limit the number of tests used for accountability purposes and allow schools to use more sophisticated assessment tools such as performance assessments. to do this requires a better balance of government and role and education with that in local decision-making. federal and state governments need to recognize that the best educational decisions for students are made by those who possess the fullest and deepest understanding of their needs. edge cay tor's voitss need to be the loudest on how students are tested and when students are tested. senate xxs, my students and colleagues and i are all inspired on how to improve the education of all of our nation's students. it is time to fix our broken system of steszing and acountability. >> thank you very much. this has been an extraordinary viert of views.

it's very helpful to us as senate xxs. and i thank senator murray and the staffs for working and having presented all of those points of views. you all get an a for sticking to five minutes. we'll see if the senators do, as well, as the time comes. i'll take my five minutes and senator murray and then after that, senator collins senator warren senator robert, senator bennett will be first four. we'll go by first arrival and conclude by noon.

>> my my view there's a clear federal role -- >> i have to refresh myself. >> so seven tests in matt, three for reading once in years three through eight and then once in high school. and then three tests in siensz once in three through five and once in grade 6 through nine and once in high school. and these are 17 tests that must be used by law, as the primary means of determining the yearly academic performance of the state and each school district

and school in the state: but those right-hand turn the only tests that kids take. that's one spot light we ought to put on today. for example, the excellence in education foundation in florida reported that in florida, in addition to the 17 federal tests, there are between 8 and 200 tests administered in schools each year on top of those tests. those are administered by the state government. and required by local government. in lee county florida which is ft. milers, there were 183 state and local tests in addition to the 17 federal tests. when this report put the spotlight on, they said oh maybe that's too many tests and they started giving fewer tests.

i think i'd like to have your thoughts on whether the culprit is the 17 tests or whether it's all the state and local tests? or is it because of the high stakes in the federal 17 tests that that's causing the state and local governments to create so many local tests. i think the most difficult issue we have to figure out is testing and accountability issue. testing with goals, standards, and then the accountability is what are the consequences? what is the devil in addition of failure? and what are the consequences of failure.

really, the debate is who decides that? >> that is an accurate summary of my recommendation. as i said, we don't have great data on the amount of testing that's going on for various purposes everywhere around the nation. i do think a lot of those tests are because those exams carry so much weight with how their schools are going to be treated by the accountability system. that sets up unrealistic expectations with respect to student achievement. those expectations are most challenge ing challenging for schools that serve students. >> i'll go on in my few remaining seconds.

does new hampshire and colorado require a lot of extra tests in addition to the 17 federal tests? or do you and your local school district require a lot of extra tests? >> in new hampshire, we just require the basic federal expect tagsz of the 17 tests, plus we have alternative assessments for students with disabilities as well as students with english language learns. >> we have adopted other tests urging that the state not require those adigszal tests, beyond, again, annual test inging in third through tent grade.

mr. hnderson since no child left mind passed in 2001 we have seen the gap for students in reading and matt and the dropout rate for those students has been cut in half. i wanted you to talk a little bit about what ewe saw the role of the secretary of education acts assessmented and acountability provisions played in narrowing those achievement gaps. it's a very important question, senator murray. thanks for asking it e it. we have seen man dated under esea under no child left behind have helped to push greater akoubtblety on the part of state systems to address the particular needs of poor students and students of color. we fear that there will be a roll back of requirements that are otherwise producing the

positive results that you have identified. we have seen, for example, in the states given waivers under the previous law, in many instances, those waivers have allowed the state systems to avoid the kind of meaningful acountability that drives the kind of change that you've talked about. you mexed the mentioned the prolif rax of states at the local level. but i think the federal level have been so important in producing the kind of high school and career-ready graduation rates that are really important. you know look, i started school when brown versus the board of education was still decided. tlfgs a tremendous absence of the kind of consistent standards that helped to produce the kind of change that we have seen and that senator murray has cited. and in the absence of esea

standards, i am convinced that there will be the use of title i funds for students who do not otherwise qualify. and they step back from the federal government's commitment to ensure the positive results. so it makes a difference. >> mr. henderson what improvements would you recommend as we reaut rise to close that achievement gap? >> certainly, we have many schools that lack the kind of financial equity and commitment to students that either their state constitution requires or that common sense for purposes of producing positive results would require.

senator casey, i've seen the same thing in pennsylvania where the failure of the previous goef nor to invest in resources to address the problem the short coming in fundsing of schools has been cig nef cant. so, in my judgment these standards helped to drive the kind of investments that states must make in their educational system to ensure that their students do meet the challenges of today and prepare to meet the challenges of form. what i would hope is that there would be restrictions on the casual use for title i funding for students who are not eligible and to require that those funds be used precisely for what they're intending. and that is to help the poorest of students. >> thank you. you mentioned that your classroom, that is aparentally watching you is very diverse in terms of their backgrounds and learning performances.

so we design tasks that are accessible to a range of learners but that allow a range of performances. so this includes something like when we were studying the declaration of independence earlier. i gave students some adaptive readings to historians. they would be accessible to all students and they had to write an argument about e about what the declaration of independence means. so that's a task that somebody reading on a fourth grade level can say something intelligent about. but my students who are doing better work now than i did even a few years into college are able to approach that task in a really sophisticated way. we used that to inform what happens in our classrooms. we use that to inform how we professionally develop our teachers. and then we judge ourselves bassed on how students are doing in similar tasks plater in the year. so we're measuring groult so

that we're not just happy with some kids making progress. we're looking at all of our students. even the ones who are doing amazingly well in ensuring that we are continuing to push them as well as the students who are struggling. >> thank you very much. >> senator collins? >> thank you e thank you, mr. chairman. first, mr. chairman and raenging member senator murray let motel you what a pleasure it is to return to this committee after an absence of many years some people would say i was here when we crafted no child left behind. but, remember, i was very young then. in 2005 former senator olympia snow and i, in response to a lot of concerns about the law, put together an nclb task

force to evaluate the impact of the raw made. and we had parents, teachers educational specialists, superintendents, school board members, it was really a broad group. and the task force identified several unintended consequences, laws of teaching time, misinterpretation of the meaning of schools classified as failing when they didn't make adequate process and the scape goating of certain groups. our task force needed greater for exampleblety. and they recommended allowing

sfats to measure student progress over grade span and to track student growth over time. as we know, the current measures schools grade by grade as well as comparing this year's fourth graders with last year's fourth graders. the approach that was recommending essentially is looking at the same students and seeing whether they have progressed which intrigues me. before the no child left behind law was passed, that was the approach used in maine. and it allowed maine to track the progress of individual students and gave teachers greater flexibility.&bay my question to each of you, and

some of you who have touched on this is do you believe that given states the flexibility of grade-use testing, which is used now for science would help with concerns about overtesting that have been expressed? or would the result be that we decrease acountability. >> i think it would be difficult to sdwop a fair grade span of testing. it becomes more difficult with the progress that individuals look at over a point in time.

those kind of systems wind up yielding very inaccurate information about the school's effectiveness. >> thank you. >> i would add is that we really need consistency. we need to make sure that every student and every parent receives annual information on how their child is performing academically. we do not want to go back to a system where parents really have to guess on the off-year how their student is doing.

there's lots of reasons why that could happen. that students fall behind. and their growth is really impeded in successive years. i think the more we keep track of how students are doing, the better off those students are going to be, the better off their parents are going to be in terms of their expectations. >> okay. thank you. i'd echo professor west's comments and agree with you bassed on the importance of growth. the importance of measuring the same students as they grow from one year to the next. that is what's most relevant. i's not how this year's fourth graders did against last year's fourth graders. it's how did those students do from one year to the next. you do need annual measurements in order to be able to see that growth. to measure someone in fifth good day gra and not to see them until eighth grade there's so much that intervenes. if you're the parent of a kid who's a year ahead of grade

level, you don't gist want to be told oh, that kids a standard. that means that kid may e might have lost the entire year of learning chlts you want to see how much growth did that high achieving student make. likewise, those students need to catch up. just to say oh, there's still not a standard. you want to know how much have they grown? are they on a trajectory. hopefully, within a short period of time, to get back on full track to be ready to graduate prepared for post-secondary. so we do think without annual measurements, you sitly can't measure growth in a meaningful way. >> mr. chairman, i note that i'm over my time. could i have the rest respond for the record, if you want? >> i appreciate you saying that. every senator uses 4 1/2 minutes

and then says what do you all think. it's been done before. [ laughter ] >> so we want to know what you think. but i'd like to invite the other three witnesses. can you give a su singt answer to your thought and then supplement it later? >> mr. chairman, thank you. i'll be very brief. i'll associate the remarks of my colleagues who have already spoken about the importance of annual assessments as a way of determining progress. i will also mention student who is come to school under those circumstances. there are other factors including school discipline that often runs amuck. sew i'd like to amplify that: i

will submit additional comments. thank you. >> i want to argue that teachers assess every day in multiple ways. these standardized assessments that you speak of can only measure right or wrong-type questions. in new york state these scores have changed from year-to-year. it makes them flawed and invalid. >> what we do need to be focused on is fourth graders.

i think we do need to assess regularly. i think parents need information about how schools are doing year-to-year. i don't think the federal or state government need accountability to yearly tests. let's have that as small and little intrusion as posz. >> thank you. >> senator warren? >> thank you, mr. warren. i look forward to working with you and member murray on this committee this year. the federal government provides billions of dollars every year. and it's a lot of money. so i think we should start with acountability, the acountability of the states that take this money.

if the states are going to get federal tax dollars, we need to make sure that they're not being wasted. there are a lot of problems with no child left behind. but, according to the most recent national assessment of education progress over the past 12 years, both reading and math performance across the country has risen for all groups

of students. so, mr. busburg, you've review ed the republican draft proposal. are you confident that the states will be held acountable? >> i do agree that accountability is important. acountability in the sense that needing to make change that when schools are failing and where kids right-hand turn graduating, there has to be change. that change is difficult.

it's zeshl that change happen. i do believe that accountability is very important. our system, in denver actually looks at student growth looks at disaggregated data and looks at things like grajsuation rates. people have spoken about the importance of multiple measures that i agree with. >> all a state would have to do is submit a plan with a bunch of prom proms with no proof that the promises are ever kept. and the department of education would lose any meaningful tools to make sure that the states actually follow through on this.

do you see anything in this proposal to make sure that the states who take this money actually are the kids who need this money most? >> i think the bill would allow this draft to repurpose title one funding. without any measurable accountable accountability, you know, interestingly enough, your point about taxpayer accountability was just reinforced within the last several days by the george w. bush institute which i shall shoed a report under the infrastructure of martha spellings for purposes of ensuring that dollars and tax dollars are well spent. from the standpoint about the

concerns of the services provided, we think when you allow states to weaken the standards, and we have seen again, how states have used waivers to, in effect, create a day facto weakening of standards standards. we are deeply concerned. >> well, i understand the need for flexzblety. but if the only principle here is that the states can do whatever they want, then they should raise their entaxes to pay for it. throwing billions of federal dollars at the states with no accountability for the states of how they spend taxpayer money is not what we were sent here to do. so, thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator warren. and i did welcome senator collins to the committee, which i should. we're delighted to have her back. she and senator cassidy are the only two members of the kmiet tee this year.

>> senator roberts. number one, we've flipped the seating arrangement here. the lights are a little brighter, the heat is a little warmer. you can see what the majority used to enjoy. at any rate, i thought i'd make that observation. steven, how do you pronounce your name? that's what i figured. thank you for your statements on behalf of teachers.

>> thank you for your viewpoint. mr. chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on testing and accountability. i want to let everybody know the witnesses, and thank you all for coming. this is working draft. this isn't set in stone. and so that's why we have you here. it's the republican view or democratic view and it is a bipartisan view and it is a working draft.

i think that should be emphasized. they're only granted to states that are implementing preferred education process. they will handle that issue with the courts. they have before and i'm sure they'll do it again. that was braukt up by mr. henderson. at any rate, on principle evaluations, it has been a kovrp rehencive state approach to design a robust evaluation system. but the department of education i believe, is going beyond the statute, initially, and conditioned waivers for state adoption of policies. back in august of last year, kansas agreed that the department of education's primtive requirements, they were informed that their esea flexibility was fully approved and they will no longer be labeled high-risk status.

i think that's a pattern we've seen nationwide. and it's clear to me that the administration has tried to query states to implement something called common core. i introduced the local level to prohiblt the federal government's role in that. i aappreciable dwrat the chairman's draft. i just want to -- i don't think washington has been what is best for the students that they serve. and my main objective for renewing and improving sea is to make common sense changes to simplify the law and make it for

plexble for states without sacrificing any acountability. the question i have is what is the most effective paired back vergsz of acountability that still ensures education for all. >> i definitely see the role of assessments, you will owe norksz at a larger level. but reviewing that at the state level, i do feel that the role is to ensure that states are using tax dollars appropriately for public education. it hasn't happened in our state.

our city has not been held acountable to those federal tax dollars. but what i do feel is that there needs to be a balance, a communication. and if you were to ask me what my vision is it's to create alongside educators, alongside district administrators. a system of communication that involves much more comprehensive assessments and ways of communicating besides a single metric that can be very flawed. so i just wanted to point that out. >> we need better and more diverse assessments that are used primarily to help schools and teachers adopt and plan. we need to remove high stakes from those assessments. we then need to limit acountability through the use of grade span. >> i appreciate that. thank you, mr. chair mesne.

in my view that's why this

discussion is so important. it was to create a system of askountblety that disaggregated data and showed us, you know how kwids were perform inging it's demonstrated a huge achievement gap. if e in my mind if you want to cure this problem of pov e poverty in our country the way to do that is by making sure people can read when they're in the first grade. that's the most posht e important thing that we can do: there was an comment point earlier in no child left behind asked and annalsed the wrong question. which was how did this year's fourth graders do compared to last year's fourth graders. not only is that the wrong question, if you're a fourth grader becoming a fifrlt grader then e then there was high stakes accountableility tied to that that meant that states and

local school districts and schools were responding to the wrong question. >> the field has moved well beyond that. i wonder whether you could describe to the committee how you've used student growth measures to drive change in the school district. how does it inform the district's policies with respected to choice i think we would benefit from understanding that. >> if you get hit, the important distinction between growth and status. >> so thank you.

that is the fundmental question. just look at the percentage of kids that are proficient. so where we have moved is looking at growth. just how much progress does a student make from one year to the next. and, again that's equally important for high-achieving students. you just measure status, i.e.,are they proficient? are they at grade level? you're ignoring kids above and below. you want to see their growth. you want to see how much they're learning. that's why the annual nature of assessments are so important. so we do look, first and foremost, at growth. for example, we used to have schools where the students were relatively high status, but their growth was low. and they coasted. they said look, we're doing great.

congratulate us. but kids weren't really doing well. when they begin to measure growth and disaggregate growths based on students with disabilities that have shown a real light on how kids are actually doing. again, the important thing was not just to shine the light. what are we going to chak to see more growth. >> parents of data want to see how much they're going to grow. the first thing they should look at is the business schools. they have in mind of teaching in the classrooms. this wonderfully rich and deep teaching around critical thinking. but it's also important, again, for parents to see the ropes. we're very transparent about that and that's published.

particularly, when you're in a district where parents do have choice where you have charter schools and district one schools, it's extraordinarily important that the community and parents get information about how much kids are growing. again, if you have a system that just says expert and kids are proofficial e efficient you set up a set of a mr hazard, a disinsent ef to take kids who are low performing. you equally have that obligation. therefore, particularly at an era of choice and accountability. as, for example, at charters, we have to make decisions about which charters to authorize. which charters to close. we've closed more low-performing charters than the rest of the state has combined. and that's really helped us to encourage our growth as a

district is, again, related to focus on the growth that schools are made from year-to-year and make sure that parents have that information about their kids and their schools. >> i'm out of time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator burr. thank you all for being here. i've got to admit senator warren stimulated something in my mind. i agree federal tax money should be held acountable. if we said to a state, okay, we're not going to take your tax money for edge kax, we're going to let you keep it. you figure it out. you fund education. the first question i thought of was how many states would take us up on that? federal government gets out of my way? i get to decide how it's done?

how would they do it different lid than if they do it today. we put the burden on them. i throw that out to you. here's my question, extremely syrup. it's the most simplified question. my kids now are adults, never tested well. it's probably genetic, but they didn't test well. so my question is this. is it more important that we know what students know? or is it more important that we know students are learning? dr. west? >> so it's much more important to focus on the school system to

e to find out what students have an impact on. what students know is going to be influenced by family jeanette e nettics and outside of the school's control. when we're thinking about accountability, it should be for student learning. >> et's a canun d rum. i don't see how you could go one way or the other. you need to know both. you node e need to know in the end -- >> do you only reward a student for what they know? or do you reward a student for if they're learning? i mean i go back to no child left behind. and it hnt rolled out exactly like i envisioned when i worked closely with the bush administration. average yearly progress.

that's not necessarily what you know, that's what you're learning. i think this got hijacked somewhere to where everything is about what they know. that's what the annual test is. >> i think we emphasized how much students grow. that's to a standard. that's pretty important that our kids graduate from high school ready for college or for a career. that is a standard. that's important to help our students. are we graduating kids where they're prepared to succeed in college and in today's knowledge-intensive economy. >> it's an important, philosophical question. but it assumes that students basically begin on an even playing field.

and part of the concern i have about the way in which the question is framed, is that students who are poor students of color students with disability students who are not proficient in english are not given the resources that they need and only through these assessments are we able to demonstrate the -- it's under state institutional law or whether they have failed to make the kind of progress that would allow them to continue doing what they're doing without interventions of the kind that the law now would require. i mean, part of the problem we have is that when states are given the kind of deference and latitude that they have, you see a weakening of standards and there is no way of reaching

those problems because the state has no incentive other than the say yes, the business community in the state wants to have a stronger graduating pool. but leaders of the state are not held acountable by the failure to meet those standards unless the federal government steps in. >> and i think the waivers reinforces that. >> thank you. i want to start by saying yes, i know many students who are brilliant but are poor test takers. and they go onto become bring yant people. and go onto do amazing things. the tests alone does not define their value, nor their contributions to society. so i want to emphasize the fact that these tests again, they narrowly measure they are narrow measures. i can test my students on basic skills and tell you, qualify

that information such as multiple case facts. when it comes to the kind of knowledge that we're talking about, that is not easily kwaubt e quantity if i believe because it's limitless. there has to be a better way to assess students, to share information that goes beyond the realm of standardized assessments. >> for my job, it's students learning. i think schools should be acountable for students learning. but i think students need to be held acountable for what they know and can do which is exactly the model we used in consortium. students at the end of high school need to demonstrate mastery on four different performance tasks. we could do a lot better job of helping students prepare for those and truly learning if we got rid of this notion of a kid that enters in ninth grade needs

to be done four years later. >> thank you. thank you e thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator burr. senator franken and then isaac southern. >> i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for this great group of witnesses and where we're getting. >> i think your questions hit on this proficiency versus growth. and it's a great topic because a sixth grade teacher who brings a kid from a third grade level of reading to a fifth grade level of reading is a hero under the proficiency measure, they're a goat. in minnesota, they had a race to the middle. they would focus on the kid just above and just below to get that per zen tang above proficiency and the kid up on the top would be ignored. and, mr. lazar, you hit on this. and the kid at the bottom would be ignored. that's why growth is so

important. to me, to do growth, you've got to measure every year. i also think you should do it in realtime. the question is what kind of assessments are you making? the assessments that measure these fine, little discreet skills, that's what you're going to teach to. so that informs -- or that creates a curriculum that is focusing on the wroeng thing. so if we can create assessmenteds that measure what we want, then we are getting somewhere. when i talk to employers in

minnesota, they want people who can do critical thinking. they want people who can work in teams. we have to hold schools accountable. mr. bosburg, i want you to run with it and anyone else run with what i just said. >> thank you, senator. and i think you put it very very well. about how important it is to care about growth for all kids. and not just kids on a cusp of a particular line. >> the thing i like about the law was called no child left behind. that's the thing i liked the most about it. >> i think one of the things we're very much looking forward to is the new generation of assessments. it is a much more sophisticated set of assessment.

it is much more around complex thinking, problem-solving. it's not about mem raization. if you're someone who's teaching mem e mem raization, your kids aren't going to do well. it's about the kinds of skills that we do care about for our universities and for our economy. at the same time i think sometimes, again, we try and create too much. this one vessel of this once-a-year assessment told everything. it can want: i any you want a good assessment. and, at the same time, to welcome multiple measures. the performance-bassed assessments that mr. lazar talked about to be able to judge, you know, as ms. lee said, no one assessment is going to be able to judge everything. so i think it is absolutely, again, this isn't an either or. to be able to have common, statewide measures, sophisticated measures, of student progress in literacy or

math is, i any, essential. so you can see bhou e how kids are doing from district to district. you can see where are the best schools in the state working with english language lerners. if measurement from school to school or district to district you can't capture best practices. you can't understand where the most progress is being made. i think those should be short. i'd like to keep it to no more than four hours a year. then then welcome other more performance based assessment. if the state gets to that level, what the state looks at as well. >> anybody else want to weigh? >> on your kind of performance, don't you agree that if you're going to hold schools accountable, you have to have something that you can

objectively look at but can you design a computer adaptive test, you design something that gets more at the thing you want to measure? >> you can. it takes more time and it's more expensive. i did some work on doing prototype tasks. it's a lot of hard work. it takes a lot of time and a lot of expertise to design those. i think if we were going to identify a role for the federal government in education it's put funds and resources behind tests development and assessment development. do range of them an make them available for schools to choose. the type of work we do in my school we have wonderful teachers who are committed to

doing it and we have arranged time in our program to be able to do that. it was the prose initiative in new york city. what we do isn't something that all schools can start doing tomorrow. if schools could choose the ones that fit their needs we're in good shape. >> thank you. senator iaascs. >> thank you. thank you for having what is a very important hearing. listen to michael ben nitnett talk a minute ago, i happened to wrote no child left behind. everybody gone onto bigger and better things. that's night when the congress finished meeting and ted kennedy and i were in the basement of the capitol and we signed off, we almost said in unison, if this works we're going to be in trouble in six years because it will impossible for schools to maintain ayp because it will be

larder and harder and harder to do. assessment was very important. focusing on the individual was more important. no child left behind did that fp now child flew under the radar scream. we did something we always had and aver rajjed them out. we're doing x. that wasn't anything good for little johnny who couldn't read. i hate that reference but i guess i'll use it. we need little johnny involved as well too. i have a question for miss lee or probably a bit of statement. i didn't get to hear your testimony, and i apologize. in the last attempt, we almost

got there on reauthorization. it fell apart. i fought very hard to allow for alternative assessment to take a standard test and make a special needs students take it you have connective disabilities and cognitive disabilities, it's impossible to have a one size fits all assessment. i felt the teacher and the parent and the child aep should decide. >> i agree. >> everybody make note of this answer. >> i started teaching first year of nclb. i've seen first hand in what is called the high school for students at risk. special education district in new york city. what i found was that you're right. no assessment fits all, include

including all students. what i would have to do in my assessments is diversify. what i know about my students i assess them. sit alongsidealongside. get to know them and who they are. their abilities. set high standards and work with the parent and the team. it was not just me but related service providers. you have experts and specialists coming in and we work together add team to develop assessments to determine students where they with and where we wanted and to set goals for them. that work has continued. i feel as though again to echo steve that states or federal government does have a role in ensuring that this is made possible. >> one thing i learn is if

you're testing is never aligned with your curriculum, you're never going to get good data. to align a test we required with a curriculum that was national would blow up in our face. we did random sample to try to assess the integrity of whatever assessment they were using. i think one of the things the federal government can do is to help the schools that is give them the excuse that we're making them do it but make sure the curriculum and alignment of testing are in line. if you do that then you find out what the student is learning. a lot of people are saying that's teaching to the test. that's what education is about. if you teach and you test what the student is taught, then you get a true measure of how much they achieved. >> i think mainstream seszment

means that students are more likely to have access to mainstream curriculum. one of the principles that the communities representing students with disabilityies have said is for students with the most severe disorders. one of the concerns is you see that students are misclassified as having emotional disturbance disabilities or being disabled and those labels apply to students of color. they are then taken out of mainstream curriculum, given inconsistent with the requirement of the law access to less rigorous forms of academic accomplishment and the results have been disasterous if more of those communities. i think there's a real concern. certainly among students representing persons with disabilities that they not be

taken out needlessly from mainstream curriculum. that doesn't have anything to do with the kind of assessments that states develop. i completely agree. there should be a more sophisticated form of assessment to complement and provide the insights that these wonderful teachers have asked for. that's not inconsistent with a requirement of an annual assessment that's used to fully get diagnostic assessments of how communities are doing that might otherwise be left behind. >> thank you, senator. we have senator murphy and some random republican wonders into the room. there should be full-time for all of you to have full five minutes. we will be close to the noon hour when we want to concludes the hearing.

senator baldwin. >> thank you. very grateful to you for getting us off to a bipartisan dialogue. i'm hopeful that we can find a thoughtful path forward to fixing this law for all students, parents, teachers administrators, policy makers. we need this information also. great panel. thank you to the witnesses. a well designed standardized test is one important tool among many that can help all of the stake holders i just listed inside how well individual students are doing as well as how our nation's schools are serving all of our nation's children. as such we should know if the tests given, those required by federal law as well as those that are required by state and

local districts are of high quality and aligned to states learning standards. we should have a clear idea of how much classroom time is spent on preparing for and taking the standardized test as opposed to instruction. in preparation for this very debate i introduced the smart act along with representatives susan in the house of representatives and senator murray and others here in the senate. it will goes fo states every year. it will allow states and districts to audit their assessment systems and reduce unnecessary and duplicate state and local tests.

from our nation's largest teacher's union and other education reform groups. i'd like to turn to our panelist for their perspectives as well. particularly i'd like to ask both dr. west because you've referenced the importance of the sort of audits of understanding what's truly happening across the country. can you talk about how such audits could take place at the state and local levels. >> i have not reviewed your legislative in detail.

it's critical that state and local education officials have a good idea of the role that testing is playing the amount of testing and the quality of those tests as they try to understand how driktss are trying to improve student learning. >> did you testify that was lacking at this point? >> absolutely. there's often a lot of confusion at the school building level about what's being assessed for what purpose. there's a will the of frustrations among teachers about lack of alignment between a given assessment program. lack of alignment and the schedule of the curriculum specially, the district scope and sequence they're required to teach. if those aren't lined up you're getting useless information. there are huge potential gains for betting a better handle on

this. we don't know the optimal amount. my understanding of what's going on in new hampshire they may be testing more often using higher quality assessments over the course of the year. that might look bad in some audit or the premise is we're testing too much and need to get that down. >> i think it's important that states and districts be very transparent. what is required and our state we have a committee that's doing just that and make recommendations to legislature to reduce some of the state mandated testing that has nothing to do with no child left behind. we as a district published what we do and what we don't do.

our teachers assess our kids in some way. that could be check for understanding or an exit ticket. that could be daily or weekly. boy there's nothing that i would dread more than our teachers in some compliance exercise having to classify and record every single thing that could be classified as an assessment or test of student progress.

>> thank you. i'll focus on a particular question for mr. henderson. i wanted to commend him and others. we have talked about them in the broader context. this is a hearing about no child left behind in elementary and secondary education. some of the numbers just by way of background, some of the numbers on child with poverty are really bone chilling. there's a report from about a year ago and i'm sure they'll update it this january or soon from the oecd. the organization from economic cooperation and development. they rank the top 20 countries on a whole range of areas. one of them is in child poverty.

we're of the top 20 in the world we are fifth from the worst. our child poverty rate this is a 2010 number. 21.2% of children in the united states of america live in poverty. we are just a little better than spain and italy and we're not too far off from mexico and turkey by way of example. if you update it the number in 2012 is higher. it goes to 23%. it puts up ahead of chile. by that ranking we're fourth from the worst, not fifth.

what we have not done for our kids is national failure. after world war ii we had the g.i. bill that was a good idea. we also x for europe, a marshal plan. we never ever had anything even approaching marshal plan for our kids. that's the predicate. i think that is kind the background. you mentioned concern for the assessment we undertake. one piece of data and i want to have you the remaining time walk through your reasons is that we've got about six million students in the country with disabilities educated in public

schools. most of whom spend their day learning along side other students. according to the national center for education statistics, 90% of students with disabilities do not have cognitive disabilities that would limit them. you're talking about children with disabilities in the much more severe category. >> thank you for your question. students in poverty and disabilities will face. they are making policy decisions. let me say but states don't

require that. you also recognize will there may be cap on ensuring that only the students with the most severe cognitive disabilities are classifies as such, schools now will use various methods to allow more students to be classified as having a disabout disabilityies of avoiding the rigorous adherence to standards we would like. what we have found obviously those living in poverty would have a huge problem. i'm drawing this from a council on parent attorneys and advocates of representing persons with disabilities and from organizations representing persons with disabilities within the leadership conference.

they have somehow been exempted from the more rigorous mainstream standard that would be required under existing law. that for us is a huge problem. when you add that states because of budgets are choosing not to invest in public education and quite frankly that's what happened in pennsylvania over the last several years creating huge problems. particularly for kids with disabilities disabilities. our view is that states will choose to really make cuts where the voices of the advocacy community are perhaps the weakest. unfortunately, that sometimes applies to our students with disabilities. they are often in poverty themselves and they lack the

kind of strong advocacy network aside from the organizations that i've identified here that can really represent their interest. one last point -- >> we're over time. >> the new american foundation looked at 16 states -- >> conclude. >> thank you. i appreciate it. 4400 schools that have been previously established for purposes of intervention were largely ignored. under those states once the waivers have been given. that's the reality that we face. thank you. >> thank you mr. henderson. senator white house. >> thank you. i experienced with the education universe that there are really two worlds. one is the world of contractors and consultants and academics

and experts and plenty of officials at the federal state and local level. what i'm hearing from my principals and teachers world is that the footprint of that first world have become way too big in their lives to the point where it's prohibiting their ability to do the job they were entrusted to do. i went through the tests a week

ago. for mathematics and something they call english language arts. off to a pretty bad start if that's what you have to call it. to me it's pretty clear that these tests are designed to test the school and not the student. when it first started up in rhode island the timing of the reporting of the results that the contractor assumed was such that the teacher in the coming year wouldn't have the information. clearly, the next year's teacher was not the focus of this effort.

the school has to go through huge heroic efforts to try to get them interested and prepared for a test they know they're not going to be personally graded on or responsible for the outcome of. then kids have scheduling problems. they can't all get them in at once. they don't have the electronic band width for a class to take the test at once. it's not one test. it's three tests. you can't teach the other kids while the kids are in the test. we have got to solve this problem. it's an efficiency problem and being smart about gathering information. i'm really concerned about this. i'm saying this at this point to invite conversation with my colleagues as we go forward. the super structure of education

supervision i'm not sure passes the test of being worth the expense and the trouble. it's very discouraging to teachers in rhode island. they hear about the race to the top money that comes into the state and the state gets big grant and everybody does a press kmps. it's like the rain falling over the desert where the rain comes pouring out of the clouds but by the time you're at the desert floor not a rain drop falls. it's all been absorbed in between. i've never had a teacher say to me the race to the top gave me just what i need in terms of books or a white board or something i can use the teach the kids. i think we have to be very careful about distinguishing the importance of the purpose of some of this oversight and not allow the importance of that purpose to have the oversight to be conducted in such an inefficient waistful clumsy way that the people who we really

trust, the people in the classroom are looking back and saying stop, help. i can't deal with this. you're inhibiting my ability to teach. i think that damage in the classroom falls just as hard on the communities that have difficulty getting their fair share of education as it does anywhere else. i think we really need to grapple with that in this committee. i've basically used all my time with that set of remarks. that was less in the matter of a question than an invitation to my colleagues to continue this discussion. you know what i think is important as we go forward. you have two seconds -- no you don't. one, zero, gone. >> thank you senator whitehouse. i think we need to have lots of discussions about this. not all these discussions i'm discovering fall down in

predictable ways. that was helpful. thank you. >> thank you very much for convening. a really well balanced an thoughtful hearing. i got the chance to read here. i came to congress as a vocal opponent and critic add no child left behind for a lot of the reasons that senator whitehouse enunciated but also become i come from family of educators. my mother was a wonderful elementary schoolteacher and english as a second language. she walked away from teaching before she thought she was going to because she spent a lot more time or bur rock si and a lot let time on teaching. one of the first meetings i had when i got here is with the

children's defense fund. they came in because they heard i had been a real active critic of no child left behind. they wanted to present this for me as to what was happening in other parts of the country. to explain to me there were places in pressures to provide a full compliment of education. technical education. they had critiques of what i did. their point is it's important for us not to abandon the gains that we've made with respect to children with learning disabilities who maybe in some places not been getting a fair shot before. i wanted to build on the

questions that senator casey raised. maybe i'll direct it to my friend dr. west. we were college classmates. i'm pleased he's here today. senator casey referenced some data suggesting the enormity of students with disability and in special education programs do have the ability to take these tests and the fear is that if you give school districts the ability to move broad swaths of children learning disabilities out from under the test you lose the pressure to provide the education and it's also you as a caution measure generally lose the ability for parents.

statewide testing down there. i love to hear what the data is about the majority severe cognitive disabilities take the test and what that might mean for accountability moving forward. >> as senator casey mentioned the vast majority of students with disabilities do not have intellectual disabilities. the second point i would make is there has to be some cap on the number of students who are allowed to take those alternative assessments. i'm not sure the 1% cap that was in the legislation is exactly

the right number. one thing we know from the study is how schools respond to them more generally is that that some schools will find way to game the system. that might reclassify students as being eligible for special education if that exempts them from the accountable pool of students in order to avoid being sanctioned. there needs to be some mechanism in accountability policy toll account for that dynamic. one of the concerns there also needs to be if there's a cap some degree of flexibility to allow for natural variation in at a given school or a given district that might actually be appropriately excluded from the standard assessment. i think those policies have been a bit more rigid than they actually should be but there needs to be some mechanism. i'm not the one to tell you the details of how to do it.

>> thank you. about half a percentage of kids don't have the ability to take those tests. there are going to be variations. thank you. >> there's tremendous interest on our side of the aisle in fixing the no child left behind law to make sure we really do make sure that every child no matter where they live or who their parents are or how much money they have have the opportunity of the american dream and that's the equalizer that i think is so important for our country and will allow all of yourng people to be able to grow up aunds have a job and support all of us and be competitive in a global marketplace. it's a huge goal. i think there's tremendous interest here. we want to work with you on a

bipartisan basis to move forward on this bill. i really want to thank everybody who participated. >> thank you. this is a good beginning. i've learned a lot from the witnesses. i like the exceptional variety. we had our points of view. i thank the staff for their work on komcoming up with that. the senators had thoughtful comments and for those who came and couldn't get in the hearing room, we'll do our best to have a larger hearing room for our next hearing which will be next tuesday at 10:00 a.m. it will be about fixing no child left behind, supporting teachers and school leaders. we look forward to that. i'd like to invite the witnesses. if there's something you wanted

to say and if you could let us hear, especially within the next ten days, we would welcome it. we have written to state and local districts trying to identify it but if you have an idea about that, we would appreciate it. do high stakes discourage multiple assessments? i would like you to look that the question. one of the dangers is when ever the federal goth does that it likes to put it its sticky

fingers on what to do. your comments on that are from anybody would be helpful. >> i'm interested the taking advantage of that opportunity and particularly because none of the witnesses had chance to comment on what i said. could you let me know by what time you would like our additional questions in, so that our folks have -- what's my deadline? >> what's convenient for you? >> end of the week. >> that will be great. we'll work with you. i think the sooner we get the questions out the sooner we'll get good answers. i'll work with senator murray. may be we have round table discussions rather than hearings where we can sit around and have conversations about particularly points and not be limited to five minutes of questions. there are different ways to go about this. if you let us know within a week or sooner, that would be a big help. we'll go to work on that.

this friday. usually we say at the close of business friday. i'm just learning. if you can do it by the close of business friday, that will be helpful. the hearing record will be open for ten days. we thank you for being here today. any other outbursts or comments anyone wants to make? thank you to the witnesses. thank you very much for coming. the hearing's adjourned. congressman steve israel talks about his role as the chair of the house democrats new policy and communications committee. republican tom mcclintock for

tax reform. tuition free community college and mandatory sick leave benefits. washington journal is live each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. thursday the u.s. house is expected to take up a bill banning abortion after 20 weeks. at noon eastern members of congress join pro-life advocates at the annual march for life rally. this year's rally marked the 42nd anniversary of the supreme court's rowe versus wade decision legalizing abortion. you can see this at noon eastern here on c-span3. here are some of the our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks.

sunday night at 11:00 princeton historian examines the initiatives of lyndon johnson. lectures in history. university of california david professor on the role of the british royal air force and allied strategy during world war ii. sunday evening at 6:00, american artifacts. find our complete schedule at c-span c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400 or e-mail us. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook follow us

on twitter. this is 1:50. welcome to today's hearing. in front of you are packets containing the written testimony for today's witnesses. i recognize myself in opening statement and rieszanking member as well. the hearing will provide an overview of how the research, development and flight test enable the integration into the u.s. system. i'm going to use the term drone since that is how most people refer to them. the term unmanned aircraft

system is a more complete and accurate term. uas are complex systems made up not only of the aircraft but also the ground air and communications infrastructure. drones come in a variety of shapes and sizes. in the past ten years the public has become familiar with military drones. less discussed are civilian and nonmilitary drones that have the ability to transform or everyday lives. commercial drones have to potential to carry out a wide range of tasks across a broad range of sectors, including agriculture, weather, energy and disaster relief. the teal group predicts america will spend over $11 billion on uas research, development, testing, evaluation and procurement over the next decade. total worldwide spending is projected to be $91 billion.

in 2013, the association for unmanned vehicles estimated in the next ten years over 100,000 u.s. jobs could be created. the report also notes that continued delays in integrating drones in the national air space system could cost the u.s. more than $10 billion per year or $27 million per day in potential earnings from investment in drones research and development. in june 2014 the department of transportation office of inspector general released an audit report that criticized the faa for being slow to integrate drones into the national air space system. the faa and nasa are working together to ensure safe and successful integration of drones in the national air space system. some of the research being done seek to ensure that drones have the technologies necessary to avoid midair collisions and the ability to be controlled from a

value location. drones can greatly benefit our society. farmer consist use small drones to monitor their crops. emergency responders should move quickly to access disaster areas to search for survives. energy companies would examine power lines or pipe lines to assess damage or prevent leaks. the testing and high school and universities might lead to technology breakthroughs as well as inspire students to enter s.t.e.m. fields. the public is not yet allowed to use drones to do many of these things. many other countries have developed a regulatory framework supportive of drone use. our goal today is to better understand the research under way to overcome these barriers. we're particularly interested in

hearing how government funded and private sector uas research and development informs or should inform the integration. uas intermentation -- integration of uas into the national air space system. that concludes my opening statement. but i want to mention before recognizing the ranking member that we're going to have a demonstration in a minute that to my knowledge will be the first such demonstration in this committee room. we had to get permission to fly a drone in the committee room as well. the rules are still pretty strict. i appreciate the wide spread interest in the particular subject. hardly a week goes by where the subject of drones is not covered in some national publication or on the front of the local newspaper or leads the news. this is a timely subject for lots and lots of reasons.

without objection i have a letter i would like to put into the record from the national association of realtors supporting what we're doing here today and supporting the integration as well. with that i'll recognize the ranking member, the gentleman woman from washington for her comments. >> thank you very much. i join you in welcoming our distinguished panel of witnesses and i look forward to your testimony. i want to state that ranking member johnson is currently detained at another committee and will join us shortly as well as some of ore other members are currently in other committees. lack of other members does not indicate a lack of interest in the issue certainly. in the meantime i want to start by thanking chairman smith for calling this hearing on unmanned air draft systems research and development. because of the work in my home state of oregon it's close to washington, mr. chairman, but it's --

>> i'm sorry. one state off. >> my home state of oregon, i'm particularly interested many hearing how we can provide universities with the flexibility they need for performing uas test in a safe and cost effective manner and private sector developers with the regulatory certainty necessary to support the growing industry. we, oregon, we're a participate in the pan u.s. test range led by the university of alaska fair banks and we have three test sites in oregon. the potential benefits of this technology to agriculture, environmental research, natural resource management and i want to add that the chairman acknowledged some of those emergency disaster relief efforts is multiplied by expanding the workforce focused on the development of new products, which is creating, of course, new job opportunities throughout not only oregon but in other testing areas as well. so i do look forward to hearing how we in congress and across the federal government can help safely and responsibly support the development of this exciting industry with so many potential.

i thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. and i'll now introduce our witnesses today. our first witness is dr. ed wagner. the research director of nasa's integrated systems research programs office seeking to integrate next gen opportunities. in this capacity he's worked for nasa since 1982. we welcome you. our second witness today is mr. jim williams. mr. williams is manager of faa's uas integration office. as much she is responsible for coordinating faa's efforts to integrate uas into the national air space system through rule making and research and

development. mr. williams has served as the director of faa's engineering services and as the director of the air traffic control communications service. he received his bachelor's keg in aerospace engineering. >> our third witness is j. john lauber. he was -- he has previously served as airbus's senior vice president of product safety. also served as a member of the transportation board. today's fourth witness is brian wynn. mr. wynn formally served as the president of the electric drive transportation association, ceo of the association for automatic

identification and mobility and held a leadership role at the transportation society of america. mr. wynn received a bachelor degree from the university of scranton, a master's degree from at johns hopkins university and was a full bright scholar. testifying fifth today will be mr. colin grin, chief revenue officer of north america's largest personal drone company. he's the cofounder and former ceo of dji north america and has been featured on 60 minutes, fox and in tech crunch. before working here, mr. grin founded a company that specialized in producing marketing materials for luxury home builders. he received his bachelor's degree from university of texas at austin. our final witness is dr. john

hansman, the professor of aeronautics at m.i.t. where he leads the humans and automation division and serves as director of the mit international center for air transportation. dr. hansman is a fellow and has received several awards including the 1987 excellence in aviation award, the 1990 osts diploma for technical contributions and the 1986 award for best paper. he received his ph.d. from mit. we thank the witnesses again for being here today and dr. wagner we'll begin with you. >> chairman smith, ranking member and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on nasa's

aeronautics research program and the challenges associated with uass and autonomy. we define our vision and approach for supporting the near term integration of uas into the national air space system. this new term research builds the foundation. uas hold great promise for the transformation of our aviation system. wear witnessing the dawn of a new era, ushering in flight vehicles that run manualable today, opening up the commercial markets much the way that jet engines did 60 years ago. nasa is performing research to the faa and other stakeholder to help them define the requirements, the regulations and standards for safe routine mass access.

there are significant barriers and challenges associated with this. this requires these complex systems to be comprehensively evaluated, to verify and validate that they're operating as designed. thus allowing the faa to establish operations and equipment standards. the majority of nasa's new term research work towards safe uas integration is focused in three areas. we're helping to determine performance requirements for a certifiable system to ensure safe separation of uas with all vehicles operating in the nas. we're developing secure, robust, reliable communication systems and protocols as well as addresses the design of ground control stations and displays to maximize pilot effectiveness and safety.

to transfer our research findings nasa has built effective relationships with key customers, department of defense, department of homeland security, and as well as industry and academia. and this partnerships that a so is playing a key role supporting critical activities from the executive level to our subject matter experts. for midterm applications we're researching technologies to facilitate safe operation of uas at altitudes that are not actively controlled today, for example, low altitude operation of small unmanned aircraft. initial investigations into this trade space have drawn interest among a broad range of traditional and nontraditional companies and shows promise of opening up entirely new markets. in order to safely enable wide spread civilian operations at lower altitude within nasa is developing air traffic management light system. you can think of this as much like today's surface traffic management where vehicles operate under a rule based system of roads, lanes, signs

and traffic lights. nasa will deliver technology and demonstrate high pay off, integrated applications that advance safety efficiency an flexibility of the nas and increase competitiveness of the civil aviation industry. it enables a transformative aviation system. nasa is partnering with other agencies and industry to achieve

routine, uas access into our national air space system. our par ner our partnerships are built on close and continuous collaboration for the specific needs of the challenges. nasa aeronautics will continue to advance research for technologies that will ensure these systems. chairman smith members of the committee this concludes my prepared statement. i'll be pleased to answer any questions at this time. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss unmanned aircraft systems commonly referred to as

uas. the federal aviation add mgs has successfully sbre grated new technology into the national air space system for more than 50 years while maintaining the safest aviation system in the world. research and development is absolutely critical to the safe, efficient and timely sbre grags of new technology like uas. the department of defense commerce, homeland security and nasa have allowed us to advance research and development in the area of unmanned aircraft. the faa is developing standards for command and control radios to detect and avoid systems. the faa and nasa are working closely together to develop a technical standard for uas de detect and avoid systems to remain clear of other aircraft.

together with nasa and our industry partners be faa is developing standards for command and control radios. these provide the link between the pilot and aircraft. it's essential that they be secure and reliable. nasa and our industry partners are building radios to validate the standard. the faa is actively supporting the research and development efforts undertaken by other government entities in the area of unmanned aircraft. since 2012 the faa has participated in the joint effort for air space integration and the army. the purpose of the test is to evaluate standardized procedures to effectively conduct manned and uas operations in the

airport environment. the faa provided engineers and laboratory assets at the william j. technical center to support dod's. we're also supporting this effort by evaluating the joint test results for potential a applicability. we look forward to advance uas research and development. the faa technical center is the nation's premier system lob laboratory. it has a specialized laboratory to research and development. the uas lab has a variety of test assets including the ability to link faa or traffic control systems with high fidelity unmanned aircraft simulators roprovided by our industry partners. the technical center is playing

an important role in data collection from the six uas test sites. . a significant portion of the analysis is being performed at the technical center. this team will ensure the data transferred and determine whether additional data collection will facilitate meeting the faa's research objectives. we continue to work with the test sites to obtain the most valuable information possible to help the faa integrate into the nas. we are grateful for the support congress has provided. our goal is to create a cost-sharing relationship between academia industry and government that will focus on research areas of primary interest to the faa and uas

community. the center of excellence will perform research through analysis, development and prototyping activities. we will announce the award recipient this year. we remain committed to the same uas technology into the national air space. we look forward to continuing to work with our partners, to continue making steady progress. mr. chairman, this concludes my testimony for today. i like forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, mr. williams. >> thank you, chairman smith and members of the committee. thanks for the opportunity to discuss with you today the work with the national research committee on autonomy research.

our final report was issued last summer after 18 months of effort. was done at the we. developing a national agenda for research and development, that would support the introduction of what we callat aton omous elements with recognize that several keys state the context for our study and first and foremost is safety. only if they represerve or enhance this further level of safety or

reliability. secondly, we had to recognize that the diversity of aircraft ground systems and personnel that comprise our civil aviation system because so called legacy aircraft and systems will continue to operate for the foreseeable future. it's clear that civil airspace must safely and efficiently accommodate everything from piper coughs designed in therotary and fixed wing vehicles who's design and application will continual evolving. today's of aationaviation system sets the complex for tomorrow and is the future of system that's enable operation with extended periods of time without human

supervision or intervention to provide the functional equivalent of a see and avoid capability which is a cornerstone of avoidance in our national system. which is one example of what we mean when we talk of increasingly autonomous systems which will evolve to do more of the functions presently done by human pilots, controllers and other personnel. our report identified eight technical barriers including cyber security and we've also identified four barriers associated with regulation and certification which include issues such as air space access. and findlyally we note that barriers related to public policy, law, regulation and very importantly social concerns about privacy and safety of

autonomous systems. our recommended research agenda consists of eight broad tasks of which we consider the first four to be the most urgent and most difficult. these include fundamental issues about how to characterize the behavior of systems that change dynamically over time. modeling in simulation will be a fund. al importance to the development and deployment of these systems and finally we discuss a wide range of research issues involving validation verification and certification. the remaining four research areas include issues having to do with the safe use of open source hardware and software and re-examination and redefinition of the role of humans in the operation of these systems. we note in our report that this research program is best carried out by multiple government academic and industrial entities

and will require affective coordination at all levels. civil aviation is on the threshold of profound changes because of rapid evolution of increasingly autonomous systems as often happens with rapidly evolving technology early adaptors times get up in the excitement of the moment, the greatly exaggerating the promise of things to come and greatly under estimating things in costs, money and in some cases unintended consequences and complications. while there's little doubt that over the long run the potential benefits of increasingly autonomous systems in civil aviation will be indeed be great. there should be equally little doubt that getting there while maintaining the safety and efficiency of u.s. civil air aviation will be no easy matter. we believe that the barriers and research pregram that we've

identified is the vital next step. that concludes my testimony. i'd be happy to respond to questions. >> thank you mr. lauber. mr. wynn. >> chairman smith ranking members of the committee. thank you for this opportunity to address the importance of uas research and development. i'm speaking on behalf of the association for unmanned vehicle systems international, the world's largest nonprofit organization devoted exclusively to advancing the unmanned systems and robotics community and has been the voice of unmanned systems for more than 40 years and we have over 75 members including 600 corporate members. allowing us to execute dangerous tasks efficiently whether it's assisting first responders or helping people spray their craps, uas are cage of saving

time, money and most importantly lives. however the benefits of this technology do not stop there. it has the incredible potential to create jobs and stimulate the u.s. economy as well. in 2013 avusi released a study that within ten years it would create more than 100,000 new jobs and economic impact of $82 billion. the benefits i just outlined can be recognized immediately once we put the necessary rules in place to enable commercial operations. we understand that a notice of proposed rule making sfr small uas and federal aviation is expected any day. establishing rules will also eliminate the current approach of regulating by exemption whereby the faa issues skejsexemption by a case by case basis.

while we're here today to discuss the critical role of uas research and development, the fact is we don't dmeedneed a lot of additional research to create low altitude line of site operations. we look forward to working with the faa to get this done as expeditiously as possible. as we look beyond the initial phase of uas integration, we will need robust research to further expand access to the air space and address some of the challenges that exist to flying beyond line of sight. areas requiring more research include sense and avoid, command and control and autonomous operations. the advancelet of uas technology needs to be a collaborative effort between industry and government while the industry is investing millions in research and the federal government has various research projects under way we can all do this better

and in a more coordinates fashion calling for a national leadership initiative that places uas entereggation in the air space system and all relevant r and d at the top of our country's priority list. importantly, the benefits of this research extend well beyond uas. it will make the entire national air space system safer for all aircraft manned and unmanned. a deeper national commitment to uas r and d has three main government partners need a plan that coordinates all research. while the faa designated test sites went operational in 2014, too many questions about the collection, sharing and analysis of test data remain unanswered. second, the federal government needs more resource sos to coordinate uas research. the faa was given $14.9 million to support its uas research this year which is up from previous years. however, given the scope of the

research needed to advance uas intereggation, we feel this figure is insufficient. third, the government must have a transparent intellectual transportation -- provide protections. companies on the cutting edge won't participate in faa or other governmental research activities if their intellectual property isn't safe guarded. the faa has taken significant steps to advance uas intereggation but must work remains to be done. members stand to b collaborate with the appropriate agencies to accelerate the efforts that will allow for the safe integration of uas into the international air space system. thank you for this opportunity. i look forward to questions. >> thank you. let me say to members. we've had a series of votes called. we're going to try to finish our witness testimony before we go to vote and then we will resume the meeting immediately after

the last vote so we'll go now to mr. guan who i think has the most fun job of the whole day and you're recognized for your testimony. thank you very much chairman smith and ranking member bonamici. thank you committee here for having me. it's an honor to come speak to you about something that i'm very passionate about. i think what i'd like to do is just talk to you about, kind of the sailtale mate that we're in today between -- no one going to disagree to the benefits that uas can provide to the economic, the efficiencies in business, the job creation, the revenue that can come into our country and then at the same time nobody is going to argue with the fact that we must be extremely thoughtful, considerate and careful in integrating these systems into the national airspace because obviously the faa has a second to none safety record and there's no question that we must