20,000 more than we do in the u.s. 70,000. so if we -- if mexico would allow those 92,000, border patrol would have been dealing with those folks a lot more. so, mr. chairman, i do understand that we have issues in mexico. there's no if's and but's. we need to work with them. construction costs, i agree, i think they're a little high. we can work on that. closing the consulates, bad mistake. danger pay, mr. chairman, i talk about that, there are places that i think we need danger pay. to all the witnesses, thank you so much for all the good work u do gentlemanecognize the . mr. grothman: there are

countries like honduras or others that have two times the murder rate of mexico but mexico does have a high murder rate. i think it's about four time, over four times the american rate. five times -- four times the american rate. i wonder if some of you could the differences in some cities compared to other cities and whether you think it is right now particularly dangerous in these cities with the higher the differences in rates themselves. >> sir, i think the embassy in mexico city and the different types of agencies that are represented there -- mr. starr: and the different -- mr. starr: and the different agencies represented there have different types of violence. that fuels a lot of murder rates.

as we said earlier, 25 million americans visit mexico every single year. very few of those people have any type of problem there. you know, tourism is a very big dizz. -- is a very big business. we're acutely aware of certain places where the drug cartels, one is trying to take over another, or there's a split in the organization. that's what happened in mat morose last year, essentially. the violence can certainly spike. i think we do try to differentiate between those places where the violence is going up and make sure that's reflected in our warnings and tell people that. i think we try to be accurate about what the real threats are to americans there and give them the general idea but it is not a level of violence that is all over mexico. it is in different cities and primarily where the drug traffickers are contesting territory. >> do we have a facile -- a facility in acapulco?

mr. starr: we have a consular agency, not a consulate, but a consular agent. >> that's an example of -- mr. grothman: is that like some american cities where overall it's dangerous but a lot of areas are ok? that's one just pulling it up that, i think the murder rate is three times that of milwaukee where i'm from and that's not a ery well run city. do you feel our people are safe in a city like that? if you stick in the right areas? or sit -- >> we provide gadeance in our travel guide by state and by city. ms. saarnio: if we know of a

particular type of violence that's going to occur, we issue a warning. so i think -- we think it's manageable but we do have to monitor the situations and we have to monitor the risks and take measures to mitigate against those risks when they happen. mr. grothman: just by point of reference, of all the americans working in mexico right now, who work for the american government, how many work there overall and how many have been victims of some sort of crime in the last year? ms. saarnio: we have 2,00 employees, including local staff as well. i don't have a number for how many have been involved in minimal. i -- it's >> i think since 2010, we've had wo americans that were killed. since 19 -- ms.

saarnio: since 1985. mr. grothman: we've had about two murders in the last 30 year is what you're saying, with just under 3,000 employees? thank you. i yield the rest of my time. >> i thank the gentleman, a few kind of tie-up questions and we'll with done here ambassador mose for the mexico city, the last number we have is in the new embassy, we were planning on 1,335 desks, costs had con from the original estimate of $577 to $943 million. n the ad-- any adjust -- any adjustments in those are -- or are those the numbers you're working? mr. moser: those are correct. the $550 million we initially reported did not include site

acquisition cost. the real divens is about 700 versus 900 and that reflect this is 40% growth in staffing. mr. chaffetz: and these are real dollars. we spend dollars here, we're pulling money out of american people's pockets to give toyota somebody else. the concern is, you have a $200 million growth there. we're looking at roughly just hy of $250 million for the building, the construction of mat ror -- mat morros and the uevo laredo facility -- mata nuevo laredo. mr. moser: i, too, am very, very concerned about the cost of the facilities. we are always focused on the cost. but it is true that it does take more money per capita, or per

desk, to build a smaller facility than it does a large one. because as i've said, the first point of all of this is your requirement. what you have to do. and it's easier to expand the building and make it bigger to get a per desk charge than it is. mr. chaffetz: monterey, same country, in monterey, $179 million for 199 desk bus 123 desks, $300 million. can you name any situation where the cost has gone down? mr. moser: yes, sir. there are places where it's surprisingly inexpensive. mr. chaffetz: where's the place where the cost estimate went down where you came in under budget or on budget. mr. moser: i'll have to get back to you.

mr. chaffetz: the reason we continue focusing on this, every single thing we've done, since the time i was elected, since the president took office at the same time, every facility has gone up. we didn't come up with the estimates, the state department did. new we're seeing double digit percentage growth by billions of dollars. let me keep going. we are trying to wrap this up. in the nuevo laredo, when i went and visited the site, beautiful site, i can understand the site, proximity to laredo texas. i do believe they need a new facility, the one they're in currently is old. but on that site there were living quarters that were potential living quarters for the consulate general. the recommendation from the people on the ground who are working there was to keep that facility. and yet the o.b.o. said no, we're not going to keep that facility and they destroyed it.

i have questions on the followup as to why it was destroyed, why didn't it meet the specifications? and number two, have have you figured out and determined where the consulate general is going to live in nuevo laredo. mr. moser: that's a good line of inquiry. in that instance, we had a smallish site, a little less than five sakers. in order for taos situate our building on the site and have all the required setbacks and required security requirements that we would have to have, according to our overseas security standards that we had to demolish the existing residence on the site. now, where will that person go? we will obtain appropriate housing for the principal officer. and that's what we do in countries all over the world. mr. chaffetz: here's the concern. the cost has grown. it's under construction, the site has been -- but this is a -- there are only 88 desks.

it's a smaller facility. the consulate general and his facilities and his ability or her ability to conduct work on behalf of the united states is pivotal. and here we are, into september of 2015, and you have you all haven't figured out where he's going to live. it's a pretty big, important question. mr. moser: he does have a residence now. mr. chaffetz: yes, on the old compound. but he had to travel, we had 30 armed goords when i did, escort us from one facility to the next facility. had to have the mexican national guard leads any a convoy with rather large guns and what not ready to go at any moment. it's a dangerous situation. so i just don't understand why we're this far into it because there's going to be a cost and $154 million k at that doesn't include the site acquisition or development or

purchase of something for the consulate general, does it? mr. moser: no, sir, it doesn't. mr. chaffetz: have you informed congress this number is shy of what it needs to be? mr. moser: we usually fund principal officers residences out of our leasehold account and we do have a dialogue with our appropriators about how much these individual residences cost. mr. chaffetz: it's amazing that you get down there and see there's no plan and no, other than, hey, we're going to continue to look at it. to suggest that they took 10 years to try to find a facile toy locate the mexico city embassy, that's an embarrassment. 10 years. mr. moser: to find a big enough site to put a facility that accomplishes the diplomatic goals -- mr. chaffetz: you bought a site that's government and by the mexican government it's so toxic you can't build there and there

are hundreds of people that are going to suffer and live in inadequate working quarters, again, i want to try to wrap up here. -- will the new danger pay when will this new program be implemented? has it been announced? mr. moser: it has been announced, sir, i'll turn that over to my colleagues. mr. chaffetz: when will that take place? mr. starr: the announcements went out to the post last week. congressman i appreciate how much you're concerned about the danger pay. i can have staff come up and work with your taff staff to explain how we how we do this. mr. chaffetz: you and i tried it in a classified setting and it didn't go well. mr. starr: no, sir, we had our differences. mr. chaffetz sock so this is not

a new topic. mr. starr: if we could show you how we actually look at each post, what the ratings are. mr. chaffetz: i look forward to seing that formula. for those men and women who work in mexico, who have loved ones that are here in the united states, and their husband or wife or sibling or whoever, daughter, whatever, is working in mexico, and their pay just got cut, you can look at the obama administration, you can look at secretary kerry and you can look to that organization because it wasn't us republicans. don't tell us you were tight on budget. mr. starr: this was not about cutting benefits mr. chaffetz: they did get -- r. starr: matamoros went up. mr. chaffetz: are there people working in mexico earning less than they did before? mr. starr: yes. mr. chaffetz: can they walk out

of their building in nuevo laredo. mr. starr: they can walk out of there, and be in a wal-mart or a dairy queen in minutes. i look at our security every single day there is nobody that is more concerned with the security of our people overseas than i am. their allowances -- mr. chaffetz: i don't agree with you. i have been there, i talked to those people. don't tell me, don't get on your high horse, you just cut their pay. i didn't do that. you did. when i went down there, i didn't know this was an issue. they brought it up. and we sat them down in the room , it's not safe. when i talked to people there, working in that facility, it's so dangerous they can't go outside. mr. starr: i start every single day looking at the threats to our people worldwide. mr. chaffetz: and you're getting mexico wrong. you're getting mexico wrong. mr. starr: i'll bring staff up and we'll work wo you.

mr. chaffetz: i can tell you, i have been there i have looked at the statistics, i have talked to the people there, you cut their pay and i think it's wrong, i think people on both sides of the aisle think it's wrong. it was petty, it was not useful, it was not productive, it's cut morale, it was unnecessary, and i think it should be changed. i really do. i really do. it's not for a lack of appropriations, it's the management of the state department. that's the question. we're going to continue to work on that. there are a lot of other issues. i do believe we have to engage in meaningful immigration reform. there has to be a legal, lawful way to get here. if you don't fix legal immigration, you're never going to solve this problem. one of the issues we need to work on is asylum reform. i have an asylum reform bill. in conclusion, i cannot thank the men and women, particularly of the border patrol, for all they do and the good, hard work they do. i have been down there, it was one of my joys to go out with the aho district, you

could sit there all day long and watch the coming across and these people apprehend them in a professional manner. it's hard, very dangerous work. can't thank them enough for the good work that the people do in customs and border patrol. e.r.o. has an exceptionally difficult mission. i.c.e. is doing important work. there are good people doing work all across the board. and my point, sir, is that those people working in the state department, they, too, have a vital mission. and it's just unacceptable to us, just mind boggling, that they would knowingly and willingingly cut their pay, telling them it's more safe when there are conditions there that are not conducive, to say that they can go across the border to get to a dairy queen, that doesn't cut it. that's not acceptable. with that, i appreciate all of you for participating today.

i think it was a good hearing. this hearing stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> the chairman and ranking member of the house intelligence committees, representative devon nunes and representative adam schiff talk about their subcommittee. see their remarks at a national security conference tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. our "road to the white house" coverage of presidential candidates continues saturday morning with a new hampshire democratic party convention live from manchester. speakers include five presidential canned dats, former secretary of state hillary clinton, vermont senator others. nders, and

live saturday at 9:30 a.m. on c-span, c-span radio and -span.org. >> setting the stage for c-span's new upcoming series, landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions, the national a stitution center hosts panel on the cases we have decided to focus on. panelists include akhil emir. neal katyal, and senior federal judge michael baylson. moderated by jeffrey rosen, national constitution center president and c.e.o. live wednesday starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders delivered remarks at liberty university in lynchburg, virginia. he was introduced by jerry falwell jr. and engaged in a question and answer session nod rated by david nasr.

>> they do that chant a lot better than you do. we're so honored and humbled to welcome a special guest this morning in senator bernie sand ers, the democratic senator from vermont. [cheers and applause] the democratic candidate for president of the united states. senator sanders we made room far lot of your supporters locally

here on the front row so you've got a flan club here. but we -- in 2006, senator sanders was elected to the u.s. senate for the first time after serving for 16 years as the sole congressman from vermont and he went on to be re-elected in 2012. he was born in brooklyn, new york. he attended brooklyn college and the university of chicago. he later moved to vermont where he became a documentary filmmaker and carpenter and in 1981, he was elected mayor of burlington, vermont, by 10 votes. he was -- under his leadership, he helped transform burlington into one of the most exciting and livable cities in the nation. under his administration, the city made strides, major strides in affordable housing, environmental protection, child care, youth programs and the rts.

he has been called a tract call and successful legislator. he was dubbed the amendment king in the house of representatives for passing more amendments than anyone else in congress. he lives in burlington, vermont, now and people have been asking since david came to me and told me senator sanders had agreed to speak at liberty and i said, that's great. people have been asking, are you going to be able to find common ground with the senator. i think i did. i think this morning, senator anders if you'd come up. i think in the future he is going to be a fan of the liberty flames. cheers and applause] so, we've already found some common ground, i hope. senator sanders, we welcome you to liberty university and are

humbled and honored that you have come in and please give him a warm welcome. [cheers and applause] senator sanders: thank you. president falwell. david. thank you very much for inviting my wife, jane and i to be with you this morning. we appreciate the invitation very much. let me start off by acknowledging what i think all of you already know. that is the views that many here at liberty university have and i on a number of important issues. -- of important issues are very, very different.

i believe in women's rights and the right of a woman to control her own body. [cheers and applause] i believe in gay rights and gay marriage. cheers and applause] those are my views and it is no secret. but i came here today because i believe from the bottom of my heart that it is vitally important for those of us who hold different views to be able to engage in a civil discourse. cheers and applause] too ouven in our country, and i

think both sides bear responsibility for this, there is too much shouting at each other, there is too much making fun of each other. now in my view, and i say this as somebody whose voice is hoarse because i have given dozens of speeches in the last few months, it is easy to go out and talk to people who agree with you. i was in greens breaux, north arolina, just last -- i was in greensboro, north carolina, just last night. we had 9,000 people out and they agreed with me. tonight, i'll be at another location where they mostly agree with me. that's what politicians do. we go out and talk to people who agree with us. but it is harder, but not less important, for us to try and communicate with those who do

not agree with us on every issue. and it is important to see where, if possible, and i do believe it's possible, we can ind common ground. now liberty university is a religious school, obviously. [applause] and all of you are proud of that. [applause] you are a school which, as all of us in our own way, tries to understand the meaning of

morality, what does it mean to live a moral life? and you try to understand in this very complicated modern world that we live in, what the words of the bible mean in today's society. you are a school which tries to teach its students how to behave with decency and with honesty, and how you can best relate to your fellow human beings. and i applaud you for trying to achieve those goals. [applause] t me take a moment, or a few moments, to tell you what motivates me in the work that i do as a public servant, as a

senator from the state of vermont. and let me tell you that it goes without saying, i am far from being a perfect human being, but i am motivated by a vision which exists in all of the great religions, christianity, judaism, islam, buddhism, and other religions. that vision is so beautifully and clearly stated in matthew 7:12, and it states "so in everything do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets." that is the golden rule.

do unto others what you would have them do to you. s that the golden rule and it is not very complicated. let me be frank. as i said a moment ago, i understand that the issues of abortion and gay marriage are issues that you feel very strongly about. we disagree on those issues. i get that. but let me respectfully suggest that there are other issues out there that are of enormous consequence to our country and in fact to the entire world, that maybe, just maybe, we do not disagree on. and maybe, just maybe, we can try to work together to resolve them. [applause]

let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never failing stream. justice, treating others the way we want to be treated. treating all people, no matter their race, their color, their stature in life, with respect and with dignity. [applause] now here is my point. some of you may agree with me, and some of you may not. but in my view, it would be hard for anyone in this room today to

make the case that the united states of america, our great country a country which all of us love, it would be hard to make the case that we are a just society, or anything resembling a just society today. [applause] in the united states of america today there is massive injustice in terms of income and wealth inequality. injustice is rampant. we live, and i hope all of you know this, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. but most americans do not know that.

because almost all of that wealth and income is going to he top 1%. [applause] that is the truth. we are living in a time -- and i warn all of you if you would, put this in the context of the bible, not me, in the context of the bible -- we are living in a time where a handful of people have wealth beyond comprehension, and i'm talking about tens of billions of dollars. enough to support their families for thousands of years. with huge yachts and jet planes and tens of billions. more money than they would ever now what to do with. but at that very same moment,

there are millions of people in our country, let alone the rest of the world, who are struggling to feed their families. they are struggling to put a roof over their heads, and some of them are sleeping out on the streets. they are struggling to find money in order to go to a doctor hen they are sick. now when we talk about morality, and when we talk about justice, we have to, in my view, understand that there is no justice when so few have so much nd so many have so little. [applause]

there is no justice, and i want you to hear this clearly, when 1%, the /10 of 1%, not top 1/10 of 1%, today in america owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. and in your hearts, you will have to determine the morality of that and the justice of that. in my view, there is no justice when here in virginia and vermont and all over this country millions of people are working long hours for abysmally low wages of $7.25 an hour, of $

an hour, $9 an hour. working hard but unable to bring in enough money to adequately feed their kids. 58% t at that same time, of all new income generated is going to the top 1%. you have got to think about the morality of that, the justice of that, and whether or not that is what we want to see in our country. in my view, there is no justice when in recent years, we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires while at the same time the united states of america has the

highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth. how can we? i want you to go into your hearts, how can we talk about morality, about justice, when we turn our backs on the children of our country? [applause] now you have got to think about it, and you have to think about it and you have to feel it in your guts. are you content? do you think it's moral that 20% ,f the children in this country the wealthiest country in the history of the world are living in poverty? do you think it is acceptable

that 40% of african-american children are living in poverty? in my view, there is no justice and morality suffers. when in our wealthy country millions of children go to bed ungry. that is not morality. and that in my view is not what america should be about. [applause] n my view, there is no justice when the 15 -- 15 wealthiest people in this country in the last two years, two years, saw

their wealth increase by $170 billion. two years. the wealthiest 15 people in this country saw their wealth ncrease by $170 billion. my friends, that is more wealth acquired in a two year period han is owned by the bottom 130 million americans. and while the very, very rich become much richer, millions of families have no savings at all. nothing in the bank. and they worry every single day that if their car breaks down, they cannot get to work and if

they cannot get to work, they lose their job. and if they lose their job they do not feed their family. in the last two years, 15 people saw $170 billion increase in their wealth. 45 million americans live in poverty. that in my view is not justice. that is a rigged economy, designed by the wealthiest people in this country to benefit the wealthiest people in this country at the expense of everybody else. [applause]

mr. sanders: in my view, there is no justice when thousands of americans die every single year because they do not have any health insurance and do not go to a doctor when they should. i have talked personally to doctors throughout vermont and physicians around the country. without exception, they tell me there are times when patients walk into their office very, very sick and they say, why didn't you come in here when you're sick? and the answer is, i do not have any health insurance or i have a high deductible or i thought the problem would get better. and sometimes it doesn't, and ometimes they die because they lack health insurance. that is not justice. that is not morality. people should not be dying in the united states of america when they are sick. [applause]

what that is is an indication that we are the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. and i think we should change that. [applause] and i think -- i think that when we talk about morality, what we are talking about is all of god's children, the poor, the wretched, they have a right to go to a doctor when they are sick. [applause] you know there is a lot of talk in this country from politics

about family values. you've all heard that. let me tell you about a family value. in my view, there is no justice when low income and working-class mothers are forced to separate from their babies one or two weeks after birth, and go back to work because they need the money that their jobs provide. i know everybody here, we all are, maybe in different way, but all of us believe in family values. jane and i have four kids. we have seven beautiful grandchildren. we believe in family values. but it is not a family value

when all of you know that the most important moments in time of a human being's life is the first weeks and months after that baby is born. that is the moment when mother bonds with the baby, gets to love and know her baby, and dad is there as well. that is what a family is about. hose of you, at least those of you who are parents -- more parents up here than back there, i suspect -- you know what an unforgettable moment that is. and i want you to think whether you believe it is a family value that the united states of america is the only, only major country on earth that does not provide paid family and medical leave. [applause]

now in english, what that means is that all over the world, when a woman has her baby, she is guaranteed the right, because society understands how important that moment is, she is guaranteed the right to stay home and get income in order to nurture her baby. and that is why i believe when we talk about family values, that the united states government must provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. [applause] n my view, there is no justice in our cubt -- in our country, when youth unemployment exists at tragically high levels.

i requested a study last month from a group of economists, and what they told me is that 51% of african-american high school graduates between the ages of 17 and 20 are unemployed or underemployed. 51%. we have in this country sufficient amounts of money to put more people in jail than any other country on earth. the united states has more people in jail than china a communist, awe toretarian country. -- authoritarian country. but apparently, we do not have enough money to provide jobs and

education to our young people. i believe that is wrong. [applause] i am not a theologian. i am not an expert on the bible. nor am i a catholic. i am just a united states senator from the small state of vermont. but i agree with pope francis who will soon be coming to visit us in the united states. [applause] i agree with pope francis when he says, and i quote, the current financial crisis iginated in a profound human crisis, the denial of the

privacy -- primacy of the human person. this is what he writes. we have created new idols. the worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money, and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. end of quote. [applause] the pope also writes, quote, there is a need for financial reform along ethical lines that would produce in its turn an economic reform to benefit everyone. money has to serve, not to rule.

end of quote. [applause] now those are pretty profound words, which i hope we will all think about. in the pope's view, and i agree with him, we are living in a nation and in a world, and the bible speaks to this issue, in a nation and in a world which worships not love of brothers and sisters, not love of the poor and the sick, but worships the acquisition of money and great wealth. i do not believe that is the country we should be living in. [applause]

money and wealth should serve the people. the people should not have to serve money and wealth. [applause] throughout human history, there has been endless discussion, it is part of who we are as human beings, people who think and ask questions, endless discussion and debate, about the meaning of justice and about the meaning of morality. and i know that here at liberty university, those are the kinds of discussions you have every day, and those are the kinds of discussions you should be having, and the kinds of discussions we should be having all over america. i would hope, and i conclude

with this thought, i would hope very much that as part of that discussion and part of that learning process, some of you will conclude that if we are honest in striving to be a moral and just society, it is imperative that we have the courage to stand with the poor, to stand with working people, and when necessary, take on very powerful and wealthy people hose greed, in my view, is doing this country enormous harm. thank you all very much. [applause] thank you. thank you.

cheers and applause] >> thank you, senator. so grateful for you, sir. obviously, just a few minutes with some questions. these questions, sir, are from our student body. i think you're going to -- we opened up to our student government the opportunity for questions to come your way and a lot of questions poured in. i think these few questions just in the few minute we was with you will represent the main thoughts on the hearts of our student the main things they wanted to know. i think you are going to find a lot of commonality obviously in wanting to see someone go to work and get paid more for it, wanting to see children not be

hungry, wanting to see the reality of racism being erased out of this country. you are going to find a lot of commonality obviously, for college students to hear from you that public higher education could be free in this country, so anybody who is 19 will be excited to hear about free college. the question is not so much the commonality in wanting to see those things, but how do we get there? in that kind of mindset, just a little bit about how we would get there. as far as race inequality is concerned, this question from one of our students. if you were elected president, what would you do to bring healing and resolution to the issue of racism in our country? we both want to see that go away. what steps would you begin to take if you were our leader in

seing that resolved. mr. sanders: that is an excellent question. i would hope and i believe that very person in this room today understands that it is unacceptable to judge people, to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin. [applause] and i would also say that as a that a he truth is, nation in which many -- which in many ways was created, and i'm sorry to have to say this, from y back on racist principles, we have come a long way as a nation. my guess is that probably not everybody here is an admirer or

voted for barack obama. but the point is, in 2008 this country took a huge step forward in voting for a candidate based on his ideas and not the color of his skin. [applause] and whether you like obama or not, and i do, he's a friend of mine, and i work with him on many issues, that is a step forward for america. but let me also say what everybody here knows, and my thoughts having just returned from south carolina, we all know to what degree racism remains alive in this country. i cannot understand, i really cannot. i think about it, i try to understand it, how a sick man an walk into a bible study class, discuss the bible, pray with people in the room, and then take out a gun and kill nine of them because the color

of their skins were different than his. and i cannot understand for the life of me, how there can be hundreds of groups in this country whose sole reason for existence is to promote atred. these are hate groups. and they say, join us so we can hate african-americans or gays or jews or immigrants or anybody that is different from us. i can't understand that. but let us be clear. when you have unarmed african-americans shot by police officers, something which has been going on for years, that is also institutional racism and cries out for reform. [applause]

i am a former mayor who has worked closely with police officers. the vast majority of them are honest, work hard, and do a very good job. [applause] but when a police officer breaks the law, as is the case with any other public official, that officer must be held accountable. [applause] that's justice. and there is a lot to be done in terms of our criminal justice system. in terms of minimal sentencing, in terms of local police departments which look like armies that are invading a community. but to answer your question, i think what we have got to do is when we see instances of racism,

when we hear political leaders appealing to the worst elements of us by making racist attacks against people from another country or people whose color may be different than most of us, we have got to stand up and say, in america you are not going to do that. racism is unacceptable. cheers and applause] >> we could not agree with you more on that thought. we would say, i think i speak for many of our students, that it's not so much a skin issue as it is a sin issue. behaviorcan change the police, we could put cameras on them all day long, but behavior modification can only stop so hort as identity change.

so i think we want what you want,. mr. sanders: let me just say this. the answer is obviously we have got to change our hearts. but everybody here should know, 50, 60, 70 years ago in this country, we had seg regated schools and segregated restaurants. and it took a supreme court, it took martin luther king jr., it took millions of people to demand public policy which ended segregation. >> i think where you're going to find commonality is, in liberty university, we're not interested african-americans are invited to sit on the bus or sit at the restaurant, we want them to own the bus or own the estaurant.

on protecting the vulnerable, i think our student are more passionate about that than any other thing. the question they wanted to know went way just beyond wealth inequality. we certainly have those kind of things, but protecting the vulnerable, this was probably the number one question we got. senator sanders, you have talked in your campaign about how it is immoral to protect the billionaire class at the expense of our most vulnerable in society, obviously children. you just mentioned that in your talk with us earlier. a majority of christians would agree with you, but would also go further and say that children in the womb need our protection even more. [applause] ow do you reconcile -- so the question,ause]

sir, obviously you can see this is what they want to ask. how do you reconcile the two? i know you have a different view. i know that you, sir, and i do not have to be i to i on it. i sense a real sincerity in you on wanting to see our children protected. can you see how we see the child in the womb is the most vulnerable? mr. sanders: i do, and i understand this is an area where we disagree. i understand and i believe that it is impractical for the government to tell everyone in this country the painful and difficult choice she has to make on that issue. mr. sanders: i honestly, do not want to be too provocative, but

very often conservatives say, that the government out of my life. i do not want the government telling me what to do. but on this very sensitive issue on which we are divided, a lot of people agree with you and a lot of people agree with me. my view is, i respect absolutely a family who says no, i'm not going to have an abortion. but i would hope that other people respect the very painful and difficult choice that many women feel the have to make, and do not want the government telling them what they have to o. mr. sanders: but, i want to take that question a step further. we do disagree on that issue. note this or butts about it -- no ifs or buts about it. here is where i hope we have common ground.

i'm going to be partisan for a moment, because i want to lay this on your shoulders. i am a ranking member of the u.s. senate budget committee. i want to tell you, what was in the republican budget that passed a number of months ago. check it out. you think i'm not telling you the truth. when you talk about issues about hildren, understand republican budget through 27 million people off of health care, including many children. at a time when many families cannot afford to send their kids to college, and i am running on a program that says every public college and university in america should be uition-free. but at a time when families cannot afford to send their kids o college, republican budget

-- pell grants over a ten-year. -- a ten-year period. epublicans cut money for the wic program, which goes to low income pregnant women and their babies. to add insult to injury, in that budget, the republicans provided over $250 billion over a 10 year. in tax breaks -- over a 10 year period in tax breaks to the top 1%. i do not think that is a moral udget. >> i do not pretend to be an expert on budgets, but i think a lot of us would be very interested in our government budgeting for planned parenthood. i think a lot of us would be very interesting in looking for those budgets, and i think they

get a lot more complex. in for just one more question, sir, for our last question on religious freedom. lot of questions from our students who i think really were just very peppered with concern and broken heartedness when they see the world around them. his is where i genuinely sense in you, you are a lot like a father figure. mr. sanders: a grandfather figure, i am getting older every day. >> and i sense that same concern in your heart as we would have. here is the question in that frame. we're watching on the news a refugee crisis in syria and religious minorities facing persecution in the middle east. how do you feel the united states should respond? do you feel that as the united states that we should be obligated, more than we even are

now, in responding? that there would be a stewardship of responsibility on the greatest nation of the world, to step in even at a greater level. mr. sanders: obviously, the answer is yes but i do not quite know what the word "step in" means. if the question is, do we have a moral responsibility not just for, to work with europe and to work with some of these wealthy gulf-region countries like saudi arabia, united arab emirates, kuwait, to help with this human tragedy. can you imagine people leaving their homes in syria and iraq with simply the close on their back, dragging their kids with them? do we had a lower responsibility to work the rest of the world in providing help bringing some of those people to this country? the answer is absolutely yes. absolutely yes. but, this is where it gets tricky.

that is in a sense, a reasonably easy response. we should do that. all of you know that the middle east and other parts of the world or a real quagmire. we are living in a crazy and dangerous world, we see horror stories every day of isis and people doing barbaric thing. i voted against the war in raq. mr. sanders: and i voted against that war because i worried very much, and if you read what i wrote at that time, what i'm telling you is the truth, about the instability and destabilization that that would bring about. so the question of u.s. military force becomes part of this discussion. and let me just say this -- i am the former chairman of the

united states senate committee on veterans affairs, and i would hope this is an area that all of us can agree on, that we are going to provide all of the health care and benefits that our veterans need. >> we have to take care of our own, absolutely. mr. sanders: but the cost of war is something that is far greater, i fear, then most people now. and before we go off to war, we have got to make certain that we have explored every other possible option. mr. sanders: people may not know this, but as the former chairman do. in iraq and afghanistan we lost 6700 brave men and women. many came home without legs and arms and eyesight.

500,000 of them came home with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic rain injuries. -- brain injuries. their lives have been disrupted, families have been separated, children have suffered. a great nation like the united states of america, with the most powerful military on earth in my view, should use every possible opportunity to resolve international conflict without going to war. war should be the last esort. >> absolutely. senator, it has just been an honor, sir, to have you with us. wait on occasion have the opportunity to have questions and answers with some of our guests. the one thing we always end with is the question of how can we, and it is not just a statement, i really believe that our

students are wanting to know, how can we glean in -- we know you were in north carolina last night, you are going to be in manassas this afternoon. meeting your staff, they are incredibly hard-working people in this very fast-paced where you and your wife are on that campaign trail with grandkids. you are the liveliest 73-year-old i have ever met, sir. how can we pray for you and your family? how can we be thinking of you? when we think of you and see you, what can we say bernie sanders asked us to pray for him? mr. sanders: david, thank you very much for that thought. i appreciated from the bottom of my heart. but this is what i would like to be -- prayers to be for. not just for me, for more ignificantly our prayers for our country, prayers for how we bring our people together,

prayers for how we can create in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, a beautiful country, a country where all people have health care, where all kids have the ability to go to college, where we have wiped out childhood poverty. those are the prayers that i want to join with you in aking. >> let's do that. let's do that now. let's pray together. an we do that? father, we thank you for the fact that god, you owned the cattle on a thousand hills, that you are the great provider. father, at this very moment we come to you as the god of this universe, god that is able to provide, and we pray that your provisions would slow down. all people, god, all nations, we

thank you, lord, where morality stop short spirituality can go further. and so we lean in on you. we thank you where government fails, god, that your kingdom prevails. we pray for a greater nature -- ation. we pray for justice and compassion and mercy to be the greatest thing that we are known for as a nation. that our power would be known as a power that is spent, father, for the least of these. we love you, lord, thank you for this opportunity to come ogether. i pray for this man, his family, his team. give them sustainable pay as they are on the road. i pray that father, in this very moment, that he will know he has made friends today, that he has come into an environment where people show grace, show

appreciation, and show humility, father. and also gratitude is in our hearts, that he would take the time out of his scheduled to come. amen. can we thank our senator bernie illiams? >> vermont independent senator >> the chairman and ranking member of the house intelligence committees, congressman nunes and adam schiff talk about national security issues. you will see their remarks easternstarting at 8:00 on c-span.

our "road to the white house" continues saturday morning with a democratic convention. speakers include five presidential candidates. >> setting the stage for c-span's new upcoming series. live discussion in philadelphia wednesday on the same cases we have sleggetted for the series. exploring the human stories behind these historic decisions. distinguished panelists are from le law school and georgetown

law professor and u.s. district court for the eastern district of pennsylvania. live wednesday starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. up next, regulators and industry leaders proposed federal rules for drones and federal aviation administration is allowing some of these aircraft to fly under the waiver. a number of concerns over privacy and safety remain. among the commercial advocates, a.m.a zon.com wants to -- amazon wants to deliver products via drones.

mr. chaffetz: committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. the chair will declare a recess at any time. i'm excited about this hearing. i appreciate the panelists that are here today. this is the first in a series of will talkhe committee about emerging technologies. one of the competitive advantages for the united states of america is our leadership in information technology. leadership in creativity and entertainment industry. we lead in a lot of different areas and one of the things that the united states has done -- it has been a great place for interviewers to come up with creativity and allow those ideas

to enter the marketplace and thrive and create whole new industries and create millions of jobs and billions in revenue and income. and there are also some interesting public policy issues we need to discuss. as you have new innovative companies and ideas and services and products that the public want, we have the opportunity to make sure we are fostering that growth and creating an atmosphere where those businesses and interviewers can thrive. today, we are going to start talking about drones and the next frontier for commerce. because it does offer some exciting possibilities and creates some challenges and things that as a society we need to talk through. drones are being widely used. first responders are using them to deliver food and medical

supplies. law enforcement envision drones to locate missing persons. in the state of utah, there is a big rural component and we have at times raging wildfires and massive public lands and people who travel from out of state and want to enjoy our national parks like arches and canyonlands and yet they get lost. and it is terrain and very difficult and expensive for a helicopter to traverse. companies big and small are finding new and innovative ways to inspect and inspect the safety. alaska and the pipelines and other great places where drones can be of great help. these drones are being used to monitor oil and gas pipelines and crops and livestock and music festivals and the music

industry a whole new perspective ol property and real property as people look at potentially purchasing things. you have big innovative companies businesses weren't around like amazon and google are developing systems that would allow merchants and customers to retrieve packages via drones. this is a huge massive opportunity for the united states of america. on february 15 of this year, the f.a.a. released a proposed rule on the commercial use of drones and came out from a june 2014 report that criticized the f.a.a. for being significantly behind its effort to integrate drones into the system. the i.g. concluded that the f.a.a. would meet the deadline of september to integrate drones in our airspace. under current f.a.a. regulations

as well as the proposed rule, it is difficult for companies who are interested in developing drone technology to go through the testing of these ideas. developers have been forced to either limit their testing to indoor spaces or test overseas in a country where the rules are more flexible. in march of 2014, google's project wing started testing delivery of drones but did so in australia. a year later, amazon began testing drones in canada and united kingdom. so they could test real world environments in the united states. according to the u.a.v. trade association and yes there is one, every year integration is delayed the united states loses money in potential impact. i recognize the privacy and safety concerns exist and i

personally share many of those. i don't want my neighbor flying a drone over my back yard and i don't want law enforcement using drones for spying on private property. dealing with large crowds and large events, say a super bowl or major league baseball game, yes, there are appropriate uses. can they be overused? and we need to talk about the parameters of that. there are states' rights and states have a say in this. at what point does the airspace become a federal issue. and at what point is it a federal issue snl maybe these drones are going to land. i think the state and municipalities want a say in that as well. i would like to think we can get it right and must get it right. the opportunities are limitless and that is why we are having a discussion today. we have the former chairman of

the transportation and infrastructure committee here in the united states congress, chair of our subcommittee on transportation and physical assets, i would like to yield to mr. mica for his comments. mr. mica: mr. chairman, thank you for conducting this hearing particularly at the full committee level because this does demand not only the congress' attention but the nation's attention. drones are here. and u.a.v.'s are here and they are here to stay. when we worked on the f.a.a. authorization back in 2003, which is not that long ago really, we never even talked about drones. in the last f.a.a. authorization about six, seven years ago, we did direct f.a.a. to move

forward with rules. and -- it's important, first for safety. we have been fortunate. we have had some hits. t i think you can have a tential of having deadly and evolving fatality incidents with so many. so many of these u.a.v.'s and drones in the air, we now have thousands of them flying. the rules are sketchy. the rules are incomplete. that's over the progress een made and the rule has been semifinalized, it's not finalized. people have had a period to comment, but still going to take at least another year to

finalize that rule and get it in place. in the meantime, again, we have the safety issue. today we are focusing on commercialization use of the drone and i'm told we lose as much as $10 billion in revenue for possible use of this technology with commercial applications. so we can't delay. i think this is good timing for the hearing and we'll find out where we are with the progress of the approval and then some of the applications and then try to stay ahead of the game, which is our responsibility in congress, particularly on the commercialization side and the benefit of the american people. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. chaffetz: i now recognize the distinguished ranking member , mr. cummings of maryland.

mr. cummings: thanks for calling this hearing. this is an interesting hearing and one that i think is extremely important. drones are an exciting new technology with a lot of potential uses in the not so distant future. companies are developing new technologies to use drones to fight forest fires or even to deliver pizza. however, i share the same concerns as you and many other americans. i want the use of drones to be safe. and i want to make sure that the privacy interests of the american people are protected. as with any new groundbreaking technology, our regulatory regime has not yet fully caught p with drones.

our goal must be to balance these concerns that allows for the robust development of these new technologies while ensuring that necessary safeguards are in place. n 2014, there were more than 9.5 million commercial airline flights carrying more than 850 million passengers in the united states, according to the bureau of transportation statistics. our aviation system is among the safest in the world and obviously we must ensure that drones do not imperil the operation of our commercial airlines. allowing drones to fly in the airspace used by commercial jets is a long-term aspiration rather than an imminent possibility. however, although the f.a.a. has approved only a small number of

drones to operate in the united states' airspace, the assist ant inspector general has testified to congress that airline crews ve already reported seeing unmanned aircraft around airports in some cases at altitudes above 2,000 feet. right now there does not appear to be a proven technology to ensure that an unmanned aircraft can act on its own to identify and avoid other aircraft. there also does not appear to be proven technology to ensure that links between drones and their operators are maintained consistently. this could cause drones to crash or equally dangerous fly out of control. our aviation system does not

llowed a wide margin of error. drones at low altitudes is not ready for deployment. recognizing the limits of existing technology, the f.a.a. has proposed new regulations that would allow drones weighing less than 50 pounds to operate at less than 500 feet. these rules would require that drones fly within the line of sight of their operators. would be allowed to operate one drone at a time. the use of drones in the united states airspace also raises significant privacy concerns. drones have been used to gather wide variety of film footage of people and property. they have been used to gather real-time data on the movements

of people without those people even knowing the drones were present. this data can be stored indefinitely and can be analyzed to create detailed pictures of almost every aspect of a person's life. these possibilities raise a host of privacy concerns that had not been fully addressed by current , w or once it has been lost privacy is not easily regained. successfully introducing drones into us air space will require all parties to strike a balance that threads numerous needles carefully. i'm confident this can be achieved but it will take time and thought for analysis and i appreciate the opportunity to consider these issues today and i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.

mr. chairman, you are absolutely right. we have to get this right and have to get it right in a bipartisan way. and i look forward to doing that. mr. chaffetz: i will hold the record open for five legislative days for my nem who would like to submit a written statement. we appreciate five of you participating today. e are pleased to welcome the michael whittaker. john cavolowsky, director of the erospace systems program office. mr. paul misener, been with us before. i think yesterday, vice president of global public policy at amazon.com. mr. brian wynne is the president and chief executive officer of unmanned vehicle systems

international. and mr. geiger is the advocacy director at the center for emocracy and technology. welcome all. all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. if you would please rise and raise your right hand. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. we would appreciate it if you would limit your verbal comments to five minutes. you will see a light there that will give you an indication and full written statements will be written into the record and we anticipate the members will have additional questions. we would appreciate your responses to those as well.

we'll start with mr. whittaker. mr. whitaker: thank you chairman chaffetz and members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity here to discuss safe integration of u.a.v.'s. aviation has been an industry of innovation driven by new technology. unmanned aircraft are born from that same spirit of innovation. as you have noted, this technology has thousands of potential uses from agriculture to news gathering to firefightering and border patrol. but it also introduces new risks into the nation's airspace. at the federal aviation administration our challenge is to allow for this innovation while maintaining the highest levels of safety. we made great strides towards integrating them into the most

complex aviation system in the world. the act in 2012 laid out a framework by september, 2015 and f.a.a. has made significant progress. perhaps most important among these accomplishments is the publication of the small u.a.v.'s proposed notice of rulemaking. this creates one of the most flexible regulatory frame works in the world. we received thousands of comments and we are in the process of reviewing those now. issuing a final small rule remains one of our highest priorities. at the same time, we are taking other steps to enable industry to take advantage of this new technology now. the f.a.a. continues to issue exemptions under the act to allow for commercial activity in low-risk controlled environments. the f.a.a. is on average issuing

more than 30 exemptions each week. we continue to work with our partners in government and industry to overcome the largest technical barriers while ensuring the continued safety of the airspace. there is still a lot to learn about the capabilities and risks posed. that is why we are leveraging a variety of research tools to give the industry greater flexibility and give f.a.a. additional data. the f.a.a. selected six sites to test new technology. these test sites are providing valuable data to our tech center in new jersey. and we announced the pathfinder program to study the operations in circumstances beyond those currently being approved. precks, the railroad will xplore the inspection of rail. these partnerships with industry

will determine how we can have unmanned operations beyond the parameters set forth in the proposed rule. beyond commercial applications, they have become affordable to the average consumer most of whom who are not trained aviators. the f.a.a. is indicating the public -- educating the public. we partnered with members of industry to initiate the know before you fly outreach campaign providing operators with the information they need. this outreach has been successful and several manufacturers now voluntarilyly include educational materials. the f.a.a. initiated a no-drone zone campaign to raise awareness of the prohibition of flying outside sporting events.

there was a campaign for washington, d.c., to reinforce the message that the city itself and all communities within 15 miles of national airport constitute a no drone zone. while our preference is to educate amateurs, we will use enforcement action. local law enforcement is often in the best position to respond quickly. the f.a.a. issued guidance to first responders on how to best assist us. the united states has the safest aviation system in the world and our goal is to integrate this new technology while maintaining that level of safety. the f.a.a. has integrated new technologies for more than 50 years and we will do the same with unmanned aircraft. we look forward to work with congress and industry to achieve hese common goals.

mr. mica: we'll hear from dr. avolowsky. ou are recognized sir. dr. cavolowsky: members of the committee, good morning and thank you for this opportunity to testify and the challenges associated with the challenges. this defines our vision and approach for supporting the integration. our research builds the foundation for the more extensive transformative changes that the systems will bring. they hold great promise and we are witnessing the dawn of a new era of innovation. flight vehicles and operations that are unimaginable today and opening up new commercial

markets much the way jet engines did 60 years ago. nasa is performing research and concepts and technologies and knowledge to the f.a.a. and other stakeholders to help them define the requirements, regulations and standards for safe routine access. still, there is significant barriers and research challengeses associated with the systems and technologies into our aviation system. addressing these require them to be evaluated, to verify and validate their design thus allowing the f.a.a. to design equipment standards. a significant part of thener teerm research work is focused in three areas. helping to determine performance requirements for a certifiable we are developing secure,

robust, reliable communication systems and protocols and third, we are addressing the design of ground control systems and displays to maximize pilot effectiveness and safety. nasa has built effective partnerships with key stakeholders, certainly the f.a.a. and the department of defense and department of homeland security and industry. these partnerships nasa is playing a significant role supporting critical activities from the executive level down to our subject matter experts. and now for midterm applications, nasa is researching concepts and technologies to facilitate access to altitudes that are not controlled today, 55 pounds or lighter, operating at 500 feet or below. in order to safely enable civilian operation, nasa's

development in their system called traffic management. vehicles operate within a rule-based system, consisting of roads, signs and traffic lights. the system would provide services such as airspace corridors, route planning and separation management. working alongside many committed partners. they will lead the research and development, prototypes or builds each increasing in capability. the first build will be evaluated in a demonstration in august of this year. and in late july, nasa is holding a u.t.m. convention to explore and define the needs of low altitudes operations.

>> as the challenges evolve and emerge, nasa will continue to advance the research and develop the technologies that will assure the safe realization of the benefits and increase the competitiveness of the u.s. aviation industry. thank you for the opportunity to speak today and i will answer any questions. mr. mica: we'll withhold all questions until we have heard rom all witnesses. mr. misener: thank you for inviting me.

drones will provide commercial delivery service should the committee adopt rules that emphasize drone safety. thank you for your attention to this important topic. this is a service that will deliver packages to customers in 30 minutes or less using small drones. flying under 500 feet and generally 200 feet and weighing less than 55 pounds, it will take advantage of sophisticated technology and high degree of automation to safely operate at distances of 10 miles or more well beyond visual line of sight. no country in which we have distribution facilities has yet adopted rules that would allow commercial package deliveries and we are developing appropriate rules. such rules must allow operations

to take advantage of a core capability of technology which is to fly with minimal human involvement beyond line of sight. it should be proportionate of risk. safety is amazon's top priority, a top priority we share with f.a.a. and nasa. key aviation authorities outside the united states are rapidly pursuing regulatory frame works and rules. their approach is risk and performance based and mindful of the tremendous opportunities and economic benefits that they present. here in the united states, the f.a.a. is taking its responsibility seriously and amazon is grateful that the agency is giving to this new technology. e f.a.a. small u.a.s. is speaking to the rulemaking and supportive of this approach and

agree with it. it has shortcomings because some of the prohibitions maintained are not actually performance based, and the rules would not establish a regulatory framework to permit operations in the united states. we disagree with the f.a.a. current opinion that extending the principles as well as the potential loss of target controls present quote unique safety concerns which thereby delayed consideration. although these safety concerns present particularly engineering challenges, such challenges are not different from the other engineering challenges facing small designers so she thub starting now. granted, regulators here and abroad cannot adopt actual rules for operations beyond visual line of sight. american policy makers should propose rules for commercial

operations. amazon believes that the f.a.a. should act expeditiously and provide legislative guidance to the agency and provide additional legal authority. the regulations must be risk and performance based. the rules should take into account the risks of operation including for example, the absence of passenger and crew, the lower kinetic energy of aircraft and evaluate how the performance hit gates these risks. prohibitions, no night time operations or no operations beyond visual line of sights makes no sense. these vehicles should be allowed to fly if they meet safety aquirmentse and a single operator should be able to see simultaneous operation of smaller vehicles.

states and localities shouldn't be allowed to regulate that the f.a.a. has authorized including with respect to airspace, altitude, performance and operator communications. federal rules must apply. in conclusion, i look forward to working with you and your committee and the f.a.a. to help the united states adopt rules for operations that emphasize safety and systems performance and permitting dones to provide the next generation of commercial delivery service safely and soon. mr. mica: and we'll now here from mr. wynne, president and c.e.o. of association for unmanned vehicle systems international. welcome and you are recognized sir. mr. wynne: thank you, mr. chairman, members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. i represent the association for

unmanned vehicle systems international. the world's largest nonprofit organization devoted to advancing unmanned systems. we have been a voice of unmanned systems for more than 40 years and we have more than 7,500 members, including 600 corporate members. the industry is poisesed to be one of the fastest growing in american history. our study found that the first decade following the integration will result in more than $82 billion in u.s. economic activity and create more than 100,000 high paying jobs. the reform act of 2012 established a foundation for government and industry collaboration to advance this emerging sector. as part of this, the f.a.a. is working on finalizing rules for commercial and public use of this technology. the agency is granting permission for limited commercial use on a case by case

basis under section 333 of the 2012 act. more can and should be done. despite these positive steps we need to permit expanded uses of u.a.s. technology that pose no additional risk to the airspace system. for example, whether within the context of the rule through the re-authorization or by other means, we need to allow for beyond visual line of sight, night time operations and operations over congested areas. otherwise, we risk stunting a still mason industry. the technology is advancing rapidly. thanks to collaboration between industry and government. in order to continue encouraging innovation and promoting safety, we need to pass and sign into law a measure before the current re-authorization expires in september. let me highlight a number of specific directions we would like to see reflected going forward. the industry supports a

risk-based technology neutral framework. regulations should be based on the risk profile of a u.a.s. operation rather than the platform being flown. low-risk operations such as aerial surveys above rural farmland would be regarded as safe with minimal regulatory barriers regardless of the specific technology or platform form used. this will accommodate know vagues rather than requiring new rules. second, we support a comprehensive industry government research plan. there is a lot of good work already being done and better coordination will ensure we are maximizing the impact ofs of these efforts. the pathfinder program shows great progress we need better visibility how they will fit in. third, congress should consider making the f.a.a.u.a.s. test

sites eligible for funding. while these test sites have been active for over a year, this will give industry guidance and an incentive to better utilize the test sites. fourth, we support the development of a u.a.s. traffic management system. they will occur at low levels and this airspace may become complex. it will integrate into the existing national airspace infrastructure and ensure the safety of airspace. finally knowing that u.a.s. integration must be done with the next gen transportation system, linking the two efforts more effectively. we are pleased to see the f.a.a. recognize the need for senior level attention with a new director and new senior position and look forward to working with those individuals once they are on board. in closing, u.a.s. technology is

an exciting ain pivotal stage. unmanned aircraft systems increase human potential allowing us to execute dangerous tasks safely and efficiently. thank you for the opportunity to testify. mr. mica: and we'll get back to you for questions. mr. geiger he is advocacy director at the center of technology. you are recognized. mr. geiger: thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify today on the subject of unmanned aircraft systems also known as drones. c.d.t. is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving civil liberties while

enabling government agencies to provide security. i have three points i want to make with regard to drones. my testimony focuses on privacy but clearly there are many other policy issues that are associated. first, unmanned aircraft systems are a promising technology, but has the potential to erode civil liberties by enabling surveillance. second, current laws do not provide strong privacy protection from government or private unmanned aircraft and the lack of privacy protection undermines public trust, which holds back the industry. third, to earn public acceptance of u.a.s., both government and the industry should fully address the liberties issues through the combination of legislation and an industry code of conduct. and i'll expand on these points. c.d.t. wants to see u.a.s. used for commerce, disaster relief, scientific research and more.

however, the government nor the industry should ignore the potential for u.a.s. to enable surveillance. here is a nightmare scenario. law enforcement establishes a broad-based drone drag net that is tracking individuals chilling the public's right to free expression, association and assembly. a network of commercial unmanned aircraft records footage of every american even if the individual remains on private property. this may seem like a far-fetched future to some, few existing laws would stand in the way and the public does not trust the discretion of the government or the u.a.s. industry from preventing this scenario to becoming a reality. prolonged surveillance violates fourth amendment principles. however, the supreme court has repeatedly held that americans

have no expectation of privacy from aerial surveillance. the supreme court has held that the fourth amendment is not violated when a police helicopter looks into the interior of a ceiling without a warrant. bottom line there is very little protection from government use of u.a.s. outdoors. law enforcement use is the most acute concern that the public has with u.a.s. and to address the public's concern, congress should pass legislation that among other things establishes due process standards for law enforcement use of u.a.s. and congress should limit law enforcement use to instances where the government has a warrant or in circumstances or other narrowly tailored exceptions. and legislation from representatives poe and lofgren and protecting individuals which was introduced today would provide strong due process probings without burdenening

non-law enforcement uses. we are in favor of these bills. when it comes to private sector, common law privacy provides americans from u.a.s. out of the home only if it is highly offensive. any government regulation of private u.a.s. must not violate our first amendment right. an industry code of conduct would help provide privacy protections where direct regulation cannot but only effective if the industry agrees to adopt a strong code. the code proposed does not cut it. the code should establish reasonnable limits on collection and retention of personal information and the code should create a registry of u.a.s. data collection policies, though there should be reasonable

exceptions for that registry and the code should establish cybersecurity standards. and finally c.d.t. recommends that the industry explore measures to protect privacy and enhanced transparency for private u.a.s. systems. thank you for holding this hearing and i look forward to hearing your questions. mr. mica: we'll go right to questions. as i mentioned in my opening statements having been involved in this back in 2003 when we did one of the first f.a.a. re-authorization, there was nothing in the bill. amazing how technology does change our lives and how government does fail to keep up with changes in technology and crafts a law to match that. we fall further and further behind it seems. in 2012 when we did the last f.a.a. re-authorization i tried

to hold people's feet to the fire and we do that by putting milestones and deadlines. in the law, we said required planning for integration. this is the law that was passed. comprehensive plan not later than 270 days after the enactment of this act the secretary of transportation in consultation with representatives of the federal agencies, behavingly would come up with a plan. was that deadline met? mr. whitaker: both the comprehensive plan and five-year road map were developed. they were published in 2013. mr. mica: further hold the feet to the fire and some things have been done as we pointed out and i mentioned earlier. we put a plan required under paragraph one shall provide the safeguard of unmanned systems

into the airspace as soon as practical but not later than september 30, 2015. that's the deadline we put in there. is that deadline going to be met? mr. whitaker: you won't have full integration -- mr. mica: the deadline isn't going to be met? mr. whitaker: no. mr. mica: when will it be met. mr. whitaker: we are taking it in manageable bites. mr. mica: you are granting exemptions and waivers at a pretty rapid rate. 50 a week? mr. whitaker: yes, sir. mr. mica: that's not what we intended. we intended for basically to have a rule in place by september. now we are going to do f.a.a. bill and hold their feet to the fire. i don't know how we can do that because we missed the deadline that we set in here but we are going to have to do something.

is there something we're missing that we haven't done that could provide you with the access to move forward or make certain this happens as soon as possible and what's your deadline now? mr. whitaker: we broke the task into pieces. mr. mica: when will it be done. mr. whitaker: the rule was issued earlier this year in february. comments were closed. we received 4,500 comments. mr. mica: all of that is part of the record. when we will be done? mr. whitaker: we have to adjudicate those comments and. mr. mica: 2016, 2017. mr. whitaker: the rule will be in place within a year. mr. mica: mark that down, staff. we could do a hearing from a year from now and see if they completed the task. the problem we have in the meantime you are granting exemptions and waivers.

sort of a spotty policy that's in place and some folks talked about addressing risks and that's the most important thing, wouldn't you say, is avoiding risks? mr. whitaker: safety is a priority. mr. mica: by the same token we are falling behind than some of the other countries. mr. misener, what have you seen -- this hearing is about commercialization and moving forward. is the u.s. falling behind? $10 billion, a billion a year for the next 10 years by not having commercial rules in place for operation of drones. mr. misener: u.s. planning is not as aggressive as it is in other countries. mr. mica: there are a host of issues, privacy and who

basically is in charge of setting the rules for privacy that the individual states and law enforcement? is it the department of justice? is this an f.a.a. responsibility in the rules you are crafting. mr. whittaker, maybe you could shed some light on how we protect people's privacy. . they have opened for public comment. i think that's closed. a stakeholder in this conversation. but we do -- mr. mica: so we need to call them and ask them and have their rules in place for protecting privacy. mr. whitaker: they have the lead on the issue. motorcycle mr. mica: but it is multijurisdictional. it's beyond the federal level to protect public privacy, isn't it? mr. whitaker: aviations has always been over that. mr. mica: a drone that's operating under 500 feet, whose sprobblet