>> reporter: you're talking about long-term strategy between afghanistan and united states. at the same time you're talking about deadlines, about the withdrawal of soldiers from afghanistan. how do you ensure the long-term or how do you define the long-term strategy partnership after 2017 -- or from 2017 onward? general ghani what do you expect, mr. president -- what would the expectation come to the united states and what would you like to return with to afghanistan? >> translator: our expectations were that our cooperation will be enhanced. and we will have clear vision and practical vision for cooperation -- enduring

cooperation with the united states to be there. and this change of environment has occurred. and today the united states government and -- krs the government of afghanistan a really reliable partner. commitments that are made are considerable. and the funding proposal of supporting afghan security forces by 2017, and it has reached to $4.1 billion. it's nothing less. it's a significant issue. it's a very important issue. and also yesterday there was a new framework of our economic framework was laid out according to $800 million were made commitment were made, spent through the afghan budget. but most importantly is the

flexibility that has been shown in the area of security cooperation and this flexibility is going to ensure and provide confidence to our security forces and our people. and also is going to send a very strong message to the region that this cooperation is not short term but enduring and long term. >> our strategic partnership is based on a very simple principle. we want the afghan people, through their security forces, directed by their president and commander in chief, to be able to provide for their own security. and our goal is to make sure that we are a strong partner in helping to build and sustain effective afghan security forces. so from the start, when i first

came into office, we put additional u.s. troops coalition troops and resources into afghanistan to shift momentum at a time when the taliban and the enemies of peace and stability inside of afghanistan, i think, were moving and had momentum. we broke that momentum. elections took place. and the afghan national security forces began to build up, get trained and become more and more effective. and because of a successful election and a national unity government and the leadership of president ghani and dr. dr. abdullah we're in a position where the afghan security forces are not only more effective, but they're also better directed by the civilian government. we've been able to draw down and

remove ourselves from a combat role as president ghani indicated without collapse, as was predicted. and afghan soldiers have fought, and they've fought well. and obviously there are still improvements to be made but they're making significant progress. so, the strategic partnership involves us continuing to help support afghan security forces. that means financially. the international community is going to have to continue to provide assistance to the afghan government, which is carrying a significant security load not only for itself but for the region, and in some ways the world. and we've made a commitment to do that. we're going to continue to provide the kind of security cooperation and support that is required. training assisting advising helping on logistics, helping on enabler capacity all the things that go into a modern military, professional military, a

professional police force, that can provide security on afghan soil, by afghans. and the cooperation and the strategic partnership involves building up the prosperity and opportunities for the afghan people through the economic development that was mentioned by the president. so, you know, we intend to be working with the afghan government and the afghan people for a long time. and, you know, in many ways our troop presence our military assistance is just one component of what is a much larger process. and the more successful we are in building afghan capacity and strengthening the afghan economy, the more strategic partnership we have will be like the partnership we have with many countries around the world. and it will be based on mutual

interest and scientific and educational exchanges and business opportunities and commerce and trade. and that, i think is the goal that we're all looking for. josh letterman. >> reporter: thank you mr. president. you've made very clear that you're not buying prime minister netanyahu's attempts to walk back the comments that he made before the election opposing palestinian statehood and that you're reassessing your approach. what could prime minister netanyahu do, if anything in the short term to persuade you that he's series about israeli/palestinian peace and that he's an honest broker he could work? or is it too late to repair that relationship during your presidency? and is there any truth to allegations that israel was spying on the iran talks? and president ghani, if i may you've been working very hard to pursue reconciliation talks with the taliban but there's some indications that's not going so well and they may not be willing

to sit down with you. what makes you hopeful that you can get those talks off the ground? and do you want the u.s. to be involved in those talks? >> let me first of all, address your second question about spying allegations. as a general rule, i don't comment on intelligence matters in a big room full of reporters. and i think i'll continue that tradition. but with respect to the possibility of a -- an agreement that ensures iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon we have not just briefed congress about the progress or lack thereof that's being made, but we also briefed the israelis. and our other partners in the region and around the world. and if in fact, an agreement is

arrived at that we feel confident will prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, it's going to be there for everybody to see. and people are going to be able to lift up the hood and see what's in there. so, you know i have confidence that if there's an agreement it's going to be a good agreement that's good for american security and israeli security and the region's security. and if it isn't, then there probably won't be an agreement. so, there will be i think, significant transparency in the whole process. with respect to israel's relations with the palestinians i think it's important to understand that the issue here is not what i believe but it's what the palestinians and the

parties in the negotiations and the israeli people believe is possible. that's the most important issue. and i've said before and i'll simply repeat, you know, prime minister netanyahu in the election run-up stated that a palestinian state would not occur while he was prime minister. and i took him at his word that that's what he meant. and i think a lot of voters inside of israel understood him to be saying that fairly unequivocally. afterwards, he pointed out that he didn't say never, but that there would be a series of conditions in which a palestinian state could potentially be created but, of course, the conditions were such that they would be impossible to

meet any time soon. so even if you accept it i think the corrective of prime minister netanyahu in subsequent days there still does not appear to be a prospect of a meaningful framework established that would lead to a palestinian state, even if there were a whole range of conditions and security requirements that might be phased in over a long period of time, which was always the presumption. i don't think anybody ever envisioned, in any peace agreement, certainly not one that prime minister netanyahu would agree to or that the israeli people would agree to, that overnight you suddenly have a palestinian state right next to jerusalem. and that israel would not have a

whole range of security issues that had to be met and that it would be phased in over a long period of time. so the issue has -- has never been, do you create a palestinian state overnight? the question is do you create a process and a framework that gifdz the palestinians hope, the possibility that down the road they have a secure state of their own, standing side by side with a secure, fully recognized jewish state of israel. and i think it's not just my estimation, i think it is hard to envision how that happens. based on the prime minister's statements. and so when i said that we have to now do an evaluation of where we are, it's not in reference to

our commitment to israel's military edge in the region, israel's security, our intelligence cooperation our military cooperation. that continues unabated. and i will continue to do whatever i need to do to make sure that our friends in israel are safe. that's what i've done since i've been president. and that's not going to stop. and so the israeli people need to know that. but i am required to evaluate honestly how we manage israeli/palestinian relations over the next several years. because up until this point, the premise has been both under republican and democratic administrations, that as difficult as it was, as challenging as it was the possibility of two states living side by side in peace and

security, could marginalize more extreme elements bring together folks at the center and with some common sense, and we could resolve what has been a vexing issue and one that is ultimately a threat to israel as well. and that possibility seems very dim. that may trigger, then reactions by the palestinians that, in turn, elicit counter-reactions by the israelis. and that could end up leading to a downward spiral of relations that will be dangerous for everybody. and bad for everybody. so, bolt bottom line just to summarize here number one, our military and intelligence cooperation with israel will continue unabated unaffected. and we are absolutely committed to making sure the israeli

people are safe, especially from rocket attacks and terrorist attacks aimed on civilians. number two, that the evaluation that's taken place is specific to what happens between israelis and palestinians going forward. we'll continue to engage the israeli government as well as the palestinians and ask them where they interested in going and how do they see this issue being resolved. but what we can't do is pretend that there's a possibility of something that's not there. and we can't continue to premise our public diplomacy based on something that everybody knows is not going to happen at least in the next several years. that is something we have to -- for the sake of our own

credibility, i think we have to be able to be honest about that. and one last point about this because obviously i've heard a lot of the commentary. there's a tendency in the reporting here to frame this somehow as a personal issue between myself and prime minister netanyahu. and i understand why that's done. because when you frame it in those terms, the notion is well, if we all just get along and everybody cools down then somehow the problem goes away. i have a very business-like relationship with the prime minister. i've met him more than any other world leader. i talk to him all the time. he's representing his country's interests the way he thinks he need to and i'm doing the same. so the issue is not a matter of relations between leaders. the issue is a very clear

substantive challenge. we believe that two states is the best path forward for israel's security, for palestinian aspirations and for regional stability. that's our view. and that continues to be our view. and prime minister netanyahu has a different approach. and so this can't be reduced to a matter of somehow let's all you know hold hands and sing kum-bi-ya. it's a matter of figuring out how do we get through a real naughty policy difference that has great consequence for both countries and the region. [ inaudible ] >> we're going to do that evaluation. we're going to partly wait for an actual israeli government to form. >> reporter: peace is a

priority? >> translator: peace is a priority. don't make premature judgments. and what we have asked from the united states, obama has graciously supported it is an afghan-owned and afghan-led peace process. it will be in time. peace is always difficult. focused attention and sacrifice. that's what we are willing to do. you? >> reporter: thank you very much, mr. president. i have got a question to mr. obama. you just mentioned that afghanistan is still a dangerous place. while it's a dangerous place is it the right decision to draw down the force labor at a time

it's a dangerous place and meanwhile afghan forces are less equipped and they cannot fight truly? >> translator: mr. president, my question is the question, the peace process, what was your initial or your request from the united states president? >> translator: the united states has agreed with us that the peace process will be led by afghans. and afghans will be -- will continue this process and it will be led by afghans. and this is obvious to us and we are thankful for the support. >> afghanistan is still a dangerous place.

the way it's going to become less dangerous is by afghan security forces and afghan police being capable of keeping law and order and security in the country. and that is not going to happen if foreign forces are continually relied upon for the basic security of afghanistan. so, they're going to be specialized areas where we can cooperate. dealing with some of the most vicious terror networks. there's going to be intelligence cooperation and counterterrorism cooperation. and there are going to be specialized areas where we can provide logistical support and training. and enabling support. but the fact is is that unless afghan soldiers and afghan

police are able to maintain security, at some point, some day, the united states and other coalition forces would leave. the good news is what we've seen as we've removed ourselves from combat roles is that the afghan security forces have stepped up. and although they're certainly not as well equipped as coalition forces they're better equipped than the taliban. they're better equipped than the hakani network. and so with the kind of leadership president ghani is showing as commander in chief with the leadership that's being shown by a growing inging inging cadre

of military officers up and down the military chain afghan forces are proving themselves and discovering, in fact, when they fight, they can be successful. and we want to stand with them in that process because we are very much invested in your success. so, mr. president, thank you for an outstanding visit. >> thank you, mr. president. thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seat until president obama, president ghani and delegations have departed. >> president obama with the new afghan president wrapping up this joint news briefing with the announcement there will be a slowing of the troop pullout from afghanistan. president obama telling roertsz that the u.s. will keep about 9800 troops in afghanistan through the end of 2015 at the request of president ashraf ghani.

we'll leave this now go live to capitol hill where senate transportation subcommittee is examining a broad range of issues concerning unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones. >> we have another subgroup under our aviation rule-making committee that is looking at beyond line of sight, beyond visual line of sight operations as well. that will, the next focus area. that will be an area we'll look at setting standards for but it's a far more complex area. and it is one where we don't yet have the technology standards established. we expect to get those from rtca over the next year or so. >> i thank you. i would like to turn it over to ranking member cantwell. >> with this new interim rule out this afternoon, does that put us on par with the europeans on are we still behind? ms. gilligan? >> i think we're in a different place than the europeans.

there are a number of locations where it's -- they're able to authorize different types of operations because they have much less complexity in their air system, they have much less aviation that tends to operate at those lower altitudes so we're faced with additional challenges that our aviation partners around the world just don't face. what we have authorized today, as we're issuing our exemptions under section 333 from reauthorization, we will -- the operator will be able to immediately operate as long as the operation is below 200 feet. if they want to go above 200 feet, they must still go to the air traffic organization and identify the air space where they want to operate so that we can assure safe separation of the unmanned system from whatever general aviation or other operations there may be in that air space. but we believe this is increasing the flexibility that we can give now as we grant exemptions. >> i don't know if you have any input on that, but mr. difficultingham, i want to

ask you, because are we always going to be behind the europeans because they already implemented their gps system and we're still on radar, so they have much more information about who and what is in the air space? >> senator, i think -- i think we are -- i wouldn't say we're behind. when you talk about the gps system and next gen, the u.s. and europeans are working hand in hand to try to harmonize and make those systems interoperable. with regard to the uas i think because of those differences between the u.s. and some foreign countries in terms of the legal framework, in terms of, say, japan where they've been flying agricultural things for a while, one of the differences is the farm owns the air space above his land, so therefore it's sort of a

different perspective there. i think moving forward the u.s. working with international aviation commission and the uas industry, we will -- we will in fact maintain our position asary nautical leaders in the world. one of the things i said in my statement, if we were to implement the notice of proposed rule-making now, we would be on par in many ways with foreign countries. however, we're probably 16 to 18 months away from doing that. and they will still keep moving forward. so, it's going to be that kind of back and forth. but there are some reasons for it. and faa should be congratulated for moving to the point it is. as we said there are still some very critical things that need to happen. >> mr. misener?

>> thank you, senator. it's true we are on par when these rules get adopted 18 24 months from now for operations. where we truly lag behind, though s planning for the future. it's that highly -- high degree of automation beyond visual line of sight flying is coming. europeans are getting ready for it. we're not so much. >> i wonder ms. gilligan you know, a couple of things that we've done, congress in partnership with the faa is to -- within the faa create these centers of excellence on things that we don't quite yet understand whether it's composite composite, lightweight manufacturing materials and approval. on products like the 787. so to keep the faa up to date, they did a center of excellence. same center of excellence now with the faa in the lead on biofuels. how are we going to get a drop

in jet fuel. do we need a center of excellence to help the faa on the technical side get answers in advance so as the market continues to develop those questions are being addressed, the research is being done, so to speak? >> yes, senator. and again -- actually, we've gotten good support from congress. in the last appropriations bill we were actually given additional appropriations for the purposes of establishing a center of excellence. that process is under way. the applications have been received. they are under review. we plan to name the center of excellence before the end of this fiscal year. they've challenged us to do it sooner. with the center of excellence, we can frame these technology issues and some of the other challenges and get the best minds in academia helping us. >> the last phrase is key best minds in academia to help you. thank you. thank you, madame chair. >> thank you. i would like to call on senator

shoths. >> the faa guidelines for recreational drones, i would like to go through them and then ask for your comment. my understanding is that a drone must weigh less than 55 pounds, be flying below 400 feet visual line of sight must not be flying carelessly or recklessly not interfere with manned aircraft operations and not fly near an airport. but importantly, there appears to be no speed limit for recreational drones and no prohibition of flying over people. so my question for you is although the notice of proposed rule-making, i think is progress what are we doing at the 400 foot and down level? and who has jurisdiction? >> the notice, sir, is actually directed toward operators who would want to be in commercial operation, which we don't authorize at all right now. hobbyists or recreational users are in accordance with the

reauthorization bill are sort of overseen by what we call a community standard. and we're working with the american modelers association to to -- for them to serve in that function. and so they actually have a set of operating expectations for their members. and those will be the -- >> will they have the force of law? >> they don't. but, again under the reauthorization, it was specifically set forward that it should be a community standard as opposed to regulation. in fact -- >> and is this -- is pre-emption at play? a mayor can decide to use a city or county park how they wish, in consultation with their parks department, their city council. can you say no golfing no frisbee, no dogs. dogs here, dogs not there. this is a passive park. they have jurisdiction over the land. and this goes to professor

villasenor's testimony and my question is did we just preempt local decision-makers where recreational drones are allowed and where they're not? >> the congress has preempted air space to the federal government for quite a long time. the faa is the sole entity responsible for the air space. and we do consider that to be from the ground through as high as aircraft operate. in fact, now that we have commercial space operations as well. >> so that there would be -- i want to get clear on this. so there would be no prohibition on flying a 5 4-pound drone 10 feet above a ball field as fast as you want because it's -- because our statute and the 2012 reauthorization preempts a local decision-maker from deciding what's allowable in public space and what's not, is that correct?

>> i'd actually have to ask our lawyers to check the reading of the law. but i think more importantly, what we see is there are tremendous number of people who are using these vehicles for recreational purposes. who are not well informed about their responsibilities. and that's why we and the modeling community and the manufacturers are doing the outreach that we're doing. several of the manufacturers are providing information in the packaging so that people who buy these understand, they have a responsibility if they're going to operate in the air space. >> professor did you want to comment on that? i was taken by your -- your citing of the 1946 supreme court case. i'll just quote the court, it is obvious if a landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land he must have exclusive of the enveloping atmosphere. my question, at what sort of elevation a landowner, either a public entity or a private individual, ceases to have full control over their land, i mean, it's an open question and it seems to me it's still being

adjudicate indicated, is that correct? >> i would say we're being forced, thanks to unmanned aircraft, to figure out what we really could afford not to figure out in much detail before. no one would reasonably argue as a landowner, i have the right to stop united airlines from flying over my property at 30,000. the cosby ruling and many other rulings, it's very clear there's -- the air space is a public resource. the challenge is how low is -- >> how low. >> and clearly it doesn't include the air space two inches above the ground in my backyard. it would be ridiculous -- >> do you think this should be articulated through the law-making process through the rule-making process, by community standards or court cases? >> my concern is if we try to pick a specific limit, for example, you have control ever to 100 feet, you invite people to sit outside that limit in ways that might be very problematic. in that sense it's better to sort of have things be general in terms of you know, of reasonable expectation of privacy isn't specific but we

all know when it's -- >> and then the court referee -- >> and the courts figure out. that's worked well. >> i have one final question with your indulgence, for ms. gilligan, are model aircrafts, should we be treating model aircrafts and drones synonymously? it seems to me the kind of policy infrastructure didn't really envision drones as they're emerging? maybe i'm wrong here, but when i hear model aircraft i don't picture a 54-pound object moving at 100 miles an hour. but maybe i'm still catching up myself. can you just comment on that very briefly? >> well, i think what we are seeing, as you've highlighted, is that the people who are -- many people who are buying unmanned systems are not what we would historically have considered modelers. modelers were general aviators. they came into it because of a love of aviation. they wanted to experiment with the physics of flight and build their airplanes and those kind

of things. we have a different part of the community joining us now. and we and the modeling community are working hard to make them understand that they have aviation responsibilities that go beyond being able to buy this really interesting toy that they want to use in their backyard. >> thank you. thank you. senator moran. >> chairman, thank you very much. ms. gilligan the faa's proposed rules, there's no requirement for a operator flight training nor requirement for any air-worthiness certification of the equipment. those standards exist to ensure vehicles are safe and operators can safely utilize them. how are those issues going to be addressed in the future? >> senator on the issue of air-worthiness, we looked at the language in the reauthorization bill, which authorized the secretary to make a finding that there was no need for an air-worthiness certificate if certain other criteria were met. those were related to the speed weight and location of operation. what the rule does is describe

the cry -- those criteria. and provide that limitation that is consistent with the statute in such a way we felt that that met the expectation that there would not be a need for air-worthiness certification to a particular set of standards. i'm sorry. i forgot about the other one you asked about. >> the operator. the air-worthiness of equipment, the operator. >> there is an operator testing requirement. it is different from private pilot rirpts because they will not actually have to manipulate the aircraft. but in order to pass the test, there will be -- it will be necessary to be -- to receive some education in the standards of operating in the air space. so, we believe that the testing requirement will assure that people are competent for the purposes of operating their system. now, we've asked for comment. we'll be interested to see what we get back from the community to see if we need to adjust those proposals in any way. >> thank you very much. mr. morris, let me change topics. in the discussion of developing a system of control of uas over

long distances using existing cellular telephone networks or at least existing cell towers that conversation -- are we recognizing the considerable technological hurdles that are out there? and are the telecommunications companies prepared for this task? >> so senator, you know we really are i think at the very beginning of the development of kind of the commercial aviation. and i'm honestly not thoroughly familiar with the use of the cell towers in connection with uas. and so i think that's something that -- that we would need to get back to you on. >> i would welcome that. let me switch to farm bureau. you, i'm sure said this in your testimony and i wasn't here to hear it. i'd be glad to hear about the value of uavs in kansas, many of agriculture recognizes there's a

great potential here. i want to ask you a specific question though, about how necessary are beyond line of sight operations for agricultural purposes. >> well, thank you for the question, senator. the gentleman -- one of my other panelists spoke about the use of the japanese and some uses going on in the asian countries. they are using these -- these uass in ways far beyond where we are now in terms of they're not only using them for scouting, but application of nutrients, of things of that nature. many of those things are beyond line of sight control. presently all of our uass we have available in the u.s. are line of sight controlled. to the other point that has been made, the safety features are redundant. once the vehicle exceeds the prescribed distance in the software, it automatically returns. when the battery is running low, it drops to a specified

elevation, returns to where it started from. if you lose control of it, it comes back to where it started from. so it's not like these things leave your line of sight and go buzzing around the countryside. they do return to where they started from. that's from the geo information put in when they were launched. >> thank you very much. thank you, chairman. >> thank you. senator marky. >> thank you, madame chair, very much. now, i'm aware of the many beneficial uses of drones, including spotting wildfires examining crops, monitoring traffic. but while there are benefits to drone use there are also risks of misuse. these 21st century eyes in the sky should not become spies in the skies. and today just as we have rules of the road, we're going to need rules for the sky as well. and i believe we can achieve both, protect privacy and give

flight to this new technology that will bring jobs and economic growth to our country. unfortunately today when it comes to privacy protections for the american people, we are flying blind. flying and potentially spying robots sounds like science fiction, but they are a reality right now and their technology is getting cheaper and more accessible. this drone here has two cameras on it. that can be easily purchased and online for only $100. two cameras flying over everybody's house in the united states. the faa has already given exemptions to nearly 50 commercial operators and announced today it is planning to expedite the process so that drones can fly in a national air space with no clear privacy rules. today operators are allowed to collect whatever information

they want about you and me and they can then use or sell that information however they choose. this is why earlier this month i introduced the drone aircraft privacy and transparency act. the bill requires one commercial drone operator to disclose what data they have collected, how that data is used and whether the data will be sold and when the data will be deleted, if at all. number two, that law enforcement obtain a warrant before using drones except in emergency circumstances and, three, the faa must create a publicly available website that lists where and when drones fly. as the committee continues to process the faa reauthorization, i look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues. so, ms. gilligan if the faa does not incorporate any federal privacy protections into the

final drone licensing process, and i saw a commercial drone flying over my house, would i be able to find out how the company uses the data they collect or if they sell my private information? >> senator, we do make available the information about what -- which operators we have authorized. and we do make available information about the air space in which they are operating. >> but would i be able to find out the data which they have collected? if i see it flying over my house, can i call the faa and can you then say provide the data over what you filmed in the backyard of that american? can you do that? >> the faa does not currently collection that information. >> would i at least be able to find out who operates or owns the drone that was flying over my house? >> as i said, we do keep records about what air space operators

are authorized to operate in and that's publicly available today. >> it's on a public website right now? >> yes. >> i could find out who just flew a drone over my backyard? >> i believe that's the case. it is publicly available. we also release it in response to foia requests. it is publicly available. i apologize offhand. i don't know if it's one you can access from your ipad here today. >> if somebody sees this outside in their window and they're filming their family members in the backyard that right now an individual in america could call the faa or go to a website and find out who owned that drone, is that what you're saying? >> we have the information about who has been authorized to operate in what air space. whether or not that was an authorized operation, i can't tell you right now. if it was authorized, the records on who is authorized to use that air space are available. >> are people authorized to just film families in the backyard of their homes?

>> the purpose for which they're filming is not something i think, we keep track of. we have authorized -- >> again, that goes to the privacy issue. if families have their children in the backyard and those children are now being filmed by a drone, what can we do to protect that family of all these, you know, fefnefarious individuals now trying to take advantage of the absence of real privacy rules? >> i think that's why the administration has begun the initiative that was announced and that ntia is taking the lead on, that mr. morris described earlier. >> well, again what i'm saying is, in the absence of federal laws that we put on the books these drones with cameras $100 are flying over the backyards of people, parks of people all over the country. and we have to put strong, enforceable laws on the books that ensure that ordinary americans know information is

being gathered about their children that it is being collected and that it potentially is being sold and that there are no rules against any of that. and in the absence of us putting those protections on the books in this committee, that we're allowing all of these technologies to take off with values that americans would want to have being built into this new technology. that's our job on this committee. this is an inanimate object. it has no values, good or bad. we are the ones that have to animate it with the values we believe it should have as it potentially engages in predatory activity against the families of our country. i thank you, madame chair. >> senator peters. >> thank you madame chair. mr. vanderwurth, it's wonderful to see you here as a fellow

michiganer and hearing your testimony. you're also a proud alum of michigan state university. it's great to have you here. as one of the great agriculture universities in the country. i think it's important for to you be here as well. in fact, if you look at the applications of these drones and the opportunities for economic benefit, it's probably an agricultural sector where we can see some of the most significant increases of productivity. that's why i want to talk to you a little about. and you mentioned it in your testimony, but perhaps flesh it out a little bit. i know farming has changed very dramatically over the years. i've had the opportunity for a guy who didn't grow up on a farm, to be on the tractors, which look like computers now. they don't look like tractors with gps systems and all sorts of geographic information on them as you're dealing with the field. but you talked about the way these unmanned drones can help with productivity. can you quantify that, can they do something these sophisticated

equipment can't do and what does that mean for your bottom line? >> thank you, senator, for the question. the benefit of these unmanned aerial vehicles on our individual farms and ranches are multifold and they're not specific to one type of production system. everything from cattle ranchers in the western united states who are looking to find their herds of cattle over large distances very quickly to specialty crop growers like myself. don't know if you have been in a commercial apple orchard, but if you take the size of ten city blocks and put rows of trees on it 12 feet high, it's like being in a giant labyrinth. you can lose yourself and lose equipment very quickly. unmanned aerial vehicles allow us to get that bird's-eye view and get that. the grain operation is where we're most excited about the potential benefit of these vehicles. being able to for example, fly over a cornfield and look -- look through the lens of the uav for unvisible infrared light

signatures, heat signatures coming off the plant. we can identify plant stress. we can identify weeds because, for example, a patch of grass will give off a different heat signature than a patch of soybeans. rather than having to walk the entire field or apply a herb side to an entire field i can identify a specific area with a uav and then make that economic determination of whether or not it's beneficial. we look at some issues going on right now in the western united states with water shortages in the ogalalla aqua for. i have friends in nebraska and south dakota, they're very excited they don't have to blanket with an irrigation pivot. they can fly over with a uav, map it and apply it when it is needed, how it is needed. this technology is very exciting. it's going to revolutionize even more of the agricultural industry we're in countrily and it's going to make us it is most

competitive agricultural country on the planet. >> based on the large areas that have you to cover, the regulations, which limit line of sight operations, that's not going to work for you is it? >> line of sight operation is a a -- is a challenge right now. it's a matter of you know, if you're in the western united states where the ground is relatively flat, line of sight is a long way. i mean, those folks -- you're basically limited to by how sharp your eye is. where i am in michigan, line of sight may only be a few hundred feet before you have trees and other obstructions. that's where the gps capabilities of these technologies, as mr. misener was alluding to earlier, is to relevant to us. simply being able to take your ipad and geofence the field you want to fly, use your fingertip to map out the flight. the aircraft will take off, fly that pattern, do the mapping, come back, land. i can upload that data into my computer and have it right there. the idea that these can take off

from my home farm, fly a half a mile or a mile to another farm do that mapping and return, is exciting. the technology is there. it's simply if we're going to allow it to exist. i believe -- i believe we can do it safely and we can do it effectively, but that's, again, the technology evolves ever faster. >> right. well, thank you. ms. gilligan, the faa has granted, and i think you mentioned in your testimony, some 60 exemptions under section 333, which was granted for some of these precision agricultural operations as well as some aerial photography. i understand there are currently nearly 600 petitions pending. does the faa have any plans to establish a process to streamline this petition process similar to the 48 -- the 60 that have already been granted, particularly as we hear about the important applications this has for agriculture? >> yes sir. we are learning lessons as we go through this process. today we have actually issued ten additional approvals in a

process we're calling a summary grant, which means that we can look at an individual petition and if it is similar enough to one we've it is similar enough to one that we've already fully analyzed and put out for public comment, we don't need to repeat that process again. that will increase our ability to handle these more quickly. there are still some very unique ones and those will have to go for public comment. to the extent we can we are trying to link new applications with decisions that we've already made to streamline it. in addition we, today, issued what we're calling a broad certificate of authorization for air space 200 feet and below. if the applicant can operate and meet their mission below 200 feet they will not have to get additional approvals from the air traffic organization. so that will also shorten the

process. we have a dedicated team. so they are learning as they go as well. so we're -- we're dedicated the administrator has challenged us to move these petitions as quickly as we can. >> that's good. that should help the agriculture uses that we heard. >> thank you. >> senator booker. >> the white house drone, was that a commercial vehicle? >> no it was not. >> the airplane problems we've had with people flying drones to airplanes, are those commercial vehicles? >> not in most cases. >> mr. misener, have any of the sensational, exciting drone things that are showing up in newspapers happening because of amazon? >> no, sir. >> so we need to distinguish between commercial operations and private use. we have a problem with private use. i was happy to see my colleagues bring up private use. but the commercial usage have

you given permission to fly over large crowds of people? >> no, sir we have not. >> no. that's not an issue. mr. misener i am a little bit upset because when it seems like when it comes to government moving at the speed of innovation, we are slowing this country where in novation is going on overseas at extraordinary pace. and we're being left behind. forgive me, your name -- >> vanderwerff. >> you talk about the revolutionary impact allowing drones to be used could have on agriculture. those revolutions are happening overseas, correct? >> right now as we speak our agricultural competitors are investing in using that technology. >> it is correct, yes. >> this is what's hard for me to believe, the slowness with which

this country is moving. if the actual aviation industry was regulated back in the time of the wright brothers we may have gotten first in flight, but other people would be flying passenger planes before we even got an aviation industry started here. mr. misener it's frustrating to me -- last week faa allowed amazon to begin testing outdoors in the united states, but it was really in a limited fashion that still puts us in america in the backseat compared to what you're allowed to do in other countries. and frankly, no mishaps nothing like that's happening is that correct? >> yes, sir, although i will say that the faa has, i believe, turned a corner. we're at a spot now where things are getting better with respect to testing where they're not getting better is with respect to planning for the future.

>> let the record show that you sufficiently sucked up to the faa. look at your application kindly sir. so can you describe the work that amazon is doing in other countries in relation to what we're doing here? >> thank you, senator. thank you also for noticing that. so what we're doing in other countries, it's more flexible. we're allowed to innovate quickly in other countries in a way we have not yet been allowed here. the jury is still out on the system from last week will work. i think it will. i feel like they are motivated to be helpful and get us innovating here again in the country, it's just that we've not been able to do it yet. >> the faa is dedicated professionals. i have no pe kun anywhere interest in saying nice things about the faa. incredibly committed folks. my comments are in no way

talking about them. administrator, i would say that you have some constraints on how well you are able to move. both the faa and the industry agree it's too slow and allows only narrow applications for companies lucky enough. what steps can congress take in the faa reauthorization to strengthen your ability -- the faa's ability to issue exceptions more broadly in and less time? >> our administrator is also interested in how we might be able to take full advantage of whatever authorities we have. there is technical assistance already underway between your staff and staff here on the committee to look at these particular issues to see what more can be done. we'll continue to support the committee. >> can the faa issue exemptions to safely operate uavs beyond

the line of sight? >> we would have the authority to issue those exemptions if in fact we could make the safety case. the challenge that we face with beyond visual line of sight is we don't yet have the technology standards to evaluate whether in fact we have safe enough technology to permit that to occur. >> a lot of -- this is being molgded, it would be great to have a private drone hearing because there are a lot of issues about anybody and their friends being able to go out and get a drone and do anything with it. we're really being held back compared to global competitors. >> thank you, senator booker. i think you raised some very good points here in terms of some of the uses of the drones and making sure we're clear on where the misuse is happening. senator danes.

>> certainly appreciate the comments i've heard in this hearing. i come from a state state of montana, that places great value in privacy. in fact, might argue we have different individual privacy expectations perhaps than people in large urban areas. i've also been talking with members of the state legislature who are interested in addressing these privacy concerns at the state level. and for ms. gilligan i think it probably relates to what's going on at the faa. i commend the faa for taking action on the certification and the arrest worthiness aspects in the notice of proposed rule making, but i do have concerns about the privacy aspects associated with remotely piloted aircraft, many of which are not being used commercially.

back to what senator booker was distinguishing between commercial use and noncommercial use and therefore not subject to the proposed rule making. so my question is does the faa think there's an appropriate role for local regulation of noncommercial or hobbyist uses. if so what might they be? >> senator, i'm not sure the faa has a position on local control. what i do know is that in the last reauthorization, congress gave us very clear direction to allow model and hobbyist kinds of operations without additional regulatory restraint. we have complied with that. we're working with the modelers community to allow the use of what they call community standards and the american modelers association is taking the lead and -- and providing to their members information about how they can properly operate safely and remain recreational users of this kind of technology.

>> what's your opinion as a professional someone in it every day, knows a lot more about it than i do, do you think there would be a role in allowing the states -- do you think that's a good idea to allow the states to have the ability to regulate the noncommercial use? >> we are always concerned about local regulations that may affect the national air space system. we need a national asset in the air space. and those who operate broadly in the air space need to know that what occurs in one location is safe and consistent with what can occur in other locations. i'm not exactly sure whether or how a state or local entity might be able to carve something out to address modelers or recreational users. they may be able to do it. but we'd want to look at it closely. >> let me ask mr. vanderwerff

here, certainly our folks back home can understand finding a lost cow. you question who owns and controls the data collected by an unmanned system. an example you used with the contractor flying the up manned system and being able to share or sell that data with outside parties, including the federal government, frankly is chilling. what do you think is the best means of regulating this data, and more importantly how can we ensure enforcement? >> thank you for the question, senator. when we speak about the issue of data privacy i guess i would refer you to our overall stance as american farm bureau and agriculturalists. we are concerned about what is being collected, who potentially is viewing it, whether it was epa or a third-party environmental groups. we believe that that data

ultimately belongs to the farmer who created it and that they should have the right to determine who is able to use that data and for what purposes they would use it for. >> any thoughts on ensuring enforcement? >> i would refer that to the full written comments we will have with these proposed rules out in the next short time. i would have to get back on you on that. >> for mr. morris has the ntia explored how the ownership of data will be addressed? >> so senator, our process is really just at the very beginning. we have put out a request for comment and i certainly expect one of the issues raised will be an ownership question. we're not in a position to effect the legal rules that actually you know, would affect ownership, but certainly in terms of looking at best practices that address issues like the farmer, it's a concern

about data, that certainly is a topic we expect will be discussed in our process. >> thank you. i'm out of time. >> senator heller. >> thank you. thank you for the time and i want to thank all our witnesses for being here and appreciate your expertise. i apologize for not being on time myself. we were in the v.a. committee. so apologize if my questions overlap a little bit. i would like to address something that senator booker was talking about as far as agriculture's concerned coming from a farm myself. you failed to mention fertilizing also. maybe you did. all the things that you were talking about, again i want to stress, are innovation that whether they're in european countries or asian countries are

being used today is that correct? >> that is correct, sir, yes. >> nevada was designated one of the six unmanned air system test sites. and for that, we're grateful. we have some great facilities. fallon, go down the list. boulder city. in fact, we had a test recently with the governor of one of these unmanned air systems. it was a wonderful experience to be part of that test and to see what they're doing in that particular facility. but here's the concern. i think it was well said by senator booker. and that is that -- that the technology can't be successful if it's hampered by regulations, overburdensome, time-consuming approval process. and that's the complaint i'm hearing today. i guess i'd ask ms. gilligan

this question. there's no doubt there's privacy issues that you guys have to overcome. but these first steps of just testing have become very very restrictive. and i believe it will destroy a lot of companies and a lot of people from using some of these test sites and devoting the kind of resources that will be necessary. i guess my question to begin with would be quite simple. if the faa weren't required by law to begin work on integrating drones into the national air space, would the agency be working on it at all? >> yes, sir. we have applicants who come in who want to fully certify their vehicles and we are building what are the set of standards that those vehicles need to meet. we have an exemption process that anyone could have applied for to authorize operations in the air space. we are as mindful as the members

of the committee that this is a dproeing industry and we don't want to be able to support it. but we also want to make sure we've identified if there are risks that could be introduced into the system, that those are fully mitigated. >> i guess the concern is, and this is the feedback i'm getting being one of the six states, the process seems to inhibit testing. technology development here in the united states where other countries have moved far beyond what we're able to do. let me give you couple examples. these hoops, the hoops they have to jump through. every time they want to change designs of their drone, it takes months to get that new design approved. if they do a test and they want to test the same design in a different manner they have to jump through all these hoops and it takes months to get the approval in order to do that.

and they're arguing it just doesn't foster innovation. that's what i'm hearing. i'm hearing that kind of frustration frustration. i'm going to give mr. misener one more chance to push back on the faa. you said in your testimony last week that the approval for amazon was a model that was already outdated. what is it going to take from the faa for you to do the work that you guys are trying to achieve? >> i think what it will take will be a recognition that these are different kinds of aircraft than the ones they're used to dealing with. this isn't a 777. this is a little device. we'd like to move quickly and innovate. making new changes all the time constantly improving and perfecting. i think we're almost to the spot with the faa where we can do that domestically. my biggest concern is that we're not planning for that future in

which drones will be able to fly beyond line of sight, we're not planning like the europeans are and we should be. >> okay. time's run out, but thank you. >> something unprecedented happened. i was -- i was designated -- >> oh you were? >> that's my a little bit of seniority, sir. this is a shocking and unprecedented moment where i am now in charge of the hearing on drones. very exciting thing. i do have to say just for the record now that i am in charge that you're a pretty cool guy for someone who went to usc. >> i'll take it. >> i tend to agree with the -- i never thought i'd agree with a trojan as much as i do. but i'd like to get into another round of questioning. >> sure, sure. >> if i may begin and just want to finish up with couple questions on -- excuse me to

associated administrator gilligan. can the faa make a commitment into how we can begin safely testing and researching the out of sight ability for uass to fly? that's a big concern for me. from what i read, it puts a significant barrier to our ability to push the bounds of what's possible with this technology. >> right. so the risk that's introduced with beyond visual line of sight operations is the fact that the vehicle itself cannot sense and avoid if it is in proximity to other aircraft. right now in the manned system, we have the pilot who plays that role. the rtca is working with an entry group to design standards for sense and avoid. once we have those standards, then we can put that forward and determine how we can properly and safely allow for those

extended operations. >> under section 333, what mr. vanderwerff had said about on a large farm with no people, no other aircrafts in the area could you understand that an exception might be worthy for agricultural purposes where the risk of in-air collisions might be dramatically lower. i imagine, that other countries are using out of line of sight operations for their drones in agriculture, is that correct? >> that is my understanding. >> can you imagine the united states catching up to that and making -- >> it certainly might be something where we can make a safety case for an exception. we need to understand the other operations in the area. the u.s. has a very active general aviation community. we also have a very active manned agriculture community who have raised their own concerns about the use of drones in the air space where they are

operating as well. we need to make sure -- >> and so you just feel like the other countries germany, france, new zealand, they're just all being far morrisky than the united states? they're taking unnecessary risks on while the united states is much more cautious? >> i don't know that they're taking unnecessary risks. i do know they have far less aviation in their jen aviation air space. i assume they are addressing their risks appropriately and we would look at doing the same. >> for areas of the country where we don't have a lot of crowded air space like i imagine the apple orchards of certain states. i know nm nj is not such a state, but there are some places out west. could you see us making more speedy exceptions to those geographic areas especially at certain heights.

i don't know if the 150 to 250 air space is that crowded in farms in, say, the midwest? >> we we're using the exception process now with an appropriate safety case we could use it for beyond visual line of sight. but we need to answer how is it that that aircraft is going to be properly controlled and properly separated in the event there is other aircraft. the reality is we have a lot of itinerant aircraft -- >> how are other countries answering that question? >> i don't know exactly how they've addressed that risk. >> somehow they are addressing the risk, doing it better than the united states, doing it quicker than the united states? we're not answering those questions, they are? >> they're doing it differently than the united states sir i agree with that. and we are looking how we can continue to enhance the integration of uas. >> okay. i'm going to just continue then. many of the people on the panel,

i'd like more feedback have been studying the drones in the use of regulatory structures. i have been very impressed with the technology abroad as i've talked about. i've seen examples of drone used to deliver medication in difficult places to reach. monitor and protect against animal poaching in africa in exciting ways. used to fix poles and lower the risk of people who have to climb up on a lot of our poles. right here at home drones are being used to monitor farms as we've been told and ensuring that animals are getting humanely treated. it has unbounded potential. we have a history in this country of embracing that potential. it has ability to extremely axel accelerate productivity. lessen our environmental footprint. the ability to enhance safety in

this country and provide services that wouldn't have otherwise been practical or affordable. and so i'd just like to ask real quickly, would any -- anybody else like to comment on the other exciting applications for uav technology. >> i have a quick additional comment. >> yes, please. >> the subject of previous use came up before senator you cited quite correctly very improper uses. the overall majority of private unmanned aircraft users are responsible. we all agree about the importance of up novation and many of the innovations are going to come from the people who are hobbyists today. i think it's important to recognize the needs of that community as well while at the same time having zero tolerance for behaviors that are reckless or dangerous. >> my time's expired. i think -- would you like to ask another round? >> i would. let the record reflect that the

pac 12 is dominating the discussion today. >> amen. >> having said that, i want to go back to you. i believe the question in the comments that are based -- from what i've heard, how to speed up the pro sets, how to get through some of the hoops. would it make any sense for the faa to work with the six designated test sites to give them certificates of authorization with broader authority, something called a blanket geographic? >> yes, sir. and we are looking at doing that in a number of the test sites. in nevada, they have been the first test site to have a designated airworthiness representative who can issue experimental certificates to anyone who would want to fly their unmanned system in that particular test site. we think that's another way to encourage manufacturers to bring -- >> explain that to me one more time. >> yes, sir. >> we have initiated a program

that would allow for the test sites to identify an individual -- >> is that called train the trainer? >> in this case, not exactly. >> okay. >> what they are doing is identifying individuals who are experienced in aviation. they go through specific training that the faa is offering. they can then be designated by the faa to issue experimental certificates for unmanned systems. much like the certificate that the faa issued to amazon. this would be a designated individual connected with the individual test site and we're setting it up only for the test sites so that again there is that opportunity for the test site to be able to draw manufacturers who may want to do work in that test site. so we are working to see how we can enhance people taking advantage of what the test sites have to offer because we can't get the data we need to better understand the risks and how to dress them if we don't have

people operating at the test sites. >> one other question having to do with news gathering organizations. we have broadcasters in the northern part of the state that currently fly helicopters over populated areas as a way to report the news. and it's allowed, i believe, by the faa. >> yes, sir. >> all right. i think most people agree that these operations are important, inform the public, and it's all done to give them information. i would consider in a timely fashion. the operations would seem to pose much less potential threat to people on the ground than helicopters do perhaps provide even greater benefit in the field of news gathering than helicopters currently do. however, the current proposed rules would ban their use if even a single person is on the ground beneath them.

would they cover news worthy events that inform the public. >> sorry. the reason that we have not authorized the use of uas over populated areas is because the vehicle itself is not designed to any standards not tested to any standards not manufactured against any particular process as opposed to manned vehicles where we have extensive standards for both the design and the manufacturer to ensure a appropriate level of safety. right now, we haven't figured out how we can properly mitigate the risk of the unmanned vehicle which does not meet a defined level of safety. so we have required that it be kept away from people. we've asked for comment on that in the notice of proposed rule making. we have recently with cnn been able to authorize their use of an unmanned system not in a populated area but in closer proximity than the past to learn more about how to better

mitigate that risk. we agree with you that there is a good use for uafs in the news gathering environment. >> right. so it's not a problem of the idea. in fact, you don't even have a problem with the idea. it's whether or not we get to a point in technology that we feel good enough that a -- that a unit is worthy enough to fly over other human beings. is that -- >> that's very accurate. >> okay. >> i mean i believe if in fact there were to be an accident with a uas over a populated area, the questions this committee would be asking me is how is it we authorized that. >> you're right. >> we need to assure ourselves that we've done the safety analysis before we can authorize the operation. >> thanks for your comment. i'm done. >> i've been alerted that we have to close the hearing. it's unfortunate.

it's the saddest i've been since i've been a united states senator. so i want to thank everybody for coming here. your testimonies have been invaluable and i'm very grateful for that. it's exciting when you are on a new frontier of possibility and opportunity for this country. it's incredibly exciting when you have a technology that can improve the health, safety and expand economic opportunities in our country. but it has to be done right. it has to be done with safety concerns addressed and privacy addressed. i know we'll be doing more together on this issue. i want to express my gratitude for you all coming here. the hearing record will remain open for two weeks. during this time senators are asked to submit any questions for the records. upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit answers. with that the hearing is now closed. thank you.

and if you missed any of this hearing we'll bring it to you again. you can actually find it online in our video library. we're asking on facebook how much should personal and commercial drones be regulated. you can weigh in on facebook. we've gotten a few responses so far. jody says people are flying these over the property should be fined and if they continue to violate the neighbor's policy punished. one says, if one flies over my property, i will shoot it down. you can weigh in at c-span.org. we're going to be live with jeh johnson testifying on homeland security about his department's budget request for 2016.

>> they're asking for about a 90% increase in immigration technology and local grants. also ernest moniz will go before the senate committee. you can watch live coverage of that hearing tomorrow morning on c-span.org at 9:30. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, author peter wallison says that government housing policies cause the the 2008 financial process. at 5:00, director of the earth institute on a development plan to counter global issues like poverty, political corruption and environmental decay. and saturday morning at 10:30 eastern, a discussion on the

last major speeches of abraham lincoln and martin luther king jr. then sunday at 4:00. the meet the press interview with martin luther king jr. find the complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. u.s. telecom held their national cybersecurity policy forum recently in washington d.c. it included ron johnson and the national security council senior director for cybersecurity ari schwartz. this is about two hours.

good morning and welcome to the united states telecom association's fifth national cybersecurity forum. before we begin today if anybody is trying to access the wi-fi network the password is npc3v3nt5. so that's just like national press club, npc 3 b 3 nt 5. if you didn't get that, mary can give you the password. today we're here to listen to industry and government leaders discuss issues that are defining our understanding of the risks that cyber attacks pose to our national security economic security, public health and safety and the very social and

political fabric that governs our lives. indeed as noted in a world economic forum report that was released last year many leaders in business, civil society and government realize that for the world's economy to fully derive the value inherent in technology technological innovation, a robust coordinated system of global cyber resilience is essential to effectively mitigate the risk of cyber attacks. it found that senior leaders in the private and public sectors across different industries are aware of the need for cyber resill yans and urging greater collaboration towards a broad cyber resill yans ecosystem that spans technology providers, law enforcement, and other related institutions. we're pleased that this commitment is beginning to take root through the ongoing discussions taking place across

government and industry. which today's forum is going to highlight, it is evident that there is not only robust collaboration among industry sectors and within government but also an increasing scope and pace of cyber-related activities. now, a key question for policymakers and one we'll be debating today is identifying what actions and initiatives are necessary to ensure the highest probability of success in mitigating cybersecurity risk. we're honored to have with us today three esteemed officials who have given substantial thought to these questions. our keynote speaker and the honorable ron johnson, chairman of the senate homeland security. we're also pleased to welcome ari schwartz white house senior director of white house security

and adam sedgewick, each of whom will speak on panels that will address the recently released executive order on information sharing and efforts by industry to promote and advance cybersecurity risk management. as the new chairman of the homeland security committee, senator johnson is playing a major role to further advance cybersecurity legislation by seeking broad bipartisan consensus on key issues. in addition senator johnson also serves on the budget committee, the commerce committee, the foreign relations committee. before his election in 2010, he spent 31 years at packer llc, a polyester and plastics manufacturing business that he do co-founded in 1979. thank you very much for joining us today and discussing this important legislation.

>> thank you. thank you. fist of all, thank you for braving the cold and the snow. once we got in d.c., the streets were pretty good. those of you who had to travel did battle some driving conditions. so i appreciate that. i'm going to open it up to questions and answers at the end of opening remarks. i think that's probably the best form for addressing some of the details on cybersecurity and my thoughts on that. let me just make couple foundational points. i do come from the private sector. my background is in accounting and finance. i ran a manufacturing plant for 31 years, so i've solved an awful lot of problems. it's something that's pretty important here in washington d.c. because when you start talking about things like cybersecurity and regulation of business, there's too prevalent an attitude here in washington d.c. that we have to force

businesses to you know, for example, provide safety to their workers or force them to make sure their products are safe. i come from the standpoint of a business realizing it's just bad business not to have worker safety. it's bad business to have airplanes fall out of the sky. it's bad business to lose your customers' personal private information. it's a necessary attitude or an important perspective to bring to this particular discussion. frequently when i'm talking to business groups, i do like taking the opportunity to give my ask. as a senator i hear it all the time, here's my ask. in the private sector for far too long businesses have been viewed as evil. rather than celebrating success we demonize and demagogue against it. i'm asking businesses to defend

themselves. you know particularly with the people that work with them. and understand i use the word "with." i think it's extremely important for every business manager, every business owner to make sure the people who work with them producing products and services that we all value, that we all need the power economy that produce good paying jobs, you need to make sure that the people working with you understand that you have sto succeed. if they're ever going to get better pay and benefits, it's not going to come from a law we write here in washington d.c. if they want better job security, better job opportunities, the business and the people working in that business together need to succeed. and then, oh, by the way, in business in the private sector, success is measured by something. it's called a profit. that's not evil. it's absolutely necessary. now, in today's culture, as we've demonized businesses for decades and it's worked

politically, that's kind of a heavy lift. if you succeed convincing the people that work with you that it really is good to succeed and make a profit so you can invest that money to expand your business and create better products and services take the next step. make sure the people work with you realize your suppliers have to succeed, your customers have to succeed. this entire free market marvel that we call the american economy has to succeed, even big pharma and big oil. silly me. am i the only one that wants a life-saving new drug? or seeing as i'm talking to u.s. telecom here, even big telecom has to succeed. it's just a tragedy that, you know, now chairman wheeler has decided to regulate the internet and -- do it on the basis of this really wonderful sounding phrase, net neutrality so that

we can all have faster speeds and get more information over the internet. what's going to end up happening, you've actually now decreased the incentive for the type of capital expenditure that will expand broad band, expand speeds, provide better innovation. what is a better model of innovation and advancement of economic activity than the explosion of the internet and all the services and products that has spawned. now we're putting that at risk. that's just a real shame. let me just talk a little bit about my attitude towards the committee. and this is key in terms i think, how we move successfully a cybersecurity bill. coming from the private sector, i did a lot of negotiating a lot of relationship building with both customers and suppliers. i wouldn't start those negotiations or relationships arguing. what i would always do on the

front end of any negotiation is i would figure out all the areas of agreement. it develop add relationship, it developed a level of trust so when you came to the areas of disagreements, it was easier to find common ground. that's been my approach for four years, how i'm trying to approach the committee. so i reached out to my ranking member, he wants bigger government, but he wants it more effective and efficient. let's develop a mission statement statement. so we established a mission statement. a goal that we can all agree on. it was pretty simple. to enhance the economic and national security of america. and by concentrating on that goal, that shared purpose, it's going to be whole lot easier finding common ground. often when i give my not exactly uplifting powerpoint presentation laying out the financial condition of this country -- by the way, you

should count yourself lucky that that's not the topic today or i'd have ruined your day. i'll start like i begin this. what do we all agree on? we share the same goal. we all want a prosperous safe, and secure american. we all want every american to have an opportunity to build a good life for themselves and their family. that's the best way to start any conversation. that's my approach. find the areas of common ground. with my committee it's two committees in one. government affairs, homeland security. government affairs, we've set up two subcommittees. one is going to focus on waste, fraud, abuse. things we can find agreement. nobody wants to see wasteful spending of taxpayer money. the other part is regulatory reform. there's are thousands of regulations hampering businesses and organizations even in blue states from being able to expand. so when we had our first business meeting for the committee, i set out a goal to

go with that mission statement, recognizing the fact that every united states senator sitting around that table democrat and republican alike came here to do some, to represent their constituents, to create good paying jobs. so the reality of the situation is in order to do something, you have to pass legislation. in the united states senate, that means we need six democrats joining with 54 republicans to pass a piece of legislation. so the goal was, let's find the areas of agreement. let's find the regulatory reform to modernize regulation or streamline it or outright eliminate it. i'm asking them to not ask me to violate my principles. let's find the areas of agreement. we pointed out nine pieces of legislation that passed on a voice vote, no decent, hopefully with can pass that starts making

that inkre mental aprovmt. on the homeland security side of the committee, the top priorities are we have to secure our border. but we have to do it by looking at our immigration laws and figure out the incentives for people coming here illegally and let's reduce if not eliminate those incentives. the top priority was cybersecurity. what about protecting our critical infrastructure not only from cyber attack but terrorist attack. i want to do everything i can in the committee to make sure that secretary jay johnson who's an honorable man and has a serious responsible himself, i want to do everything i can to make sure he succeeds in his mission of keeping this nation safe. now let me transition to cybersecurity. we've held a number of hearing on this. everybody recognizes we have to do this. i always ask witnesses what are the top priorities.

what are the things we have to get done. the top priority is we have to facilitate the sharing of information. when i'm talking about information, i'm talking about threat signatures. we're not talking about the metadata program here. sharing threat information so we can prevent cyber attacks. it's just impossible for businesses to have to really try and comply with a multitude of different jurisdictional requirements in terms of notification in case of a data breach. it's crucial that we set a federal standard that can preempt the state or potentially local laws. those are the top two priorities. those should be pretty simple to accomplish, but it hasn't been because you do have interests. people concerned about americans' privacy that we have to take into account. the point i've been trying to make is if you as an american or

a privacy advocacy group, if you're concerned about americans' privacy being lost then you really ought to be concerned about doing everything we can to prevent cyber attacks. because the greatest threat to our individual privacy are these attacks where literally the private information of millions of people are being lost with every one of these attacks. we just read about apple pay has been attacked in a certain way or certainly there's been fraudulent activity now as a result of the previous attacks on home depot and target. again, that represents a significant threat. now, from my standpoint -- our first committee hearing was on cybersecurity. and we had representatives from microsoft and american express and fire eye, we have a privacy advocate. what was encouraging about that is following the hearing -- it

and was a very thoughtful hearing -- i went down to talk to the witnesses. the conversation was, we're really not that far apart, i think we can actually do this. and i think we can too. not only does congress think this is an important priority, president obama recognized that as well. all these high profile attacks as dangerous they are to the american economy certainly is creating the awareness in the public and hopefully creating the political will for congress and this administration to work together to find the common ground. now, we've got a bill moving through the intelligence committee. it's been brewing there for the last couple congresses. senator burton and feinstein have come to an agreement. i think it's going to be marked up next week. that's, i think, a good starting point. we also have senator tom carper introduce president obama's -- his legislative proposal on

cybersecurity. i don't know how this is all going to work out, but one role that certainly that the homeland security committee can play in this, is we can hold hearings. if there's a contentious issue if there's a component of any bill that might eventually work its way to the floor we can hold hearings. one thing i absolutely want to make sure of is whatever liability protection the bill provides to industries that it actually works. i'm not interesting in an information sharing in name only bill. we got an interesting letter from 29 chief councils of major corporations last week pointing out how important it is that we get this thing across the goal line here. i'll be soliciting input from other chief councils. my question will be simple. based on whatever gets reported

out of committee on whatever bill eventually gets to the floor and starts getting voted on i want to ask the chief councils of major corporations and smaller companies, is the liability protection being provided in this bill, is this liability protection going to allow you as the council for the company you serve, is that going to allow you to give the advice to your chief executive in the case of a data breach to actually share the information. any answer other than yes really renders that bill completely useless. so there will be differences of opinion. it may not be universal. but we need a really strong show of support in terms of the reality situation that whatever liability protection it actually has to work. with that, i think i've laid the groundwork. happy to answer any specific

questions you might have. sir? >> first of all senator, thank you -- i'm sorry. i'm larry clinton with the internet security aliengs. thank you for being here. i think i agree with absolutely everything that you just said and we want to be helpful. one of the activities we've undertaken is we did a handbook for corporate boards of directors on cybersecurity. and we specifically tackled the issues that you just mentioned which is the stress that the corporate boards have is they have to be secure but they also have to be productive, innovative, they need to grow, et cetera. and the -- the problem is that the economics of cybersecurity are not well understood. we believe that includes in the congress, with all due respect. things like using voice-over-internet protocols. very cost effective undermines

security. long international supply changes. same thing. bringing your device to work. one of the things i heard you say early after you ascended to the chairmanship is that you were going to take a step back and look at the bigger issues. is there any prospect that the committee may hold a hearing specifically looking at the economics of cybersecurity in the broad sense that i just described and nacd is interested in? >> possibly. i want to talk about regulatory reform in general in terms of the economic impact of that. there are estimates $100 billion annually general keith alexander made a statement which is probably true. this is the greatest transfer of wealth in human history, cyber attacks. people do have a acceptssense this is a really costly problem. it's also true from a standpoint

of being a ceo. you want to invest your capital in new products. and i think for far too long, ceos have basically ignored it. that's the i.t. department over there. just make sure we're safe. do security passes. hire some of the security firms and let's keep ourselves safe. i think a pretty good comment by the fbi director. there's two types of large companies. those that know they've been hacked by the chinese and those that have been hacked by the chinese and just don't know it. i think that's largely true. because of all of these attacks because the high profile nature because we've seen the loss of literally tens of millions of, you know personal information, tens of millions of americans, i think people even in the boardrooms and ceos are starting to realize this is really a problem. there are plenty of private sector solutions to this.

we had sprinklers in our plant. first of all, it's just good business. i don't want to see my plapt burn down. but they're probably a lot closer together because our insurance company would send in a rating -- an inspection team and go okay those are 10 feet apart, they really need to be 8 feet apart. and if you don't turn them into 8 feet apart, your premiums are going up. so there's actually a private sector model that will work here. let me speak a little bit about president obama's saying too. it sounds like the administration is working toward this and i'm glad to hear it. because when president obama first announced his -- his information sharing bill, i got a call from secretary jeh johnson telling me about it and said, you know, this is -- i asked him right away, how strong is liability protection. he said senator, it's unequal fied it doesn't get better than this. >> it was unequal fied as long as you qualified for it.

how do you qualify for it? you have to be certified and have best practices. who's going to certify it? there's a private sector model out there. you have the insurance model. the discipline of high premiums. you also have an iso type of model. my manufacturing plant was iso certified which means you have to go through all the best practices, you know, along a host of different criteria and then you go through a surveillance slot every six months so those best practices are always being improved. so it sounds like this administration is going to support a third-party private sector model for determining what best practices are and if you qualify for that, that might be combined with an insurance premium type of molds, now you've qualified and you get that unqualified liability protection. it's not that easy. but having governments

facilitate information sharing rather than dictating it is going to be a far better model. so you can see how impossible it would be for the federal government to set these regulations on this when we had a hearing -- this was back a couple congresses ago trying to do cybersecurity, i asked the representative from the department of homeland security, again, going to be the repository of this information sharing, how long would it take them to write the regulations around that information sharing. and the answer honestly was seven years. well, you know, i'm thinking the internet will be reinvented in seven years. there's just no capability of the federal government even though we've got some real talent. we really do. as a bureaucracy there's no way it can be fast moving enough, forward thinking enough to really write these regulations. i think that's what the private sector's got to do. the only way we're going to long term stay ahead of the attackers with is we've got to do it in the private sector and be

reinventing our security measures just on a continuous basis and it probably gives us the best chance. anybody >> brian finch. thank you for being here senator and i won't make any comments as the fellow snow belt resident regarding the response to the few inches of snow yesterday. >> they just don't have the equipment. >> they -- or the will. >> it is going to mlt in a skoum days s -- couple days anyway. >> i want to make a comment regarding liability protection and listening sessions and one thing i i you will hear from the general kounss scounsels and working with utility organizations and individual companies is that when it comes to information sharing, the liability protection that is offered whether in the president's bill or even in the senate intelligence committee bill is very good. but what is missing and concerning for a number of companies is that there is no

liability protection for companies based upon what actions they may take or not take. on the information that they have received. and that is very disconcerting and troubling for them particularly when you consider that, for instance, the federal trade commission is suing a hotel chain and one of its claims against the hotel chain for having inadequate information and security policies is that they failed to act upon information that had been shared with them. so it is not just the fact that you may be able to get signature osseus other s or other indicators or compromise but it's the process by which the companies can take in the information and make a decision as to whether it's relevant. and that's pointed out earlier that not all information shared is good information so companys should have a little discretion as to whether they need to act on it or not. >> you're hitting a thorny issue. and i go back to that perspective. you know, coming from the private sector i really do believe that, you know, companies want to protect their

cyber assets and they want to protect their customer's information. recognizing this is a very rapidly moving issue here. and what is best practice today will not be tomorrow. so from my standpoint i think what -- if you've got to certify -- and again, i understand that too. you tattoo needdo need to do your due diligence. show good faith. if you are going to get the liability protection you need to show good faith in trying to comply with best practices. but i think if you show that you are engaged in that process. through an insurance model, using outside certification processes and passing the surveillance audits at some percent. in' i can't give you all the things but i can can contemplate a private sector model that ought to be certainly sufficient enough. but it is really going to have to to be whatify is a process of developing and being involved in always updating your standards and being involved in that process of best practices,

as opposed to at a particular point in time being held accountable. oh you should have had that. well, you know, we were three months from our surveillance audit. new information coming in and, you know, like cut a little slack here. okay, i'm willing to cut the industry a little slack because i really do believe that you realize it is really knot bad business not to do this. and that is going to be an argument. a thorny issue. but that is the type of process i'll want to insist on. again, otherwise you are not going to share information. then what have we gained? if we don't set up the process so the chief councils do give the ad information, what have we gained? and i think that is a compelling argument to find common ground. and this isn't a sharing name only bill. in the back. >> senator, we have a question from our online audience if i can read that to you. >> i agree that strong policies are important.

i'm concerned that we have no solution for a viable cyber warning and analysis system. current solutions discover the attack after the breeches have occurred occurred, which more 80% -- which are more than 0 80% of the attacks. what are you thoulgtss. >> you want to information shared in real time. that's computer speed. and that's what department of homeland security is trying toet up with the national cyber integration center. ncic. god help membership i'm starting to understand thesis acronyms. the abc soup of these agencies but that is really what -- again, i think it is a very good faith effort. understanding there are some real sensitivity if we videointelligencevideohave intelligence agencies be the center for that. it's not perfect. it is not easy but that is the attempt. trying to get those threat signatures, those

vulnerabilities shared at computer speed and have a system set up where that gets disseminated to you know, information technology professionals throughout the nation. and let's face it. there is a real strong network of i.t. professionals that we can can very rapidly disseminate this information. we can throw out the shields. this is not going to be perfect. we're not going to be able to prevent any attack but we can prevent a whole lot of them if we can share the threat signatures and in real time speed. one of the interesting outcomes of our committee hearing was how long hackers are actually in people's system before they ever find them out. i wasn't aware of that. i was shocked. it is months. the hackers are actually in there maneuvering around trying to find the back doors until they finally get that personal information. again, it takes that long. so once you understand well this is how they did it and you can share that share that

information can really potentially prevent a whole lot of harm. even in non real time computer. because you really might have weeks or months to protect yourself against an attack because it takes a while once they are in the system to actually do the damage. and we have time for one more question. >> charlie mitchell with inside cybersecurity. your counterpart mr. mccall is working on the bill as well. and his approach to some extent seems to mirror the administration in terms of the centering the liability around sharing with dhs and ncic. the senate intelligence folks have take an broader of ow the types of sharing the avenues that should be protected. whats what are your thoughts. >> i'm sympathetic with both. how's that sound for an elected official. we already have strong relationships between the indices and the regulators.

and they are already sharing. so why do away with that. at the same time i understand the concerns of sharing information benefit the nsa let's say or the intel community or the department of defense. i understand that sensitivity in terms of the privacy advocates and they would rather skrit be have it be a civilian agency. and it's computers. you can ping it from here to there. i don't know what the final solution is going to be. but i'm sympathetic with both positions and i guess what i view my role as is let's see how the intelligence bill winds it way and comes out. let's see the reaction as more people evaluate it. the comments. again i have the ability that i can hold open hears on the issues. and we'll pop into the fray at that point. and if we have to marry the types of bills combined with the house and the senate intel is doing i'm happy to play that

role. to me the more components we actually get past the better. because sharing threat signatures is one thing. preventing attacks is one thing. but we also have to solve the crime. we also need capability of going after the criminal, the hackers and shutting them down or holding them accountable or bringing them to justice. and that will sometimes require some, you know, personal information. some threaded -- you know the attacker identifier information. so let's me leave you with this note, again. just to empbz emphasize my point. if you are concerned about personal privacy and losing your personal privacy you really ought to support a bill that helps prevent cyber attacks. and also allows our government to solve the crime and shut these criminals down. so thank you very much. and have a good day with your conference here. [ applause ]

good morning folks. if i can ask the next set of panelists to please come to the desk. okay. so in the interest of brevity, i'm not going to spend a lot of time on the bios. they are all in great detail in the material that you have provided here. i'm robert mayer with u.s. telecom. i think we have a very exciting panel today. it will begin with some remarks that ari schwartz will make. and ari is the white house director for cybersecurity and somebody i think many of you know has been actively involved in setting national policy in cybersecurity and most recently on information sharing. with ari we have cris boyer, assistant vice president for global policy for at&t. also very active in a whole

series of national and international global policy issues of cyber security. and david tret ski. the current partner at acon gump. and in a recent former life he was the bureau chief for the federal communications commissions public safety and homeland security bureau. and last but not least the moderator shelly mitchell whose the editor of the very important publication in washington. inside cyber security. and you'll make your remarks and charlie are moderate. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. a year ago i came here and i walked on ice. sliding on my way here. and my kids' school was canceled and i had to deal with that in the morning. so if you could think about april next year