sexual assault. >> we are trying to determine whether or not we have a safe and if it did educational environment and whether our policies have been violated. we are comfortable with individuals choosing both pathways, choosing a criminal justice pathway and university pathway. we believe the student should be able to decide that. our goal is to make sure we can can read media to our own environment if needed to understand what the risks are and making sure we are lowering barriers to those reporting right now because that is our biggest concern. we know that the incidence established by the polls and studies is nowhere near the number of reports, and we'd like to close that gap and we don't believe that approach would do

so. .. i think you'll find a lot of support among the committee for clearer cyanide, but also to resources needed to address these issues and not without a lot of conversations this morning about prevention and the importance of educating students

about healthy relationship, healthy encounters and i'm glad we are talking about this before they get to college. there were some conversations about the teach safe relationship fact that safe relationship fact that there's a version and have been a cosponsor of other members of the committee. i invite the other committee members and colleagues to look at that enjoy non-because if we are preventing that is the best approach. we know we can take stronger steps not only in prevention. we want to make sure survivors of sexual assault have access to research services and privacy on an off-campus is and i want to emphasize we need to have policies encourage, not discourage survivors from reporting and tickling -- counseling. that is something we see in more institutions. earlier this year wrote a letter

to the department of education about an apparent loophole in first appeared in some expansive they can access the records without a court order. the department of education's recent draft guided to address the issue is encouraging and i look forward to advocating with colleagues to close the loophole and provide survivors. we want to be safe and help them feel safe. if the records will not be kept confidential that may discourage them from seeking support they need. my home state is working on this issue. earlier k. brown signed legislation making clear conversations between alleges campus assault survivors are confidential. oregon passed a bill that requires schools to give students a report a written notification about their rights, campus services and the

community resources and i just want to give a shout out to brittany tracey who is now a nurse and an advocate. these policies are important for students not only in oregon but across the country and i'm glad we are having this conversation today. i want to ask you, we know that title ix oregon state university opening a survivor advocacy center to provide assessable services. they will have a full-time advocate there. what can we do to expand services. the more students know their raise and what researchers are available on off-campus and let all students know that not just for a what if they are. >> title ix requires schools to

put together an antidiscrimination policy but also have procedures and most importantly to publish it and publicize it to students and faculty and staff and technology can be our friend and making sure it is distributed frequently. it should be used in any on-campus prevention program and so forth. i would like to get back to the climate surveys because one of the things overload as it does seem an opportunity for students to talk about services. could you talk about the diversity among politicians do you have any suggestions about how we can accomplish that in a nation so we can get equity and response for the distribution and participation. >> winning to make sure they're certain questions via we need to

have that across the country. across the same time, each campus can personalize the climate surveys to make sure they're asking questions for their community and constituents. what is good about that is that not only provides information about what they should be doing that students don't like it could be better, but it lets the students know the universities paying attention that there are these rights and protections and that in and of itself is a program as well as data finding that helps to make things better. >> my time is expired. >> i understand congresswoman speier would like to -- >> is my understanding she be allowed to join the committee members for today and participate in this important hearing. >> without objection.

over some of speier is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for allowing me to participate today. i apologize for not being here the entire hearing. i had a funeral to attend. i want to applaud the committee for recognizing the gravity of the issue and the importance of putting a spotlight on the issue and coming up with solutions to dealing with it. i'm sure you've undertaken a complete review was a panelist at that today come in many of whom are experts about the fact this is indeed a very serious problem regardless of how you crunch the numbers, the incident is widespread on college campuses and we need to take steps to address it. let me say at the outset i worked on the issue for two years. i worked closely with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and we have introduced the hall pass.

it do in all of this, we have spent time at the office of civil rights and i want to commend them within the department of education and the last couple years have been outstanding job of creating greater accountability because they seen for a long period of time for coordinators on most college campuses worn even available to people. they're oftentimes very and websites. that is changing now due in large part to letters that have been sent out by ocr and others. it is personal to me because i have a daughter in college and every college we visited before she chose the college she is now out, the first question asked by every parent, the first question when we were at orientation was what is the safety of that college for their child. this is a bipartisan issue.

i can't tell you the number of republican fathers and republican mothers who have said to me i am really upset this issue hasn't been dealt with appropriate way. it is not until the six degrees of separation that you appreciate how close they can come to you. climate surveys used effectively in dealing with sexual assault in the military and has been used in the military for long periods of time is something we want to see incorporated by universities. it is a picture that helps them appreciate how significant the issue is. the actual also provide for a number of other elements. it is a heavy hammer if you are providing the kind of nondiscrimination and education,

you could lose your federal funding which means you lose all of the grant money. you lose the option for student loans. it is a heavy hammer, but it is important to create a system that provides them fiscal penalty short of that heavy hammer. it would also increase the violation, the penalties for violation from $35,000 to $100,000 create a private right of action for students whose institutions fail to inform them of safety risk and of their rights. it provides more money for investigators in the office of civil rights by 5 million as an effort to decrease the backlog right now at the title ix complaints filed. i spoke to a number of young women who had been assaulted at the university of california. i won't name the campus so they

won't be drawn back under the microscope. in talking to these young women is nothing like hearing the story of these youngsters to appreciate how insidious this can be. and many of those cases, that the dems were never even interviewed. that is maybe shocking to some of you, but that is commonplace. how can you properly evaluate a case unless you interview the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator and have it done as well. the question as to whether or not colleges should be engaged at all, you reference that a few moments ago. it is probably a legitimate question. you all have codes of conduct and if you violate the code of conduct companies take actions to remove those individuals from the campus.

you certainly have the wherewithal and use that code of conduct in dismissing or suspending student who don't comply with the rules of the university and i would suggest by being engaged in something that is clearly a crime, but that meets the standards has suspending or terminating a student. i also appreciate you have the way the various interest. i think the office of civil rights needs more resources. i think we should create a proactive responsibility than to tuition plaster the notice says of how you can see title ix coordinators in the bathrooms of every dormant sorority and fraternity in those simple things. i see my time is expired and i thank the chair for the opportunity to participate.

>> thank you very much. i want to thank our witnesses for taking time to be here today. i would like to recognize the ranking member for any closing comments. >> share, before i give my closing statement, i ask unanimous consent that the following five documents be submitted into the hearing record. number one, u.s. department of education guidance on title ix on guidance. number two, u.s. department list of higher education institutions with open title ix violation investigation as of september september 2015. number three, the table chart title ix clearly acts as the rpa. number four, the national alliance to end violence and

lastly number five, a letter from the feminist majority foundation. ask unanimous consent that be done. >> without objection. >> thank you did my closing statement i would like to thank all of our witnesses were spending their time at us that important hearing this morning. the combination of publicity and heightened scrutiny is leading colleges across the entire nation to place more emphasis than ever on preventing and responding to sexual assaults on their campuses. sometimes victims of these horrendous crimes do not know who or where because they believe no one will understand them or they believe supporting a crime could bring them much more harm. this is why it is imperative that institutions of higher education which deal directly

with their students have the resources to provide the victims of sexual assault and be accused of helping convert said they had those affected will fully recover and not miss out under educational opportunity. with that, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. hinojosa. again, i want to thank our witnesses and everyone who came here today. i want to thank our staff for the next work on putting the hearing together in the interest of time i did not acknowledge that dr. rue is from wake forest in my district and i'm grateful to her. i want to say i deplore violence of any kind. i don't even watch any kind of movie with violent because i

cannot abide violence. this is an important issue. it is important to all of us. again coming have a grandson to win off to college this fall for the first time. those of us who have children at colleges and universities that every american, everyone on a college campus deserves to have a safe environment to learn. we want that for all of our students. so i believe today's hearing has brought forth important information that will inform us as we go forward in the reauthorization of the higher education act and i appreciate again the witnesses, my colleagues who came and asked thoughtful questions everyone here to learn more about the

issue. there've been no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> battle to increase security rule of law and justice in mexico is a long-term battle. i think that we have -- we can see what is happening, be it in

the types of improvements made their nose or the improvements we have to help mexico make. we can talk more effectively in terms of the programs in place by continuing those programs was started in colombia and currently run in mexico to improve the judicial system, all of those things are what is ultimately going to make this a safer location, safer country. >> thank you very much. i will point out there is no police force. there is none. so you can work on training them, but there isn't one. shame on the department for cutting people's pain. that is not the way you build morale. but there isn't a local police

force. >> a congressional determination made in this vector max and one thing i do want to emphasize that we are not taking spectrum from broadcasters. is a voluntary action on behalf of the broadcasters. broadcasters continue to be an extremely valuable service, but congress passed the act were broadcasters on a one-time only basis will be able to relinquish rights and return the proceeds of the auction. so what it is as congress is determination and the fcc implementation to make available

wireless broadband needs. in other words they need is urgent and by multiples of exponentially there isn't a lot of good local spectrum last and this is a new and novel method congress have put in place in the fcc to implement. >> the house oversight and government reform committee recently heard testimony from regulators and industry leaders on proposed federal rules for unmanned air vehicles known as drones. the federal aviation administration is light aircraft to fly under way for all the rules are finalized but a number of can turn remain. among the advocates as an online retailer amazon.com which wants to deliver products via drones.

>> the committee on oversight and government reform will come toward her. we offer the right to declare recess at any time. i appreciate the panelists here today. this is the first in a series of hearings the oversight and government reform committee intends to have as they talk about emerging technology. one of the great competitive it manages for the united states of america is our leadership in information technology.

the entertainment industry. one of the things the united states has gone and has been a bastian, a great place for entrepreneurs to come up with creativity and allow the ideas to enter the marketplace and create whole industries that create millions of jobs and revenue and income. it is also interesting public policy issues we need to discuss as you have new companies and ideas and product services consumers are demanding than the public wants and we have an opportunity to make sure we foster the growth and create an atmosphere where businesses and entrepreneurs can thrive. today we'll talk about drones in the next frontier for commerce

because it does offer exciting possibilities but it also does create challenges and things as a public and society we need to talk through. right now drones are being widely used to deliver food and medical supplies in areas hit by disaster, law-enforcement, to locate missing persons. in the state of utah, a very big rule component where we have raging wildfires in massive public lands. we have people who traveled from out of state and enjoy national parks like arches and canyonlands yet they get us some time in the terrain is very difficult and expensive for a helicopter to traverse. maybe drones at the way to do that. railroad tracks, telecom

systems, alaska pipeline, other great places where drones can be of great help. these drugs are used to monitor oil and gas pipelines dimension crops and might start. they use them at music festivals and give a whole new perspective on real property as people look at potentially purchasing things. you have a big innovative company in a decade or two ago when he been. amazon and google were researching and developing systems to deliver and retrieve packages via drones. this is a huge massive opportunity for the united states of america. february 15th of this year the faa released a proposed rule after years of delay on the heels of a june 2014 report by the department of transportation inspector general criticized the

faa for being behind its efforts to integrate into the national airspace system. the ig concluded it was unlikely faa would meet the deadline is here to integrate drones in our airspace and under current regulations as well as proposed rule is difficult for companies interested in developing transformative technology to go through testing of ideas. developers either limit testing in the united states or to test overseas in a country where the rules are more flexible. march of 2014, google's project and started testing deliveries of drugs but did so in australia. a year later, amazon began testing canada and the united kingdom after months of waiting on approval said they could test real-world firemen in the united

states. according to the trade association and yes there is a uav trade association, every of the integrationist of late the night dates loses $10 billion in potential economic impact. i recognize the privacy and safety concerns exist and i personally share many of those. i certainly don't want law enforcement using drones for surveillance and private property but are there appropriate uses for drugs i'm on force and atmosphere dealing with large crowds at the super bowl or major league this ballgame or whatever it might be. there are appropriate uses. and maybe overuse? yes and that's why we need to talk candidly about the parameters. i believe there are states rights. what point is the airspace become a federal issue.

what point is that a state issue because maybe the drones will land. the state municipalities wanted and not as well. i'd like to think we can get this right. the opportunities are limitless and this is why we have the session today. the former chairman of the tni committee here in the united states congress is the chair of our subcommittee on transportation and physical assets. invite to yield some time. >> i'll be brief to discover quite a bit. thank you for conducting this hearing particularly at the full committee level because this does demand not only the congress' attention that the nation's attention. drones are here in uavs are here and they are here to stay. we've worked on faa authorization.

in 2003 i never even talked about drones in the last faa the authorization six or seven years ago. we directed the faa to move forward with rules. it's important for safety. we've had some near misses and had. you can have the potential of having deadly fatalities and incidents. we now have so many of these in the air. we now have thousands of them flying. the rules are sketchy. the rules are incomplete looking

over the progress made in the rule has been semi-finalized. people look at it. to comment it is still going to take at least another year to finalize the rule and get it in place. today we are focusing on commercial use of the drones and i'm told it is as much as $10 billion in revenue for possible use of technology with commercial applications. we can't delay good timing for the hearing. we find out where we are with the progress of the approval and some of the applications and try to stay ahead of the game which is our responsibility in

congress, particularly on the commercialization side and the benefit of the american people. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> now the distinguished ranking member, mr. cummings for his opening statement. >> thank you very much for calling this hearing. this is a really interesting hearing and one that i think is extremely important. drones are an exciting new technology with a lot of potential uses in the not-too-distant future. companies to both new technologies to fight or even deliver pizza. however, i share the same concerns as you and many other american. i want the use of drones to be saved and i want to make sure the privacy interests of the american people or protect did.

as defending groundbreaking technology are regulatory regime has not yet fully caught up with drones. an existing rules do not fully address can turn americans have. our goal must be to balance can do in a way that allows for the robust development of new technologies while ensuring necessary safeguards are in place. in 2014, more than 9.5 million commercial airline flight carried more than 850 million passengers in the united states according to the bureau of transportation statistics. our aviation system is among the safest in the world and obviously we must ensure drones do not in peril.

allowing jones to fly in the airspace used by commercial jet is a long-term aspiration rather than imminent possibility. although it's a small number to drones to operate the united states airspace, the assistant secretary-general has testified to congress that airline crews have already reported seeing unmanned aircraft around the airports. in some cases at altitudes of of 2000 feet. right now they do not appear to be a proven technology to ensure that an unmanned aircraft cannot on its own and avoid other aircraft. there also does not appear to be a proven technology to ensure

links between drones and operators maintaining consistently. this could cause roads to crash or equally dangerous by out of control. our aviation system does not allow a wide margin of error. a system to manage traffic at low altitudes is still in the early stages of development and is not ready for deployment. recognizing the limits of existing technology, the faa has proposed new regulations that allow 55 pounds only during daylight hours under 500 feet in less than 100 miles per hour. rules require drones fly within the line of sight of their operators would be allowed only one at a time.

these united states also raises significant privacy concerns. they gather a wide variety of people and property. they have real-time data without even knowing that drones were present. it can be analyzed and integrated for detailed pictures of almost every aspect of a person's life. these are a host of privacy concerns not fully addressed by current law or legal precedent. once it has been lost, privacy is not easily regained. successfully introducing drones will require all parties to strike a balance that threads

numerous needles carefully. i'm confident this can be achieved but i'm certain it will take time and thoughtful analysis and i certainly appreciate the opportunity to consider issues today and look forward to the testimony of eyewitnesses. mr. chairman, we have to get this right and we have to get it right in a bipartisan way and i look forward to doing that. >> told the record open for five legislative days for members to submit a written statement. we now recognize our panel of witnesses. we are pleased to welcome the honorable michael whitaker, deputy administrator for the aviation administration of the united states department of transportation. john cavolowsky, did i pronounce it correctly? phd and director of the program office at the national aeronautics and space administration.

mr. paul misener has been with us before, think yesterday. vice president over policy at amazon.com. mr. brian wynne unmanned aerial vehicles -- and mr. harley geiger's advocacy director and senior counsel at the center for democracy and take allergy. give us an interesting and as it comes to privacy issues. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are sworn before they testify. please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give up her the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you about the record reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion we would appreciate

it if you limit your verbal comments to five minutes. you will see a light that would give you an indication wonderful written statements will be entered into the record. we anticipate the members after will have additional questions. for your verbal comments we will start with mr. whitaker who is now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings, members of the committee. i'm here to discuss the uif software for china national airs race. aviation has been an industry of innovation driven by new technology. unmanned aircraft are born from the same spirit of innovation. as you've noted, technology has potential uses from agriculture to newsgathering to fire fighting and border patrol but

it introduced new risks at the federal aviation administration are challenges to allow for the innovation moment taking the highest level of safety. and please report we've made great strides over the past year to integrating u.s. and the largest most complex aviation system in the world. the faa reform act by data framework for the integration by september 2015 and faa has made significant progress in meeting milestones. perhaps most important is the publication of the small uis proposed rule making. this rule creates one of the most flexible regulatory frameworks in the world. we've received thousands of common and we are in the process of reviewing those now. issuing a final small role remains one of our highest priorities. at the same time we take other

steps to enable industry to take advantage now. faa continues to issue exemptions under section 333 of the 20 talkback to allow commercial activity and low risk controlled environments. currently the faa is on average issuing 50 exemptions each week. we also work with partners in government and industry to overcome the largest technical barriers to integration of ensuring safety of the airspace. there's still a lot to learn about capabilities and were exposed. that is why we leverage a variety of research tools to give industry greater flexibility and provide faa additional data to inform future standards. december 2013 the faa has selected six site to test uis technologies. these provide valuable data to our tech center in new jersey.

we recently announced the pathfinder program in circumstances. the msf railroad will explore challenges using aircraft to inspect rail infrastructure beyond line of sight and isolated areas. partnerships with industry help us determine if and how we can safely expand unmanned aircraft operations beyond parameters in the rule. beyond commercial applications, uas have become available and affordable to the average consumer, most of them who are not trained in theaters. the faa is taking a proactive approach to educate the public on the safe and responsible use goodwood partnered with members of industry and the community to initiate the know before you fly a outreach campaign providing recreational operators with information they need to fly safely and responsibly. this has been successful in

several manufacturers include materials in their packaging. the faa initiated a note grown zone campaign for fly an aircraft near outside sporting events. and maybe built on the success and launched a campaign for washington d.c. to reinforce the message the city itself and constituting no drones zone. what preferences to have legal compliance, we as enforcement action to gain compliance with appropriate. local law enforcement is often in the best position to respond quickly. the faa can best assist as. our goal is to integrate the new and important knowledge he on maintaining the high level of

safety. the faa has successfully integrated new technologies in aviation for 50 years will do if the unmanned aircraft. we could look forward to working with congress and industry to achieve common goals. thank you. >> will hold questions until it hurts and panelists. next will air from dr. cavolowsky i'm a director of airspace off the nations. welcome. you are recognized. >> chairman, ranking member comments and members of the committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify the program and the challenges associated with the operations of unmanned aircraft systems. nasa strategic thrust defines their vision and approach are the integration and our near-term research builds the foundation for the more expensive transformative changes

and autonomous system brings some of the mid-and far term. uas hold great promise for the transformation of our system and we witness the dawn of a new area of aviation innovation and flight vehicles and operations unimaginable today and open up entirely new market much the way jet engines did 60 years ago. nasa's research and transitioning can't do to the faa and other stakeholders to help them define requirements, regulations and standards for safe routine access. still there's significant barriers and challenges associated with technologies and address needs to be comprehensive evaluated to verify and validate they operate the design to establish operations and equipment standards. a significant part of the

near-term work is focused on three areas. first are void research talk to determine requirements for certifiable system to include state separation with all vehicles operating. second, developing secure, robust, reliable indication systems and protocols. third, the son of ground control stations to maximize effectiveness and safety. to transfer research findings, nasa has built partnerships with key stakeholders, certainly the faa that the department of defense and homeland security and these partnerships nasa plays a significant role in the executive level to the subject matter experts. for midterm applications come in nasa's research and technologies to develop the safe operation

that are not actively control today such as small uas 50 pounds or letter at all to do or letter constitutes a five do the 500 feet or below. he safely enable widespread civilian operation multitudes come in nasa's development called uas traffic management or uts. think of this like today's management for vehicles operate consisting of road, lanes, traffic lights, similarly for system would provide services such as airspace corridors, terrain avoidance, route planning a separation management. working alongside many partners in the nasa will lead the research and testing a utilizing a series of prototypes or builds each increasing capability. the first to be evaluated in a demonstration in august this year. also in late july, nasa is

holding a convention to explore and define the needs of low altitude small uas operations. over 500 attendees, federal state or local government general public have registered to attend. through game change in long-term research, nasa enables current singable and transformative aviation system achieving through partnerships thoughts on clear roles and responsibilities, fun productive relationships in a close and continuous coordination for the specific needs of the uas integration. as the challenges evolve and emerge, nasa or not x develop the enabling technologies to assure the safer location and benefits and increase competitiveness of the civil aviation industry. thank you again for the opportunity to speak.

i'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> will it hold questions. i may recognize paul misener with amazon. your recognize. thank you, mr. chairman. drugs will provide the next generation a serviceman permitted as a policymaker should adopt rules of operation emphasize safety and performance. thank you for attention to this important topic. amazon prime is a service that deliver packages of five pounds to customers using small drones also known as unmanned aircraft systems or uas. flying over 500 feet in about two and feet per takeoff and landing in weymouth and five pounds total, small vehicles take advantage of sophisticated technology as well as automation to safely operate distances of 10 miles or more

well beyond line of sight. no country in which we have distribution has yet adopted rules to allow commercial uas deliveries with government agencies and appropriate rules for operations. such rules allow a core capability of technology would justify with minimal human involved and among sight of an operator. such rule should be proportionate and not mandating how that might be met. the safety is a top priority with the faa announced that we are committed to educating safety risks to its key aviation authorities outside the united states are hot and operational roles for uas and is mindful of the economic benefits they present. here in the united states come

faa is making the responsibility seriously and amazon is grateful for what the agency is giving and the small npr in his step forward and speaks to the need for performance-based rulemaking. you are fully supportive of the approach and at the same time their shortcomings because the prohibitions maintained are not performance-based if adopted rules are not establish primary operations in the united states. more specifically, respectfully disagree with the current opinion extending principles to small uas and loss of control presents unique safety concerns which thereby warrant the late consideration. although the safety concerns present engineering challenges, such challenges are not particularly different from the other challenges facing mall

designers said they should be assessed starting now, ultimately resulting in performance-based permissions. granted regulators cannot quickly adopt actual rules young visual line of sight that may take time. policymakers propose frameworks rules for future operations. amazon believes the faa should act x vicious he and provide guidance to the agency and additional legal authority. first and foremost, as the uas must be performance-based. rule should take into account the risk of operation included in the absence of passenger and crew and the very low operating altitudes and evaluate how performance mitigate the risks. categorical prohibitions be on the line sight makes no sense that must be avoided.

likewise, they should be allowed to fight the meet performance based safety requirements and thus an operator should be able to oversee simultaneous operation of multiple highly automated small uas vehicles. given the interstate nature of operation in the states and localities must not be allowed to regulate what dfa is authorized including altitude, purpose of operation qualifications. rules must apply. in conclusion i look forward to working with you and your committee to help the united states adopt rules for operations that emphasize safe in system performance and permit drowned but the next generation of service safely and soon. thank you and i welcome questions. >> thank you everyone out here for mr. brian wynne, president

ceo for unmanned vehicle systems international. welcoming your recognize. thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member comments, members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. i represent the unmanned nonprofit organization devoted its lucidly for the systems and robotics community. it's been a voice of unmanned systems for them 40 years and over 600 corporate members. the unmanned aircraft industry is poised to be one of the fastest growing in american history. her economic impact study from the first decade following integration will result in more than 82 billion u.s. economic activity and create more than 100,000 new high-paying jobs. faa modernization reform act of

20 top established a foundation for government and industry collaboration to advance the emerging sector. they work on finalizing rules for commercial and public use of the technology. the agency has granted permission for limited commercial use on a case-by-case basis under section 333 of the 20 talkback. more can and should be done despite positive steps, we need to permit expanded uses of technology that pose no additional risk to the airspace system. for example, within the context of the roll through the reauthorization or other means me to allow beyond visual line of sight nighttime operations and operations over congested areas or risk stunting a still nascent industry. technology is advancing rapidly thanks to collaboration between industry and government. in order to continuing

innovation and safety we need to pass and sign into law a reauthorization measure before the reauthorization measure expires in september. i'm a highly specific directions are for going forward. first the industry supports a risk-based technology neutral framework. this means regulation should be based on the profile of a particular operation rather than the platform being flown. for example, low risk operations such as aerial surveys about farmland would be regarded as safe with minimal regulatory barriers regardless of specific technology. the framework will accommodate innovation rather than new rules based on the new technology emerges. secondly support a comprehensive industry government research plan. there's a lot of work already being done by better coordination ensure the impact

of the sufferers. while the pathfinder program and center of excellence show great progress we need your visibility on how they fit into the picture. congress should consider the test sites eligible existing federal funding. while the test sites have been active for a year, access to funding will give industry guidance and incentivize -- incentive to better utilize the sites. fourth, we support development of a uas management system. some uas will be low-level and complex. traffic management system will integrate the existing infrastructure and ensure the continued safety for all users, manned and and. finally knowing uas must be done in coordination with the transportation system, there's

an opportunity to consider linking efforts and resources more effectively. where this is the faa recognized for senior-level attention with a new direct your and senior adviser on immigration and look forward to working with individuals once they are bored. in closing, uas technology is an exciting and pivotal stage with new applications contemplated nearly every day. unmanned aircraft systems increase human potential allowing us to execute difficult tasks safely and efficiently. thank you again for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. we'll get back to you for questions. mr. hartley geiger, director and senior counsel for the center of democracy and technology. welcoming your recognize. >> chairman chaffetz, ranking member sent to members of the committee, thank you for the

opportunity to testify on drugs. i am hardly geiger -- it is a non-partisan, nonprofit consumer organization dedicated to preserving civil liberties such as privacy and free speech while enabling agencies to provide security and companies to innovate. i have three overarching point they want to make. my testimony focuses on privacy although clearly there were many other policy issues associated with unmanned aircraft. first, unmanned systems are a promising technology that have potential to reverse civil liberties by enabling pervasive surveillance. second, current laws do not provide strong privacy protection from government or private unmanned aircraft and the lack of protection undermines public trust which holds the industry. third, to an acceptance of a

uas, both government and the industry should fully address the liberty issues or a combination of legislation in an industry code of conduct. in the time remaining and will expand on this point. cdc one figures for commerce, journalism, disaster relief and more. however neither the government nor the industry should ignore potential for uas to enable pervasive surveillance. here is the nightmare scenario for civil liberties. one person establishes a broad based dragnet that tracks individuals and outdoor areas showing the rate to free expression, free assist haitian and free assembly. at the same time they record a dish of every american who steps out of her home even if the individual remains in private property. this may seem like a far-fetched future to some, however few existing laws would stand in the way and the public does not yet

trust distraction discretion of the government to prevent this scenario from becoming a reality. when it comes to government, cbt believes prolonged surveillance of public places violates first amendment principles. however, supreme court has held americans have no expectation of privacy and is even held the fourth amendment has not violated a police helicopter looks to the interior of a private building or a hole in the ceiling without a warrant. not in line, very little protection in terms of privacy from government used outdoors. law enforcement is perhaps the most acute concern the public has with uas and to address the concern, congress should pass legislation among other things establishes due process standards for line first to use a uas and power should limit one person used instances for the government has warranted exigent

circumstances are narrowly tailored exceptions. cdc believes preserving american representative powell and lofgren pessoa senator wyden protecting individuals from surveillance act introduced today would provide strong process protection without unreasonably burdening one person is in as scientific research. cdc urges them to pass them quickly. ..

there should be reasonable exceptions for that registry. the code should establish cybersecurity standards to prevent hijacking an unauthorized damage to uas systems. finally, cdt recommends the industry export technical measures to protect individual privacy and physical space as well as enhanced transparency for private you just systems. you very much for holding this hearing. >> thank you. thank all of the witnesses. we will go right to questions. as i mentioned in my opening statements having been involved in this a little while back in 2003 when we did one of the first fa reauthorization's there was nothing in the bill. it's amazing how technology does change our lives and it's

amazing how government does fail to keep up with changes in technology and craft the law too much about. we fall further and further behind the scenes. in 2012 when we did the last fa reauthorization i tried to get specific an old people's feet to the fire. we do that by putting some milestones and deadlines. and into law we said for example, mr. whitaker, we said required planning for integration. this is the law that was passed. the comprehensive plan not later than two under 70 days after the enactment of this act, the secretary of transportation in consultation with aviation and federal agencies, basically we come up with a plan. once that deadline that? >> yes, sir. both a comprehensive plan and defied the roadmap were developers to both published in november of 2013. >> 2013.

okay. so further hold that the to the fire and some things have been done as we pointed out and i have mentioned earlier, we put a deadline, the plan required shalsharper by the safe integran of civil unmanned aviation systems into the national airspace as soon as practicable but not later than septembe september 302015. that's the deadline we put into. is that deadline going to be the? >> you sort of wonderful integration of -- >> at the deadline is not going to be met speak with no. >> when they predict that deadline will be met? >> we are taking the issue in manageable bites, if you will. >> you testified you are granting exemption and waivers at a pretty rapid rate, what did you say, 50 a week of? >> yes, sir. >> that's not what we intended that we intended for basically to have the rule in place by

september but it's not going to be met. we are going to do an faa bill and we should hold their feet to the fire can i don't know how you hold their feet to the fire because we missed the deadline that we set in here but we're going to have to do something or is there something we are missing that we haven't done that could provide you with the assets to move forward or make certain this happens as soon as possible, and what is your deadline of? >> we have broken the task into pieces, if you will -- >> when will it be done? directed by law. >> the rule was issued earlier this year in february. comments were closed in april. we received 4500 comments. >> all that's part of the record. when will we be done? >> sufferable we have to adjudicated those comments, clear the rollout by the end of the year.

>> sixteen, 17? >> the world will be in place within a year spent within a year. >> that's correct. >> mark that down, staff. we can do a hearing a year from now and see if they have completed the task. the problem in the meantime is again you are granting exceptions and waivers. it's sort of a spotty policy that's in place. some folks talked about addressing risks, and that's the most important thing, wouldn't you say, is avoiding risk? >> safety is certainly our priority. >> by the same token we are falling a little bit further behind some of the other countries. mr. misener, what have you seen? this hearing is about commercialization and moving forward. is up to you is falling further behind? i cited $10 billion. i guess billion dollars figure for year for the next 10 years we would lose by not having them osha rules in place for

operation of drones spee-1 u.s. plan is not as aggressive as it is in other countries. >> okay. the are a host of issues. privacy. we had this little question with the staff, some of us. who basically is in charge of setting the rules for privacy? visit the individual states and law enforcement? iis that the department of justice? is this an faa responsibility and the rules your crafting wrecks mr. whitaker, maybe you could shed some light on how we protect people's privacy. >> the president issued a memorandum in february designating the national telecommunications and information administration on the lead. they have open for public comment. i think that has closed. we are a stakeholder in this conversation but we -- >> so we need to call them and ask them when they will have the rules in place for protecting privacy? >> they have the lead on this

issue. >> it is beyond just the federal level to protect privacy, isn't it speak with aviation has always been a federal initiative and preemptive of state authorities and i would assume -- >> welcome a drone operating under 500 feet, whose responsibility would that be, also federal or can you -- coming, local enforcement is already using some devices, and other folks are using it. who controls, that's probably the biggest concern for privacy. somebody within 500 feet over people's homes, property, surveillance capability of these drones. >> by statute even at those altitudes its federal airspace. >> still our responsibility, so we will wait to see the development of that and specifics on that rule. i predict that there will be,

sometimes we don't move until this incident. there will be a crash on the probably fatalities because you're so many of these things line. i hope it doesn't take down a big commercial aircraft. i hope it doesn't have a lot of fatalities but i think it's inevitable. how many thousands of these drones are now flying? i for different figures from several thousand to 20,000 flying. >> i don't know the exact figures. perhaps mr. wynne does but i think it's important to distinguish the best hundred of those are amateur operations. they are not covered under the rule and we are prohibited by statute from regulating the sector. >> so that still remains the primary risk. did you want to comment? >> to your question on who's in charge of privacy here, the faa is regulating safety and safety is very limited, a very limited

mandate when it comes to also providing privacy regulation. so i have some question as to whether not the faa could put forth rules on privacy. >> and this is interesting because when we were talking about this several years ago when we crafted this legislation, i was told that wasn't the department of justice or judicial matter that privacy, and it was outside of our realm to regulate but maybe in this faa bill, do you think we should have, rather than the president said, by edict or however he did it com, what was it, executive order? >> presidential memorandum. >> should have something in federal law? >> we do think there should be standards in federal law. the 2012 bill mentioned privacy exactly zero times. the privacy issue has absolutely played a discussion spent years at the 2012 --

>> the faa modernization act. >> and i guess it's going to you when we started down that path concerns were raised on both sides of the aisle about privacy. it's a big deal. that we were told it was outside our realm. it was really a judicial matter and outside the purview of the transportation committee was considered a legislation at the time. we are basically without anything except what the president has set forth, and maybe some parts of it should be codified. that would be a summary? >> some parts of it although what the president set forth is quite limited. the department of justice essentially says that, anderson good things in the policy, but it is also very limited. they will use ues for authorized use harmonize with the fifth amendment but it doesn't provide any additional protection beyond what is in current law. it is focused just on commercial

drones are the process with a touch government use. >> okay. let's go to the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. geiger, the expectation of privacy, talk about that answer by we know court cases in light of the question comes down to what is expected of the person. i guess when you drones, it really broadens the expectation is that right quick that kind of throws them come just opens the door to all kinds of surveillance -- do you follow what i think? >> i do. i believe this is how courts will interpret i that in the future. write out the supreme court has interpreted the regional expectation of privacy doctrine do not include aerial surveillance from the publicly

navigable airspace and i can only imagine that that reasonable expectation of privacy standard or in common law torts what would count as highly offensive to original person. i've only imagine that will shrink as more and more ues take to the skies. this is one reason why we are arguing that current federal law does not provide adequate privacy protection but we should not just rely on, or the fourth amendment. brought to be something in federal law that provides due process standard. >> and what we do, if you're trying to put that law together to try to balance a allowing drones to operate but at the same time trying to maintain some reasonable semblance of privacy for citizens of our country? what would that look like? do you have something that you all put together, what elements

would you be looking at? >> there's a couple bills out there right now which provide a good starting point. representative poll and lofgren, senator wyden protecting individuals from master of surveillance act provide good starting point. both of those are focused largely on law enforcement use. as i said in my opening statements, in part because the public's concern with privacy in uas is most acutely felt with law enforcement use. i don't think people are quite as concerned with uses for research, disaster relief and so forth. and on the commercials that any regulation would have to be aligned with the first amendment and, therefore, will be limited. so i think a combination of a due process standard and industry code of conduct could provide meaningful privacy protection to individual. on government use we think there ought to generally speaking the award standard with exceptions for exigent circumstances and

other reasonable exceptions for law enforcement use. as well as a registry of god but uas applications that is publicly available. much the same way the faa come as a registry for small aircraft. >> you know, with all of the cameras everywhere, unlike those come on buildings, of course as you well know many crimes are solved, people don't even know that they're being observed. and seems to me they would be, there's an argument with all of that that technology out there, that why would one want to differ from, i mean, straight away from the idea that a drone is going too far. just as i'm talking i'm figuring the argument. a drone can follow you.

>> first of all, we do have civil liberties concerns with a ground-based large-scale surveillance system. our concern is largely technical. drones do have unique capabilities most of because of their vantage point. if you're talking ground-based cctv, you turned a corner or into your fenced in yard, and a ground-based cctv can no longer see you but it would be very hard to escape the scope of observation of a sophisticated and highflying uas. so the privacy intrusion and potentially greater. >> mr. misener, can you tell me, tell me about how amazon, i mean, i just want to know the logistics how that works. what are you all trying to do? somebody has a package that they want in iowa tonight.

so what happens speak with welcome the customer places -- >> and the package is in washington. go. >> mr. cummings, i have three seconds. >> i just want to picture how it works. >> it's a very fast delivery system. we have distribution facilities that the country and what would like to do is enable the network of facilities to deliver packages to customers more quickly than his curly puzzle using the ground transportation network. we looked into walter because we looked into walter because of osha is about ethics to customers on a 30 minute or less basically what really works are drones. in this way our customers will be able to order something off of our website and have it delivered in less than 30 minutes to his or her home. she didn't have to go to the store, hop in the car or try to get a delivery truck to bring. it just gets delivered. >> i just popped up on the door right in front of there? >> yes, sir. >> okay. [laughter] >> mr. wynne, the faa proposed

rulemaking -- >> we have a basket of fresh fruit headed your way right now. [laughter] spent potential uses of drone such as crop moderate income bridge inspections, aerial photography. photography. can you give a few other examples of potential commercial use of drones? >> there's all manner of infrastructure needs be expected in the country. for example, natural gas pipelines, high utility high-voltage lines. it would be an example of large industries that are just chomping at the bit to embrace this technology. so they're small uses, large uses, visual line of sight when it comes to taking pictures of health am a different angle for a real estate agent all the way through to insurance companies inspecting after a sandy, hurricane sandy event, what's going on in a particular area of

an accessible to gaining information as quickly as possible. >> mr. whitaker, faa's mission is quote to provide the safest most efficient aerospace system in the world. can you explain some of the challenges of integrating drones into our nation's airspace? >> one of the challenges we have a much more complex and diverse airspace than any other country in the busier airspace. in addition to four of the biggest airlines in the world and dozens of hubs you have business aviation, you've nearly 200,000 general aviation operations, helicopters, rescue vehicles that fly in all airspace. so integrating instead of just setting aside space to operate but integrating into the airspace requires that these new vehicles be able to stay clear of the existing vehicles. to detect and avoid court sense and avoid, that's a major technical all shall the challenge that needs be sold to kill such as all of the

communications challenge, how the operator communicates with the vehicle, the spectrum is that is allocated and what happens if that link breaks. is a something technology issues guiding research in various venues that we need to fully understand and build standards around so we can integrate this into the system. >> not too long ago a fellow flu a drone at the white house. all of us were very concerned about that. i know that that's a significant concern of many. and i'm just trying to figure out, if you all of these objects flying around, and then you've got a lot of people on the ground and you've got to protect airspace, it just seems to me

like we are headed towards disaster at some point. >> we're going to try to make sure that doesn't happen but they're actually very robust acknowledged that will allow this to happen editing tested -- >> allow want to have been? >> a lot of vehicles to stay clear from humans and other vehicles. we just gave -- we just need to make sure that technology is robust enough. >> i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. massie. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. whitaker, i'm glad to see that we have a proposed rule and we've been waiting on for a long time. i serve on the transportation committee and we've been pushing for this. excited to see this editing it does allow a large class of operations that heretofore has not been able to operate. mr. wynne, can you talk about the types of commerce that will

be facilitated by this rule, particularly the requirement that at all times there has to be an operator has got visual line of sight to the drone? can you talk about some of the applications they can't be practiced because of that will? >> the easy one is mr. misener's, the application he was talking about earlier. that does require beyond visual line of sight. there is all manner of inspections that i was mentioning as well. bnsf was mentioned earlier being able to check for split rails in advance of the trains. other infrastructure, et cetera. and just if you imagine one of the early applications, early adopters will be agricultural interests, farmers, et cetera from looking to do all manner of inspection of the property. some of these farms are large of

course and some could easily be flying over their property but haven't well beyond line of sight, i can basically flying a pattern that a computer is controlling very low altitude. the types of operations that we think, some of them are more complex than others. we think there's a way to advance the technology, to test the technology. the more we are flying again equivalent level of safety to the current aircraft system, airspace system that we have today, the more dated we can collect, the more we can test technologies like detect and avoid common sense and avoid comments that are. they are number of those things, low-hanging fruit so to speak. >> mr. whitaker, is there any chance before this will comes out to have a category of drones that are authorized in low-risk situations like agriculture or powerline inspection or rail

inspection? is there a chance to get something in the rule for that category? >> what we've done what was then is week issued exemptions. we've done over 600 exemptions for commercial operators and we didn't even more than of our public sector operations, provide amnesty, that type of thing. the rule will take care of very large subset of operations and will allow a lot more commercial innovation without our involvement. we've tried to include in the rule the issues we think we have a clear understanding of the seizure risks and how they can be mitigated. the issues that are outside of the like beyond of sight we think will get there and we'll try to get there as quickly as we can but there are still technology issues and standards that have to be developed. we will have to work diligently to keep it moving as the rule progresses. >> onto the privacy aspect of this, it does present some new challenges. one question that i have is, should to be a floor?

we are talking about ceiling of 500 feet. should there be a floor for operation of drones? the own the property an inch above your yard is a question that i have. if you navigate to a locked gate on your property and so they climbed over the gate, your expectation is they are violating her privacy. what if the flight over? what if they are hovering an inch above the ground? mr. geiger, could you talked about from the personal property aspect. when are your property rights being violated? >> courts have generally said you own increase the amount of airspace about your property. the 400-foot level is more or less arbitrary. an inch above your property, yeah, you probably own that. 30 feet above your property, not sure. what counts as reasonable again is more and more uas fill the sky, tens, hundreds of thousands which is what we predict in the coming decades, what counts as

reasonable will probably shrink. it's not clear what the four will be but generally you have an expectation of property ownership and is much better space as you can use. the drone would have to violate or reduce a substantial interest for use in your property in order to be liable for trespass claim. >> may be the floor is the range for number 12 gauge with six shots and it. >> it's interesting you bring that up because the concept of shooting down drones i think demonstrates the depth of concern that people have come and this is a privacy-based concerned with the drones. this happens on a pretty regular basis. two weeks ago there were firefighters that were attending to a house fire and in the aftermath of that house are used their homes destroyed a drone that was washington. the drone was not directed over them but it was washington.

on not condoning that type of activity. i think it's very risky but it demonstrates the need for public concern regarding privacy and i think the need for a baseline. >> maybe we need rules of engagement in terms of in addition to rules of privacy. ics my time has expired the i yield back. >> thank you. ms. norton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was never into i it is the otr thing. the infancy of legislation to the infancy of the technote. we saw that when the drones landed, until landed in the white house entity on these very capitol grounds. mr. whitaker, i appreciate that on may 13, there's indication you're trying to make the public understand that there's a 50-mile radius around the nation's capital, that you're not supposed to fly anything. so everybody is paying catch-up.

on one of my other committees i must tell you where we really playing catchup is nextgen. when i look at your regulations and it says most yield right away tother aircraft, manned or unmanned. if we had nextgen and we knew where even aircraft were flying then, of course, the we might expect drones to some of operate within our airspace safely, more safely. the assistant inspector general has testified about the integration of drones into commercial airspace, and that's what interests me. does the faa received from commercial pilots each month on a regular basis whether they've

seen unmanned aircraft of any kind? >> we do receive reports of sightings of unmanned aircraft. they typically will come in over the air traffic control communication network and we do track those spirit are those required to be reported? >> they are, yes. >> have any close calls of the drones unmanned aircraft with commercial aircraft been reported? >> i don't have any recollection of any evasive maneuvers being taken as a result. most of what our sightings of unmanned aircraft in controlled airspace usually near airports. >> is there any licensing of these unmanned aircraft? to be even know how many there are in our country? >> we believe that these typically are involving the amateur operators up a we tend to call model aircraft, but the kind you can buy and operate

anywhere. they are unregulated and are prohibited by statute from regulating the sector. >> should somebody be regulating best actor? >> what we have, we do have areas where these outbreaks are prohibited from flying, and so they wander into prohibited airspace to in that sense they are violating the law. our focus has been to have an education campaign to let people know what they can fly, what they can't fly. we are working to develop an app that people can use to see if there in restricted airspace over the they can fly their unmanned air system. and we work with local enforcement to give them guidelines on how to interact with people who are operating in an inappropriate fashion. >> in light of these proposed rules, mr. misener, and amazon

interest come it doesn't operator should be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device, other than corrective lenses. in other words, i suppose you're supposed to be within, you're able to see these drones that you let loose upon the universe. how is that going to work commercially? >> it won't, lease for package delivery services. we don't disagree that it's a more typical use case to fly drones beyond visual line of sight. it is to get requires a higher degree of automation in vehicles and we're working on the. that technology is being developed. our respectful disagreement with the faa is weekly that operation can be considered right now on the same risk based approach. the risks are higher -- >> do you think the technology would allow that no? >> it's in the works. all i'm saying is, i'm not saying the rules for operation need to be adopted right now but

some serious planning for the future roles need to be undertaken right now. what we're trying to say is that that be considered right now just like other countries are considering be on visual line of site operations right now. >> mr. whitaker, this notion of lost link scenarios, what's the current state of technology on the links between operator and the drone and the possibility of the drone getting the on the vision, for that matter the control? i am sure that they drone that went into the white house grounds was beyond his control, for example,. >> there's research that goes on, a lot of research that goes on at nasa, at beauty, various sectors on loss of control. -- at dod. we have a center of excellence

at mississippi state whether we research along these lines. >> if you see a drone going to for come is a technology now that you can call backs because there is technology that can be used without and that is being tested as that is tested well sought to develop standards for operation, particularly in the radio communications spectrum and how that gets defined. >> for example, make sure you didn't lose control of your own unmanned aircraft? >> right. there are procedures that could be followed when that happened. >> mr. meadows? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank each of you for your testimony. mr. misener, let me come to you because i think you were indicating that the united states is falling behind on this particular use of drones technology to some competition that maybe in europe and other places, is that correct the?

>> yes, it is. >> if we are falling behind, obviouslobviously mr. whitaker e have a very complex ecosystem which i would agree with that, more complex than europe. but from a regulatory standpoint, do you see that we can perhaps affect individual making the a little bit further to anticipate new technology to allow for greater innovation so that we don't get beat out by our competition in other parts of the world speak with yes, i firmly believe that. i acknowledge that this is based is complicated but it's also complicated around heathrow and other places around the world. we need to acknowledge other countries are just taking a more forward-looking planning approach. again i don't blame the faa for not having rules in place. this is a big challenge for nasa and the faa of private industry working together to address the

technical challenge. what i'm suggesting is the risk based approach taken threat much of the world could be applied to the beyond visual line of sight and not automated operations that we foresee. >> let me come back to you can. i served on the t&i committee. without a number of hearings and we talked about these six region test areas across the united states. what i found interesting is as good, with his proposed rule is that most of this seems to be a rule that is looking backwards, not forward. or example looking at not being able to operate these, other than line of sight or at night, it's extremely shortsighted i believe in terms of a rule, and so it's almost like in order to meet some of the deadlines you put forth a rule that is very restrictive instead of really

saying that if there is a technology, which we have the technology, to manage this other than line of sight, could we not do that in a safe manner and? >> so we had a lot of debate around it is as there wil room s put together and i think initially it was an attempt to boil the ocean and take on all possible issues in the rule. the decision was paid to come up with a less onerous rule that covers the majority of the types of operations that we know people want to undertake him that the technology is there, it's proven and can happen. we defined an envelope of operations if you move. the things in that envelope will unleash a lot of the commercial needs that are there. the issues that are still out there to be worked out and the standards built around, we do have regulatory tools to allow this to go forward with that waiting for will making. >> if we are talking about can you say it would provide for

most of what we're talking about, i would disagree with that if we are talking about line of sight. mr. misener and mr. wynne are talking about really is not line of sight. doctor, you work for nasa. can you put something out in space or on the moon without come in a safe way and do it without line of sight? be careful how you answer last night spent working in the aeronautics mission at nasa, i won't speak to the space applications -- >> can some of your colleagues do that, i guess? do they have to be that the whole way to where it lands in order for it to be safe? >> that is certainly not the case. >> okay. so i guess, mr. whitaker, coming back to you, i'm going to encourage you as we are looking for an faa reauthorization in less than 60 days, i am

encouraging you to be a little bit more forward thinking as it comes to the line of sight and some of the technology that is available to us today. stakeholders, it's all over. because if not, your regulations become to throttle or the choke that keeps innovation from moving us forward, and ultimately we will lose out to competition. to have your commitment you will look at that aggressively? >> we will come and i think granting that the nsf railroad offered to operate beyond light of sight is part of that effort to lean forward. >> i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. lynch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the panel members for your help this morning. i think all of you have contributed well to the understanding that we are gaining regarding this technology.

mr. geiger, some of the ramifications that you have brought to mind are very, very helpful. mr. whitaker, the problem that i have come the greatest concern i have is the interface or the fit between faa and the technology which may become ubiquitous at some point in the near future. in your testimony, or in one of your answers you said that system being developed will allow us to keep the drones away from people and other sensitive areas. the problem i have is with what you are doing now with aircraft. i represent logan airport, that area. myself and mr. capuano from boston in the eighth and seventh districts, we represent a semi circle around the airport. we are airport communities. i hate to put this on you but i would have to say that out of

all the agencies that we deal with on this committee, and we deal with everybody, nsa, cia, dod, defense department and others, irs, faa is probably the most unresponsive agency that we deal with in government from this committee. and that's just a fact. i want to give you an example. the faa has adopted, since 2013, has adopted a new navigation system around airports, nextgen -- i don't know what that means but i do know that the result of the program is that instead of flights and spread out over a number of communities, which i represent all of them come and mike does, now we have a different system where have a tractor beam system where all of the flights come over the same, i swear, square foot of land

every day every night. answer the people who live underneath that tractor beam, i'm worried about their health. based on the volume and the spirit of the calls that i could continually from those neighborhoods and those towns, this system is not working and it is detrimental to their health. as an elected representative i tried to get a meeting with the faa in the town of milton, massachusetts, which is under the dr. ping. i wrote a letter -- tractor beam. refused to come. first they agreed to come in a meeting i had with them at once i got out of the meeting they change their mind and said they never agreed to the. so i tried to get at the ache of love, understand a difficult it is to operate the airport and do your job but we have basic responsibility to meet with people that we work for. some of the folks at faa had

said those folks have yelled at us. they have yelled at me, too. that's part of the job. sometimes they have a good reason to yell at me, energy. i think they have one now. so i have been so frustrated with this process of just getting a meeting in the town of milton, but had to go on the floor the other day and put an amendment on the floor to cut $25 million from faa's budget because we give yo you money too outreach. well, outreach does not happen in the eighth congressional district of massachusetts, i could tell you right now. so i figured century not do the job i will take that money and put some of those were someone to actually use it. so that's what we are at right now, you and me. mr. kaplan and faa. you are not treating, i do mind in just myself, i can deal with it. look, congress is popular is that 6%.

i'm used to that. however, when you refused to meet with the people that i represent, then i get mad. i can't have it. nobody here can have that. we all represent, i represent seveseven of 27,514 people. those are my bosses. i could work for them every single day. and i can't get a meeting with a group of them and the faa. so we've got a problem. and after we are talking about like i said, this new technology at some point could become ubiquitous. so i'm nervous because when we have a problem with the drones, i'm going to have to go to the faa for a meeting at it will probably tell me sorry, pal. you know, we are busy, we can't meet with the. i can't have that answer. so you've got three seconds to antony. >> first of all i apologize if the faa has been unresponsive. unresponsive. >> apology accepted. >> i am not familiar with the issue but i found to get back direct with you.

i think committee outreach and engagement is one of the most important things that we do and if we don't do it takes as we redesign airspace that does lead to trouble. so let me make sure that we get back with you shortly. >> thank you, mr. whitaker. i appreciate the chairman's indulgence. >> all politics is local. mr. hice. >> thank you. >> weight. mr. walker was next. i apologize. you have been heard, mr. walker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. hice. >> i'm sorry. you are recognize, mr. walker. >> a different much but as a member on the committee of homeland security we have had several classified briefings, locally and racially. there's a lot of issues that have to be worked out, particular with the uavs and uass. i want to take a turn and talk about some of the pros, some of the positives from possibly the new technology as we move

forward. if you look back historically anytime there's something that's new that they felt there's always pushback, even in my 46 you i can remember several different times, timelines when it comes to technological base industry or other aspects. i want to talk about maybe start with mr. wynne. according to your data in your department, believes the u.s. could b be in line to lose more than $10 billion of potential economic impact every year that the u.s. integration is to delete the widget to commit to speak to that? is that i could speak with yes, sir. that's in the community that i represent them for commercial uas community. i think there's additional document that can be added to other industries that want to utilize this technology back on top of that. >> mr. misener, let me backup a little bit. according to amazon prime air, you have been doing more testing

in other countries. can you speak to that? do you have less restrictions? why they seem to be doing more testing and other countries as opposed to hear? >> i think we have turned that corner with the faa. the faa has streamlined their test approval process in a way that is beneficial to the industry. is going to accelerate the amount of testing done domestically. we had difficulties getting that approval last year and early this year but i think we've turned that corner. the real direction we need to take notice sort of planning for the operational rules and we look forward to working with the faa on that. we are eager to do so. untested adequate able to do in multiple locations including within the united states. >> what is the objective of amazon, where are you wanting to see this go in providing that things are working with the faa? >> we would like to start delivering to customers as soon as it is approved regulatory. we are working on the

technology. amazon doesn't sound like an aviation company but we are staffed up with aviation experts including a my team, i've got a military and commercial pilot on my team. we're taking this very service at the safety aspect is front and center. 15 is done to help as quick as possible. it's not just the aviation aspects. we have to get our fulfillment center and tissue vision centers by. to get that 30 minute promise that we have to get that item down somewhere in a very large building ready to get to the drone. that presents another set of engine challenges. >> usage are working, do you have the technology in place to move forward, given the green light? >> today, no. but we will have it in place by the time any regulations are ready to we are working very quickly. the integration process in a country like ours in a robotic mission like ours is the rapid. we are confident we'll have a

place. we look forward working with the faa. >> what specific solutions can you provide this committee that we can act on or asked for help to develop the commercial uas but also satisfy the faa's concern for safety? >> i think as i mentioned in my testament there's a lot of research and development is required to prove out equivalent level of safety for the more complex operations that we can envision today that can't possibly, or can't quite do yet. nasa plays an important role in this. the faa plays an important role in this. dod has successfully flown unmanned and manned aircraft into theater for many, many years successfully and safely. they can learn from one another and industry brings a lot of resources and technology to the table. one of the key things is to make certain that all of that is well coordinated and i think some

outside pressure for the agency to work together i think it's always important. that's beginning to happen and we are very pleased with that but i think there are resources ultimate w. required under the fiscal constraint on the system make it difficult for new resources to be brought to the table but we think with the right chord nation, with the right plan we can do that. i think that's an appropriate role for congress and this committee. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. walker. mr. porth, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to follow up on the see and avoid rules. i think your comparison to the military uses is a little bit off work because i was in charge of the state of illinois, national guards attempt to establish the rules for flying shadow uav is stateside. we had to comply with keeping the aircraft insight at all time

rose under the aerospace flying over restricted airspace only as well. the military has to come ever going to be flying those uavs, actually fall the uav in the air with another aircraft and don't think that is something the commercial entities are willing to do at this point. i could be wrong. i do want to talk about the safety issue and i think direct most of my comments from my questions to mr. whitaker with the faa. i was flying my aircraft over the eastern shore in the naval airspace area in contact with air traffic control the entire time. and i had an aircraft, a model aircraft buzzed through the airspace 10 feet off the nose of the aircraft about 10 feet away in front and i was like that 2500 feet. but this can happen with recreational model aircraft usage.

i have real concerns about uavs after flying around. i understand if commercial operations. this is something, trying to make a more regulated and i would expect that commercial entities would be much more responsible about how they fly the aircraft. are there any moves to acquire for commercial use the use of transponders on the uav is? >> you raise a lot of interesting issues. i think in the small uas will of course it would be an aeronautical knowledge test requirement for your operatives would be more sophisticated than amateur operators. a lot of the operators on the amateur side are just not funny aviation sector and to realize they've entered the world of airspace when it opened the box for this device. that's a real issue which is why we'll focus on public education and that type of thing. as far as use of transponders, these devices of course, in all sizes when you get to the small

uas midrash is going to be a technology that would allow that kind of quick which. if you're flying over parts of transponders the uas would have to the transponder. the same for the new rule. but i think when you get to the smaller vehicles, you're really looking systems that talk to each other and people around him to achieve since and avoidance. >> so if i'm out there in my single engine 1959 comanche, i'm going to have the correct transponders on it, but even a small uas hitting to propel of my aircraft will take me out, even a small bird will take me out. are you saying then that we are not looking to require some sort, it's just, explain what you mean by to visit a

transponder? what is a delinquent because i want to know. is what i want. i asked the public to know if there is uas liked among the city's white see that it shows up in the know they are there. and if i did hit by one of these aircraft i want to who is blinded. up on issue number on the aircraft. about the faa to find a site you just flew into actual general aviation or commercial aviation airspace. visit any attempt to go after those safety concerns? >> we are looking at role separation procedure separation. under the small uas rule the proposal would be below 500 feet. you will always be up to 500 feet because you around the airport. the rule would require the uas to be five miles away from airport. as long as they're followin fole rules and you were following the rules you have separation and you also have visual life inside. that's all the rule contemplates. the other issues you raise in

are some the issues we've been talking about the need for additional research, need for standardization at december set of rules around those expanded operations. >> with just 30 seconds left i have, i will put into question for the record. if we're going to talk about external load operations, used to fly helicopters. this and significant restrictions. i would want to know what amazon and, mr. wynn, which are positions on what are your jettison procedures for those loads, all of the issues the helicopter with sling load operations would have to follow and nearby as well. thank you. i get back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. hice. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. whitaker, just a point of clarification for me. i think the answer is yes, but i just want to be sure. does the faa or the administration actually have a plan for directing the traffic

concerns? or is this something that is being developed and still in process? is there an actual plan and an actual plan speak with the are two things you could put in a bucket. there's a comprehensive plan that was developed in 2013 and there's a five year roadmap that gets updated periodically to provide sort of a master plan document. >> so there is a plan, okay. i thought i was going to be the answer but it was a little confusing. let me go, dr. cavolowsky to you. of course, we all know about the gyrocopter that went down here in restricted d.c. area this past april. the technology that is being developed with you guys, what it had detected that gyrocopter? >> the research we're doing regarding this uas traffic management system is to enable the user of the system to be able to track and manage and

plan flight routes within a very confined airspace. others are working, operating within the airspace would also be detected. but if they choose not to follow flightplan they would not be managed by the beauty them. so the opportunity for that system to identify -- utm. an operator who is not filing plans and off-line within the system can be alerted to the authorities through the system such about actions could be taken in order to address that spirit that's no different than what we already have picked it was detected with the technology we currently have. they thought it was an anomaly or some such thing. you would think with the technology they would be detected but still nothing necessary would have prevented what happened. >> the technology we are putting in place, that is correct. what our technology does is allow for the safe use of

aircraft that are participating in the system to manage their trajectories to be unaware of other aircraft, general aviation aircraft, traffic helicopters and the like that are flying so they can be safely avoided and business objectives can be met. >> does your technology differentiate between drones and say the movement of birds or weather patterns or what have you? >> there are rigorous systems being developed as part of his that would be able to detect other flying things, of particular size at this point i'm not sure how small the detection goes, but it would allow for identification, certainly of small drones. >> all right. mr. whitaker, back to you again. if i may ask different ones this question, but end of the day who should control, own, manage

traffic management of uas? does this come down to massacre them they government, private enterprise or nonprofit? >> we would envision that as nasa develops this utm we would go through a normal handover process and would become part of our airspace that we would manage. >> so you say faa. >> yes. >> if i make him that's exactly correct. we have a very formal process we've developed with the faa. we refer to them as research transition teams. we were close with the researchers at the early stage of our concepts and technology to be able to hand to them at determine times that we work i plan for that technology at technology readiness levels such that they have the opportunity to fit it into their overall program planning and the acquisition process.

we've had great success with that come with other nextgen deliverables over the last half-dozen years spirit for nasa is developing the technology but faa is using an ultimate the buck would stop there? >> that's correct. >> let me go back real quickly because i think the issues you brought up our of grave concern, constitution and to many others. and i've just got 20 seconds, but preemptively what actions do you believe congress needs to take in order to assure that both of the first and the fourth amendment are not violated to u.s. citizens? >> program and uas, we recommend legislation that establishes the due process standard for law enforcement use, and we think generally speaking with some exception to that standard should be a warrant when uas is used to surveil individuals any personally identifiable way or private property. when it comes to commercial uas,

we think that the first amendment is going to constrain the scope of any sort of privacy regulation, and you can start with, law privacy torts which have the highly offensive to racial personal result expectation of privacy standard. but beyond that it should be an industry code of conduct which because it is voluntary avoid the first amendment issues. i think that the goal ought to be to provide a reasonable privacy assurance to the public so that applications that have little impact on civil liberties such as commerce or scientific research can grow. the industry itself will take off, so to speak. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. lawrence. >> thank you. do we have, mr. whitaker, do we have a proposed time line for the officially accepting these rules? ..

there's an app and it will tell me what flights are above me in the sky and where they are going, what airline there is. do you anticipate any such app, because my concern as a citizen an