purchased seven years earlier pressley was with richard nixon in the oval office to offer his assistance in fighting the war on drugs. ask for special agent badge the bureau of narcotics and dangerous drugs. a copy of the photo of president nixon and elvis is the most requested from the national archives. our guest cultural journalists has spent a lot of her professional life telling the story of elvis. and well-known manager colonel reveals the colonel was not an american i was not originally named tom parker pray. >> and her book the colonel the extraordinary story of colonel tom parker and elvis presley. on this episode of book notes a plus. book plus isabella c-span now free mobile app or were ever you get your podcast.

>> justice department officials said it's only a matter of time with that comment came during a hearing on unmanned aircraft more than 2 million drones are authorized to fly in u.s. airspace. security experts from the faa and homeland security also warned about the growing threat these unmanned aircraft systems opposed to the u.s. [background noises] >> the committee will come to order. i like to thank our witnesses for joining us and for their

continued service to the american people. today's hearing will highlight the threat posed by unmanned aircraft systems commonly known as drones. and ask how federal agencies work together combat this evolving threat. will also examine what additional authorities and resources the department of homeland security and the department of justice needed to successfully counter you a s about working together with the federal aviation administration. in recent years the market for commuter has rapidly expanded due to the affordability and utility of drones that are readily assessable to government, and to recreational users. the faa estimates by 20242.3 million including one and a half million recreational drones and model aircraft and

about 800,000 commercial will be registered to fly in the u.s. airspace. between 2016 and 2019, airline pilots reported on average more than a 100 drone sightings per i month to the faa. the increase the number of you e s operating in our airspace creates higher risk of rogue drones either failing to obey safety rules, or operating with nefarious intentions. starting man, aircraft, operations, critical infrastructure facilities and a high profile widely attended events such as sporting events, concerts, and more. while most upper we have seen careless actors miss use these technologies to engage in a reckless or criminal activities. in september of 2017 privately operated drone in brooklyn, new

york wasna intentionally flown beyond the operator's line of sight and collided with the u.s. army blackhawk helicopter patrolling a temporary no-fly zone around new york city. thankfully, the blackhawk and its crew landed safely. there was significant damage ton the helicopter and the incident created unacceptable risk to the service members and that helicopter. 2000 and tina drone significantly disrupted flight operations at newark liberty airport for 90 minutes causing nine flies to be diverted halting 43 planes inbound to the airport. also causing significant delays for passengers. these events demonstrate the severity of the threat posed and if we do not act it can only be a matter of time before someone who is recklessly operating this technology causes an accident that can have catastrophic effects. as we work to avoid unintentional disasters we also must account for the escalating

threat of a weaponize drone from terrorist and criminal organizations who could launch domestic drone attacks of mass gatherings. high profile landmarks and buildings, or federal property. includes foreign adversaries applied drones and conflictss abroad. and could have the capability to deploy them here in the united states as well. we must also be prepared to counter drones operated by criminal organizations that are reportedly using you a s for illegal activities including trafficking illicit drugs across our borders. i am grateful to my colleagues who have led past efforts to address these concerns and improve the safe integration into american airspace. including senator johnson offering that preventing threats act. since 2019, the authorities created by this law have bolstered our nation's ability

to project and numerous large public events including the super bowl from ussss threats. cutoday's hearing is an opportunity to discuss renewing and updating these authorities which are set to expire this october as well as a bidens administration's domestic counter you a s nationalte actin plan the first coordinated all government plan to address the evolving security threats posed by you a.s. i'm working on bipartisan legislation i plan to introduce in the coming weeks to reauthorize and strengthen counter you a s authorities to better tackle this threat. today and please give a panel of expert witnesses from dhs, d.o.j., and the faa who can discuss what lawmakers can do to ensure the federal government is better equipped to safeguard against potential threats from you a s. i've now like to recognize ranking member portman for his opening comments. >> thanks of the witnesses for

being here. posed by unmanned aircraft systems in 2018 under the leadership of senator ron johnson who is here this mo morning. we provide is congress newt authority to the department of homeland security and department of justice to counter ts the threats posed by the use of drones. unfortunately those authorities are about to expire. this could not come at a worse time in my view. cartels and transnational criminal organizations use of drones to smuggle drugs and surveilled u.s. law enforcement and furtherance of illicit activities. these tacks have been in mexico. weaponize of drones on the border and an emerging threat. to give a sense of the scale ofe the prominent joint testimony before the house committee thomas gertie march representative dhs said that in previous a five month period,

cbp identified more than 30,000 individual flights near or at the southern border. half of those flights violated faa regulations. at a minimum these were used for surveillance. emperor smuggling drugs into the country including fentanyl. the deadly synthetic opioid relatively small amountsf of it can kill hundreds of thousands, millions of people. it is subject to being smuggled in a relatively small drones. repeatedly asked dhs since february offnd this year for moe information and statistics and how they plan to address this emerging threat. to counter unmanned aircraft systems as it pertains to the i border.

make no mistake the mexican transnational organizations will benefit from a lack of authority. and other agencies with responsibility for securing our nation's borders.se for these reasons i'm eager to hear how dhs, d.o.j. and the faa have user existing authority to mitigate the threats posed by illicit use of drones. i hope you discuss with new majority they can give the administration to improve the mission especially if the border.e reese and the by administration provide the smooth copperheads of legislative proposal whichor seeks a number of changes and expansions to exist counter authorities. of the portal were in senator johnson and other members of this committee to review this proposal. that committees are done good work to address threat to w national security and economic competitiveness by chinese made drones were poured out the bipartisan american security drone act last year. among other things this legislation would prohibit the federal government from purchasing using droness manufactured by our adversaries.

i'm very concerned about reports of the purchase by dhs. and d.o.j. law enforcement of chinese drones. in the security risk that this poses. i'm pleased that our legislation out of committee is included in the senate passed package. and i urge our leadership project lead speaker pelosi in the house to swiftly pass so this can become law. that said but forge a productive conversation about threats to our homeland and measures to prevent them. i look forward to hearing to our witnesses, thank you again mr. chairman. >> thank you ranking member portman. each of you would please and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony will give before this committee will be y the truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. you may be seated. >> today's the first witness is samantha the acting assistant secretary for counterterrorism and threat prevention and law enforcement policy in the office of strategy, policy and plans of the department of homeland security. began her career serving president george w. bush as the deputy u.s. treasury attaché to iraq. subsequently served on president barack obama's security council for iraq. senior advisor to the national security advisor. previously she was a cnn national security analysts, senior advisor of the biden institute, and a visiting fellow at the university of chicago institute of politics. welcome, you may proceed with your opening remarks. >> adjournment peters, ranking

member portland and distinguished members but thank you for inviting me too testify about the department of and security efforts to protect the homeland from the increasing threat posed by unmanned aircraft systems often refer and choose drones. today, i will explain how the department has relied on authorities granted in preventing emerging threats acto of 2018 to counter the malicious use of drones. why we are asking congress to reauthorize andto expand our counter drone authorities to fill specific gaps that are exposing the homeland to serious threats. we are committed to judiciously andit responsibly implementing r authorities we can stay ahead of the threat while protecting privacy and civil rights and civil liberties and absolutely everything that we do. the threat landscape from drones is heightened and candidly escalating extremely fast. drones have been used to conduct a dangerous kinetic attacks have interfered with aircraft in airports, have been used to

survey, disrupt and damaged critical infrastructure and more.es and nearly every day, transnational criminal organizations use drones for narcotics and contraband across u.s. borders. in d fact, cbp has detected more than 8000 illegal cross-border drone flights at the southern border just since august 2021. in light of the threat environment is critical dhs have the authority to protect the homeland from threats, consistent with our statutory missions. today, dhs has relied on preventing emerging threat act to carry their critical mission steps including protecting the president and vice president, safeguarding facilities in the maritime sector come protecting federal facilities andnn personnel. counting mark products and contraband trafficking based on experience over 300 deployments, there is clear evidence there are gaps in our authorities which are exposing the american people to significant risk.

transportation security administration, or tsa, is responsible for protecting airports, it lacks authority to proactively and persistently protect transportation infrastructure from drone threats and invert disruptions and real tragedies. this is especially concerning since the tsa has reported nearly 2000 drone sightings near u.s. airports since 2021, several of which have resulted in pilots taking evasive actions. 65 evasive actions, in fact, and the disruption of airport operations. furthermore, state, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement are often tribal andth territorial law enforcement are also first responders when the incident occurs but they are not currently authorized to detect or mitigate drone threats thereby delaying a response. critical infrastructure owners and operators are often the victims of drone surveillance and have even been targeted for connecticut tax but have no authority to detect or request mitigation from authorized law

enforcement. bottom line partners are critical to protecting the homeland from threats but lack the authority to do so which again exposes the homeland and american people to significant risk. therefore we strongly support the administration's legislative proposal to reauthorize the current authorities as well as to expand them to remedy the gaps identified. it would grant the authorities it needs to protect the transportation system from threats and also authorize slt partners and critical infrastructure owners and operators e to engage in the detection. last it would create a limited pilot program for law enforcement to engage in protection activities in their jurisdictions under the strict oversight. the proposal would require that

authorized critical infrastructure owners and operators adhere to comparable safeguards and standards to those that federal entities follow. nonfederal entities would be required to use federally approved equipment, receive standardized training and certification, conduct risk-based assessments, coordinated to ensure aviation safety and very importantly adhere to federal privacy civil rights and civil liberties protections. we cannot keep pace with this environment without these additional counter drone authorities. it isn't possible and we hope the committee will champion them. congressional action is urgently required as the current authority will expire in less than three months and the lapse would be catastrophic. i think the committee for holding a hearing on the topic and look forward to your questions. >> thank you. the next witness is the deputy assistant attorney general and inthe national security division

at the department of justice. he brings a wealth of government experience having served in legal positions at the department of defense and the national security council over the span of two decades. previously he worked at the private law firm where he focused on civil litigation and legal policies and clerked for judge patrick on the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit. welcome to the committee. you may proceed with your opening comments. >> thank you members of the committee thanks for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the department of justice. we strongly support the legislative proposal and facilities from the threat posed by the misuse of drones. this legislation would enable us as said to expand with respect to the type of facilities we can

protect and to empower state and local partners to participate in this mission. we understand the drones are bringing great benefits to the society and economy but like many advances they also bring serious risk to the public when misused. as it's been eluded to already we see an increase in the use of drones for the spectrum of other dangerous activities andar they can be weaponize to using firearms explosives and other materials and conduct espionage or trafficking in narcotics and contraband. beyond these nefarious uses they are often used to create hazards to the public. let me give you a few examples the subject was arrested to use a drone to drop explosives near a mobile home park. betweents september 2021 and 22 defendants pled guilty to aco conspiracy to deliver contraband by drones into the prison in new

jersey. we recently have seen mexican drug cartels to drop off bombs on arrivals in mexico as well as drugs into the united states. in may of this year a defendant was sentenced after using a drone to drop flyers over spectators and separate nfl games in california that could have been something much worse. under the current authority of the congress granted the fbi has conducted a 70 counter. that represents only .05% of the over 121,000 during that time for which an assessment was requested so the counter drone support could be provided. as of the demand for the support has far outstripped the federal government's limited resources. during those operations by the fbi the counter terrorism team is detected 974 noncompliant 2 drones in the aerospace and located the operator in 279

cases and attempted mitigation. the current authority as the chair man mentioned to counter the drones expires in october as not extended byed congress. reason we need this is because the use of the technology with other guys run afoul of the various criminal statutes. thend proposal, the legislative proposal would expand permanently and expand to address some critical gaps. i want to talk about a few of those briefly in my opening statement. enfirst, as has been mentioned t would authorize state and local law enforcement and owners and operators to the infrastructure to use certain detection only capabilities. we need to empower others to take on this responsibility. notably the detection technology doesn't jam or otherwise disrupt drones or other aircraft and therefore doesn't pose anyto rik to the safety of the national airspace. this can be safely done today. a second the legislation would authorize a limited pilot program for up to 12 state and local law enforcement entities each year to engage in both

detection and mitigation activities and by mitigation, i mean, actually interfering in the flight of the drone. this would allow the state and local partners to protectti sensitive facilities and gatherings in their jurisdictions. the participants in the program would beti required to receive training and vetting and follow the same rules as federal agencies must currently follow and all of the activities would have to be coordinated with federal partners including the faa which could withhold if there was a risk to the national airspace. the legislation would enable the surface to protect high-risk prisoner transports. current authority covers the prisons and courthouses but it doesn't explicitly address the transports that would fill the gap. i want to say a word about privacy and civil liberties we are committed to ensure that we respect the constitutional rights and privacy as we conduct the counter activities. these technologies typically detect only communications being passed between the controller and the drone to direct itsss activities.

they do not extract text messages, e-mail or internet search histories from phones or tablets used. nor do they allow voice calls. we typically collect information such as the drone vendor and model, number, geolocation of the drone, the location of the controller and the takeoff location. this is much like the information that's going to be required to be broadcast by the new remote id rule land is required for the manned aircraft. as is required in current law there's guidance to express civil liberties and the state and locals would be required to follow e the same rules. i look forward to answering your questions. >> the deputy associate administratorr for security and hazardous materials safety the federal aviation administration at the department of p

transportation. she provides executive oversight on national security policies, plans and programs involving manned and unmanned systems and in addition to several other security related topics. over 30 years of combined local, state, federal, executive and military experience supporting defense, intelligence, safety, disaster response and crisis management efforts. previously, served as a senior executive for the dhs national protection and programs directorate, at the office of infrastructureti protection and for fema. welcome to the committee. you may proceed with your opening remarks.

>> chairman peters, ranking member portman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about the role in assuring safety, security and efficiency of the nation's airspace as it pertains to unmanned aircraft systems or usa drones. we are currently working to welcome the new technologies nginto the national air system while minimizing any impact to the existing air transportation system and to the public. every day commercially operating contribute to the economy by inspecting infrastructure, supporting agriculture and other industry assisting public safety agencies and conducting a merit of other tasks. congress has recognized these benefits to the economy and society and has been fullyly supportive as we integrate this technology into the airspace in a safe and secure manner.

however the faa does acknowledge the misuse of the technology posing unique security challenges that enable malicious actors to exploit the vulnerabilities. the department of defense, energy and homeland security to use technologies designed to respond to the mission responsibility. you are directed the faa to work with these agencies to ensure the detection and mitigation measures do not compromise the safety and efficiency of the airspace. the chief role is to support the partners testing individual use of these detection mitigation systems many of which use radio frequency and other technologies that could potentially interfere with the navigational systems. communication, avionics systems which are all critical to the

safety. along with developing the plans for certification of the detection and mitigation systems, the faa is also tasked with testing and evaluating the technologies for potential use near airports. we enter wereop security partnes have developed agency specific and jointly agreed upon processes to determine when, how and what to detection or mitigation technologies can be safely used in a particular location. we also developed the notification protocols to be used during and after detection or counter the event. the administration's proposal to expand the detection and mitigation authorities so that other federal departments and agencies as well as other public and private critical infrastructure entities will be able to use tested systems to safely protect sensitive facilities,li operations and people from the malicious use. the proposal which of the faa doesh support would among other

things give limited detection authorityll to the nonfederal lw enforcement community as well as airports in the critical infrastructure owners and operators and create a temporary pilot program for nonfederal law enforcement to begin using mitigation technologies under federal oversight. the faa would be authorized against those who used the detection mitigation technologies in an unauthorized manner that endangers the national airspace. all areas of new or expanded authorities include robust safeguards to ensure the current level of safety is preserved. we recognize expanding the mitigation of authority is beyond our current federal partners will present challenges and for that reason the proposal for the pilot program reflects an incremental approach to evaluating such authorities into safeguards that include interagency coordination or participant selection, training of system p operators and requis

program participants to work through coordination with the faa. there's no question that a seamless security framework is critical to advancing the administration's goal of fully integrating you a s, maximizing the public benefits for this technology. by taking deliberate steps to support thosee entities with the duties to protect against emerging based threats, the united states will continue to lead the way in a full integration while maintaining the safest, most efficient and most secure airspace system in the world. we thank the committee for its leadership on this issue and look forward to working together to balance safety and innovation for security. >> thank you. >> this committee is constantly focused on all the threats that the homeland faces on a daily

basis and the three of you have outlined the significant threats posed by the uis, but the question for you is how would the fbi assess the potential threat from the uis along the threat of spectrum. given the easy ability to by a drone it's easy to use and not that difficult to weaponize and that is what we are seeing some of already. so, the fbi director predicted a few years ago we would see an attack in your testimony you discussed the potential use of weapons and

interference that could target airports as well as other types of critical infrastructure. i'd like you to explain to the committee what authorities does the dhs currently lacked to counter this threat and what should the committee focus on as we draft legislation to reauthorize the current legislation? >> as my colleague noted, the threat posed by the malicious use of drones represents a significant and increasing risk peto the homeland and the amerin people. currently under the threats act of 2018, we are authorized to engage in protective measures against credible threats posed to the safety and security of certain protective missions that includes for example the protection of the government personnel, president, vice federal facilities, sensitive assets in the maritime

sector and elsewhere as well as gatherings. what we have witnessed over the last four years is we have responsibly implemented existing authorities with significant gaps in the ability to protect the homeland from drones. we have seen an increase in number of incidents in and around airports. we have witnessed 2,000 sightings in and around airports since 2021. since 2021, aircraft has had to engage in 64 invasive actions that includes commercial carriers doing so. there've been 30 on average 30 airport descriptions each year and in these scenarios the second is matter to engage in the proactive and persistent

protections. of the transportation sector to include airports. this will literally help avert tragedies both as it pertains to the potential loss of human life and economic impacts when airports have to shut down that causes millions of dollars, millions of dollars, so this will help ever to tragedy. second, we are seeking authority for state, local, tribal and territorial partners as well as critical infrastructure owners and operators to be authorized to engage in the detection of ua apps. those will be implemented under the supervision and oversight of federal departments and agencies we are also seeking the ability for a time-limited six year pilot program for state and localand tribal territorial pars to engage in mitigation of as it pertains to state, local, territorial partners in a critical infrastructure owners

and operators as the committee knows dhs relies on partners all around the country to help owprotect the homeland. we can't be everywhere. we know the threat posed is widespread across the country ands is critical the partners have the authority to protect the homeland in addition to getting the authority to critically protect the transportation sector. we know the state and local enforcement agencies need additional authority so certainly they are going to be at the tip of the spear when it comes to protecting our country from these threats and working closely with the federal government agencies. however, there have been concerns that have been raised by folks that such an expansion creates significant challenges in terms of training and preparedness. the administration's proposal would establish a pilot program to test these expanded

authorities to state and local law enforcement however these need to have proper training including how to protect individual rights to privacy as well as effectively executing this pilot program. how would the department of justice and ensure that they have the necessary training to properly execute these authorities? >> thanks for the question is senator. the training is a bigai part oft as you recognized we need to ensure they will do this and know how to doo it and know thy are operating under the right rules. one of the elements of the bill is to establish a training center that the fbi would operate in conjunction with dhs. all the state and local underwe the pilot with 12 entities per year but we would work with each of those that are designated to participate in the pilot program, do the training. they would have to learn what the equipment could be, learn how to operate it, learn with the rules are because they would have to follow the same rules in terms of any data they collect and how it could be retained and

used, when they can engage in mitigation activity, with the rules of engagement are, all the things they have to be trained on them certified and then even after that point when they are doing the risk-based assessments as to which facilities or events they are going to protect that is subject to federal oversight so this isn't the kind of thing we hand it off to the states and let them take over it's something that we continue to be actively involved in both in training and making sure they are using the authorities appropriately. >> how will providing additional authorities to state and local enforcement better prepare the department of homeland security to protect" focus on the mass engatherings such as national security, special events and special event assessment. >> as i mentioned the dhs cannot be everywhere. we rely c on other contacts and partners to help us protect and to advance a variety of

missions. if partners are granted this authority they can help prevent catastrophic events against masi gatherings of a variety of sizes and in a variety of venues. as my colleague just mentioned, these authorities would be implemented under strict supervision and oversight of the federal government including ensuring that these individuals authorized to conduct these operations are operating under comparable federal safeguards as they pertain to privacy and civil rights and civil liberties. as i mentioned the context when we are witnessing a drone threat, second is matter. currently the authorities are there on the ground and can't detect nor can they mitigate them. those second so that i mentioned really matter and the inability of r the partners in their jurisdictions to respond could cost lives if partners haven't been granted these authorities.

>> thank you. ranking member portman you are recognized for your questions. >> thanks to the witnesses for their testimony. this is a serious issue and i agree. ofthe lapse and the authorizatin would be catastrophic. i think it would help these criminal organizations among others and yet we need better data to be able to put together the right authorization to write the sound policies. we know what happens already we know they are used for deliveries not just for drugs but also narcotics and currency and firearms, other contraband. this committee has among its responsibilities oversight of these border activities and we have a particular interest, i certainly do in the issue of the synthetic opioids streaming across the border today. the numbers unfortunately are higher than ever.c

last month enough fentanyl was seized that is killing about two thirds of those who die from overdoses at aat record level. erwe know there was enough seizd to come about 200 million americans in one month and no one on the border thinks that we are seizing not even a significant percentage of what is coming across so it's a big issue. understanding this increased threat from these transnational criminal organizations, how do you assess the current performance in countering the use of drones for the cross-border illicit activity? >> senator, thank you. i share your concern about the terminal organizations and the malicious use of drones over the border both as it pertains to smuggling contraband as well as surveillance of law enforcement in addition to other threats. currently, dhs the secretary of homeland security has designated

three areas of operation along the southwest border as covered facilities are assets. this allows dhs and to engage in these operations in these areas of operations. >> let me be more specific because i don't have much time. in your testimony you state from august 21 to may 22, cdp detected more than 80,000 illegal cross-border flights at the southern border. of these, how many were successfully mitigated by dhs? >> i can ask them to get back to you and your staff with the specifics. >> we've been asking since february, persistently, and we are not getting the information. we have to have authorized agent and what if we don't buy many inquiries from us, that concerns me. i want to work with you again on

this reauthorization but we've got to have better information to be able to do it properly. with regards to drones let's talk about china for a moment recently the directors of the fbi and the british team warned of the national security economic threats posed by china identified as the longest long-term threat stealing our technology and they talked about the u.s. drone market. they talked about the use of drones. here's an example according to the report, the leading provider of the drones to the u.s. law enforcement agencies they say. if they had servers in china and support from the chinese government. here's our own commerce department saying it's been added to the export list and provides supplies to the security forces where millions

havest been forced to the internment camps, so there's a report that last year the secret service purchased eight of the drones and purchased 18 of themb so let me just ask you these questions on the record. does the fbi currently purchase these drones yes or no? >> we do. >> does dhs currently purchase and use chinese made drones? >> dhs is prohibited to purchase the drones and absent waivers a ofvery specific circumstances. >> okay. so, the report that i mentioned said the secret service purchased this are you saying that is an accurate? >> i'm saying that with certain waivers -- >> are you purchasing them or not yes or no? >> dhs can purchase -- >> are you purchasing the drones

yes or no? >> we are purchasing certain. >> so you are? >> i can follow up with more specific details. in a closed hearing i can provide more specific details, sir.. >> okay. i don't want to leave you out. does the faa purchase and use the drones? >> the faade responsibilities fr the integration and testing of the t technology to ensure its safety and use. we don't actually purchase drones. we do the testing of the drones. >> again, given what the fbi has told us and what the congress has toldou us and what we know from reports i can't believe we have to write legislation to demand. the chinese government is a part owner and supporter of this

particular company but we do have that in the bill. it's a requirement and i hope we get that legislation passed. would you support including this legislation in the reauthorization? >> i sharer your concerns and would welcome a conversation with specific language yes. >> just to be clear we share that concern as well and want to shift away from the use of chinese drones and the fbi and others are working on that objective and right now they kind of dominate the market so we are shifting from the chinese drones to other alternatives. in the meantime the fbi is taking steps to do thorough supply chain reviews to ensure any risk posed is mitigated but we do want to shift away from it so we support that aim of the sponsors of the bill and we've

provided technical assistance about things to make sure we could support it and conduct the mission but shifting away from the drones and using other alternatives for the same supply chain risk. >> the administration supports the legislation and we did negotiate with the administration as well as democrats and republicans in the senate so we appreciate your support and hope we can continue to work with each of you on these issues getting better data. we have a special interest on the committee but to the use of the drones and national security threat of having the information. thanks mr. chairman. >> senator johnson you are recognized for your questions. >> when we were drafting and passing the act of 2018 we

obviously understood the threat the drones posed. i was frustrated we couldn't offer greater authority. five years later i am enormously frustrated we haven't made greater progress and taking baby steps when to me it is out of control. 2,000 sightings around airports, evasive actions but let's find out what our capabilities are. have we broughtou down drones around the type of events the u.s. can counter? >> senator, we've engaged in detection and mitigation of drones in and around -- >> so we have. have we advanced our technology and five years? >> we have advanced our technology in five years. >> do we have the d capability o

prevent drones from entering the space around an airport? >> currently tsa could respond to an emergency in and around an airport. atwhat we are seeking is the ability for tsa to proactively persist -- >> i'm asking the capability right now if you had the authority. who has the authority to establish restricted airspace are not in the airport or stadium or powerplant, who has that authority? >> the faa. >> have we established that restricted airspace? >> we: work with our federal partners as well as nonfederal stakeholders when requested. >> is it restricted to drone use right now? >> yes. >> do we have the capability of

knocking down drones at the end drof that airspace, technologically? >> technologically yes we have the ability to mitigate. >> shouldn't this legislation at a minimum granted the authority to almost immediately start walking down drones when they enter that space around airports? >> dhs is supportive of the authority to mitigate around airports. >> to me that would be the number one priority. there is no constitutional right to have a drone, correct? you've mentioned civil liberties. what civil liberty issues are contemplated if we are knocking down drones in the restricted airspace? >> we would want to do so responsibly. >> sure you don't want to create a greater problem but there would be no civil liberties issues if we established

restricted airspace into somebody fly is a drone they have no civil liberties to worry about we will knock it down safely if we can. >> i don't think that presents a civil liberties issue. when it's in restricted airspace to interdict the drone it's not civil liberties issue in my view. >> so have we contemplated the priorities establishing restricted airspace and granting the authority to be knocking down drones when they enter restricted airspace for example i'mm contemplating around a stadium on game day it's restricted airspace so state and local authorities with dhs have the ability to knock them down and take them out before they pose a threat? >> we have that authority now, yes. >> has we knocked any down around theow stadiums? >> yes we've disabled them and required them to divert oreland

at a number of events as i mentioned in my testimony and we have done that, yes. >> my main point is we've got to move faster. it'sil great to have pilot programs. that's five or six years in the future. the public is going to demand we act a whole lot quicker if the aircraft hits a drone in the airspace. i want to make sure in this piece of legislation we've got that authority and funding and personnel to start protecting the restricted airspace as soon as possible. ispr there anything that will prevent that from happening in this piece of legislation? >> that's why we are here. we agree and we are seeking the authority to do just that. >> i'm more concerned about a

pilot program that's going to work with 12 state and local and tribal, that is a slow rollout. >> it's wing to take some time to do the training and make sure they know how to do it and get the technology. to do multiple missionss over time -- >> my point is we've already taken five years that i find enormously frustrating. it takes time but we can and ensure that it takes less time if we prioritize and establish this for more personnel so it takes less time. i think 12 the year is too little and i'm hoping it won't be too late so let's look at this legislation and start ramping it up we spend trillions of dollars in the federal government.

we ought to focus on this because this is a serious threat and again i don't want to have it to be too little and be too late. mr. chair manha i appreciate you pushing this and want to work with you to strengthen this. i don't think it is strong enough yet. let's not have a piece of legislation that's too little too late. the bill passed five years ago was too little. fortunately it hasn't been too late yet. jobs make sure we do a good on this one. >> we look forward to working with you and i appreciate your leadership on this you. senator johnson. senator holly, you are recognized. >> thank you to the witnesses. you work in the office of strategy policy and plans is that right? >> senator let me just say i

visited the state friday and am impressed by your homeland security and look forward to going back. i work in the office of strategy policy. >> your name is on a memo dated september 13th 2021 the subject is organizing efforts to counter disinformation and this recommended the establishment of the disinformation board and was turned over to me and to senator grassley by a whistleblower. we had a hard time getting information about this board out of your agency. we've asked and asked. members of the committee have asked and had it not been for the whistleblower since i have you here let me ask you a question or two. whose idea was it to establish this board? >> the department of homeland security has engaged in

disinformation work pertaining to threats for over a decade with respect to this internal working group there were discussions about the need to ensure there were guardrails in place to protect civil rights and civil liberties and privacy and as such about creating this enjoyable working group. >> my question is whose idea was it. you used the word working group but that's not what the memo says. the directive doesn't make this board a working group. it had a material authority, ma, directives authority. let's not go back to those talking points. let me come back to the question whose idea was it to establish the board? >> without going into internal deliberations there were a series of discussions. i can't>> go into the internal

deliberations of the department. >> why not, you are under oath. >> these are internal deliberations at the department and as you know it was signed by the homeland security. >> i only know that because of the whistleblower documents. we wouldn't knowhe that otherwi. >> it was signed by the homeland security and the charter included, excuse me the working group included representation. >> did it bring up the working group? >> this was a working group. >> the answer is it does not. was it your idea to establish the board? >> as i testified under oath the establishment of the working group was a decision with multiple individuals. >> you are not going to answer my question. how was she chosen?

>> she was chosen consistent with practices for the hiring and abetting. >> who was involved? >> i don't know the full scope. i was involved in one piece of the process. >> i spoke with her. >> at what point? >> part of the standard process i spoke -- >> whatra timeframe? >> i don't want to give you an incorrect answer. early 2021. >> january? >> i don't recall the exact date. >> january, february timeframe perhapsy the secretary signed a charter. when did the secretary sign off? >> i don't know that the secretary signed off or not. >> who testified it was his decision? >> i believe he testified he's

ultimately responsible. >> i don't know the full scope. after speaking i was impressed by the conversation and noted my recommendation to others in the department. >> so you recommended favorably. did you at the time that you spoke with her and recommended her were you aware of her history of comments on twitter and other platforms of disinformation and rhetoric since it's become safe to say infamous? >> i was aware of the expertise in the field of disinformation. >> but did you know about her comments spreading disinformation about russia, about the trump administration, conservatives?

the secretary said he wasn't aware of any of this at thehe time. i'm curious were you aware at you recommended her to him? >> for the threat prevention and law enforcement policy i hadn't read all of the tweets but as i said i was aware of her expertise. >> doesassi that mean, i'm sure there were a lot but were you familiar with the ones that have become public? >> i was not, sir. >> did anybody bring those to your attention at any time before they became publicly released? >> not to my recollection. >> somehow she got through the vetting process with no one up to the secretary aware of what she has said on these public platforms. i find that sort of extraordinary. was the white house involved in the selection? >> i'm not aware of the full scope of the process. as a political appointee the processes were followed.

>> to your knowledge the white house was not involved is that fair? >> i'm a political appointee. the white house was involved in my process, so i believe that is a standard practice for the white house to be involved. >> so you think they were involved. >> i'm not aware of the full scope. teit would seem as it pertains o other. >> i'm just trying to get what your knowledge is. was the white house involved in selecting, yes or no? >> i really don't know, sir. >> what is the current status of the disinformation board? >> it's on pause. it means the board never met. the homeland security advisor he was asked to review how the department can most effectively address disinformation and how to do so in a way that protects civil rights and liberties and also asked to review how the

department can be as transparent as possible t with increased trt in the work that we do. they were asked to conduct the review within 75 days and while the work is pending there isn't work underway. >> did the board ever meet with twitter executives? we have minutes of planned meetings to ask for cooperation. did that ever happen at any point to your knowledge? >> i disagree with your characterization of the purpose of a meeting that never happened. the meeting with twitter never happened. i will just say i regret that it hasi taken months to get the mt basic information about this board and again we would have done none of this hadn't not

been for a whistleblower that turned over the documents. that is totally unacceptable. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator carver you are recognized for your questions. >> in your testimony i believe you mentioned the unmanned aircraft systems also known as drones represent the fastest growing sector in aviation today and that as of september 2020 about two years ago, 1.7 million drones were registered with the faa ander this number will only increase in the years to come and that said could you take a minuteom or two and explain to s how the expansion has impacted the current landscape and how t

the faa plans to grapple? >> thank you senator for the question. what the faa does to contribute -- >> could you speak just a little bit louder c or closer to the microphone. >> i've never been accused of speaking softly. thank you, senator. the faa has been doing a number of things working with security partners and nonfederal stakeholders the last several years as we continue to be integrated and grow across the economy with industrial users as well as hobbyists and industry so things we've been doing to help mitigate m and work with security partners to ensure the safety which is the number one priority to ensure drones are integrated and done in a safe

mattered and doesn't affect the rest as well as passenger commercial flights. we authorize and put in an existing template. ninety-nine sevens working with security partners to request their restrictions over events that meet certain security measures or needs necessary. some of those may be gathering events. we talked about stadiums, super bowl's and other events. there's others thatwl go on nationwide throughout the year that we work with our security partners to put in and also there is additional restrictions around those events. we also look at conducting tabletop exercises and working with the state, local, tribal and territorial partners when they are at these events and using such scenarios if a drone would come into their airspace or as you heard said maybe a

noncompliant orli criminal drone who has those authorities and what does that response and coordination look like and we've been working on that for the last several years. in addition, starting september of this year manufacturers will be required to have all drones manufactured to have self identify license plates so all drones manufactured after september will have to have that and operators of drones will have to be compliant by september of next year. >> my second question i would ask to each of you. protecting the homeland security isec of the utmost important for addressing threats posed. last week my family was at a

beach. a drone was set down in front of us and sent over the ocean some distance, brought it back taking pictures of us and others. pretty amazing. two or three days ago i was back home in wilmington delaware and we were experiencing in epidemic of off-road dirt bikes in wilmington people getting on the streets and writing all over the place creating mayhem and havoc. one of the tools to tryry to stp that is to distract them using drones. it can be used not just to support criminal activities but to stop them and i think we need to be mindful of that.

protecting our homeland security is of utmost importance and given they can be used by criminals to c conduct espionage as well as trafficking of drugs and firearms. as such, close coordination with department of homeland security and justice in federal aviation administration is critical when it comes to these. could each of you take a moment or two to explain how your agencies work together not as a stovepipe but work together with your state and local counterparts to monitor threats posed by drones? would you take the first shot at that? >> i agree the department of homeland security agrees there is a variety of uses.

emergency response, deliveries, recovery, investigative purposes into so much more. what we are focused on is the malicious use whether intentional or unintentional. your question about cooperation is critical because the department of homeland security just could not utilize its current authorities absent an incredibly close participation with federal partners to includo the faa as we seek the authorization for example to designate a covered facility that would allow to engage in these activities we are coordinating every piece of that authorization. when we get a request forvi activities to protect an event or mass gathering at the request of the state executive that request goes into an interagency workingg group that reviews ris,

threat, capabilities, whose and best position to respond. we got a question earlier and i will stop here about temporary flight restrictions. wear work incredibly closely wih the faa and when necessary to grant waivers to allow authorized activity to include first amendment activity as well. >> i think the counter drone business as a team sport everything we do we work with dhs and faa. everything we do we work together so there is a lot of collaboration and also we are starting to do more with state and local partners. delaware state police is part of our state and local working groupar so that is a group we

convene and if we get the authority we are asking for today we will be working more intensively across the country both on detection activities and pilot program we'vess describedo it's an activity where law enforcement and officials are working together. >> i have several more questions i would like to offer for the drecord. thank you for being with us today and for your collaboration. >> thank you senator. senator langford you are recognized.ed >> thank you to all the witnesses and for the ongoing work i do have questions when i was visiting with some of the folks at the southern border several months ago some of the border stations were trying to get equipment up and running and

operable and one of the areas along the border we had over 10,000 incursions in just to that area. they were very eager to be able to get that. when u i asked, the equipment, e people were there waiting on authorization and there was an ongoing dialogue between the faa to be able to discuss how so the equipment, the people, the need, everythinge' was there so my question is about the collaboration how long does it take in this particular instance? we had a situation where the same equipment along the border was being used in a different region on the border and had been used for a while but in this particular region it took months to get counter equipment up and working in that area. how do we speed up the process and where is the slowdown? >> i share your concern about

the malicious drone threat and i will turn to my colleague in a moment as you know the secretary of homeland security has authorized three areas along the southwest border. we have three up and running and there are four additional that are pending. we've taken significant steps internally to make the process morere efficient. in addition we've started fprocesses to move as expeditiously as possible. there's four areas of operation stillyo pending. i will tell you it's a priority for me and the secretary to get these authorized as quickly as possible. >> what is the hold up? this is technology used other places on the border. where is it getting stuck? >> i will turn to my colleague

in a moment but as these ao hours are in the process of being authorized there's a lot of coordination and each part is different. there are different complexities in the areas of operation. we are committed to doing this quickly. the threat is significant but each area is different which is why. >> we are back to the same spot. defining quickly is more like geologic time then clock time because it is taking months and when i've interacted with the secretary it would be its own faa's desk and they would say no it's on the secretary's desk. it seems to be getting lost. i'm trying to figure out how to get this unstuck. >> i can't go into further details except it's a matter of a few weeks at a maximum. the others are a bit more complex and i would be glad to

speak with you in a closed session but we are committed to doing this with urgency and care. >> how does it look at int existing technology that's out there in a geographic region? >> it varies based on the technology andn, complexity of e request we receive so in some cases it can be a matter of days but others it does take longer depending on what the area is. >> can you define longer because a matter of days i can get, what does longer mean? >> in the area it varies so we are working with security partners on other areas where they are trying to get the tfr it can vary as long as we have the information working with our security partners. i can't give a definitive of how olong because the operations

very. >> here's my challenge and i willll take one specific region. when i go and i see the people and equipment, everyone's ready to go and waiting on a piece of paper to be signed in washington i start calling around saying where is this, how do we get this unstuck because at that point they are dealing with thousands coming across but carrying narcotics with surveillance. we have the technology sitting there i'm just figuring out how do we get this unstuck because it is on someone's desk doing something. the committee is engaged but we are trying to figure out why it is still stuck. >> i try to be in the business and for the one that i mentioned that is forthcoming in a small number of weeks what we are

waiting for on that particular context and others is to ensure that the equipment can be safely used and operated in that airspace so happy to follow up with more details in a closed session but deeply committed to ensure that it happens in a small number of weeks into the other additional ao hours that are more complex are unstuck quickly as well. >> you said one is going to get unstuck in weeks. how long from when it first started? >> i don't have the exact date but when you say first started, it's been just a few weeks since we could move to the next stage of basically looking at this particular airspace complexity for the equipment to be safely used. i can get a more specific answer in writing. >> when we deal with the prisons and how this is managed, a huge issue with cell phones being snuck in and individuals

operating in criminal activity, stalking people they threatened outside the facility from inside, bringing narcotics in, this has been a big issue. what would a slow this down now those are fixed locations most in remote areas. what would be the challenge to get this across the bureau prison facilities starting with the most remote and why isn't that already happening? >> we've deployed technology at a number of prisons. i know several and there's another 20 that are going to be coming on board. it's a question of getting people trained, getting the technology, working with the faa. i understand the invitations and i share it. we want to do this because it is a huge problem. i share your view and wein are working. we had a charges this past week at a prison in texas people were

smuggling contraband into the prison w and it's not the first one. there's others. i share your concern and we are ramping up. >> i would say that's good except this is something we've talked aroundis often to say wht is the slowdown always trying to figure out the issue because we will allocate the funds, approve all the processes and it seems toro be years to get to executin on something straightforward especially not dealing with the complexitiesot this one shouldnt be as hard as it seems to be. >> thank you. senator langford. senator scott. >> i want to thank chair peters and ranking member portman for holding this hearing on this topic. from listening to you all you know the importance and are taking it seriously. to fund technology i propose

legislation such as the counter chinese drone t act and american security drone act to protect the privacy of american citizens. i am proud to pass the act in the senate but we have to go further. the legislation is the next step to ensure the federal funds cannot be used to obtain communications provided by or produced by communist china companies like dgi so i have questions on preventing emergency threats act. current law waives certain specific provisions in the fraction taken against drones. this waives all of title 18 so why do you need to waive all and why not keep the existing waivers in place? >> a couple things.

there's a broad waiver so it helps us operate with them if we have the same authority as they have so that's one. two while you're correct theri current authority makes sense to certain provisions and we've been able to use that effectively wewe can't predict e changing technology landscape and other statutes could come into play in the future so we would be back again asking for a new technology. different statute so the cleanest approach given that we don't think law enforcement officials using the technology we've talked about today to try to prevent threats from drones it shouldn't be criminald at all rather than a few statutes. if we think it's a cleaner approach we are happy to discuss with of the committee but we think that it's to have the same authority which is a full sweep.

>> do you have examples if this wasn't in place where you would need this in the past? >> we've been able to work with the statutes we just can't predict whether in the future as technology changes if others will come into play. >> senator langford talked a little about the prisons. they've been used to drop drugs, weapons and contraband to make smuggling contraband's across the border into prisons and how well this will improve efforts to counter this threat? >> to deal with issues that prison. will it change anything? >> we already have the authority to protect our prisons. it's to extend it.

other than that we have the authority and prisons we just heneed to extend. >> and the proposed reauthorization for the act authorizing a limited program under which dhs and doj in consultation could designate certain states and local law enforcement entities to use detection and mitigation authorities can you talk about the selection process and how they would be selected and have you talked to agencies in florida? >> i will turn to my colleague at the department of justice in a moment what we are seeking is two things for the state, local and tribal territorial partners. the ability to engage in detection of the drones and in addition to that and i should say compliant with all federal standards and safeguards we are seeking a six year pilot program

to engage in mitigation. that a selection process would be an interagency process. these individuals would comply with federal standards certifications and use equipment from an authorized list coordinated with faa and fcc and we believe this is critical such that as the first responders on the ground in florida and elsewhere would be ableor to tae urgently needed action to detect and mitigate threats and i will turn to my colleague. >> sheriffs department or police? >> we have talked about this, se it's going to be as we select cities around the country to participate it's going to be their level of interest. their expertise and so forth.

we haven't exactly figured out the criteria to select the jurisdictions but i would imagine it wouldre build up. >> do you all have thoughts about whether we blanket outlaw for the chinese company to be able to school drones in this country? were where the federal government ought to be able to buy themle or not. >> the departments perspective we share your concerns about china generally and chinese manufactured drones. we've issued guidance internally that prohibits the procurement of small manufactured by foreign countries. there are some limited circumstances which waivers may be granted but generally we share your concern about the chchinese manufactured drones. the problem is right now they dominate the market and so if we

need to use them for a law enforcement purpose they are kind of the main game and we are working to transition away from that. it's a question of time and in the interim we are taking risks but we want to transition away from it for reasons necessary for that purpose. they do serve a useful purpose. it's not ideal but we are trying to transition away from them is how i would say it. >> we are responsible for the integration into the national airspace and d testing to ensure the safety but we don't have a position on the purchasing of were acquiring. >> did you see what came out in ukraine that drones were being

tracked, is that classified? >> i have seen that and would be glad to follow-up in a closed hearing. >> thank you, senator rosen you are recognized. >> thank you. appreciate you holding the hearing and all of you being here today and i want to focus on protecting our stadiums because my home state of nevada is the entertainmentom capital f the world and we are quickly emerging as a sports capital of the world a new allegiant stadium home of the raiders, so las vegas is the first to secure the nfl draft, super bowl and pro bowl all at once and unfortunately this continues to make las vegas a target rich environment for bad actors. since the september 11th terrorist attack it recognizes the need to protect stadiums into sports events and the faa

initially imposed temporary flight restrictions over stadium events including unmanned aircraft and congress subsequently strengthened these requirements however sports leagues have reported an increased violation of flight restrictions by drones. i asked that i be permitted to enter into the record a letter from a coalition of organizations in support of the administration's counter eumaeus proposal. >> without objection it will be entered. >> as the faa considers new drone policies do you think it's important to take into account these long-standing protections for stadiums to ensure federal policies keep up with evolving threats and how do you plan to dore that? >> yes we do agree as the technology continues integrating into the airspace the ability

for the detection and mitigation is in place as well so we are workingas closely with our stadiums stakeholders to ensure and we already have standing for the major league baseball, nascar as well as the division i colleges and we work for thean super bowl and other events to ensure we put the appropriate air restrictions around those events held at the stadiums and other venues to ensure the safety. >> let me ask you this follow-up. you have draft legislation from the administration that does haextend authority for critical infrastructure but it doesn't specifically mention stadiums. you're talking about all the things you are already doing. shouldn'tin we be specific

identifying stadiums and other infrastructure so we are sure that we avoid confusion and ensure communities have the resources to protect themselves? >> the legislation specifically says critical infrastructure and we didn't define exactly which sectors or entities. i would say i would leave that up to congress if they want to give moreme specifics but we tae that as all entities because it encompasses in addition to stadiums as you know its chemicalie facilities and the energy sector for the temporary restrictions.

we want to ensure all critical ctinfrastructures include the sports venues have the authority that we are requesting. >> i worry there's going to be confusion and we may be defined as a minimum a certain group allowing for the flexibility of course to add more as needed so we continue to work with you on that but i do want to build on the pilot program to extend the capabilities for law enforcement protecting the critical infrastructure. do you agree it should include stadiums. you've been talking to florida. we havet a great center in las vegas we have a lot of things to

protect and so have you been speaking with anyone in nevada and do you believe the training and surveillance should be shared across these multiple law enforcement agencies and that's a good thing to involve the community's? >> i'm going to look again. we are in touch with folks in nevada but right now we can only protect the super bowl with a couple thousand nfln games evey year 20,000 baseball games every year we were only covering super high profile so the big advantage of the state and local to allow that force multiplier for the people on the frontlines to protect those venues for the ordinary games that's going on and so that is a big piece of it including in nevada and i fully expect the jurisdictions would beed scatted across the country. >> that's the way we should look

at the state and local communities as force multipliers. i have about a minute left. i would like to quickly move on to cybersecurity because we know the drones present significant cybersecurity risk and of course country of origin we talked about china manufacturing but there's malicious actors that could exploit data, they could hijack control of drones that are necessary, law enforcement drones perhaps. so assistant secretary, can you talk about some of the specific threats and could you list them and what you might think is the most, the highest threat if that is possible and all threats may not be quite equal. >> senator, you mentioned

several keywords which are the exploitation on the drone or information that is being transmitted between the command and control center. just to clarify. moving back to the subject of the hearing that is a counter pc peace and how we stop this stuff. we are concerned about a malicious actor of some kind and to change the course of the drone and weaponize it or use it for online purposes like surveillance, intrusion into the authorized facility and things

of that nature so that perspective again we are focused between thel command and control center and the actual perspective we are very aware of cybersecurity risksha for the range of purpos. i guess we have to work on that. i'm just concerned making sure the state and local communities understand which threats they have to deal with, the highest threats going down so we can be sure to protect the ones we love. thank you. >> thank you. senator, you are recognized for your questions. >> thank you, mr. chair. before i ask my questions i just want to be clear the threat posed is one the congress must address before the authorities expire. we absolutely agree on that. we've seen how they have critical functions including

wildfire suppression efforts. so the questions are not related to the need for the reauthorization but making sure that we do so in a responsible way. there is more than one way to get this done. we will follow up. the code includes prohibitions against for example committing war crimes intimidating the voters and engaging. i understand why the departmentt

of justice and the dhs might need to be exempt in the wiretap act but why do they need to be exempt from prohibitions against of the examples we just gave? for the war crime coming into play the statute wouldn't give protection against those offenses because of the way that it'su structured. from administration to administration and interpretation to philosophy and so what would you put into statute in terms of exemption. in a different area with its and

the exemption that's one thing that we are discussing the proposal to have a reauthorization that's permanent andt not one with the proliferation of drug use as well as the rapid development of the technology and how it's applied demonstrates why the government needs to have thes clear authorities in my opinion to engage in the u.s. mitigation activities. but as i mentioned the piece of the technological development as well as the growing uses for drones including valuable journalistic and civic engagement purposes seems to suggest there is considerable value in congress regularly revisiting this area of the law. it seeks a permanent authority rather than putting the effort

to the executive branch to come together in a few years to evaluate how well the expanded authorities call for the statute and we are happy to debate whether it is three years, five years, whatever the timeframe makes sense. redirect a question to you. should be we be required for those granted inra this bill? >> to be clear we are seeking this legislation with a lack of the sunset clause for most of the authorities for the pilot program we are not requesting. the sunset clause as it currently stands is impeding the department's ability to effectively serve. it's difficult to engage in the planning and multiyear testing and things of that nature. there is a critical need to regularly engage with of the

congressional branch on how the authorities are being exercised under the preventing emerging threats act we are required every six months which dhs has done and in addition in this bill the pilot program after the enactment of the bill we are also required to report the pilot programs. >> every day, every week, every month not just every two years. but as i mentioned in my preface here, continuously evolving technology and innovation makes additional things possible in the performance and capabilities and of the growing number of

uses of the technologies i think more regular required, conversations from congress and administration would be worthwhile. i know it's been a long morning for all three of you but i will leave my comments and questions and look forward to working with you as this proceeds. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, senator. senator cinema you are recognized. >> thank you to the witnesses. the counter drone authorities seexpiring this october are critical to the homeland security. these authorities allow the dhs to protect thehe critical infrastructure and communities and as the chair of the committee's border subcommittee and commerce subcommittee's, i'm also keenly aware of the threats posed by the drones to the nation, borders and airports. in arizona they are using drones to smuggle across the border in an attempt to evade law enforcement and across the nation, there are too many

examples of those walking and shutting down airports. we must maintain and enhance the capabilities while also safeguarding the privacy and the rights of legitimate drone users. i look forward to working with the chair man, the administration and my colleagues that.just so my first question, drone technology is rapidly evolving andd while most reside on the technology in the future, more advanced drones may become the norm. the doj and dhs what are you doing to prepare for the threats in the future including autonomous drone synchronized operations and as congress considers reviewing the authorities, what can we do to help yoursy research and mitigae these threats?

[inaudible] senator, we agree the technologies are evolving rapidly and with the department of homeland security is committed to is to stay involved ahead of that threat. we do so through the science and technology directorate where we are engaged in a significant amount of critical research testing and evaluation such that we can try to stay ahead of the curve at pertains and in addition my colleague mentioned we are seeking exemption from title 18 such that weat can and sure that we have the ability to keep pace and stay ahead of the threatid environment as the technology rapidly increases and proliferate the kind of threats drones may posean to the americn people and to the homeland. >> i don't have much to add to that other than we work with the

dod also. technology working groups to make sure we are doing the best we can for a state-of-the-art technology. >> as the chair of the committee i am concerned about the threat to the drones pose to the border and oure airports. as the currentce authorities expire in october can you discuss the impact that would have? >> the explication of existing authorities would be catastrophic from the border security perspective. our counter authorities allow for critical counter operations at the border into the expiration of the authorities would arrange adversaries including the transnational organizationsop to increase the malicious use of drones to increase smuggling surveillance and other malicious activities.

>> thank you. my third question. can you describe how that would help propose the flight paths from drones and specifically how to the current gaps in the governments hinder your agencies from achieving this? >> i will say that of all the things that keep me awake at night, one that is for most of my mind potential for major tragedy we currently at the department of homeland security work in close partnership with the faa, however, the dhs, transportation security agency were tsa lacks the authority to engage in proactive or persistent operations at airports. what that means is tsa isn't authorized to be on the ground at airports engaging in proactive detection and the necessary mitigation. i will tell you just from a

threat perspective, we have had a 2,000 sightingswi of drones in and around airports since 2021. 2021 and 2022 we've had 64 r evasive actions by aircraft including foror commercial carriers. we've had a 30 airport disruptions just in 2021. this already amounts in significant economic damage and a potential for the real loss of human life. i'm very concerned about the lackck of the authority and that is why we are seeking this to engage in proactive and persistent detection and mitigation in close partnership with faa. ...

>> to ensuring that privacy and civil liberties are protected during operations can you discuss some of theon safeguards and what data is intercepted for how long? >> is under a statute we can only intercept the data that is necessary for countering

the threat so with the opening testimony will be typically talking about i have a list here the drone vendor and model the drone and control device serial number of the location of the controller and the most recent take off location so withoc content communication talking about metadata signals thatat the drone is generating to find out where it is and where it's going where it has been and who was controlling it so we can hopefully interdict it. if it's not if any use we describe that information right away but as a statute we can only keep it as long as necessary and know that longer than 180 daysa unless it's necessary to keep it longer for a purpose of a criminal investigation in order to

pursue criminal investigation or prosecution. there is restrictions how long you can retain and when you can disseminate it that is carried over under the new bill so we would can still continue this and then be applied to stayy and locals they are engaged in the same activity with those privacy protections. does that answer your question? >> i like to take this opportunity to thank witnesses for participating and discussing thehe administration's proposal to extend and expand counter authorities to protect the homeland from serious threats from unmanned aircraft systems.

as we heard today very clearly from each witness a malicious actor could do point to cause a catastrophic incident at any time and we must not wait for the incident to occur. as chairman ofit this committee i will work to ensure that these authorities do not lapse in october so our partners can continue to have their crucial missions to protect us and asked a plan to introduce legislation in the very near future was senator johnson that extends and provides a careful expansion of counter us authorities thehe record will remain open through july 29 for the h submission of statements and questions for the record. this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]