussion with operators and

other stakeholders, do you have any thoughts about how test sites could increase level of participation? in the uas integration efforts? >> yes, mr. larson. we -- in our conversations with the test sites in addition the blanket -- [inaudible] that ms. gilligan talked about and the appointment of the airworthiness director, the test sites also talked about perhaps they could be a part of faa's approval process of the section 333. that number is going to increase, and it's a workload burden on faa. we are hearing that it'll be two or three years before we have a rule. so in the meantime, any tools that are available to further the idea of commercial use of uas will certainly be helpful.

the idea, something was talked about earlier, again, as sort of the development of an integrated budget that allows faa to be more supportive of the test sites as well as, again, we bring back are there issues around the anti-deficiency law that can be somehow dealt with so that it allows faa to adhere to the law but also be supportive of the test sites. >> yeah. okay. captain moak, just one final question on this. how are alpha pilots communicating near misses on unmanned aircraft to faa? is there a structured way to do that, and are you confident that every near miss that is seen is being reported? >> so if you see one of these, you're going to take action to avoid it, you're then going to appoint -- you're then going to report it to the controlling

authority. so if we're out in the approach corridor, we're going to be talking to approach and let them know immediately so that they can make sure someone else doesn't go in the same air space. if we're on the tower frequency, we would report it to tower at that time. then on the, once we're on the ground safely and have gotten to the gate, we have a reporting program that we work with the faa and the companies with. we report it through that so that everybody can know about it. i'm not confident -- i am confident that when someone sees that we are reporting it, i am not confident that we're seeing them because they're very small. and like i was with saying earlier -- i was saying earlier, we don't have any indication in the airplane like we do with the other aircraft -- >> right. >> -- and the relative motion necessary for your eye to be able to pick it up is difficult, especially this size or maybe

just a little bigger. >> yeah. >> so it is a real issue. our pilots are reporting them, and we just need to stay on top of it. i'd like to see us take some kind of construct on this type of problem that we took with the green laser problem we were having, and we became a lot more successful on reporting and also prosecution of people that were pointing those lasers at pilots on final. >> great, thank you. >> mr. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i echo the comments of chairman schuster on uas both from a safety perspective as well as an opportunity for economic growth. the briefing 2er8s that we were provided by the committee cite that this, that uas systems will have an $82 billion economic impact, possibly provide up to 100,000 jobs by the year 2025, so my questions should be viewed through that lens. i'd like to start with associate

administrator gilligan. one of the benefits i see with the uas is more efficiency in rural areas like the one i represent, especially viewing farmland and precision agriculture could be aided by uavs, and we could reduce the cost of a farmer's input and also make a sure that we have proper drainage and better production, better environmental impact. so one thing that can hamper this is a requirement if the rule required a pilot's license in order for a farmer to operate a uav. can you confirm that the small uas would require a small farmer in my district to actually get a pilot's license in order to use one? >> unfortunately, sir, because we are in rulemaking, i'm not able to talk about what's contained in the rule. we are very mindful, however, of how easy uas could be applied to agricultural operations. of course, we also have a very active ag pilot community that

we're dealing with as well who are very concerned about operating in air space with these kinds of platforms. so we're looking at how we can address all of those safety risks and how this can be mitigated. >> thank you. please note my concern requiring that, if that is going to be part of the rule. dr. roy, the faa's slow pace may be causing our best and brightest to maybe leave the united states, especially when you look at major u.s. tech companies that have moved their research and development operations overseas. do your students have better job opportunities outside the united states in this field? >> so the field is small right now, commercial uavs, so the job opportunities are few and far between in the u.s. and in ore countries. -- other countries. but i think you've heard from several people that the rate at which the opportunities are growing in other countries possibly is going to lead to a lot more opportunities. i'd say that it's immeasurably

small around the world right now, but i would worry that there are many more -- i personally am seeing more start-ups, very, very small start-ups, but more start-ups outside the u.s. than in the u.s. >> mr. kallman, one of the major issues with uavs is the flyaway problem where they lose connectivity and fly away. it affects consumer uavs, but also very high-end aircraft with the military. how do we mitigate that risk, and how do we integrate this into our aviation system? >> yeah. and i think to reiterate also that safety, again, is of utmost important. and uh-uh think with the flyaway -- and i think with the flyaway issues, that's a matter of technology. i think that the technology's increasing at a very rapid pace. i mentioned earlier a lot of the functionality in a lot of these systems to manage a lot of issues that happen onboard the aircraft can, typically that's where you'll see those types of

things, lose the gps or something along the those lines. making sure the systems know how to automatically respond should any system fail onboard the aircraft and be able to return it to a situation that is determined safe before the flight. so i think those will be very, very important to insure. >> captain moak, safety's paramount. on the flight simulators that many of your pilots use to train, is there simulation for uavs? >> not per se, but there is simulation for, you know, detect and avoid, you visually pick up something or if you have a situation where you're losing control of the aircraft because perhaps you had to maneuver it, maneuver it in a manner that you wouldn't normally be maneuvering it meaning you were banking it excessively and how you recover from that upset situation. we do have that. >> thank you, captain.

and thank you all for being here today. obviously, this is an issue that we should be able to address. we seem, we've seen unmanned aircraft fly sorties within the theater of war in a much smaller area than they've done it, they've done it safely. we ought to be able to not fall behind countries like canada in putting together a rulemaking process so that we can get commercial uavs into the marketplace and do it in a way that's going to be safe. i have concerns, too, with our medical million copters. i'm in the -- helicopters. i'm in the flight line in my house. i want to make sure we have these rules in place. we can do this. so i appreciate your work and look forward to hearing you at the next hearing. >> thank you. mr. graves. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think most all the questions have been asked, but a couple of comments i would like to make.

i was pleased to hear ms. gilligan mention agriculture because i'm very concerned about that. during the periods between may and august, at least in the midwest, we have heavy traffic at and below 300 feet. that's going to and from the airport, and that's on the site where they're spraying too. and it's a big concern. and there is a huge potential out there for uavs in the agriculture sector, but they're in that same air space, and it concerns me a great deal. you know, this just comes down to -- and captain moak mentioned it -- it comes down to visibility and being able to see these things, and i don't necessarily know what the answer is. i don't think transponders are necessarily the answer. that certainly gives air traffic control visibility on them, but if you're on a vfr flight plan, you don't have the benefit of that, of that sight.

adsb, you know, if we put adsb out on 'em, obviously, that's going to paint 'em, but you've got to have adsb in to read that as well. and it still comes down to situational awareness. and, you know, obviously, the people that are flying the aircraft or at least the manned aircraft, they've got that situational awareness. but juz it's captain -- just as captain moak pointed out, a vfr aircraft traveling 100 knots right up to our airliners traveling 350 knots and everything in between, you're moving pretty fast, and that's awful small, and it's very hard to see it particularly if there is no relative motion. so i've got a huge concern with how we're going to move forward. and, you know, i hope you're -- and i hoe you -- i know you are being very diligent in this. i'm not so sure we don't need to take a more active role in congress as well when it comes to reauthorization, but it concerns me.

it concerns me in a big way. and we haven't even begun to talk about the safety of individuals on the ground when these things do go rogue and what happens to those folks. we're just talking about aviation and the potential, and i don't want to run into one. i don't. you know, interestingly enough there are a lot of periods out there, and we have birds strikes, but birds have situational awareness too, and they'll get out of your way for the most part. but this is a big concern, and i guess there is no question in that, but we need to move very, very carefully as we move forward. >> thank you, mr. graves. mr. williams. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd like to to thank all of you for being here today. appreciate it. i'm from texas. we've got a lot of air space in texas. my question to you would be, ms. gilligan, as companies look for economic always to modernize their delivery systems, unmanned aircraft systems are looking more and more attractive, as

we've learned today. amazon prime air is currently investigating the possibility of using small drones to quickly deliver their packages to their customers. my office has met with amazon prime air and learned that they are having some difficulties getting permission from the faa to test their delivery system outdoors in a rural area in washington state. would you please give this subcommittee an update on amazon prime air's petition for an exemption under section 333 of the air modernization reform act of 2012 that will allow them to test the system outside here and in the u.s.? >> yes, sir, i'd be glad to. they have applied for the exemption, and we have worked closely with amazon. we've been in regular contact with amazon since, i would say over a year ago when they began pursuing this project. we believe, though, to some extent that what they want to be able to do they can do under a, with a research certification for the vehicle, and we're also working with them on taking that approach. because we think that will fit their needs better.

we and they are having those conversations. i -- we know they are not satisfied that they have to go that path, and we are -- i'm certain that we'll reach some conclusions shortly so that we and they can figure out exactly how to support what it is they're trying to do. >> thank you. my second question would be also to you, ms. gilligan. looking to the future, do you see a time when the finishing aa will have an assistant director, and if not, why, and what do you think the faa's doing to prepare for this change? >> we believe that unmanned systems, like many of the other technologies we've brought into the system over the years, we do believe there will be full integration and that will be handled within the structure we currently have. we do not see a need at this point for a separate organization because, again, we need to make sure that the aircraft itself in those systems are integrated in both design and manufacture with the aviation system and that the operations are integrated with

the operation of the rest of the aviation system. so that's the approach that we're pursuing. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. to -- okita. >> i thank the chair for the indulgence. i have six pages of notes here which, for me, is kind of an all-time record, so i can tell i'm going to hate being on this committee. [laughter] i thank the witnesses for their testimony. mr. roy, let me start with you. if i heard your testimony correctly, it seemed like you were defending the faa process here and where they're at when you said, look, other countries might be ahead in terms of the regulatory schematic right now, but they're still going to incur the technical difficulties. did i get that accurately? >> that's correct. >> okay. so then those countries must be acting with reckless abandon or something. >> no, i don't think that's true.

so the -- >> if that's not true, then why can't we follow the same path? >> let me draw a distinction between a small number of flights that demonstrate a capability or provide a service and the what is required in order to service all of, say, agriculture in the u.s. so a good example is japan. so japan is sort of a high water mark in terms of pree decision agriculture. somewhere about 30-40%, the numbers are a little unclear, are sprayed using yamaha or max helicopters. it's interesting that one model of aircraft is providing service were about 77% of all the uav. the effort required to actually support that is rl toughly small. so it's nice that japan and the other countries have the

regulatory infrastructure in place, the permission for testing that allows companies like air ware and others to go and develop their technology, but what's required is another wave of technology to actually scale up to the amazon prime servicing or the d.c. or boston area. and i think that next step is what's going to be required to really grow the markets everywhere. >> okay, thank you. tangential to that line of question, i'd like to ask any of you if you're aware of any actuarials that have been done. if we're talking about a risk-based approach, right? and you've all indicated that that's a fine approach. insurance companies all day long do studies that analyze this using math. right? so if we're worried about a strike, you know, in an approach corridor around an airport, we could take the number of, let's say birds, that are in a square

mile of that airport or some area and then let's say it's 10,000 or 20,000 or 100,000, whatever it is, and then add the ten drones that would be in the area potentially at the same time and see what the increase of percentage of risk is. and then if we can have a discussion based on science and math and not what, not pictures and beliefs. because the fact of the matter is a bird -- which does have situational awareness, i completely agree -- but we still is can determine what the risk is. yeah, captain? >> so we have procedures for birds currently. so if there are birds in the area when you arrive in the terminal area, there's a system that the controllers are putting bird reports out. meteorologists are putting that information out. you can see some large flocks of birds on your radars. we have procedures if we were to

have a bird strike. so there's all kinds of procedures for dealing with birds. it's not preferred method -- >> but not a bird near miss. >> pardon me? >> you outlined a procedure for a uas -- >> bird near miss, we have a procedure for that. you report birds in the area because you know you have another plane coming right behind you. >> yeah, you report flocks of birds and that kind of thing on the airport, and if it's in the approach corridor, but there's not the detailed procedure you indicated for a -- >> you would -- there is. if you're going to hit a flock of birds, you're going to maneuver the airplane in a manner -- >> no, i moment you get down, you call, you, then you alluded to a prosecution element that was -- [inaudible conversations] with the laser stuff which was an excellencal act, you know? -- intentional act. but my question is about the actuary studies. have there been any actuarial

studies? dr. roy? >> for the larger aircraft, i think that's absolutely the case. for the smaller aircraft, i think the answer is, no, and there's a couple reasons for that. one is we don't have good failure models for a lot of the components, and the second thing is we don't have good models yet for the consequences of failures. bird strike action might be one that does exist, but for a lot of the others, i'm reasonably certain they don't exist. >> would they be helpful? >> they'd be extremely helpful. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. if there are no further questions, i'd like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. in absence ya, the other members for their participation in today's program. the subcommittee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> c-span2, providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend, booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter.

>> the u.s. senate is about to begin today's session with members continuing work on a thereby 577 billion bill for defense programs next year. the bill authorizes funding for the war on isis, it includes money to train syrian rebels and the afghan army. there are also new provisions on sexual assault in the military. a vote to move ahead with the bill set for 10:30 eastern, 60 votes are required. now live to the senate floor. the president pro tempore: the senate will be in order. today's opening prayer will be a guest of senator mark warner. it will be offered by our guest chaplain, rabbi israelzoberman founding rabbi congregation beth chaverim in virginia beach. rabbi. the guest chaplain: our one god of life's blessings who brings us together to be one

family, gratefully united though gloriously diverse through the divine commandments of loving-kindness. may the awesome author of an enchanting yet endangered universe uplift our honored senators with the essential twin gifts of freedom and responsibility, ever fulfilling the demanding american dream. at these crossroads of compelling challenge, may the senators be reassured that each human life is a singular journey of promising purpose, that the creator's divinity and human dignity are inseparably linked. may the most high bless the senators, the nation and humanity with shalom's sacred healing, hope and harmony. recalling my early childhood in a displaced persons camp in germany's american zone, and on my 40th anniversary in the rabbinic ministry in the most ecumenical nation under heaven, i am grateful. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader the senate will resume consideration of the motion to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 3979, the defense authorization bill. at 10:30 there will be a cloture vote on the motion to concur on the defense authorization bill. mr. president, the work we're going to do on this defense bill today is extremely important for

our country and i'll have more to say about that in a little bit. today's generation goes to google to find answers to questions they have about geography, about politics, famous people, any subject. any subject, you name it, we all go to google just as quick as you can. but long before google, we had to use books, encyclopedias, volumes of books containing all sorts of facts and topics and they were listed in alphabetical order. so for almost the last 40 years -- 39 to be exact -- the united states senate has its own encyclopedia. legislative counsel jim franson. he began his senate career in 1975 after graduating from law school in the university of wisconsin where he also studied

as an undergraduate. that year he joined the office of legislative counsel as assistant counsel. over the year jim gradually moved up the ranks until he was named legislative counsel, a position he held for 15 years. he's a noted expert on a lot of things but especially united states tax code. mr. president, we've heard speeches on this floor about the complexity of the tax code. that is a monumental assignment. i understand the tax code. he does perhaps better than anyone in washington. he actually wrote the tax reform act of 1986. that was the famous bradley gephardt legislation. for four decades he's played a role in every important piece of tax legislation that has become law in our country. office of legislative counsel, does work for the united states senate. not democrats, not republicans, but all of us, including our

staffs. and what they do, they write bills to create programs while also drafting amendments to have some effect on these programs, sometimes wiping out these programs. this impartiality is the key to the success of the senate and it's something that we don't often consider how we get to a point where we are. this massive bill that we're going to deal with today, legislative counsel's imprint is on that, and one they're going to work on today in the house, the omnibus, same thing. the tax extenders, same thing. the must-dos that we have before we leave here. but another key to this the success of jim franson is the excellent team that he's put together in the office of legislative counsel. the staff under his watchful eye receives about 15,000 legislative inquiries every year. 15,000. well more than 1,000 a month.

and they are responsible for drafting 98% of all the legislation we do. it's rare you find someone like former senator jim webb, a freshman senator, came and drafted his own new bill that would give educational benefits to the military. it was something that was -- he came to me and said i'm going to write my own bill. that's not very often but it was extremely important that he did that and it was -- it had to be done because we had not done anything significant since world war ii. it was the new g.i. bill of rights that an officer would certainly understand. 98% of the work we do here is not stamped by jim webb. that is he doesn't do it himself. we depend on jim framson's

office to do this. his job is not an easy job but he has excelled at it because of his knowledge of the law, his experience of the legislative process, patience and impeccable character. he's a man of integrity and one who consider everyone's views whether he personally agrees with them or not. it is no wonder that jim is the second longest serving legislative counsel in the history of the united states senate. one of his admirers once told me jim always plays way up here while the rest of us are down here. his phone rings at all hours of the day and the night with random requests, and jim hanls it all -- handles it all with class and dignity. jim is retiring from the senate at the end of this month. he'll be missed and that's an understatement. but he leaves with us an office of legislative counsel that has never performed better. i thank him for his service. i do this in behalf of the entire senate family. i thank his family for the

untoward hours that he spent away from home. i appreciate the work his wife margaret ann has done supporting him. and of course he'll spend more time with his three daughters and two grandsons. so thanks very much for sharing this good man with us. i wish him the very best in his retirement and thank, i repeat, all of the united states senate family for the work that he's done. mr. president, as i indicated, we're going to move to the defense bill. but we're going to also, as part of that bill, do something that's at least ten years overdue. for the last ten years we have been struggling to get bills out of the energy committee, and we're fortunate enough to get them out once in a while but they're stymied on the floor. that's been going on for ten years. there's been a permanent wrecking crew led by one person

to do this. before nevada was settled by pioneers, its mountains were home to thousands of bighorn sheep. we still have lots of them. antelope, we have the largest antelope herd in the entire world in northern nevada. and nevada's streams and lakes at one time were full of cutthroat trout. mr. president, we now -- could we have order, mr. president? the presiding officer: order in the senate. mr. reid: mr. president, we -- and those streams and lakes were full of trawt. that's not -- full of trout. that's not the case anymore because of the growth of the state of nevada, people having tremendous impact on the environment. we had in nevada salmon in our rivers. not anymore. we're trying to replenish the --

we're trying to replenish the fish so that we will have more of what we didn't have before, including salmon. like every other state across the nation nevada's cultural heritage has come under pressure as our cities and populations swelled. about 80% of the people now, mr. president, live in one of our 17 counties. clark county, that's where las vegas is. the other 16 counties make up about 20% of the population. so the pressure especially because of what's happened in southern nevada has been really very, very difficult on the environment. the other thing, mr. president, people have to understand is nevada, 87% of the state of nevada is owned by the federal government. that creates a lot of issues. some positive, some negative. but with the population having swelled, the issues that we are now experiencing certainly is to

be expected. as our society continues to expand, stresses on our land, wildlife and water resources will continue. that's why the package of land bills in this national defense authorization act is vitally important to our country. the package is a compromise that protects our nation's wild and scenic places. our nation's unique history and opens up other lands for development. mr. president, are there provisions in this bill that i don't really care a great deal about in a positive fashion? yes, there are things in this bill i don't like. but there are things in here i like. are there things in this bill the majority of republicans probably don't like? the answer is yes. so this, mr. president, is what legislation is all about. it's about compromise. it's about working together to have an end product, and that's what we have here. this compromise is a chance for

the senate to get something done. compromise has been wanting in this body, especially regarding matters of the energy and natural resources committee. hundreds of bills for the last ten years have been stopped. now, mr. president, i don't know if this -- i'm only, just offering my opinion. one of the finest public servants i have ever served with is jeff bingaman from new mexico, an absolutely brilliant man, a hard worker, and he knew the senate. i would bet -- and i don't bet very often, and i'm sure no one will take me up on this. i think one reason that jeff bingaman left the senate is because of the work that he was unable to get done in his committee. what a good chairman he was, but he was stymied time and time again of getting anything out of that committee. so for the last ten years that committee has worked really hard, very hard.

but, mr. president, they haven't been able to show much for that. this package protects more than a million acres of landscapes. i was waiting in my office, and the senator from -- i'm sorry, senator bennet from colorado came around. he had a great big poster with him. what is in a? it was upside down. you can see immediately when it was right side up. he was looking for time on the floor to show america what was in this bill for the state of colorado. this beautiful vista that he was showing, showing me and he showed the whole world last night is something that's in this bill. it will be protected. stunningly beautiful forest area in colorado. well, a million acres of landscape will be protected. watersheds will be protected.

historic treasures will be protected. protects over 140 miles of wild and scenic rivers throughout our country. these bills will create nearly 250,000 acres of willed necessary in five states. -- wilderness in five states, colorado, new mexico, and washington. it protects more than 100,000 acres for economic development. my friend, the presiding officer, understand how important that is and being able to convey to the private sector the ability to develop federal lands. it has to be done very carefully. it can't be done on a massive scale because if we did that the rich people would wind up owning all the nice places. these are places that i think should be shared by the american people. but 100,000 acres to local communities for economic development. legislation continues our country's rich history of establishing national parks. it designates a number of new

areas. for example, the harriet tubman historic park. mr. president, i read in a period of a month two books on harriet tubman. they both came out about the same time. i can't imagine why a movie hasn't been made about this dynamic little five-foot woman who did such remarkable things. she -- what a story of this woman bringing -- this slave. she was a slave, bringing people out of the south into freedom in the north. as far north -- she took them as far as canada. she did it alone. and so i hope someday someone will make a movie of this stunningly powerful woman. and we're recognizing an area that will be named on her behalf. the bundle of lands bill is good for america. it stretches literally from the shores of alaska to the coasts of maine. and it's especially important to nevada, my state.

it protects over 75,000 acres of wilderness in humboldt and lyon counties in northern nevadas, the first new inductions in the state since 2006. one of those areas is named after a famous indian, wovaka. there was a man who was a famous indian. he established a dance that really brought these native americans together, even though it started in nevada, it swept the country. this is going to be in lyon county. bighorn sheep habitats, some of the best fly fishing opportunities in nevada and the nation. now there is a plain forest wilderness in humboldt county that has been championed by the local community. they have been working on this for years. we couldn't get it out of the house of representatives. and over here, of course, it was a lost cause. i wouldn't think about getting it out of the energy committee. environmentalists, ranchers, interrers came together to

protect 20,000 acres, with amazing rock formations, sage habitat. mr. president, it also allows a mine there to have some more land, the federal government they need from enlarging that land. it's a copper mine. it's extremely important that we develop copper and don't have to import it all from south america and russia. and southern nevada established the tooly springs fossil beds national monument on the edge of las vegas. this area is the largest deposit of ice age mammals in the united states. can you imagine that? basically in the middle of thousands of homes. people couldn't understand what they were digging up out there. i mean, it's ice age mammals that are so unbelievably large and preserved there over these thousands of years. and when the resource is developed, cataloged and better understood, i repeat it will be likely the largest deposit in

the entire country. the package sells 10,000 acres of land to the city of airington. lyon county was the most -- was a county that suffered more from the economic shutdown. they had huge problems of unemployment. and now we have that mine there that will help. this will allow them to make even more jobs there. the agreement also provides lands to the cities of las vegas, north las vegas, fernley, carlin, allocates tracts for college campuses, expands the ellis air force base. mr. president, this is good for nevada, it's good for the country. this legislation promotes jobs, protects the environment, helps our armed forces and gives americans the opportunity to enjoy the beautiful landscapes this country has to offer. it's not perfect legislation. no legislation is. but this is really good legislation. so i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these critical

land bills which are a part of the defense authorization bill. which is the business now, mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the message to accompany h.r. 3979, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 3979, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth. mr. johnson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. johnson: in 1986, the people of south dakota elected me to serve them in the 100th session of the united states congress in the house of representatives. in 1996, they gave me the honor

and privilege of being their junior senator. when i ran for the house in 1986, i told the people of south dakota that neither party has all the answers and that both parties have good ideas as well as men and women of goodwill. my job, as i understood it, would be to work in a bipartisan manner, listen to all parties and reach in good faith, also known as a compromise. that is what i still believe. however, in each year of my 28 years of service, this has become more difficult to achieve. each party, rather than working cooperatively for the american

people, is more and more focused on winning the next election. today, days after the 2014 election, you can walk into the call center for either party and find members dialing for dollars for 2016. tonight there will be fundraisers across d.c. where members will discuss policy, not with their constituents but with organizations that contribute to their campaigns. mr. president, we have lost our way. my thoughts are not original. my colleague and dear friend from south dakota, senator tom daschle, in his farewell called for finding common ground that will not be found on the far

right or on the far left. that is not where most americans live. we will only find it in the firm middle ground based on common sense and shared values. a senator in his farewell speech said his greatest frustration was the difficulty in finding common ground on significant issues, saying that it doesn't happen often enough. in fact, the need for bipartisanship and the lack of it in the senate is a hallmark of senator farewell speeches. rather than expounding on this topic, i would like to share the rare instances where i have experienced it.

i found it working with my colleague, senator john thune, as we put aside our political differences and worked as our constituents expected two norwegians to work. we worked side by side as we pushed for farm bills, highway funding, emergency relief from droughts and floods. we successfully fought the proposed brac closing of elsworth air force base. however, our norwegian heritage, we never fought. i found it on the banking committee working closely with ranking member crapo. together we reached middle ground on reforms in which both parties gave up significant

priorities, compromising funding middle ground to pass bills out of committee. my best and most enduring memory of this magnificent body occurred during my nine months absence following my a.v.m., a long and humbling journey. during this journey, my committee assignments were respected and my friend from rhode island, senator jack reed, graciously accepted extra responsibilities until my return. senator harry reid told me that during my long absence, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle never once tried to take advantage of my absence. more importantly in so many

ways, the kind words and prayers from you and your spouses on both sides of the aisle supported both barbara and me and give us strength during my long and continuing recovery. i was grateful and humbled by your support on september 9, 2007, the day that i returned to the senate, when almost every chair in this chamber was filled . senator reid and senator mcconnell, i thank you for your welcome back to the senate family. in the years ahead, i will miss this family, not the bickering that i mentioned earlier, but the blessing that you have all been to barbara and me.

mr. president, i would also like to thank another family that has been critical to my work for south dakota. a family that goes by the name team johnson. this team is composed of highly talented and courageous individuals. they have worked tirelessly in the halls of congress and south dakota and on campaigns to make our state and our country a better place to live. i wish that i could thank each one of you for your service. please know how much i appreciated the long hours and late days that you put in. in the years ahead, i hope that we will continue to celebrate the friendship that we have

forged. to my friend and chief of staff for 30 years, jeff samuelson, thank you for joining my fledgling uphill race for congress in 1986 and for staying with me until we close the senate office in a few days. few members of congress have been as fortunate as i have been to have the loyalty, friendship and thoughtful guidance that you have given me. my legislative directors have all been remarkable but time limits me to noting the services of two individuals who have served the longest -- dwight fittig who started with us in the house as a young man fresh

from his internship with senator byron dorgan of north dakota. dwight rose through the ranks to legislative director and then became my first director on the banking committee. todd stubendach, my current l.d., whose legislative guidance for over ten years has guided the staff in moving critical legislation through the senate. todd and dwight have worked on legislation for projects that now deliver water to hundreds of thousands of people across south dakota. country of origin bills, farm bills, national historic sites for lewis and clark and the minuteman missile numerous projects for elsworth air force base and the south dakota national guard with efficiency and collegiality.

todd and dwight, thank you for your outstanding legislative teams. our number one researcher, numerous historian and go-to person lucy waigle has been with us since we opened the first offices. thank you, lucy. to my south dakota state director, sharon boysen, thank you for leading the three state offices, for ensuring that we were responsive to south dakotans and coordinating with the d.c. office. sharon stroists who directed the aberdeen office and darryl schumacher who managed another office have been outstanding leaders for 28 years. you and all the state staff have been great advocates for south

dakota. you made sure that i always knew what was on the minds of south dakotans, you visited crisis situations, local and tribal governments, businesses, schools and much more. thank you. linda robinson, thank you for your dedication, willingness to go the extra mile in your outreach to and services for our state's veterans for 28 years. the senate office only had one office manager for the last 18 years as the most insightful person that i know. the university of south dakota will be forever grateful when they receive