addition, but it is critical that the data remain under the control of the is important that the information is not available to others without permission. the farm bureau is glad to see the rulemaking for uas. the farm bureau is in the process of submitting comments regarding the proposed rules. it is our hope that farmers and ranchers will be able to use uas as part as precision ag systems. ms. ayotte: thank you. i would like to direct my first question to ms. gilligan. what i wanted to ask you about with this nea -- new area of rulemaking and implementation of the small uas rule and subsequent rules how does the agency plan to fund this effort?

i saw in the notice of proposed rulemaking that there is some contemplation of cost recovery, five dollars to register an unmanned aircraft, $150 for knowledge and test of operators and $50 to verify the idea of an applicant. is that going to cover the resources you need going forward in an expanding area? given that we have other resources, including implementing next jan and other things for. ms. gilligan: the faa has absorbed a lot of the cost of beginning the implementation process for bringing uas into the airspace. we do have pending in the fy 2016 appropriations, the president's budget request additional growth and personnel and research and development dollars and facilities adequate dollars. -- facilities and equipment dollars.

we may be making requests through the budget process. we hope the congress can support that. it's ms. ayotte -- ms. ayotte: do you anticipate this will be a self-funded thing or not? ms. gilligan: the notice of proposed rulemaking does not suggest it funds the entire program, those fees will offset the cost of those elements. in terms of rulemaking, as we do with manned operations right now, we do not charge fees for the services. they provide services to the industry. we would provide the services to the uas as well. ms. ayotte: can i follow up, as i understand the proposed rule it prohibits uas operation above people. we allow other types of aircraft to go over people, including

helicopters, plants, etc. what was the thinking behind the prohibition? is it a perceived dangerousness with unmanned systems themselves or is this something you anticipate looking at and addressing in the next reiteration of rules? ms. gilligan: in the proposal for small uas we are talking about vehicles not designed against any standards, either faa or industry standards which is different for manned vehicles. because of that we were looking at how to mitigate risk. one of the limitations and the proposal is to limit the operation over people not involved in the operation. that is an area we have asked for comment. we will be looking at how we can balance that. because we are talking about introducing systems that are not designed or manufactured in any kind of system that we are accustomed to, we think that is

a risk that needs to be addressed in this rulemaking. ms. ayotte: mr. misener with some issues you have raised, given how amazon proposes to use these unmanned systems to help package delivery, where do you see this issue in the rulemaking going forward? ms. gilligan, if you can help address concerns mr. misener raised. first, i would like to hear from mr. misener. mr. misener: what the faa has done in its nprm is fine. it really needs to go further. we need to be looking further beyond the road from the beyond visual line of sight. it is coming quickly. the fact that we are not even proposing rules or frameworks for rules is lamentable. we ought to move ahead now. at least be thinking about those rules as opposed to dismissing them as the nprm did. ms. ayotte: how do you address

the concerns with which he pays the faa is going for to issue these rules in light of international competitors? ms. gilligan: we are focusing on the area authorizing operations beyond visual line of sight. there are several technology challenges to being able to do that including the need to address the issue of what we call sense and avoid. we have pilots and manned aircraft, they had a regulatory responsibility to see and avoid other traffic. that is still to be addressed for unmanned vehicles. there is also assuring there is a standard of design that will assure a level of safety. we have a number of initiatives underway with the uas industry. rtca is working on standards for sense and avoid an command and control, that involves all of the industry.

we have another subgroup under our aviation rulemaking committee looking beyond line of sight, visual line of sight operations as well. that will be the next focus area. that will be an area we are looking at. it is a far more complex area and one where we do not have the technology standards established. we expect to get those from rtca over the next year or so. ms. ayotte: i have a follow-up question and i would like to turn it over to ranking member hanwell. >> does this put us on par with europeans? ms. gilligan: there are a number of locations where they are authorizeing different operations because they have less complexity, less general operation outdoes lower

attitudes. we are faced with challenges our partners do not face. as we are issuing our exemptions from section 333, the operator will be able to immediately operate as long as the operation is below 200 feet. if they want to go about 200 feet they must still go to the air traffic organization and identify the air space where they want to operate so we can assure safe separation of the unmanned system from whatever general aviation or other operations there may be inviting space. we believe this is increasingly flexibility that we can give as we grant exemptions. mr. cantwell mr. misener, i do not know if you have input on that. mr. dillingham, are we always going to be behind the europeans because they have implemented a gps system? they have much more information about who and what is in the airspace? mr. dillingham: i think we are

i would not say we are behind. when you talk about the gps system and next gen, the u.s. and the europeans are working hand in hand to harmonize and make those kinds of systems interoperable. with regard to the uas i think that because of those differences between the u.s. and some foreign countries in terms of the legal framework. japan, where they have been flying agricultural things for a while, one of the differences is is the farmer owns the airspace above his land. therefore it is a different perspective. moving forward, the u.s. working with international aviation community and the uas industry, we will in fact maintain our position as aeronautical leaders

in the world. one of the things i said in my statement, if we were to implement the notice of proposed rulemaking now, we would be on par in many ways with foreign countries. however, we are probably 16 months to 18 months away from doing that and they will still keep moving forward. it is going to be that kind of back and forth. there are some reasons for it. faa should be congratulated for moving to the point that it is. as we said, there are still some critical things that need to happen. mr. misener: it is true that we are on part when these rules get adopted 18 months or 24 months from now for operation. where we lag behind is planning for the future.

automation, beyond visual line of sight is coming. the europeans are getting ready for it. we are not so much. mr. cantwell i wonder, ms. gilligan a couple things that we had done, congress and partnership with the faa within the faa to create centers of excellence on things we do not quite yet understand. whether it is composite lightweight manufacturing materials and approval on products like the 787, to keep the faa up to date they created a center of excellence. the same center of excellence in existence on biofuels. do we need one of these centers of excellence to help the faa and the technical side get answers in advance so as the market continues to develop those questions are being addressed and the research is being done? ms. gilligan: yes senator.

we have gotten good support from congress and the last appropriations bill. we were given additional appropriations for the purposes of establishing a center of excellence. that process is underway, the applications are under review. we expect to name the center of excellence before the end of this fiscal year and the administrator has challenges us to do it sooner. it is in part because we see not only at the test sites but with the center of excellence we can frame these technology issues and some other challenges and get the best minds in academia working on helping us on those. mr. cantwell: the last phrase is key, the best minds in academia. thank you. ms. ayotte: i would like to call on senator schatz. mr. schatz: ms. gilligan, the faa guidelines for recreational drones, i would like to go through them and then ask for your comments. my understanding is a drone must

weigh less than 55 pounds, below 400 feet, visual line of sight not interfering with manned aircraft operations and not flying near an airport. there appears to be no speed limit for recreational drones and no prohibition on flying over people. so my question for you, although the notice of proposed rulemaking is progress, what are we doing at the 400 foot and down level and who has jurisdiction? ms. gilligan: the notice is directed towards operators in commercial operation, which we do not authorize at all. hobbyists are actually sort of overseen by what we call a community standard. we are working with the american modelers association for them to serve in that function. they actually have a set of

operating expectations for their members. mr. schatz: will they have the force of law? ms. gilligan: they do not, but under the reauthorization it was set for that it should be a community standard. mr. schatz: is preemption at play? if a mayor wants to set aside, a mayor can decide to use a city or county park how they wish in consultation with their parks department and city council. you can say no golfing dogs here, they have jurisdiction over the land. this goes to professor villas enor's testimony. did we just preempt local decision-makers from making choices with respect to where recreational drones are allowed and where they are not? ms. gilligan: congress has preempted authority to the

federal government for a long time. the faa is the sole entity responsible for the airspace. we consider that to be from the ground through as high as aircraft operates. in fact, now that we have commercial space operations as well. mr. schatz: so there would be no prohibition on flying a 54 pound drone 10 feet above a ballfield as fast as you want? because it is because our statute and the 2012 reauthorization preempts a local decisionmaker from deciding what is allowable in public space and what is not. is that correct? ms. gilligan: i would have to ask our lawyers to check the reading of the law. more importantly there are a number of people using these vehicles for recreational purposes who are not well informed about their responsibilities.

that is why we and the modeling community and manufacturers are doing outreach. several manufacturers are providing information in the packaging so people who buy these understand they have a responsibility if they are going to operate in airspace. mr. schatz: professor bilson are -- professor villasenor, did you want to comment? i will quote the supreme court, "if the supreme landowner is to have control of the land, he must control the atmosphere." what sort of elevation a private individual ceases to have full control over their land, it is an open question and it seems to me it is still being adjudicated. mr. villasenor: we are being forced to figure out what we could afford not to figure out before. no one would really reasonably argue that as a landowner i have the right to stop united

airlines from flying over my property at 30,000 feet. many rulings, it is very clear that there is preemption, airspace is a public resource. how low is public airspace? clearly it does not include the airspace two inches above the ground in my backyard. mr. schatz: do you think this should be articulated through the lawmaking, rulemaking, by community standards? mr. villasenor: if we try to pick a specific limit, up to 100 feet, you invite people to sit outside to limit in ways that might be problematic. in that sense it is better to have things be general in terms of reasonable expectation of privacy, it is not specific but we know when it is private. the courts have figured it out and that has worked well. the shots: -- mr. schatz: ms. gilligan, our model aircraft's, should we be

treated model aircraft and drones synonymously? it seems to me that the policy in the structure did not envision drones as they are emerging. maybe i am wrong. when i hear model aircraft and do not picture a 54 pound object moving at 100 miles an hour but maybe i am still catching up myself. can you comment? ms. gilligan: what we are seeing, as you highlighted, the people who come in many people who are buying unmanned systems are not what we would historically have considered modelers. modelers were generally aviators who came into it because of a love of aviation and wanted to experiment with physics. we have a different part of the community joining us. we and the modeling community are working hard to make them understand they have aviation responsibilities that go beyond being able to buy a really interesting toy they want to use in their backyard. ms. ayotte: senator moran?

mr. moran: ms. gilligan, the faa's proposed rules, there is no requirement for flight training or airworthiness certification of equipment. those standards exist to ensure that vehicles are safe. how are those issues going to be addressed in the future? ms. gilligan: on the issue of airworthiness, we looked at the language in the reauthorization bill, with authorized the secretary to authorize that there was no need for a certificate other criteria were met related to speed and operation. the role provides that limitation consistent with the statute in such a way that we felt that at the expectation that there would not be a need for airworthiness certification to a particular set of standards. i forget the other one?

mr. moran: the operator? ms. gilligan:. there is an operator testing requirement different from the private pilot requirement. they will not have to manipulate the aircraft. to pass the test there will be it will be necessary to receive some education in the standards of operating in the airspace. so we believe that the testing requirement will assure that people are competent for the purposes of operating their system. we have asked for comment. we will be interested to see what we get back from the community to see if we need to adjust the proposals. mr. moran: mr. morris, let me change topics. the system of control of uas over long distances using cellular telephone networks or existing cell towers, that conversation, are we recognizing the considerable technological hurdles that are out there?

are the telecommunications companies prepared for this task #mr.-- this task? mr. moran: we're at the beginning of the development for the commercial aviation. i honestly not thoroughly familiar with the use of the cell towers in connection with uas. i think that is something that we need to get back to you on. mr. moran: i would welcome that. let me switch to farm bureau. i'm sure you said this in your testimony. i would be glad to hear about the value of uass in kansas. much of agriculture recognizes they are a great potential. i want to ask you a question about how necessary are beyond line of sight operations for agricultural purposes? mr. vanderwerff: one of the

other panelists spoke about the use by the japanese and asian countries. they are using these uass in ways beyond where we are now in terms of they are not only using them for scalping but they are using them for application of nutrients and things of that nature -- using the for scouting but they are using them for application of nutrients and things of that nature. many of those things are line of sight and beyond line of sight. the safety features are extremely redundant. once the vehicle exceeds the prescribed distance within the software, it automatically returns to the geosynchronous point at which it started. when the battery is running low, it drops to a specified elevation and returns. if you lose control, it comes back to where it started. it is not like these things go buzzing around the countryside. they returned to where they started from, that is based on

the geosynchronous information put in when they were launched. mr. moran:. thank you ms. ayotte: senator markey? mr. markey: thank you. i'm aware of the beneficial uses of drones, including spotting wildfires, examining crops and monitoring traffic. while there are benefits to drone used there are also risks of misuse. these 21st century eyes in the sky should not become spies in the sky. we are going to need rules for the sky as well. i believe we can give flight to the new technology that will give jobs and economic growth to our country. today, when it comes to privacy protection, we are flying blind.

potentially spying robots sounds like science fiction but they are a reality now. technology is getting cheaper and more expansion. -- more accessible. this drone has two cameras on it. that can be easily purchased online for only $100. two cameras flying over everybody's house in the u.s. the faa already has given exemptions to nearly 50 commercial operators and announced today it is planning to expedite the process so the drones can fly in the national airspace with no clear privacy rules. today, operators are allowed to collect whatever information they want about you and me and they can sell that information however they choose. this is why earlier this month i introduced the drone aircraft privacy and transparency act.

this requires commercial drone operators to disclose what data they have collected, how that data is used, and whether the day that will be sold and when the data will be deleted if at all. number two, that law enforcement obtain a warrant when using drone except in emergency circumstances will stop the faa must create a website that lists where and when drones flight. as the committee continues to process the reauthorization i look for to working with my colleagues. ms. gilligan, if the faa does not incorporate any federal privacy protections into the final drone licensing process, i saw a commercial drone flying over my house, what i be able to find out how the company uses the data they collect or if they

sell my private information? ms. gilligan: we do make available the information about which operators we have authorized. we do make available information about the airspace in which they are operating. mr. markey: would i be able to find out the data they have collected? if i see it flying over my house, can i call the faa? can you say provide the data over what you filmed in the backyard of that american? ms. gilligan: the faa does not currently collect that information. mr. markey: will i be able to find out who owns or operates the drone? ms. gilligan: we collect information about what airspace operators operate in, that is public information. mr. markey: i can find out who flew a drone over my backyard. ms. gilligan: it is available

and we release it for foia requests. i do not know if it is one that you can access from your ipad today. mr. markey: if somebody sees this outside of their window they are filming their family members in the backyard. right now an individual in america could call the faa or go to a website and find out who earned the drone. ms. gilligan: we have the information about who has been authorized to operate in airspace. whether or not that was authorized operation i cannot tell you right now. if it was authorized, the records on who is authorized to use that airspace are available. mr. markey: are people authorized to film families in the backyard of their homes? ms. gilligan: the purpose of filming is not something we keep track of. mr. markey: that goes to privacy. if families have their children

in the backyard and children are being filmed by at drone what can we do to protect the family from nefarious individuals? may be trying to take advantage of the absence of rules. ms. gilligan: the administration is taking steps. mr. markey: in the absence of federal rules, drones with cameras are flying over backyards and parks. we have to put strong and enforceable laws on the books that in short -- that ensure that if information is being gathered about children, it potentially is being sold and there are no rules against any of that. in the absence of us putting this protections on the books in

this committee, we are allowing all of these technologies to take off without the values america would want to have built into this new technology. that is our job on this committee. this is an inanimate object, it has no values good or bad. we are the ones who will have to animate it with the values that should have as it eventually engages and predatory activity. against the families of our country. thank you, madam chair. ms. ayotte: senator pierce? mr. peters: the survey and are worth -- mr. vanderwerff, wonderful to see you here. as a fellow michigander, you are a proud alumni of michigan state university. one of the great agricultural universities in the country. it is important for you to be here. if you look at the applications of drones and the opportunities

for economic benefit it is the agricultural sector where we can see some of the most significant increases in productivity. that is why i want to talk a little bit about, you mentioned it in your testimony that perhaps flush it out. i know farming has changed dramatically. i've had the opportunity for a guy who did not grow up on a farm to be on a tractor that looks like a computer with a gps system and all sorts of geographic information. you talk about the ways that the unmanned drones can help activity. do you quantify that? are there things drones can do that you cannot do given the equipment you have now, what does that mean for your bottom line? mr. vanderwerff: the benefits of these unmanned aerial vehicles on our individual farms and ranches are multi-full. they are not specific to any one type of production. everything from cattle ranchers

in the western u.s. looking to find herds of cattle over large distances very quickly to specialty crop growers like myself, i don't know if you have been in a commercial mr. vanderwerff: you can not only losers so, but lose equipment very quickly. unmanned vehicles allow us to get that birdseye view to identify issues. on the green side is where we are most excited about the potential benefits of these vehicles. being able to, for example, fly over a cornfield and look through the bends -- lens for the invisible infrared light signatures coming off the crop. we can identify plant stress and weeds. a patch of grass will give off a different signature than a patch of soybeans.

rather than having to walk an entire field or applying herbicide, i can identify a specific area with a uav and make that economic determination of whether it will be beneficial. we look at some of the issues going on with the western united states and the water shortages. i have a number of friends in nebraska, dakotas, and kansas and they are excited about the idea to no longer blanket and entire area of water and in them they flied water over an area with how it is needed, when it is needed, and wide as needed. it emphasizes the agriculture that we are in currently and continuous to make us the most competitive agricultural company on the planet. sen. peters: line of site operations -- last month in a work for you is it?

mr. vanderwerff: it is a matter of if you are and the western united states where ground is relatively flat, line of sight is a long way. basically limited to how sharper i is. in michigan, line of sight may be only a few hundred feet before you have trees or other obstructions. that is where the gps capabilities of these technologies as mr. meissner was alluding to earlier are so relevant. being able to take your i/o pad ngo sense the field you want to fly and, swipe your finger to map out the pattern that you want to fly in, and it will fly that had earned and do the mapping. i can upload that data into my computer and have it right there. the idea that these can take off from my home farm and fly half a mile to another farm and do that mapping and return is exciting. the technology is there. if we are going to allow it to exist, i believe we can do it safely and we can do it

effectively, but that -- the technology of balls ever faster. sen. peters: thank you. ms. gilligan, the faa has granted 60 exemptions under section 333, which is granted for some of these precision agriculture operations as well as aerial photography. i understand that there are nearly 600 petitions pending. does the faa have a process to streamline this petition process similar to the ones that have argued in granted as we hear about unimportant applications for agriculture? ms. gilligan: today, we have issued 10 additional approvals in a process that we are calling a summary grant which means that we can look at an individual petition and if it is somewhere to one that we have already fully analyzed them put out for public comment, we do not need

turkey that process once again. we believe that will substantially increase our ability to handle these more quickly because we are seeing other buckets in which many of them fall. there are still very unique ones and we will have to go to a public comment and more complete analysis. but to the extent that we can we are trying to link new applications with decisions that we have argue made to streamline them. in addition, we issued what we are calling a certificate of authorization for airspace 200 feet and below. the applicant can operate and meet their mission from below 200 feet, they will not have to get additional approvals from the air traffic organization. that will also shorten the process. we have a dedicated team and their learning as they goes well good they are getting more efficient data as that would be the case. we are dedicated and the administrator has challenged us to move these petitions as quickly as we possibly can. sen. peters: that should help

our agriculture purposes. thank you very much. sen. booker: the white house drone -- was that a commercial vehicle? ms. gilligan: no was not. sen. booker: airplane problems that we have had with planes flying close -- was that a commercial vehicle? ms. gilligan: no. sen. booker: miss meissner, have any of the celestial exciting drone things happening because of amazon e? mr. misener: yes, sir. sen. booker: we need to distinguish between commercial operations and private use. we have a problem with private use and i was happy to see my colleagues bring up how to use. but the commercial use -- have you given issue and authority to fly over? ms. gilligan: now we have not. sen. booker: when it seems to government moving up this bead of innovation, light dialogic's

or a backlog of the patent offices, we are slowing this country where innovation is going on overseas at an extraordinary pace and we are being left behind. mr. vanderwerff, thank you very much. you talk about the revolutionary impact allowing drones to be used on agriculture. those revolutions are happening overseas, correctly ecco rightnow as we speak our competitors are using the technology. is that correct? mr. vanderwerff: yes, sir. sen. booker: it is hard to believe with the slowness this country is moving. if the avian is rate -- industry was regulated at the back of the time of the flight brothers, other people might have been flying commercial planes before we got the aviation industry

started here. mr. meissner, it is frustrating to me and i would love to know last week the faa allowed amazon to be testing these outdoors in the united states, but it was a really limited fashion that still puts us in america and the backseat compared to what you are allowed to do in other countries. and frankly, no mishaps no sensation articles, nothing like that is happening with the experiments that you all are doing to enhance this technology. is that correct? mr. misener: yes, sir. i believe the faa has turned the corner. i discussed this with miss geoghan before where things are getting better with respect intestate good within are getting better is respect of planning for the future. sen. booker: but the record show that you sufficiently sucked up to the faa. [laughter] sen. booker: they will look at your application kindly, sir. can you describe the work that amazon is doing in other countries in relation to what we are doing here? mr. misener: thank you, senator.

thank you for also noticing that. what we are doing about the countries is more flexible. we are allowed to innovate quickly and other countries in a way that we have not yet allowed here. the jury is still out on whether the system is set up onto the grants from last week will work. i think it will just because i feel like the faa staff is now motivated. there motivated to be helpful and to get us innovating again here in the country. it is just that we're not been able to do it yet and we are hopeful to do it very soon here. sen. booker: the faa has dedicated professional. i've no interest in saying nice things about the faa. incredibly committed folks and my comments are no way talking about them. in fact, i would say you have some constraints on how well you are able to move because both the faa and the industry agreed exceptions to the process are too slow and allows now applications for companies were

lucky enough to be granted exemptions. i'm asking you what steps can congress take in the faa reauthorization to strengthen your ability to shoe test -- to issue an subject broadly and in less time? ms. gilligan: i know that we are looking to take full advantage of whatever authority we have and maybe the committees need to broaden those. there is technical assistance already underway between our staff and staff here on the committee to look at these particular issues and see what more can be done. that will certainly continue to support the committee as we review those issues. sen. booker: can the faa quickly and currently issues exceptions for the industry to operate these the on the line of sight? ms. gilligan: we would have the authority to issue those exemptions if we can make the safety case. the challenge that we face with the on the visual line of sight is that we do not yet have the

technology standards to be able to evaluate whether in fact we have safe enough technology to permit that to occur. sen. booker: i just want to say to the chair that a lot of comments are being modeled and it would be great to have a private drone hearing because there are a lot of issues about anybody in the friends being able to go out into the drone and do things with it. but commercial folks have been acting responsibly within the law are really being held back to our open competitors. ms. gilligan: thank you, senator booker and i think he raised good points here in terms of some of the uses of the drones and making sure that we are clear on where the misuse is happening. i like to call in senator daines. sen. daines: thank you. i appreciate the comments and we are probably raising more questions and answers. i come from a state -- the state of montana -- that place is great value privacy. in fact, we might argue that we have different individual privacy expectations, perhaps

people in large urban areas that is why people like to live in states like montana. we have been talking with members of our state legislature who are interested in addressing these privacy concerns at the state level. for ms. gilligan, i think it probably relates to what is going on in the faa. i certainly commend the faa are taking action on the certification and the airworthiness aspect of these commercial unmanned systems and the promoters -- proposed rulemaking of systems. what i do have concerns about the privacy aspects. associated with remotely highlighted aircraft many of which are not being used commercial. that is what senator booker was this an emotion between commercial use and noncommercial use and therefore, not subjected to the proposed rulemaking. my question is -- does the faa think that there's an appropriate rule for local regulation of noncommercial or

hobbyist uses, and if so, what might they be? sen. daines: i'm not sure the faa has a position on local control. when 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 restraints. we have complied with that. we are working with the model or community to allow the use of what they call "unity standards." and the american waterways association is taking the lead and providing their members information about how they can properly operate safely and remain recreational users of this kind of technology. sen. daines: what is your opinion as a professional and knows a lot more about it than i do? you think there would be a role in allowing the states -- do you think it is a good idea to allow the states that have the ability to regulate the noncommercial use? sen. daines: we are always

concerned -- ms. gilligan: we are always concerned about regulations that affect the airspace system. we need a national asset in the airspace. those that operate broadly in this airspace 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 and how state or local entity might be able to carve something out to address modelers or to address recreational users. they may well be able to do it, but we want to look closely at how they did that. sen. daines: let me ask mr. vanderwerff here of the american farm bureau. certainly, i know a variety of folks preach the value of finding a lost cow. we have more cows than people back home which i'm grateful for. in your testimony, you question who owns or controls the data collected by an unmanned system. the example was a contractor flying a one-man system and being able to share or sell that

data with outside parties including the federal government, is chilling. what you think is the best means of regulating this data, and more importantly, how can we assure enforcement deco? mr. vanderwerff: thank you for the question, senator. what we speak about data privacy, i would refer to the overall stance as the american farm bureau in terms of our data privacy, we are concerned about what is being collected, who is potentially viewing it, whether it was the epa or third-party environmental groups, we believe that that data ultimately belongs to the farmer who created it and they should have the right to essentially determine who is able to use that data and for what purposes they would use it for. sen. daines: any thoughts on how we would ensure enforcement? mr. vanderwerff: i would refer

that to the full written comments that we will have these proposed rules that will be out and the next short time. i would have to get back to you on that specifically could sen. daines:. sen. daines: mr. morris, has been an ita explored how the ownership would be addressed? mr. morris jr.: we have put up a request for comment and i expect that one of the issues raised will be in ownership question. we are not in a position to affect the legal rule that actually put a fact ownership, but certainly in terms of looking at that best practices that address issues like the farmer, it is concerned about data, that certainly is a topic that will be discussed in our process. sen. daines: thank you. i'm out of time. sen. heller: madam chairwoman, thank you.

i want to thank all the witnesses for being here and i appreciate your expertise. i apologize for not being on time. myself and senator moran were in the v.a. committee. i apologize if my questions overlap a little bit. i like to address something that senator booker was talking about as far as agriculture is concerned, coming from afar myself. he failed to mention fertilizing also. maybe he did but all the things that you are talking about -- again, i want to stress our innovation that whether in european countries or asian countries are being used today. is that correct? mr. vanderwerff: that is correct.

sen. heller: we had a test recently with governor of one of these unmanned air systems. it was a wonderful experience to be a part of that test and to see what they're doing in that particular facility. here's the concern and i think it was well said by senator booker and that is that technology cannot be successful if it is hampered. by regulations, overburdened some, time-consuming approval processes, and that is the complaint that i'm hearing today. i guess i would ask ms. gilligan this question. no doubt there's privacy issues that you have to overcome and i give you credit the hard work that it is going to take to overcome that. but these first steps of just testing had become very, very restrictive. 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 and that is -- if the faa was not required by law to begin work on integrating drones into the national airspace, with the agency be working on it at all? ms. gilligan: yes, sir. we have applicants who want to fully certified their vehicles and those are in the los angeles office. we are building a set of standards that those vehicles need to meet. we have an exception process that anyone could've applied for to authorize operations in the airspace. we are as mindful as members of the committee that this is a growing and burgeoning industry and we do want to be able to support it, but we also want to make sure that we have identified if there are risks that could be introduced into the system and those are fully mitigated. sen. heller: i guess the concern is, and this is the feedback that i'm getting, being one of

the six states and the process who seems to inhibit testing as opposed to expanding it technology development here in the united states where other countries have already clearly move for -- far beyond what we have been able to do. let me give you a couple of examples. the hoops they have to jump through -- everyone -- every time they want to change design for the 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. there argument is that it doesn't foster innovation. i've came that kind of frustration. i'm going to give mr. meissner one more chance to push back on the faa. [laughter] sen. heller: 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 for the faa and you to do the work that you are trying to achieve? mr. misener: thank you, senator. i think it will take the recognition that these are different kinds of aircraft than the one they are used to dealing with. this is a little device that we would like to tweak things and move quickly and innovate. recall iteration within amazon and that means making the changes all the time and constantly improving and perfecting. we are almost at the spot with the faa that we can do that domestically. it is taking a long time to get here. my biggest concern is that we are not planning for that future in which drones will be able to fly beyond the visual line of sight with a high degree of elevation and are not planning like the europeans are. and we should be. sen. heller: my time has run out, but thank you. sen. booker: something a

president is -- unprecedented has happened where i'm now an authority of the hearing on drones. very exciting thing. i do have to say for the record that now that i am in charge that you are a pretty cool guy for someone who went to usc. [laughter] sen. heller: i will take it. sen. booker: i never thought i would agree with the trojan as much as i do as senator heller. i like to get to another round of questioning, but if i may begin, and i just want to finish up with a couple of questions on -- to associate administrator gilligan, if you may. can the faa make a commitment into looking into how we begin safely testing and researching the out of sight ability for u.s. to fly -- uafs to fly

yuriko that is my concern because the people i talked to says it puts a significant barrier to our ability to push the bounds of what is possible with this technology. ms. gilligan: the risk is that the vehicle itself cannot sense and avoid if it is in proximity to other aircraft. right now with unmanned system, we have a pilot in place of that role and we are looking at how we can replace that role for the unmanned system. the our tca is working with an industry group to design standards for cents to avoid. once we have a standards, we can put that for and determine how we can properly and safely extend those operations. sen. booker: in section 333, what mr. vanderwerff had said about on a large farm, no people and no other aircraft in the area, can you understand that an exception might be worthy for an agricultural purpose for the

risk of and in air collision where might be significantly, if not dramatically lower? i can imagine, mr. randall lord -- vanderwerff, that other countries are using other drones in agriculture. mr. vanderwerff: that is my understanding, yes. sen. booker: can you imagine the united states catching up to that? ms. gilligan: we might make the case for an exception, but we need to understand the other operations in the area. the u.s. has a very active general aviation community. we have a very active agricultural committee who has raised their own's concerns about the use of drones in the airspace they are operating as well. we do need to make sure what the risks are and that we are mitigating them properly. sen. booker: you just feel like the other countries like germany, france, new zealand -- they are all just being far more risky than the united states. they are taking unnecessary risks while the united states is much more cautious. ms. gilligan: i do not know if

they are taking on unnecessary risks, but they're are far less general aviation and their airspace. they have a much less complex as bae systems generally. there are risks are different from ours. i assume they are addressing those risks appropriately and we are doing the same. sen. booker: for areas of the country where we do not have a lot of crowded airspace like apple orchards of certain states, i know new jersey is not such a state, but there are some places out west. could you see them making a more speedy exception to those geographic areas where there is not complex and, especially at certain heights because i do not know the 150-250 airspace is that crowded and farms in say the midwest? ms. gilligan: we are using the exceptions for out of sight operations, but we need to

answer how that aircraft is going to be properly controlled and properly separated in the event that there is other aircraft. the reality is that we have a lot of what we call "itinerant aircraft." sen. booker: how would you answer that question yuriko ms. gilligan:? ms. gilligan: i do not know how they address that risk. sen. booker: we are not answering those questions, but they are. ms. gilligan: they are doing it differently than in the united states, sir, and i agree with that and we are looking at how we can continue to enhance the integration. sen. booker: i'm just going to continue then. many the people on the panel -- i would like to get more feedback from other panel members who have been studying the drones in use of regulatory structures. i've been very impressed with the technology abroad that i've talked about. i've seen examples of drone uses

deliver medication to difficult places to reach. they have been used to monitor and protect against animal poaching in africa and exciting ways. it uses fixed poles and lowers the risk of people who have to climb up on a live our poles. right here home, jerome's to monitor farm as we have been told -- drones are being used to monitor farms as we have been told. this is unbounded potential and we have a history in this country of embracing that potential. it has the ability to extremely accelerate productivity, lesson our environmental footprint, and enhance safety in this country and also has the chance to provide services that otherwise would not have impractical or affordable. -- not have impractical or affordable. when anybody else like to comment on the other applications for the technology?

mr. vanderwerff: i've a quick comment. i think it is important to recognize that the overall majority of private unmanned aircraft users are responsible and we all agree about the importance of innovation and many innovations five from 10 years and out are going to come from hobbyist today. i think it is important to recognize the need for that community as well while the same time adding zero-tolerance for behaviors that will close or dangerous. sen. booker: my time is expired but i think mr. heller would like to ask questions. sen. heller: thank you, mr. chairman. let the record show that the pac 12 has dominated the discussion today. i like to go back to you, miss gilligan. i believe the questions in the comments that are based from what i've heard and the committee is how to speed up the process.

would it make any sense for the faa to work with the six designated test sites to give them certificates of authorization of broader authority? something called a blanket? ms. gilligan: we are doing and that at a number of test sites. at the test site in nevada will they are the first test site that has a dead designated airworthiness representative who can issue experiment will certificates to anyone who would want to fly their unmanned system in that particular test site. we think that is another way to encourage manufacturers to bring. sen. heller: what does nevada have? ms. gilligan: we have initiated a program that allows test sites to it identify an individual -- sen. heller: is it a trainer r? ms. gilligan: in this case, not exactly.

they go through specific training that the faa is offering and they can 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, we are setting it up only for the test site so that there's 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 to enhance people taking advantage of what the test sites have to offer because we cannot get the data we need to better understand that the risks are and how to address them if we do not have people who are operating at the test sites. sen. heller: let me raise when other can -- question. they currently fly helicopters. they fly helicopters over populated areas as a way to report the news.

it is allowed by the faa if i'm not mistaken. i think most people agreed that these operations inform the public and it is all and it is all done to give them information, i would consider, in a timely fashion. u.s. operations perceived to pose a much less potential threat to people on the ground been helicopters do, perhaps provide even greater than if it in the field of newsgathering's than even helicopters currently do. however, the current proposed rules would damage is even nicera single person is on the ground. with the faa agreed to cover newsworthy events to inform the public? ms. gilligan: the reason we have not authorized uas over automated areas is the vehicles not designed to any standards

not tested against any standards, not manufactured against any process, as opposed to manned vehicles. right now we have to figure how we can properly mitigate the risk of the unmanned vehicle which does not need a defined level of safety, so we have required that it be kept away from people. we have asked for comment on that in the proposed rulemaking and through an agreement that we have with cnn, too able to operate their use of an unmanned system so that we can begin to learn more about how we might be able to better mitigate that risk. we agree with you that there is a good use for uas in a newsgathering environment, but at this point design and manufacturing standards are really not known to the faa, so it is hard for us to stand behind those. senator heller: so it is not a

problem with the idea. you do not have a problem with the idea. it is whether or not we get to a point in technology that a unit is worthy enough to fly over other human beings. ms. gilligan: that is or he accurate. if there were to be an accident with a uas overpopulated area the questions the committee would be asking -- how is it that we authorize that? we need to assure ourselves that we have done the safety analysis and that we have mitigated those risks before we can authorize that information. senator heller: thank you for your comment. mr. chairman, i am done. senator booker: i have been informed that we have to close the hearing. [laughter] i want to thank everybody for coming here. your testimonies have been invaluable, and i'm very grateful for that. it is exciting when you are on a new frontier of possibility and

opportunity for this country. it has been incredibly exciting when you have a technology that can help improve safety and expect economic opportunities with our country, but it has to be done right, has to be done with safety concerns addressed and privacy concerns addressed in this issue. i know we will do more together on this issue, but i want to express my gratitude for you all coming here. i will now setay that the hearing record will be open for two axles of senators are asked to submit any questions to the record. the respondents are requested to submit answers as soon as possible. with that, the hearing is now closed. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

announcer: this morning, afghan prisoner ashraf ghani address of the congress will suck you can see his comments live at 10:45 a.m. eastern here on c-span. fbi director james komi is on capitol hill today to testify about his department's 2016 department budget request will stop he appears before the house

appropriations subcommittee on justice live 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. announcer 2: here are some of our future programs this week and on c-span's book tv, author peter wallaceison says government housing policies caused the 2008 financial crisis. and as director of the earth institute at columbia university jeffrey sachs on an effort to combat poverty, corruption, and environmental dk. and sunday at -- and saturday at 10:30 a.m. eastern, a discussion on the last major speeches of abraham lincoln and martin luther king, junior. and then on "reel america," the

1965 "meet the press" interview with martin luther king, junior. call us at 202-626-3400, e-mail us at comments@c-span.org, or like us on twitter @cspan. announcer: tuesday, president obama announcement 9800 u.s. troops will remain in afghanistan through the end of 2015. this withdrawal delay was requested by afghanistan's president. he met with president obama at the white house. following the meeting, the two leaders held a joint news conference. at the start of the event, both leaders expressed condolences to germany and spain for the loss of life following a plane crash in the french alps. this is 50 minutes.

announcer: ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the president of the islamic republic of afghanistan. president obama: good afternoon, everybody. please have a seat. before i begin, i want to say that our thoughts and prayers are with our friends in europe especially the people of germany and spain, following a terrible airplane crash in france. it is particularly heartbreaking because it apparently includes the loss of so many children some of them infants. i called german chancellor merkel, and hope to speak to the president spain later today, to express the condolences of the american people and offer what

ever assistance we can as they investigate what has proven to be an awful tragedy. our teams are in close contact and we are working to confirm how many americans may have been on board. germany and spain are among our strongest allies in the world, and our message to them is that as their steadfast friend and ally, america stands with them at this moment of sorrow. now, it is a great pleasure to welcome president ghani to the white house. he spent time here as a student and scholar. he went to columbia university where we both studied, and then spent time in the world bank just down the street from here. his life reflects, in many ways, the friendship and mutual respect between americans and afghans.

in that spirit, mr. president, i want to extend to you the warmest of welcomes. president ghani's presence here today, along with the chief executive, underscores afghanistan's progress. in last year's election millions of afghans defied the threats of the taliban and bravely cast their ballots. in the spirit of compromise in putting their interests behind the interests of the nation, they have ensured the first peaceful and democratic transfer of power in afghanistan's history. together, they now lead a national unity government that reflects the diversity, the strength, and the determination of the afghan people. their government signed a bilateral treaty agreement between our two countries, and on december 31, after more than 13 years, america's combat mission in afghanistan came to a responsible end. afghan forces now have full responsibility for the security

across their country. some 330,000 afghans serve in the police and security forces and they are making extraordinary sacrifices, fighting and often dying for the country. they continue to grow stronger month by month. today, we honor the many afghans, men, women, and children, who have given their lives for the more than 2200 ir country. we salute the more than 2200 americans, patriots, who made the ultimate sacrifice in afghanistan, and the many more who were wounded. this morning, they visited arlington national cemetery to pay respects to our fallen heroes. we are grateful for that gesture of gratitude. we know it meant a lot to the families as well. we will see the bonds again between our people on display

when president ghani addresses congress tomorrow. with a new government in afghanistan, and with the end of our combat mission, this visitor is the opportunity to begin a new chapter between our two nations. i thank you both for your strong support of the partnership between our two nations. yesterday, they had a chance to spend time at camp david with our respective teams and had excellent discussions on how we can move forward together. today, guided by our strategic partnership, with focus on several areas. first, we agreed to continue keep in place our close security cooperation. afghanistan remains a very dangerous place.

insurgents still launch attacks, including cowardly suicide bombings against civilians. the president is pursuing reforms, including respect for human rights, and as part of the ongoing nato mission, the united states will continue to train, advise, and assist afghan security forces. as we announced yesterday, we will work with congress on funding to sustain 352,000 afghan troops and police through 2017. we will conduct targeted counterterrorism operations, and we agreed to maintain a dialogue on our counterterrorism partnership in the years ahead. at our peak four years ago, the united states had more than 100,000 troops in afghanistan. in support of today's narrow missions, we have just under 10,000 troops there. last year, i announced a timeline for drawing down our forces further, and i have made it clear that we are determined to preserve the gains that our troops have won.

the president has requested some ability on our timelines. i consulted with general campbell in afghanistan, national security team, i decided we will maintain our firm posture of 9800 troops through the end of this year. the specific trajectory of the 2016 drawdown will be established later this year to enable our final consolidation and embassy presence by the end of 2016. this flexibility reflects our reinvigorated partnership with afghanistan, which is aimed at making afghanistan secure and preventing it from being used to launch terrorist attacks. reconciliation and a political settlement remain the surest way to achieve the full drawdown of u.s. and foreign troops from afghanistan in a way that safeguards international interests and peace in afghanistan, as well as u.s. national security interests. second, and since the best way to ensure afghanistan's progress as a political settlement, we will continue to support an afghan-led reconciliation process.

president ghani, you have shown bold leadership in reaching out, which is critical to the pursuit of peace. afghanistan and the united states agree on what the taliban must do, to break with al qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by afghan laws, including the protections for women and minorities. third, we will continue to support the national unity government in its efforts to truly serve the afghan people. we discussed the urgent need with parliament support to seat a full cabinet. president ghani, and your inaugural address, you spoke forcefully about the need to combat corruption, uphold the rule of law and strengthen democratic institutions. the united states commends you for those efforts. you moved many afghans stands with your eloquent tribute to your wife and partner. america will continue to be your partner in advancing the rights and dignity are all afghans,

including women and girls. finally, we will continue to support the development that underpin stability and improves the lives of the afghan people. over the years, there have been major gains, dramatic improvements in public health, life expectancy, literacy, including for millions of girls in school. president ghani is a leading expert on development, and i've have been impressed by the reforms he is pursuing to make afghanistan more self-reliant he . he wants to empower afghans in these efforts, and that's why under the new development partnership we announced yesterday, u.s. economic assistance will increasingly go to afghan institutions in support of afghan priorities with an emphasis on accountability, performance, and achieving results. in closing, i would note that as many as you know, the president donnie is by trade an anthropologist, as is my mother. the purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe by human differences. afghanistan and our world is marked by incredible diversity

and differences in diversity, cultures and faith. , the progress we made during this it will help to bridge the gulf that your citizens have sacrificed over the year, the goal of making our two countries in the world sector. president donnie, chief executive of abdullah -- president ghani, chief executive of abdullah, thank you both for your leadership and your partnership. america's combat mission in afghanistan may be over, but our commitment to afghanistan and the people will endure. president ghani: president obama express deep sympathies for german and french families. both of these countries took part -- they have made major

commitments in their sacrifices in afghanistan. i would like to make this opportunity to pay tribute to those common sacrifices and simultaneously take the opportunity to pay tribute to the 2250 american men and women who make that sacrifice. more than 22,000 american soldiers have been wounded in action. civilians, contractors. you stood shoulder to shoulder with us, and i would like to say thank you. i would also like the thank the american taxpayer for his and her hard-earned dollars. yesterday, i saw a young girl. her father came out of retirement, out of reserves to serve again in afghanistan.

she is sending a care package of relief to her father, and i want to thank her and the fathers of all other american children who are making sure that their parents are helping us and standing next to us. i promise you have 3 million afghan sisters in school, and those sisters are dreaming of achievement that will have a career path, and hopefully one day we will see an afghan woman president. it should not be too far. it should be soon. we have four women in the cabinet. 20% of our cabin are women. i hope some other countries will match us. [laughter] we are intense and thank you

for that. she was delighted that she had an opportunity speak to mr. obama. she has devoted her life to the most underprivileged, and all of us are committed to make sure that those in poverty will live with dignity, and one day see not in the distant future, see prosperity. we are grateful for the reception you have accorded us mr. president. your national security team has gone out of its way to engage in intensive, comprehensive discussion, and both of us would like to thank secretary kerry for the loss of hours of sleep that we caused you.

and for your able diplomacy in catalyzing the unity that today is on display, a government of national unity as an enduring phenomenon, and both of us stand for the unity against the division that our opponents and enemies had hoped for. this unity is a reflection of the desired to overcome the last 200 years of our difficult history, where rarely public figures have chosen the country before themselves. we are committed in this regard to emulate the founding fathers and mothers of the united states, where national interests will stand about personal professional interests. or factional interests. i am glad that the security transition is completed. you have fulfilled your promise to your people. and we have fulfilled our promise to our people. afghans for a millennia have

guarded our homeland and have a reputation for service. the last years were an exception when we needed help, and we are grateful that help was provided, but we are pleased that the security transition has been met according to the timeline that you set. today, the combat role of the united states in afghanistan is over. the training, advising, and assisting mission is a vital part of our collective interests. tragedy brought us together. interests now unite us. we can assure you to the government of national unity is revitalizing the partnership and looks at this partnership with the united states as foundational, not just for afghanistan's stability, but for regional and global stability. much binds us together. and the flexibility that has

been provided for 2015 will be used to accelerate reforms, to ensure that the afghan national security forces are much better led, equipped, trained, and are focus on the fundamental mission. i am pleased to say that the departure of 120,000 international troops is not brought about the security gap or collapse that was often anticipated. i would like to pay tribute to this moment to the continued sacrifice of the afghan security forces, civilians, and a patriotic nation. our patriotism is part of of simultaneously our international

group. we are unique in that we have embraced democratic ways. we are very proud of our islamic civilization. that is truly in dialogue with the world. we have the capacity to speak truth to terror. they do not speak for islam. we do. it is a genuine islam that is interested in dialogue with different civilizations, in cooperation, and moving forward. on regional cooperation, we have taken both steps. we do hope these steps will be reciprocated, because the threats that exist, the changing ecology of terror, of making it imperative that all governments will cooperate with each other. today, the state system as we have known it is under attack. these are are not classic national liberation movements. these are destructive, nihilistic movements, and it is essential that we confront them. with vigor and determination

but we must differentiate between those afghan citizens who desire peace. any political difference anything that divides us must be resolved politically. and we have shown the wisdom and determination that we can arise at unity of purpose, so our commitment to peace is clear. what we require is the reciprocity so that afghan patriots will choose their country over themselves and unite in resolving whatever might be that divides us. we will not have peace with those who use our territory as a proxy for other purposes is a as a battleground for alien forces or as a launching pad for global terrorism.

this trip has provided us the opportunity to have an overview, and again, i want to express thanks for your commitment to submit the bill to congress to support our security forces in through 2017. there is much work that lies ahead of us, and the flexibility that has been provided will be used to maximum effect, to accelerate reforms, to ensure that our security forces honor human rights, that they internalize the practices that binds an army, police force, a secret service to the people. violence against our people has no place in our culture. we will overcome those types of legacies. it is again a pleasure to be standing next to a graduate of columbia university. [laughter] there is much that unites us.

your mother was an inspiration to us. i understand that the president of the world bank actually got the job because he invoked your mother's teachings. to convince you that an anthropologist could lead the world bank so thank you for a 40 him that opportunity. president obama: with that let's take a couple of questions. leo shake, "military times." reporter: thank you, mr. president. with the increased slow down and draw down here, we are looking at more risks, more danger for u.s. troops in afghanistan. have you justify that to them? -- how do you justify that to them? how do you tell them the mission is still worth it? how do you assure them that there is and end coming to this

mission? you were at arlington earlier today. how do you tell them that this continued sacrifice will be worth it to them as well? president obama: first of all, it is important, leo, that we remember the timeline for a withdrawal down to an embassy centered presence, a normalization of our presence in afghanistan. it remains the end of 2016. that has not changed. our transition out of a combat role has not changed. now, i am the first to say that as long as our men and women in uniform are serving in afghanistan, there are risks involved. it is a dangerous place. casualties have come down precipitously as we have engaged in the drawdown. it has been over 90 days since

two americans were killed in afghanistan. that has occurred precisely because we are not in a combat role, and i think it is worth noting the significant casualties that the afghan security services have incurred as we have drawn down. they stood up and are fighting. they are fighting with courage and tenacity, and they are getting better month by month. but, you can't minimize the sacrifices that our military families make. it means some folks are going to be rotating back into afghanistan for a few extra months, relative to what would have otherwise been the case . we are essentially moving the drawdown pace over to the right for several months.

we doing that in part to compensate for the lengthy period of government formation. in part because we want to make sure that we are doing everything we can to help afghan security forces succeed, so we don't have to go back. so we don't have to respond in an emergency because terrorist activities are being launched that of afghanistan. -- out of afghanistan. we are on the path to do that. i think it makes sense for us to provide a few extra months for us to be able to help things like logistics, making sure that equipment is not just in place but it is also used properly that the training and advising and strategic input that has been provided continues through this fighting season so that president karzai, who has taken on the mantle of

commander-in-chief in a way that we have not seen an afghan president, can do a serious review, and can assess with your where the strengths and weaknesses are, and we can proceed with more affected joint planning going forward. the bottom line is, our men and women in uniform make enormous sacrifices. their families do, too. they serve alongside them. this will mean that there are going to be some of our folks who are in afghanistan under the new schedule who would've been home. it is important to keep into perspective first of all that we have gone down from 100,000 down to under 10,000, that they are not on the front lines, because are not in a combat role. we are doing all that we can do to make sure that force protection is a priority for those who are in afghanistan. and, the date for us to have completed our drawdown will not change.

but, it is my judgment, it is the judgment of general campbell and others on the ground, that providing this additional time frame during this fighting season for us to be able to help the afghan security forces succeed is well worth it. in that sense, once again we are asking our men and women in uniform to fight on behalf of our freedom and on behalf of a more orderly world. it does perhaps raise one thought, which is right now there is a debate on capitol hill about budgets. this would be a good time for my friends up on capitol hill including on the other side of the aisle, to take a look at their budgets. if we are holding our defense and nondefense budgets to 2006 levels, it is a lot harder to do

the job that we need to do, not only on the national security side, but also here at home, making sure that when our men and women come home and when they potentially go into civilian life, that they have a strong economy, that the kids have good schools, that they can send their kids to college, that they get the veterans benefits that they have so richly earned and deserve. that would be a good way for us to express the thanks for the sacrifices they consistently make. president ghani: i met yesterday, the widow of general greene. she would like the memory of her husband to be preserved by a sustainable afghanistan that is secure.

the 2015 americans who have died, must not die in vain. it is that preservation of those gains that i think inspires the american servicemen and women to obey the call of their commander, the order of their commander. second, we have taken them out of harms way. as the president mentioned, for the past 100 days, because the combat role has ended, the exposure, the number of casualties is really down. in my most horrible reading of the day, is the middle of the day and end of day security reports, where i see the casualties.

i think they are no longer american or european casualties. john campbell is making sure that they remain in a support role, advise and assist role but they are not in a combat role. the end of the combat role is significant. again, the institutional gains that would be achieved through the training, advice, and assist roles is what will guarantee the investments of the last 14 years pay off in terms of gains that will ensure. last point, afghanistan is the front line. because of american engagement in afghanistan, there have not been attacks on mainland united states but let's not forget that , fortresses cannot be built. around countries or continents. we are living in an interconnected world, and our

security is joined together. reporter: daily newspaper. president obama, you are talking about the long-term strategy partnership between afghanistan and the united states. at the same time, you are talking about the withdrawal of the soldiers from afghanistan. how do you ensure the long-term , how do you define the long-term strategic partnership after 2017? president ghani, what are your citations coming to the united states, and what would you like to return with? president ghani: our expectations are that our

cooperation will be enhanced, and we will have a clear vision and practical vision for cooperation for an enduring cooperation with the united states. this change of environment has occurred, and today, the nine united states is a really reliable partner. commitments that are made are considerable. the funding proposal of supporting afghan security forces by 2017, and it has reached $4.1 billion. it is nothing less. it is a significant issue. it is a very important issue. yesterday, there was a new framework for our economic

cooperation laid out. $800 million commitment will be made 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 funds to our security forces, and also is going to send a very strong message to the region that this cooperation is not short-term, but is enduring and long-term. president obama: 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. 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 in afghanistan to shift momentum at a time when the taliban and the enemies of peace and stability inside of afghanistan were moving and had momentum. we broke that momentum. elections took place. the afghan national security forces began to build up and get trained and become more and more effective. because of a successful election and a national unity government and the leadership of president ghani and dr. abdullah we are now in a

position where the afghan security forces are not only more effective but they are also better directed by the civilian government. we have been able to draw down and remove ourselves from a combat role, as president ghani indicated, without collapse as was predicted. afghan soldiers have fought, and they have fought well, and obviously there are still improvements to be made, but they are making significant progress. the strategic partnership involves us continuing to help support afghan security forces. that means financially. the international community will have to continue to provide assistance to the afghan government, which is carrying a significant security load for not only for itself, the region, and also the world. we made a commitment to do that. we will continue to provide the kind of security, cooperation, and support that is required training, assisting, advising,

helping on logistics, helping on the capacity, all the things that go into a modern military a professional military, a professional police force, the at can provide security on afghan soil, by afghans, and the cooperation and strategic partnership involved in building up the prosperity and opportunities for the afghan people that was mentioned by the afghan president. so, we intend to be working with the afghan government and the afghan people for a long time. in many ways, our troop presence, our military assistance, is just one component of what is a much larger process. the more successful we are in building afghan capacity strengthening the afghan economy, the more the strategic

partnership that we have will be like the partnership we have with many countries around the world. it will be based on mutual interests and scientific and educational exchanges, and business opportunities, and commerce and trade. that i think is a goal that we are all looking for. josh letterman. josh letterman: thank you, mr. president could you have made clear that you are not buying prime minister netanyahu's to attempt to walk back the comments he made before the election and that you are reassessing your approach. what could prime minister netanyahu do that is serious about peace and that he is a broker that you can work with? or is it too late to fix that during your presidency?

is there any truth allegations that israel was spying on the iran talks? president ghani, if i may, you have been working hard to pursue reconciliation talks with the taliban, but there are some indications that that is not going well and that they may not be willing to sit down with you. what makes you a little that you can get those talks out the ground, and do you want united states to be involved in those talks? president obama: let me address your second question about spying allegations. as a general, i don't comment on intelligence matters in a big room full of reporters. [laughter] i think i will continue that tradition. but, with respect to the possibility of an agreement that ensures that iran does the get a nuclear weapon, we have not just briefed congress about the progress or lack thereof that is being made, but we also briefed

the israelis and our other partners in the region and around the world. if 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. people are going to be able to lift up the hood and see what is in there. so, i have confidence that if there is an agreement, it will be a good agreement that is good for american security and israeli security and the region's security. if it isn't, there probably won't be an agreement. there will be significant transparency in the whole process. with respect to israel's relations with the palestinians. i think it is important to understand that the issue here

is not what i believe, but it is what the palestinians and the parties in the negotiations and the israeli people believe is possible. that is the most important issue. i have said before and i will simply repeat -- 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 is what he meant, and i think that a lot of voters inside of israel understood him to be saying that fairly unequivocally. afterwards, he pointed out that he did not 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 anytime soon. so, even if you accept it, i think the corrective of prime minister netanyahu and 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 we somehow have a

palestinian state right next to jerusalem, and that israel would not have a whole range of security conditions that had to be met, and that would be phased in over a long period of time. the issue has never been -- do you create a palestinian state overnight? the question is -- do you create a process of an framework against the palestinians' hope, the possibility, the down the road they have a secure state of their own, standing side-by-side with the secure and fully recognized jewish state of israel? and, i think it is not just my estimation. 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 is 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. i will continue to do what ever i need to do to make sure that our friends in israel are safe. that is what i have done since i have been president. that is not going to stop. 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. 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 reactions by the palestinians, that in turn illicit counterreactions by the israelis. that could end up leading to a downward spiral of relations that will be dangerous for everybody. so, there is a bottom line to summarize. number one, our military intelligence cooperation with israel will continue unabated,

unaffected, and we are committed to making sure that the israeli people are sick, particularly from rocket attacks and terrorist attacks aimed on civilians. number two, that the evaluation that is taking place is specific to what happens between israelis and palestinians going forward. we will continue to engage the israeli government, as well as the palestinians, and ask of them where they are interested in going, and how they see this issue being resolved. but, what we can't do is pretend that there is a possibility of something that is not there. 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 that we have to, for the sake of our own credibility, i think we have to be honest about that. one last point, because obviously i've heard a lot of the commentary. there is a tendency in the reporting here to frame this somehow as a personal issue between myself and prime minister netanyahu. i understand why that is done, because when you are framing it in those terms, the notion is that we all just get along and everybody cools down, and then somehow the problem goes away. i have a very businesslike relationship with the prime minister. i have met with him more than any other world leader. i talk to him all the time. he is representing his country's interest the way that he thinks he needs 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 is our view, and that continues to be our view. prime minister netanyahu has a different approach. and so, this can't be reduced to a matter of somehow let's all hold hands and sing. this is a matter of figuring out how we get through a very difficult policy difference that has great consequences for both countries and for the region.

reporter: [inaudible] president obama: we are going to do that evaluation. we will wait for an actual israeli government to form. president ghani: president obama has graciously supported what we asked from the united states to this united states. peace is always difficult. we must focus attention, and that's what we are willing to do. peace is always difficult.

reporter: thank you very much, mr. president. i have a question for mr. obama. you mentioned afghanistan is a dangerous place. meanwhile, forces cannot fight truly. mr. president, my question is, the peace process, what was your initial request for the united states president? president ghani: the united states has agreed with us that the peace process will be led afghans, and afghans will continue this process, and they will be led by afghans, and we are thankful for this support.

president obama: afghanistan is still a dangerous place. the way it will become less dangerous is by afghan security forces and afghan police being capable of keeping law and order and security in the country. that is not going to happen if foreign forces are continually relied upon. for the basic security of afghanistan. so there are going to be specialized areas where we can cooperate in dealing with some of the most vicious terrorist networks. there will 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.

the fact is that unless afghan soldiers and afghan police are able to maintain security, at point someday, the united states and other coalition forces would leave. and the good news is that what we have seen as we have moved ourselves from combat roles is that afghan security forces have stepped up. although they are certainly not as well-equipped as coalition forces, they are better equipped than the taliban. they are better equipped than the haqqani network. with the kind of leadership that president ghani is showing us as commander-in-chief with the leadership that is being shown

by a growing cadre of military officers up and down the military chain, afghan forces are proving themselves and discovering that in fact when they fight, they can be successful. we want to stand with them in that process because we are very much invested in your success. mr. president, thank you for an outstanding visit. president ghani: thank you. announcer: ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seats until president obama, president ghani, and the delegations have departed. thank you. >> wednesday, afghan president ashraf ghani will address a joint meeting of congress on

. you can see his remarks live from the u.s. house of representatives at 10:45 a.m. eastern time here on c-span. today, a look at the future of the u.s. postal service. the brookings institution hears from the acting chairman of the current u.s. postal service inspector general live, 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. fbi director james komi is on capitol hill today to testify about his department's 2016 budget request. he appears before the house appropriations subcommittee on justice, live, 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> here are some of our featured programs this week on the c-span networks for stop on c-span2's book to be, saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on "after words,"

author peter wallison says government housing policies caused the financial crisis and it could happen again. and director of the earth institute at columbia university jeffrey sachs on a development plan to counter global issues like poverty corruption, and environmental decay. saturday morning at 10:30 eastern on american history tv on c-span3, discussion on the last major speakers of abraham lincoln and martin luther king junior. then sunday afternoon at 4:00 on "reel amerco," the 1965 "meet the press" interview with martin luther king, junior. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 202-626-3400, e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a tweet @cspan, #comments. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> live today on c-span,

"washington journal" is next. at 10: 5:00 a.m. -- at 10:45 a.m., the house and senate hold a joint congress were addressed by afghan president ashraf ghani. later when the house reconvenes, members consider candor -- members consider the amendments to the 2016 gop budget proposal in a minutes to the bill. coming up in 45 minutes congressman frank lobiondo of new jersey is here to discuss the war powers debate in the u.s.-isis strategy. at 830 a.m., congressman tim ryan of ohio, a member of the budget and appropriations committees talk about the health debate of the 26th eop budget proposal -- of the 2016 gop budget proposal. and at night 15 a.m. eastern, a look at the fiscal health of state and the impact of

washington in state budgets. our guest star david miller, the tennessee state >> i have decided that we will maintain our current posture of 9800 troops through the end of this year. host: president obama standing beside the afghan president. this comes after every was from the afghan president to remain in the country to ensure the region does not become a safe haven for terrorists. he will address a joint meeting of congress this morning.