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 would that?

be -- responsibility would that be? also federal? local law enforcement is already using some devices and other folks are using it. who controls the -- that's probably the biggest concern of privacy is somebody within 500 feet over people's homes, property, surveillance capability of these drones. mr. whitaker: by statute, even at those altitudes it's federal air space. mr. mica: still our responsibility, so we'll wait to see the development of that and specifics on that rule. i predict there will be, sometimes we don't move until there's an incident, there will be an incident. there will be a crash, there will be probably fatalities. because you have so many of these things flying. i hope it doesn't take down a big commercial aircraft. i hope it doesn't have a lot of fatalities. but i think it's inevitable. how many thousands of these

drones are now flying? i've heard different figures from several thousand to 20,000 flying. mr. whitaker: i don't know the exact figures. perhaps mr. wynne does. i think it's important to distinguish the vast majority of those are amateur operations. they're not covered under the rule. and we're prohibited by statute from regulating that sector. mr. mica: so that still remains the primary risk. did you want to comment? mr. geiger: to your question on who is in charge of privacy here. so, the f.a.a. is regulating safety and safety is very limited -- a very limited mandate when it comes to also providing privacy regulations. so i have some question as to whether or not the f.a.a. could actually put forth rules on privacy. mr. mica: this was interesting. when we were talking about this several years ago, when we crafted this legislation, i was

told it was the department of justice or judicial matter that privacy. and it was outside of our realm to regulate. but maybe in this f.a.a. bill, you think we should have, ather than the president set by edict or however he did it, what was it, executive order? mr. geiger: presidential memorandum. mr. mica: should we have something in federal law? mr. geiger: we think there should be standards in federal law. the 2012 bill mentioned privacy exactly zero times and the privacy issue has absolutely plagued the discussion. mr. mica: you said 2012. i just explained to you, when we started down that path, concerns were raised on both sides of the aisle about privacy. it's a big deal. we were told it was outside our realm. it was really a judicial matter and outside the purview of the

transportation committee that was considering the legislation at the time. we're basically without anything except what the president has set forth. maybe that -- some parts of that should be codified. that would be a summary or? mr. geiger: some parts of it. although what the president set forth is also quite limited. the department of justice essentially says that -- there's some good things in the policy in the department of justice but it's also very limited. they'll respect laws, they'll use u.a.s. for authorized use and harm onize with the fifth amendment it. doesn't provide any additional protection really beyond what is in current law. the process is focused just on commercial drones. it's not going to touch government use. mr. mica: let's go to the ranking member. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. geiger, the ex peckstation of privacy -- expectation of privacy, we talked about that. in court cases, a lot of the

question comes down to what is expected of the person. i guess when you have drones, it really broadens the expectation, is that right? i mean, it kind of throws -- it just opens the door to all kinds of surveillance. you follow what i'm saying? mr. geiger: i do. mr. cummings: can you speak a little louder, please? mr. geiger: i do and i believe this is how courts will interrupt it in the future. right now the supreme court has interrupted the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine to not include aerial surveillance from the publicly navigable air space. and i can only manage that that reasonable ex peck -- imagine that that reasonable expectation of privacy standard or in common law torts, what accounts for highly offensive to a reasonable person, i will only imagine that that will shrink as more take to the skies. this is reason why we're arguing that current federal law does not provide adequate

privacy protection. we should not just rely on common law or the fourth amendment. there ought to be something in federal law that provides a due process standard. mr. cummings: what would you, if you were trying to put that law together, to try to balance allowing drones to operate, but at the same time trying to maintain some reasonable mblance of privacy for citizens of our country, i mean, what would that look like? do you have something that you've put together, that you -- i mean, what elements would you be looking at? mr. geiger: there are a couple of bills out there right now which provide a good starting point. representative poe and lofgren's preserving american privacy act, senator widen's protecting individuals from mass aerial surveillance act, provide good starting points. both of those bills are focused argely on law enforcement use.

this is, as i said, in part because the public's concern with privacy and u.a.s. is most acutely felt with law enforcement use. i don't think people are quite as concerned with uses for research, disaster relief and so forth. on the commercial side, any regulation would have to be aligned with the first amendment. and therefore will be limited. so i think a combination of the due process standard and an industry code of conduct could provide meaningful privacy protection to individuals. on government use, we think there ought to generally speaking be a warrant standard with exentions for exidgent circumstances and other reasonable exceptions for law enforcement use. as well as a registry of government u.a.s. applications that is publicly available. much in the same way that the f.a.a. currently has a registry for small aircraft. mr. cummings: you know, with the -- with all of the cameras

everywhere on light posts, on buildings, as you well know, many crimes are solved. people don't even know that they're being observed. it seems to me there would be -- there's an argument that with all of that now, the technology out there, that -- why would one want to differ from -- i mean, stray away from the idea that a drone is going too far. i just -- as i'm talking i'm figuring the argument. the drone can follow you. as opposed to the light posts. mr. geiger: first of all, we do have civil liberties concerns with a ground-based large-scale surveillance system. our concern is largely tech-neutral. drones do have unique capabilities, mostly because of their vantage point. if you're talking about

ground-based cctv, then you turn a corner or enter your fenced-in yard, then the ground-based cctv can no longer see you. but it would be very hard to escape the scope of observation of a sophisticated and high-flying u.a.s. privacy intrusion is potentially greater. mr. cummings: tell me about how amazon -- i just want to know the logistics, how that works. what are you all trying to do? somebody has a package that they want in iowa. tonight. so what happens? and the fact it is in washington. go. [laughter] >> i have three seconds. mr. cummings: i just want to picture how it works. mr. misener: we have distribution facilities throughout the country.

what we'd like to be able to do is enable that network of facilities to deliver packages to customers more quickly than is currently possible using the round participation network. our customer will be able to order something off of our website and have it delivered to his or her home. that means she doesn't have to go to the store, hop in the car or get a delivery drug to bring it. mr. cummings: it just pops up on a drone right in front of your door? mr. misener: yes, sir. mr. cummings: ok. [laughter] mr. wynne, the f.a.a.'sed rulemaking lists some -- the f.a.a.'s rulemaking lists some -- mr. wynne: we have a basket of fruit coming your way. mr. cummings: crop monitoring, bridge inspections and aerial photography, can you give us other examples of potential

commercial use of drones? mr. wynne: there's all manner of infrastructure that needs to be inspected in the country. for example, natural gas pipelines, high voltage lines, etc. that would be another example of large industries that are just chomping at the bit to embrace this technology. so there's small uses, there's large uses. there's visual line of sight when it comes to taking pictures of a house from a different angle for a real estate agent. all the way through to insurance companies inspecting after a sandy -- hurricane sandy event. what's going on in a particular area, areas that are inaccessible to agents, for example, and gaining information as quickly as possible. mr. cummings: f.a.a.'s mission is, and i quote, to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world. can you explain some of the challenges that bringing drones into our nation's air space?

mr. whitaker: one of the challenges is we have a much more complex and diverse air space than any other country and a busier air space. in addition to four the biggest airlines in the world and dozens of hubs, you have business aviation, you have nearly 200,000 general aviation operations, helicopters, rescue vehicles that fly in all air space. so integrating instead of just setting aside a space to operate, but integrating into the air space requires that these new vehicles be able to stay clear of the existing vehicles. so detect and avoid or sense and avoid. that's a major technological challenge that has to be solved. and then you also have to solve the communications challenge. how the operator communicates with the vehicle, what the spectrum is that's allocated for that and what happens if that link breaks. these are some of the technology sthoose are being researched in various -- issues that are being researched in various venues that we need to fully understand and build standards around so we can fully integrate this into the

system. r. cummings: not long ago, the fella had -- flew a drone at the white house. and all of us were very concerned about that. that's a significant concern of many. i'm just trying to figure out, i mean, if you've got all of these objects flying around, and then you've got a lot of people on the ground, and you've got to protect air space , it just seems to me like we are headed towards disaster. at some point. mr. whitaker: we're going to try to make sure that doesn't happen. there are actually very robust technologies that will allow this to happen and they're being tested in various -- mr. cummings: will allow what to happen? mr. whitaker: they'll allow the

vehicles to stay clear from humans and other vehicles. we just need to make sure that that technology is robust enough to incorporate into our air system. mr. cummings: my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mica: thank you. mr. massie. mr. massie: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. whitaker, i'm glad to see that we have a proposed rule here, we've been waiting on it for a long time. i serve on the transportation committee and we've been pushing for this. so i'm excited to see this and i think it does allow a large class of operations that have not been able to operate. mr. wynne, can you talk about the types of commerce that won't be facilitated by this rule, particularly the requirement that at all times there has to be an operator that's got visual line of sight to the drone? can you talk about some of the -- and -- some of the

applications that can't be practiced because of that rule? mr. wynne: the easy one is the application that he was talking about earlier. that does require beyond visual line of sight. there is all manner of inspections that i was mentioning as well. bnsf was mentioned earlier, being able to check for split race in advance of trains. other infrastructure, etc. and just, if you imagine one of the early applications, early adopters of this technology will be agricultural interests, farmers, etc., looking to do all manner of inspection of their property. some of these farms are large, of course. someone could easily be flying over their property but have that well beyond line of sight. again, basically flying a pattern that a computer is controlling. very low altitude, so these are -- the types of operations that we think -- some of them are

more complex than others. we think that there's a way to advance the technology, to test the technology. the more we're flying, again, equivalent level of safety to the current aircraft system, air space system that we have today. the more data we can collect. the more we can test technologies like detect and avoid, sense and avoid, etc. there are a number of those things, low hanging fruit, so o speak. >> is there any chance to have a category of drones that are authorized in low-risk situations like agriculture or power line inspection or rail inspection? mr. massie: is there a chance to get something in the rule for that category? mr. wynne: what we've done while the rule is pending is we issue exceptions. we've done over 600 exemptions for commercial operators and even more than that for public sector operations, for fire and rescue, that type of thing. the rule as you mentioned will

take care of a very large subset of operations. mr. whitaker: and will allow a lot more commercial innovation without our involvement. we've tried to include in the rule the issues where we think we have a clear understanding of the safety risks and how they can be mitigated. the issues that are outside of the rule like beyond of sight we think we'll get there. and we're going to try to get there as quickly as we can but there are still technology issues and standards that need to be developed. we will have to work very diligently to keep that moving as the rule progresses. mr. massie: thank you. on to the privacy aspect of this. it does present some new challenges. one question that i have is, should there will be a floor? we're talking about ceiling of 500 feet. should there be a floor for operation of drones? do you own the property an inch above your lawn? is a question that i have. if you have a gate, a locked gate on your property, and somebody climbs over the gate, your expectation is they are

violating your privacy. what if they fly over the gate? what if they're hovering an inch above the ground? mr. geiger, could you talk to that from a personal property aspect? when are your property rights being violated? mr. geiger: courts have generally said that you own a reasonable amount of air space above your property. the 400-foot level is more or less arbitrary. an inch above your property, yeah, you probably own that. 30 feet above your property? not sure. what counts as reasonable again is more and more u.a.s. fill the sky, tens, hundreds of thousands, which is what we predict in the coming decades, what counts as reasonable will probably shrink. and it's not clear what the floor will be. but generally if you have an expectation of property ownership and as much air space as you can use. the drone would have to violate your or reduce the substantial

interest or use in your property in order to be liable for a trespass claim. mr. massie: maybe the floor is the range for number 12 gauge -- .12 gauge with six shot in it. mr. geiger: it's interesting that you bring that up. the concept of shooting down drones i think demonstrates the depth of concern that people have. this is a privacy-based concern with drones. this happens on a pretty regular basis. two weeks ago there were firefighters that were tending to a house fire and in the aftermath of that house fire used their hose to spray a drone that was watching them. the drone was not directly over them, so it wasn't like a safety issue. but it was watching them. and i'm not condoning that type of activity. i think it's very risky. but it demonstrates the need for -- the depth of public concern regarding privacy and i think the need for a baseline. mr. massie: maybe we need rules of engagement in addition to rules of privacy. i see my time's expired.

i yield back. mr. mica: thank you. ms. norton. ms. norton: thank you, mr. chairman. i must say, we're in the infancy of everything here. the infancy of regulation, the infancy of the technology. we saw that when drones landed -- a drone landed in the white house and on these very capitol grounds. mr. whitaker, i appreciate that on may 13 there was a release that indicates that you're trying to make the public understand that there's a 15-mile radius around the nation's capitol, that you're not supposed to fly anything. so everybody's paying catch-up here. one of my our committees, i must tell you where we're really playing catch-up is nextgen. so when i look at your regulations and it says, must yield right of way to other aircraft, manned or unmanned, i mean, if we had nextgen and we

knew where even aircraft were flying, then of course -- then we might expect drones to somehow operate within our air space safely, more safely. the assistant inspector general has testified about the integration of drones into commercial air space and that's what interests me. does the f.a.a. receive, from commercial pilots, each month or on any regularly a sis whether they have seen unmanned -- basis -- regular basis whether they have seen unmanned aircraft of any kind? mr. whitaker: we do see reports of sightings of unmanned aircraft. they typically will come in over the air traffic control communication network and we track those. ms. norton: are those required to be reported? mr. whitaker: they are, yes. ms. norton: have any close

cause -- calls of drones or unmanned aircraft with commercial aircraft been reported? mr. whitaker: i don't have any recollection of any evasive maneuvers being taken as a result. mostly what we receive is sightings of unmanned aircraft in controlled air space, usually near airports. ms. norton: is there any system of licensing these aircraft? i mean, these unmanned aircraft? do we even know how many there are in our country? mr. whitaker: we believe that these typically are involving the amateur operators of what we tend to call model aircraft. but the kind that you can buy and operate anywhere. they're unregulated and we're prohibited by statute from regulating that sector of the operation. ms. norton: should somebody be regulating that? who should be? mr. whitaker: we have areas where these operaters are prohibited from flying. and so they're wandering into

prohibited air space. so in that sense they are violating a law. our focus, as you have pointed out, has been to have an education campaign to let people know where they can fly, where they can't fly. we're working to develop an app that people can use to see if they're in restricted air space or whether they can fly their unmanned air system. and we work with local law enforcement to give them guidelines on how to interact with people who are operating in an inappropriate fashion. ms. norton: in light of these proposed rules, in amazon's interest it says an operator should be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses. in other words, i suppose you're supposed to be able to see these drones that you have let loose upon the universe. how is that going to work commercially?

mr. misener: thank you. it won't. at least for packaged delivery services. we don't disagree that it's a more difficult use case to fly drones beyond visual line of sight. it is. it requires a higher degree of auto mation in vehicles and we are working on that. that kind of technology is being developed. our respectful disagreement with the f.a.a. is that we believe that that kind of operation can be considered right now on the same risk-based approach. the risks are higher -- ms. norton: you think the technology is a technology that would allow that now? mr. misener: it's in the works. all i'm saying is, i'm not saying that the rules for operation need to be adopted right now. but the serious planning for those future rules need to be undertaken right now. with the mprm did earlier this year is list that as a prohibited kind of a cat comboir of -- category of operation. what we're trying to say is that should be considered right now, just like other countries are considering beyond visual line of sight operations right now.

ms. norton: mr. whitaker this notion of lost links, what's the current state of technology on the links between the operator and the drone and the possibility of the drone getting beyond the vision or for that matter the control? i'm sure the drone that went into the white house grounds was beyond his control, for example. mr. whitaker: there's research that goes on, there's a lot of research that goes on at nasa, at d.o.d., various sectors on loss of control. we have a center of excellence now at mississippi state where there will be research along these lines and as i mentioned, -- ms. norton: if you see a drone going too far, is the technology such that you can call it back? mr. whitaker: there is technology there that can be used for that. that is the technology that's being tested. as that technology is tested, we also have to develop standards for operation, particularly in the radio

communication spectrum and how that gets defined. ms. norton: something that would link, that would make sure you didn't lose control of your own unmanned aircraft. mr. whitaker: right. there are procedures that can be followed when that happens. mr. mica: i thank the gentlelady. mr. meadows. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank each of you for your testimony. let me come to you, because i think you were indicating that the united states is falling behind on this particular use to some technology competition that may be in -- may be in europe and other places. is that correct? mr. misener: yes, it is. mr. meadows: if we are falling behind, obviously mr. whitaker says we have a very complex air system, which i would agree with. that more complex than europe. but from a regulatory standpoint, do you see that we could perhaps have had in this rulemaking going a little bit

further to anticipate new technology? to allow for greater innovation so that we don't get beat out by our competition in other parts of the world? mr. misener: yes, i firmly believe that. i acknowledge that the u.s. air space is complicated but it's also complicated around heathrow. and other places around the world. and so we need to acknowledge that other countries are just taking a more forward-looking planning approach. again, i don't blame the f.a.a. for not having rules in place. this is a big challenge and nasa and the f.a.a. and private industry are working together to address the technical challenges. what i'm suggesting is that the risk-based approach taken throughout much of the mprm also could be applied to these beyond visual line of sight and highly automated operations that we foresee. mr. meadows: let me come back to you, mr. whitaker. i serve on the t.n.i. committee. we've had a number of hearings, we've talked about these six

regional test areas across the united states. what i have found interesting is, as we have come out with this proposed rule, is that most of this seems to be a rule that is looking backwards, not forward. for example, i mean, looking at not being able to operate these other than line of sight or at it's extremely short sighted, i believe, in terms of a rule. it's almost like, in order to meet some of the deadlines you've put forth a rule that is very restrictive instead of really saying that if there's the technology, which we have the technology, to manage this, other than line of sight, could we not do that in a safe manner? mr. whitaker: we had a lot of debate around this as the rule was put together. i think initially there was an

attempt to boil the ocean, if will you, and take on all possible issues in the rule. the decision was made to come up with a less onerous rule that covers the majority of the types of operations that we know people want to undertake. that the technology's there, it's proven and can happen. so we defined an envelope of operation, if will you. the things that are in that envelope, it will unleash a lot of the commercial needs that's there. shoots that are still out there to be worked out and to have standards built around, we do have regulatory actual tools to allow those -- regulatory tools to allow those to go forward. mr. meadows: if we're talking about, you say that it would provide for most of what we're talking about, i would disagree with that. if we're talking about line of sight. because what the others are talking about really is not line of sight. doctor, you know, you work for nasa. can you put something out in

space or on the moon without -- in a safe way and do it without line of sight? be careful how you answer. [laughter] mr. whitaker: working in the aeronautics mission at nasa, i won't speak to the space applications. mr. meadows: can't some of your colleagues do that, i guess? do they have to view that the whole way to where it lands in order for it to be safe? mr. whitaker: that is certainly not the case. mr. meadows: ok. so i guess, i'm going to encourage you, as we are looking for a f.a.a. re-authorization in less than 60 days, i am encouraging you to be a little bit more forward thinking as it comes to the line of sight and some of the technology that is available to us today, the stakeholders, mean, it's all over. because if not, you're regular

-- your regulations become the throttle or the choke that keeps innovation from moving us forward and ultimately we will lose out to competition abroad. do i have your commit tment will you look at that agress -- commitment that you will look at that aggressively? mr. whitaker: we will. i think granting the railroad authority to operate beyond line of sight is part of that effort to lean forward. mr. meadows: all right. i yield back, thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mica: thank you. mr. lynch. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the panel members for your help this morning. i think all of you have contributed well through this, through the understanding that we are gaining regarding this technology. mr. geiger i think some of the ramifications that you've brought to mind are very, very helpful. mr. whitaker, the problem that i have, the greatest concern i have is the interface or the fit between f.a.a. and a technology which might become

ubiquitous at some point in the near future. in your testimony or in one of your answer as you said that the system being developed will allow us to keep drones away from people and other sensitive areas. the problem i have is, with hat you're doing now, with aircraft, i represent logan airport. that area. myself and mr. capuano from boston, in the eighth and seventh districts, we represent a semicircle around the airport. so we're airport communities. i hate to put this on you, but i would have to say that out of all -- out of all the agencies that we deal with on this committee, and we deal with everybody, n.s.a., c.i.a., d.o.d., defense department and others, i.r.s., f.a.a. is probably the most unresponsive agency that we deal with in

government. from this committee. and that's just a fact. i want to give you an example. the f.a.a. has adopted a -- since 2013, has adopted a new navigation system around airports. nextgen rnab they call it. i don't know what that means. but i do know that the result of that program is that instead of flights being spread out over a number of communities, which i represent all of them, and mike does too, mike capuano, now we have a different system where we have a tractor beam system, where all of the flights come over the same -- i swear, square foot of land. every day, every night. and so the people who live underneath that tractor beam, i'm worried about their health. based on the volume and the spirit of the calls that i get continually from those neighborhoods and those towns, thissome system is not working

-- this system is not working and it's dert only in their health, so as an -- detrimental to their health. as an elected representative, i try to get a meeting with the f.a.a. in the town of milton, massachusetts, which is under that tractor beam. i wrote a letter to the regional administrator in my area, refused to come. first they agreed to come, in the meeting that i had with them. then once they got out of the meeting they changed their mind and said they never agreed to that. so i'm trying to get f.a.a. -- look, i understand how difficult it is to operate the airport and do your job. but we have a basic responsibility to meet with the people that we work for. and some of the folks at f.a.a. have said those folks have yelled at us, they have yelled at me too. that's part of the job. sometimes they have a good reason to yell at me. and you. and i think they have one now. so, i have been so frustrated with this process of just getting a meeting in the town

of milton, that i had to go on the floor the other day and put an amendment on the floor to cut $25 million from f.a.a.'s budget. because we give you money to do outreach. well, outreach is not happening in the eighth congressional district of massachusetts, i can tell you right now. so i figured since you're not doing that job, i'll take that money and put it somewhere else, where somebody will actually use it. so that's where we're at right now. you and me. mr. capuano and the f.a.a. you're not treating -- you know, i don't mind being dissed myself. i can deal with that. congress' popularity is 6%. i'm used to that. however, when you refuse to meet with the people that i represent, then i get mad. i can't have that. nobody here can have that. we all represent -- look, i represent 727,514 people. those are my bosses. i go to work for them every single day. and i can't get a meeting with

a group of them and the f.a.a. so we have a problem. and now here we are talking about, like i said, this new technology, at some point could become ubiquitous. so i'm nervous. because when we had a problem -- when we have a problem with drones, i'm going to have to go to f.a.a. for a meeting and they're probably going to tell me, sorry, pal, we're busy, we can't meet with you. i can't have that answer. you have three seconds to answer me. [laughter] mr. whitaker: first of all, i apologize if the f.a.a.'s been unresponsive. i'm not -- mr. lynch: poll ji accepted. mr. wittman: i will get back with you directly with a response to that -- mr. whitaker: i will get back with you directly with a response to. that community outreach is one of the most important things we do. if we don't do it, it leads to trouble. let me make sure that we get back with you shortly. mr. lynch: thank you. i appreciate the chairman's indulgence. thank you. mr. mica: all politics is local.

mr. highs. mr. hice: thank you. mr. mica: wait a second. mr. walker was next. ial point -- i apologize. you have been heard, mr. walker. mr. walker: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. hice. mr. mica: i'm sorry, you are recognized, mr. walker. we'll get to hice next. mr. walker: thank you very much. as a member on the committee of homeland security, we have had several classified briefings as far as the concerns, even locally and regionaly. i know there's a lot of issues that have to be worked out, particularly with the u.a.v.'s and u.a.s.'s. i want to take a little bit of a turn here and talk about some of the pros, some of the positives from possibly the new technology as we move forward. i always, if you look back historically, any time there's something that's new that developed, there's always a little bit of a pushback eaction' areary -- reactionary. i want to talk about, maybe

start with mr. wynne. according to your data and your department, believes the u.s. could be in line to lose more than $10 billion of potential economic impact every year that the u.s. integration is delayed. would you take just a minute to speak to that. is that accurate? mr. wynne: yes, sir. that's in the community that i represent. the commercial u.a.s. community. that goes -- i think there's additional value to -- that can be added to other industries that want to utilize the technology that go on top of that. mr. walker: ok. mr. misener, what steps -- let me back up a little bit. according to amazon prime air, you have been doing more testing in other countries. can you speak to that? do you have less restrictions? why does one seem to be doing more testing in other countries as opposed to here? mr. misener: thank you, mr. walker. i think we have turned that corner with the f.a.a. the f.a.a. has streamlined

their approval process in a way that is beneficial to the industry, it's going to accelerate the amount of test that can be done here -- testing that can be done here. we had difficulty getting that approval last year and early this year, but i think we've turned that corner now. the real direction we need to take now is sort of the planning for the operational rules. and we look floord to working with the f.a.a. on -- forward to working with the f.a.a. on that. we're eager to do so. on testing i think we're able to do it in multiple locations, including within the united states. mr. walker: what's the objective of amazon? where are you wanting to see this go, providing that things are worked out with the f.a.a.? mr. misener: we'd like to start delivering to our customers as soon as it's approved regulatory. we are working on the technology as quickly as we can. we have an advanced team. amazon doesn't sound like an aviation company but we've staffed up with aviation experts including on my time. i have military and commercial pilots on my team. we're taking this very seriously. the safety aspect is front and center. the team is trying to develop

this as quickly as possible. there are other things going on here. not only the aviation aspects. we have to get our fulfillment center and distribution facilities right. because to get that 30-minute promise down, we have to get that item somewhere in a very large building, ready to get to the drone. that presents another set of engineering challenges we're working on. mr. walker: you said you're working or do you have the technology in place to move forward providing that all the other restrictions are given the green light? mr. misener: today, no. but we will have it in place by the time any regulations are ready. worry working very quickly. the iteration process, in a company like ours, in a robotics mission like ours, is very rapid. we're confident we'll have it in place. this is why we look forward to working closely with the f.a.a. on preparing for those rules. auk walker what kind of solution -- mr. walker: what tell solutions can you me about on safety?

mr. wynne: as i mentioned in my testimony, there's a lot of research and development that's required to prove out equivalent level of safety for the more complex operations that we can envisage today but can't quite do yet. nasa plays an important role in this. the f.a.a. plays an important role in this. the d.o.d. has successfully flown unmanned and manned aircraft in theater for many, many years successfully and safely. they can learn from one another. and industry brings a lot of resources and technology to the table. so one of the key things is to make certain that all of that is well coordinated and i think some outside pressure from -- for the agencies to work together i think is always important. that's beginning to happen now and we're very pleased with that. but i think their resources -- there are resources ultimately that will be required. i know the fiscal constraints on system require -- make it difficult for new resources to be brought to the table.

but we think that with the right coordination, with the right plan we can do that. i think that's an appropriate role for congress and this committee. mr. walker: thank you. my time is almost expired. i'll yield back to the chairman. thank you very much. mr. mica: thank you. ms. duckworth, you're recognized. ms. duckworth: duck thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to follow up on this see and avoid rules. mr. wynne, i think that your comparison to the military use is a little bit off mark because i was actually in charge of the state of illinois national guard's attempt to establish the rules for flying shadow u.a.v.'s state-side and we certainly had to comply with the keeping the aircraft inside at all time rules under the f.a.a., flying it over restricted air space only as well. so the military actually has to -- if we're going to be flying those u.a.v.'s, actually follow the u.a.v. in the air with another aircraft. i don't think that is something that the commercial entities are willing to do at this point.

i could be wrong. i do want to talk about the safety issue and i think i'm going to direct most of my questions to mr. whitaker with the f.a.a. i was flying my aircraft over he eastern shore, in contact with air traffic control the entire time. and i had an aircraft, a model aircraft, bust through the air space 10 feet off the nose of my aircraft, about 10 feet away in front, and i was flying at 2,500 feet. if this can happen with recreational model aircraft usage, i have real concerns about u.a.v.'s out there flying around. and i understand if you have commercial operations, this is something where what you're trying to do is make it more regulated. i would expect that commercial entities would be much more responsible about how they fly the aircraft. are there any moves to require

for commercial use the use of tran responders on the u.a.v.'s? mr. whitaker: you raise a lot of interesting issues. i think in the small u.a.s. rule there would be an aeronautical knowledge test requirement to so your operators would be more sophisticated than the amateur operators. a lot of the operators on the amateur side are just not from the aviation sector and don't even realize that they've entered the world of air space when they open the box for this device. and that's a real issue which is why we focused on public education and that type of thing. as far as use of tran responders, these devices of course come in all sizes. when you get to the small u.a.s., we're not sure there's going to be a technology that would allow that kind of equipment. if you're flying in air space that requires a trn responder, u.a.s. - transponder, a would need one. when you get to the smaller

vehicles, you're really looking to systems that talk to each other and to the vehicles around them, to achieve that sense and avoid. ms. duckworth: if i'm out there in my single engine 1959 can camanche, i'm going to have the correct transresponders on it. but -- transponders on it. but even a small u.a.s. will take me out. even a small bird will take me out. are you saying we're not looking to require -- explain what you mean by -- is it a transponder? what is it doing? i want to know, here's what i want. i as a pilot want to know if there's u.a.s. flying in my vicinity so i can see so it shows up and i know that they're there. and two, if i get hit by one of these aircraft, i want to know who's flying it, i want the

serial number on the aircraft, i want the f.a.a. to be able to find them and say, you just flew into commercial aviation air space. is there anything that that rule, is there any attempt to go after that -- those safety concerns? mr. whitaker: right now we are looking at rule separation and procedure separation. under the small u.a.s. rule, the proposal would be below 500 feet, so you're always going to be above 500 feet. unless you're around the airport. the rial rule would require the u.a.s. to be five miles away from an airport. as long as they're following the rules and you're following the rules, you have separation. and you also have visual line of sight, v.f.r., basic operations. that's all that the rule contemplates. the other issues you're raising are some of the issues that we've been talking about that need additional research, need standardization and a separate set of rules around those expanded operations. ms. duckworth: thank you. with 30 seconds left that i have, i just want to put this out there and i'll put in a question for the record. we're going to talk about external load operations. i used to fly sling loads in

helicopters. there are some significant restrictions. i would want to know what amazon and mr. wynne also, what your positions are on what are your jettisonning procedures for those loads, all of the sues that a helicopter would with sling load operations would have to follow and adhere by as well. thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. mr. mica: thank you. mr. hice. mr. hice: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. whitaker, just kind of a point of clarification for me. i think the answer is yes. but i just want to be sure. does the f.a.a. or the administration actually have a plan for directing the traffic concerns? or is this something that's being developed and still in process? is there an actual plan? mr. whitaker: there are two things that i think you can put in that bucket. there's a comprehensive plan that was developed in 2013 and then there's a five-year road map that gets updated periodically that provides sort of a master planning document

if you will. mr. hice: so there is a plan? mr. whitaker: yes. mr. hice: ok. i thought that was going to be answer. but it was a little confusing. let me go to you. f course we all know about the jyrocopter that went down here in restricted d.c. area that this past april. the technology that is being developed with you guys, would it have detected that? mr. cavolowsky: so the research we're doing regarding this u.a.s. traffic management system is to enable the user of the system to be able to track and manage and plan flight routes within a very confined air space. others that are operating within that air space would also be defected -- detected but if they choose not to follow a flight plan, they would not be managed by the u.t.m. so the opportunity for that system to identify that there

who is not or filing plans and not flying within the system can be alerted to the authorities or through the system, such that actions could be taken in order to address that. mr. hice: that's no different than what we already have. it was detected with the technology we currently have. they thought it was an anomally or some such thing. you're saying with your technology it would be detected but still nothing necessarily would have prevented what happened. mr. cavolowsky: with the technology we're putting in place, that's correct. what the technology does is allow for the safe use of aircraft that are participating in the system, to manage their trajectories, to be aware of other aircraft, general aviation aircraft, traffic helicopters and the like, that are flying there, so they can be safely avoided and the objectives can be met. mr. hice: does your technology differentiate between drones

and, say, a movement of birds or weather patterns or what have you? mr. cavolowsky: there are radar systems that are being developed as part of this that would be able to detect other flying things of particular size. at this point i'm not sure exactly how small that detection goes. but it would allow for identification, certainly of small drones. mr. hice: all right. mr. whitaker, back to you again. if i may ask a different one of this question. at the end of the day, who hould control, own, manage the traffic management of u.a.s.? does this come down to nasa, down to the government, down to private enterprise or nonprofits? where does this belong? mr. whitaker: we would envision that, as nasa develops this u.t.m., we would go through a

normal handover process and it would become part of our air space that we would manage. mr. hice: so you say f.a.a. ok. >> if i may, sir. that's exactly correct. we have a formal process we've developed with the f.a.a. we've developed -- referred to them as developed teams. mr. cavolowsky: at the earliest stages of our development of concepts and technology to be able to hand to them at determined times that we work by plan for that technology, technology readiness levels, such that they have the opportunity to fit it into their overall program planning and their acquisition proelse is. it's a very rigorous activity. we've had great success with that. with other nextgen deliverables over the last half a dozen years. mr. hice: sos in a's developing the technology but -- so nasa's developing the technology but f.a.a. is using it and the buck would stop there. mr. whitaker: that's correct. mr. hice: mr. geiger, let me go back to you real quickly. just because i think the issues

you have brought up are of grave concern, constitutionally and to many others. i've just got 20 seconds. but, preeveryonetively, what actions do you believe congress needs to take in order to assure that both the first and fourth amendment are not violated to u.s. citizens? mr. geiger: for government u.a.s. we recommend legislation that establishes a due process standard for law enforcement use and we think that generally speaking, with some exceptions, that that standard should be a .arrant when the u.a.s. is used to surveil individuals in a personally identifiable way or property, when it comes to commercial u.a.s., we think that the first amendment is going to constrain the scope of any sort of privacy regulation and could you start with common law privacy torts which have a highly offensive to a reasonable person or reasonable expectation of privacy standard. beyond that, it should be an

industry code of conduct, which will, because it is voluntary, avoid the first amendments issues -- first amendment's issues. i think the goal ought to be to provide a reasonable privacy ashurenls to the public so that applications that have a low impact on civil liberties such as commerce or scientific research can grow. and the industry itself will take off so to speak. mr. hice: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mica: thank you. mrs. lawrence. mrs. lawrence: thank you. do we have, mr. whitaker, do we have a proposed timeline for the officially accepting these rules or the process to go through to modify or make any corrections, do we have a timeline? mr. whitaker: there's a statutory 16-month time frame from the close of comments. which was in april. we plan to move more quickly than that. we've got 4,500 commeblets that

we're adjudicating -- comments that we're adjudicating now and our internal working target is to have the f.a.a. portion ever of this finished by the end of the year so it can go into coordination with the administration and be out early next year. mrs. lawrence: so, many of you are aware that there is an app, i can call siri and say, what's flying above me, and it will tell me what flights are above me in the sky and where they're going, what airline it is. do you anticipate any such app? because my concern right now is , as a citizen, and there's drones flying above me, how do i identify what they are? and why they're there and who they belong to? and that piece, it was interesting to me, when this application was introduced to me, and i'm wondering, if

something similar to that will be required of this type of flying vehicle. mr. whitaker: well, in today's world, if there's a drone flying above you, it's probably an amateur operator. there's no system to track who that is and where they're going. it's an unregulated, by statute, an unregular latesed sector of the market -- unregulated sector of the market. as you move forward with more fully integrated operations in the controlled air space, would you expect to have some ability to know who's out there. mrs. lawrence: well, you said would you expect. i want us to move toward the point of if there is a drone flying in my personal property space, that i as a citizen have the right to know who owns it, what's their purpose, and there will be a way for me to, if i have any issues, to have a way as a citizen to process that

concern. and that to me is a very high concern of mine and people that i talk to. so, getting back to the public, what will be the process of educating the public, and i ould like to ask mr. griger -- mr. geiger, what is the proposed process so that when we -- i anticipate an increase in the number of drones that we'll see, where's the education process when we adopt the rules and we get them accepted, where's the education of the public? mr. geiger: i think you'll see education of the public from both government and private entities. and certainly there's been a lot of media attention about it. if the question is, how will the public know when there's a drone in their -- mrs. lawrence: or what are my

rights? mr. geiger: your rights are evolving and, as i say in my testimony, i think your rights ought to be strengthened by congress. when it comes to being able to tell whether or not or identify a drone that is in your i have tin -- vicinity and where it's going and so forth, we think the industry and government ought to work on technology that will enable that sort of transparency for citizens. transponders would be one option but i understand there are technical limitations due to their weight. i understand also that nasa's working with verizon cell towers and that may hold some promise, although that also depends on the network. in addition, we think there are other technical measures that individuals could use to signal their privacy preferences. one is geofencing. noflyzones.org is a national effort in that regard, where you can delineate some property and say, we would prefer if you did not fly here.

i think there's a variety of technologies that could get you there. i think that they're not quite ready for primetime. but i think what's important is that industry and government continue to work on them. mrs. lawrence: the other question i have to mr. whitaker , in the rules it talks about reporting an accident or damage within a certain amount of time. there -- will thereby a requirement if you're licensed as a drone operator that you have insurance? because if you -- if your drone disables and it crashes on my property or if there is a package being delivered and it destroys my prized rose garden or something, what would be the requirement for insurance? mr. whitaker: typically we do not regulate insurance requirements in aviation, so we leave it up to individual operators for insurance.

mrs. lawrence: i just want to say for the record that if we -- i find allow that interesting. you don't require airlines to have insurance? mr. whitaker: airlines have insurance for their own reasons and most general aviation pilots have insurance for their own reasons. we're prohibited from regulating model aircraft, amateur aircraft operations, so we would not be allowed by statute to have that provision. butted a a rule we don't get into -- but as a rule we don't get into that area of requirement. mrs. lawrence: so if there was an accident, it was reported in 10 days, what happens? mr. whitaker: what happens with respect to -- mrs. lawrence: if f.a.a. would have a record of it, it would not be any -- any requirement for drone operators to be ensure -- insured? mr. whitaker: there typically will be a reporting requirement for accidents and we investigate the cause of accidents. but don't get involved in adjudicating liability. mrs. lawrence: my time is up.

wait to say forer the record that that is a concern of -- say for the record that that is a concern of mine. thank you. mr. mica: thank you. we'll now recognize the long suffering and waiting and senior member and also former chairman of the aviation subcommittee, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. dunn dunn thank you, mr. chairman. i don't -- mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. i don't have any questions but i do want to express some concerns and to do that i want to read a couple of -- read rom a couple of articles that have come out other the last few days. barry weinberger a lawyer who specializes in this area wrote a few days ago, for example, will a drone scheduled to deliver your overnight package be allowed to collect information about you in dropoff and if so, what kind of data? with drone technology developing at a fast and furious pace, there are now u.a.v.'s able to

record video and audio, use facial recognition technology, and collect electronic data, including from garage door opener and other data and rfid technology used in consumer credit cards. it mentioned some cases in which they're using drones in divorce cases. who is theremy scott led of an organization called the electronic privacy information center, wrote the f.a.a. has failed to consider the implications of drones in an age when big companies flying commercial drones will look to surreptitiously collect data as they fly around doing other tasks such as delivering packages. we saw that with google maps as

vehicles drove around collecting information for google maps. he goes on to say, there exists a lot of potential for the commercial use of drones but there needs to be rules in place to protect against broad surveillance and data collection. that's why more than 100 experts and civil liberties experts petitioned the f.a.a. to provide privacy rules for drones but they denied the petition. currently, voluntary best practices are being developed, but best practices will not establish meaningful privacy safe gards. there's a lot of concern out there, most people feel we don't have much privacy left anymore anyway due to the internet and all the modern technology and not just drones. but to show you how much concern there is, i understand that 10

states have now passed laws and my own home state of tennessee which is a very pro-law enforcement state, very pro-law enforcement, the legislature passed a law banning law enforcement agencies from using drones to check evidence to do surveillance except in extremely limited circumstances. and so what i'm hopeful is that maybe the f.a.a. and some of your organizations will take a look at all these state laws because the states seem to be sort of taking the lead in this so far. and see if we can't pick out some good things out of those state laws. minester, mr. companies want to use this information, that there is so much concern about privacy that your company would be well-advised to try to come up with every possible way you can

to protect what limit -- what little privacy or what very limited privacy people still have. that's all i've got to say, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you for making those points. do you want to respond to any of them? >> i agree a company like ours has to take privacy responsibly, we done it for 20 years now and to take that into consideration with amazon prime air which is a delivery service nd not a surveillance project. >> if people don't think they have much privacy now, they should just wait, more is coming. the examples you read are troubling. i'm glad you mentioned in those passages that there are other types of surveillance to be enabled by drones that can be

done with an array of sensors. we saw the government use these on tens of thousands of individuals in the last year. in terms of how to provide individuals with that kind of privacy, you know, privacy courts get you some but it's limited because it's related to a reasonable -- a reasonable person standard and it is unclear the degree to which congress can directly regulate those kinds of uses without violating the first amendment right to collect data in public places. mr. geiger: however we think the industry needs a strong and enforce. code of conduct. unfortunately, the existing codes of conduct are not sufficient for that purpose you mentioned your state laws. states are indeed taking the lead on privacy laws but the -- part of that is because of federal inertia and in response to the concerns of their citizens, but the patchwork of state privacy laws is also going to be difficult for the industry

to navigate. particularly for a technology like u.a.f. which could fly between the borders of individual states. so i think providing some sort of regulatory certainty with regard to privacy will benefit both individuals as well as ommerce. >> mr. connolly. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. it really raises some pretty fundamental questions about the future and values and parts of our philosophy and i think, mr. geiger, you're right to raise the question of what this privacy means as we move forward. even a commercial drone that -- whose mission is purely the delivery of a good could be equipped with surveillances -- surveillance equipment and actually penetrate the walls of a house and look into what's

going on. technology isn't far away from being able to do that. i'm not arguing anyone would do that, but we're going to, you know, the proliferation of drones is going to be make it difficult to enforce even those regulations we ultimately adopt. so it's a fascinating kind of issue for us and i don't think we have easy answers yet but thank you so much for helping highlight them. mr. whittaker, i was listening to mrs. lawrence and before i ask mr. meisner some questions about amazon and their operation, what is, if i'm a homeowner how high up do i go in my property control? can someone fly 500 feet from my roof? i'm going to ask all of you to speak into the mike and move it closer. >> i think mr. geiger articulated earlier, it's a bit unsettled. clearly it's 500 feet above your house, it's federally regulated

air space. mr. whittaker: when federally regulated air space was defined decades and decades ago, there was no thought of a gray area but i think we're facing a gray area. but statute, all air space is federal air space and regulated federally. mr. connolly: so if a commercial drone is flying within three feet of my roof is that federally regulated air space? mr. whittaker: i think you're pushing at those gray areas. mr. connolly: i think we'll have to revisit that too. presumably, if somebody is flying in to deliver fine chocolates and french bubbly to my neighbor, you know, they may need to get close to land if that's what they're doing and then they'd be violates from my point of view my -- they're trespassing. they're trespassing on my property including above my roof.

mr. whittaker: these are real issues and the legal structure hasn't had to address them. mr. connolly: we've got legal issues, privacy issues, constitutional issues, commercial institutions -- commercial issues and all kinds of issues. mr. mr. wise for the, amazon has been vocal about its stance regarding the f.a.a. proposed rule. amazon argues, overly prescriptive restrictions are likely to have the unintended consequence of stifling innovation. how do you believe the proposed rule stifles innovation? an i'm going to ask you particularly to speak into the ike. >> thank you. . misener: we think it draws distinctions in lines of sight

-- beyond line of sight certainly risks involved beyond visual line of sight operations are greater, than those within visual line of sight. highly automated operations require higher performance than less automated operationses. those are very clear. but the method of analyzing the different kinds of operations should be identical. so we're concerned that the nprm seems to cut those off and prescribe them. just basically say, we're not going to deal with them. mr. whittaker said the f.a.a. is going to get to them. we're suggesting they get to them now and consider all these types of operations simultaneously, acknowledging that there are different risks involved and different performance requirements necessary to mitigate those risks. mr. connolly: i understand that amazon offered to show on a pilot basis that some of the concerns being discussed in the

rule making can be managed without overly prescriptive regulation. including line of sight. including multiple drone operations and other such issues. is that the case? that uh you promised to do that kind of pilot program? mr. misener: yes, sir in a variety of ways. we're working with nasa and will be a presenter at the end of july. and the path finder project looks interesting to us. mr. connolly: have you made that proposal to mr. whittaker and his colleagues, let us show you how it can be done safely before you adopt the final rule? mr. misener: i think these are paralol projects to show the path and work on the rules. mr. connolly: mr. whittaker are you and your agency open to that kind of demonstration to show

what is doable and what is problematic? mr. whittaker: i think the pathfinder program is the kind of program we need to have to prove those technologies so we are open to that. mr. connolly: if the chair will allow one final question. another provision you expressed concern about is the requirement that one operator control no more than one drone system at a time. why do you believe that's too restrictive? mr. misener: because the technology exists so that a single operator could allow -- could oversee the operation of multiple u.a.v.'s and just to restrict one drone to one operator is just overly restrict i and certainly unnecessary from a technological point. mr. connolly: that sounds reasonable on amazon's part. i look at f.a.a. controllers, we don't say to an f.a.a. controller, you follow one plane going in or coming out, otherwise we don't believe you've got control and it hurts the system.

maybe that's not a perfect analogy but technology does allow us to do more than one thing at a time. what's wrong with amazon's point of view on that? mr. whittaker: right now you have two pilots in each aim and controllers. in the new system if it's a large aircraft there will be one per aircraft. if it's quite small it would be scenarios with multiple units. but the technology has to be proven and stan tards have to be developed. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for having this hearing. i hope we have more of them frankly because i think we've just begun to look at new territory. >> mr. hurd. mr. hurd: thank you, mr. chairman. 2001, when i was under the tutelage of ambassador hank crumpton, we were prosecuting the war in afghanistan in the c.i.a., the counterterrorism special operations division kind of was the innovator in the use

of drones in operation. we had air force bird, armied or nantz under the operation -- armied or nants under the control of the c.i.a. i never would have thought i'd be sitting somewhere and talking about using u.a.v.'s to monitor herds of cattle in west texas or having fine chocolate or bubbly delivered to mr. connolly's neighbor. so this is an exciting time but one of my concerns is, one of the things that made this country great is we're always on the edge of innovation. we have the greatest entrepreneurs in the world. wynn. tion is to mr. in the development of this technology is the u.s. leading on this? do we have other come pet tores? are there other countries beating us? >> it's a great question, sir. thank you for your service. i would say simply that this is

a.v.'s l phenomenon, u. are being taken up around the world for a variety of reasons and ultimately we want global armonization of the standards. . wynne: i would say we have the potential to continue to lead aviation in this country. i think we're on the path to getting back to that. i think there's been a little bit of a culture clash from the technology world into the aviation world. i'm an aviator myself as are some of the other panelists and we appreciate the fact that, you know, that this is a different type of approach to aviation but there's a lot of sky up there that can be used for an awful lot of things and a lot of lives, frankly, that can be saved doing things that are very dangerous today that don't need

to be done by humans. we can call that enhancing human potential. mr. hurd: right. o my next question is to mr. misener. the possibility when i came up to d.c. from texas this week, i forgot my running shoes and the idea of possibly having those delivered by amazon u.a.v. within a couple of hours is pretty interesting and -- but you've heard a lot of these privacy concerns we have talked about here. they are valid -- this is going to continue to be an issue. how are y'all, and i think one of the things, you are leading in this area in commercial development, how are you planning to gain the trust of the american people? mr. misener: thank you, mr. hurd. it's a core question about the service for anyone who is responsibly pursuing a commercial activity here. we have to engender trust and the trust on privacy matters

that we've garnered over the past 20 years is because -- has been a result of our focus on consumer information privacy. we'll continue that when it comes to amazon prime air. we're strongly supportive of the n.c.i.a. process and will be participating in that, hopefully developing solid, serious, best practices for an entire industry. mr. hurd: i appreciate that. next question, on the u.a.s. traffic management system you're working on, what are the main challenges y'all have left that are barriers to the deployment of the system? >> so many of the same concerns brought up by other panelists are things that we need to address in a technological fashion. so the -- these are complex software systems where you

coordinate interaction among the aircraft, being able to verify and validate that they are safely providing that safe separation is a critical challenge. ensuring safe operations for all u.a.s. but also other general aviation aircraft in that air space is also a technical challenge we need to step up to certainly beyond line of sight. another key element proukt up is the challenge of the first and last 50 feet of flight. in particular, the last 50 feet, you will work the interaction, or potential interaction with property and people. the elements of the control of the management of that safely in the environment that can be unpredictable is a major element of what we're trying to develop technology solutions around and rocedure solutions around. mr. hurd: thank you.

>> i want to recognize the gentlelady from new mexico, ms. lujan grisham. thank you for your patience. you're recognized. ms. lujan grisham: thank you, mr. chairman, i want to thank you for the hearing. i agree we ought to have potentially more of the hearings because there's a broad based set of issues that do need to be addressed and there needs to be a regulatory environment to do that. i certainly agree we want to deal with the public safety issues, we want to deal with privacy issues, but there's a eal opportunity to enhance the economic output, addressing that in a meaningful and balanced way. i represent a state that's been slow to recover from the 2008 recession. one of the slowest recovery rates in the country. that has got a company just gotten f.a.a. approval, our

office worked with you all to do that, to do the kind of mapping and the kind of work that we're hearing a lot about in today's hearing. not only are they talking about the vast economic opportunity in our state, and whenever i have an opportunity to talk about jobs, that's the number one priority, they talk about nationally, the billions of dollars that could be generated so i appreciate having google here at the table by these investments. there's also a public safety factor that i don't want ignore not just in the regulatory environment that we need to proceed with for unmanned aircraft but if we're using them to assess problems on the golden gate bridge, or we're using them to inspect power lines, we're creating a public safety benefit not having to use workers to do that work directly and physically which is high risk and continues to be problematic.

when i think about liability for companies, and governments, and local governments and utility companies, it's significant. so i'm seeing great opportunity and with that there is risk. i had really two questions. you've been working to address that you recognize that there's got to be a thoughtful but balanced approach. and as a former longtime and i would like to think effective bureaucrat for 17 years, bureaucracies always find themselves in the most -- don't always find themselves in the most flexible environment. the problem here is that this technology is changing every minute. probably every second. as all technology does. and in the thoughtful process you'll have to address privacy and public safety and managing the air space productively and encouraging companies to come forward and give you ideas so we're not thwarting those valuable economic investments, by the time you make those

rules, are you going to be outdated? what is your process for thinking about making sure this is a fluid, ongoing environment so that we avail ourselves of every opportunity without mitigating our responsibility to manage productively for my constituents and for the country real risk associated with any aircraft? mr. whittaker maybe that's something for you. mr. whittaker: i think several times this morning it's been mention wed need a risk-based and performance-based regulatory system. that's very much, we're all very much aligned on that point. we don't want to necessarily tell you how to achieve certain levels of safety but we want to define what those are and what the necessary standards are to get there. when we get to a final rule it will provide parameters and the operations within those parameters work edon't have to guess what they might be.

they'll be allowed as long as they continue to be safe. as we continue to expand the acceptable range of operation hat same principle will apply. ms. lujan grisham: mr. wynne, hat can congress do to provide help for this model, what can we do to enhance these efforts? mr. wynne: i appreciate the question. the point i've been laboring to articulate here is that the economic opportunity is not just immediate. it needs to be sustainable. and so all of the questions that we're discussing, in technology we call a buynary conversation. really cool technology could do a lot of really cool stuff but we have safety questions. we go through this with every technology, pretty much. the same kind of questions mr. geiger is bringing up can be applied on a technology specific

basis to license plate readers, it can be applied to body cameras. they can be applied to a bunch of different technology contexts. the industry needs to do this in a way that's sustainable. otherwise it won't work. and i agree with mr. misener when he said, it's in our interest to make sure our customer's privacy is protected and it's in our interest also as an industry to make certain that we can do this on a sustained basis. incidents, mishaps, etc., while they're common in aviation and we learn from them, we don't want them. we're doing our best to make certain we maintain the extremely high level of safety going forward. to your question, ma'am, i think all of this comes back to f.a.a. re-authorization which is an extremely important matter before congress immediately, and we have submitted for the record of the transportation of the committee what we think is important in that regard so i

won't enumerate that here. but i think it's also really important for the safety of the entire system that we do that on time. ms. lujan grisham: fair enough. mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you. >> thank you for your patience. was a couple of quick points. ok, mr. whittaker you testified today that it would, in one year you would have the rule out. mr. mica: is that going to be september 30 of 2016? or is that going to be june 17 of 2016? -- misener: mr. wynne: hopefully before june. mr. mica: we'll ask the staff to schedule a hearing in june of next year and see how we're going there. you have to have milestones to get things done. i put a milestone in the bill,

september of this year, it's not going to be met, and we are operating on sort of a helter-skelter basis with these waivers and exemptions. you told me you've been doing about 50 a week is it? mr. wynne: that's correct. mr. mica: 50 a week, 10 weeks, is 500, by the time of next year we should be doing how many, several thousand at that rate. we'll have a patchwork of exemptions and waivers before the final rule. that's not totally acceptable. i know you have to have something in the interim. the other thing too is, the office of inspector general published this report june 26, 2014, with a list of recommendations. i've got one, two, three, four,

five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 major recommendations by o.i.g. now i have a report as of june, that's this month, of 2015, all of these are unmet. all of these are unmet. some were supposed to be achieved and accomplished by -- here's one, october 30, 2014. i'm going to submit to you and f.a.a. this list and within the time we're keeping record of it for 10 days, i want a response that will be in the record of -- make certain that this is your response to o.i.g. but i want to make certain that this is in the record and confirm when you will achieve the recommendations that o.i.g. put in their audit from 2014 that they're giving me this report this month, 2015. doodo you see what i want? any questions?

in the record by the time. so again, i have -- we're going to do another hearing a year out. you said you're going to do that. these are important milestones that allow you to -- that were identified a year ago to be completed. i want that report in the record so that we have these milestones met. all right,, the final thing, you talked about, mr. misener, that sensor avoidance technologies, you can put these things up and you have technologies either being dropped or on the shelf that can avoid collisions or incidents that -- is that correct? mr. misener: that's correct. mr. mica: but those have to be approved by f.a.a. for use, wouldn't they, mr. whittaker in

mr. whittaker: yes, we'll have to verify them. mr. mica: this goes back to my point at the beginning. i think the last member too raised this, technology is changing dramatically but we have a failure of the law to keep up with rules and regulations to keep up. so we're going to have some mechanism to make certain that that can equipment avoid risk, avoid the disaster, avoid collision, is certified in a manner. do you have a separate office certify this type of equipment? mr. whittaker: we certify aircraft on a number of fronts. mr. mica: but that is also, i hear lots of complaints about how long it takes for certification and how further behind we're falling. we're doing an f.a.a. bill, an f.a.a. appropriations, we need to make certain you have the resources that you set in place

a mechanism to quickly certify the technology or do it in some reasonable fashion. the problem you've got now is by the time they get the technology done and you get it approved there'll be another technology right behind it that is even faster. so we're falling further behind in our certification of equipment that will avoid disaster. you see what i'm saying? f.a.a. doesn't look very prospectively at how they're going to handle these things. if this is all just rolled into f.a.a. normal certification, i don't think it's going to succeed. so if you have a recommendation or something you want to come back at what you need to beef up if you need to separate out, if we need someone in f.a.a. focus thond for the future. at stake is one, safety, and two, our entering the commercial

age, which this is all about. but you can't do that unless you've got the rules, the certification, and keeping up with the technology. they'll find a way to get that, i thought you said -- i thought he said chopped liver but it was fine chocolate to mr. -- have a little fun with that. in any event, whenever we're delivering, it's a commercial opportunity and a great economic boost. o those are my quick questions and it's amazing what we've done. ey've already flown unmanned hicles, aerial vehicles from australia to los angeles without a pilot. another thing is certifying pilots. because there are different cat

goifers what's going up there. but different cat goifers who should be qualified if they're not in the drone but they're piloting the drone, we've got to make certain we've got the rules in place so those people also have the qualifications. but i'm afraid we're not keeping up with that and we've got to be law, the f.a.a. re-authorization, or wherever, and then we haven't talked about the privacy issue here, again, i go back to the problem we had when we developed this, we were told no to privacy. it was a different domain and jurisdiction. but that is very important. i'll look at the proposed legislation and other things you mentioned. again, for our -- the transportation committee was not allowed to go down that path. it's a serious one we need to address. i think that those are some of the major issues and look forward to your response to make

certain the staff gives you a copy of this list and we want that in the record. again, i thank each of you for participating, our members for their patience a productive hearing and hopefully we'll move this all forward together. there being no further business before the full committee of government reform and oversight, this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> there will be two days of hearings on the recent gold king mine spill near silverton, colorado. it released millions of gallons of wastewater into the river and tainted other rivers in colorado, new mexico and utah. e.p.a. administrator geena mccarthy and her agency have taken full responsibility for the incident. her senate testimony live tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. thursday, administrator mccarthy is joined by interior secretary sally joule before the house natural resources committee to

talk about the federal response, life at 10:00 a.m. eastern as ell also on c-span3. >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. number 759. versus etitioner, arizona. >> rule against wade. >> probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> they existed here as slave people on land where slavery wasn't legally recognized. >> putting the brown decision into effect would take presidential orders and the presence of federal troops and marshals and the courage of children. >> we wanted to pick cases that

changed the direction and import of the court and society that lso changed society. >> so she told them they'd have to have a search warrant. she demanded to see the paper and to read it. she wanted it. they refused to do. she grabbed it out of his hand and thereafter the police officer handcuffed her. >> i can't imagine a better way to bring the constitution to life than by telling the human stories behind great supreme court cases. boldly opposed the forced internment of japanese americans in world war ii. failing to report he took

his case to the supreme court. >> often the positions were quite unpopular. >> if you had to pick one freedom that was the most essential to the functioning of democracy, it has to be freedom of speech. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who stick together because they elieve in a rule of law. >> landmark cases, an exploration of 12 historic supreme court decisions and the human stories behind them. a new series on c-span, produced in cooperation with the national constitution center. debuting monday, october 5, at 9:00 p.m. >> the second republican presidential debate of the 2016 campaign is tomorrow night.

we'll preview the debate on the next "washington journal" with former oklahoma senator tom coburn. he'll also talk about his call for a convention of states to, as he sees it, rein in the growing power of the federal government. then democratic representative gerald connelly on what's happening with syrian eff gees. he's a member of the house foreign affairs committee. and later, adam kiper, editor and co-founder of "the new atlantis," a science and technology journal, joins us to talk about human cloning. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. joining uy melcher of "no caps on be." "no kid hungry." the group make sure that

every kid has access to healthy food every day. we do that by connecting to federal nutrition programs to overcome barriers and ensure that kids have reliable access and the families have the skills and resources to provide healthy food every day. host: how many of those kids are under a federal program of some type? guest: today, we have one in five kids that struggle with hunger. during the school year, we have a bunch way to million kids who receive free or reduced price lunch at school. host: the agricultural department just put out a report looking at food insecurity. some of the highlights show that about highest in 2011 -- 17 million households classified as food insecure in 2014, and almost 4 million homes with children did not have access to

adequate food. how do you define food insecurity? guest: it is a socioeconomic measure. what it looks like is based on census bureau questions, a family's ability to afford adequate food for their family during the course of the year. food insecurity could be anything from a family with a cupboard and having no idea how they will fill that covered. it could be seniors having to make difficult choices between food, rent, or medicine. it could be parents skipping meals. host: are those families currently receiving some type of assistance from a food assistance program? guest: some may be. we know there are millions of americans that depend on programs, but there are far to me children across the country that could have access to those programs, but unfortunately there are barriers

standing in their way for them to actually participate. we know that there are far to make kids and families and this country still struggling with hunger. host: our guest will be with us to talk about these issues, particularly children, and also programs that deal with these issues as well. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents. you can post thoughts on our twitter page and facebook page as well during this segment. lucy melcher, talk about the legislative aspect of these programs. bill deals with it, and as far as funding, way to be stand? guest: right now, congress is considering the reauthorization bill that looks at all the child nutrition plans -- everything from the school breakfast plan, the lunch plan, afterschool

meals, the summer meal program, and wic. now, congress has this on its plate, very much at the forefront, but it will actually expire september 30. it is a five-year reauthorization. we are really working closely with congress and encouraging congress to take up this issue and make really important improvements to the program within this bill. one program that has gotten bipartisan support is looking at ways to feed kids during the summer months. this is a particularly challenging time for kids in low income families. there is strong bipartisan support for improving the ways we feed kids during the summer so that they come back ready to learn and ready to be successful. host: what happened september 30

nono decision is made -- if decision is made? guest: there are a lot of this couldays that go in congress, but what we need to focus on is that congress needs to take action. we have seen strong, encouraging progress from both the house and senate on this issue. we need to keep up the momentum and make sure congress takes this up before september 30. host: our first caller is dave in virginia. caller: lucy, i want to thank you for the work you are doing. it is a vital service. as an american, i appreciate that. are too many kids that are going without meals, and as you said, the summer months are especially hard. it does not have to be that way. my question for you is what is the breakdown as far as the people in these programs? are the u.s. citizens -- are they u.s. citizens?

is that people moving into the country? what is the kind of breakdown please? guest: absolutely. thank you so much for your question. i think when we look at one program in particular, the snap program, what we know is that .0% of those our children for children that rely on the school breakfast, they come from a variety of circumstances across the spectrum. is that all of those families are struggling to feed their kids and they rely critically on those programs so that when their kids go to school, they are ready to learn, and when the kids go into the summer, they know their kids, no matter where they live, will have reliable access to a meal throughout the summer months. host: joe from north carolina.

caller: good morning. i just have a couple of comments. it is unconscionable that this country can export its beef and commerce and then the government subsidizes them. we could feed the world. we will feed the hungry, the elderly, and the children. this is all nonsense. all we have to do is step up to the plate and do it. guest: i think you raise an important point about the importance of the public-private partnership in feeding children. there is a huge role for the private sector, nonprofits, food banks, food pantries, and the faith-based community to play in this. they do play a role. we see churches, synagogues, theiranks feeding

communities and providing informational sessions about the importance of eating. that is really critical. however, that makes up only a small fraction of the need that is out there. we know that those organizations alone, there is no way they could really fill the gap. that is where the federal government comes in and has a role to play. remember, this is a partnership, a solvable problem, and apple rolls for both sides to play -- ample roles for both sides to play. host: here is matt from virginia, republican line. caller: i would like you to reconcile the fact that while you talk about kids going hungry in our country today, we also have an obesity epidemic. it seems to me that the issue is not so much getting the food to them, but get kids and parents to make the right choices. guest: thank you so much for

raising that issue. i think what we see, and what i believe, hunger and obesity are two sides of the same coin. they go hand-in-hand together. making surehat families have the skills and resources to be able to provide healthy foods to their kids, that is exactly right. there is a program called "cookie matters," that teaches family skills, whether they are going into the grocery store, something as simple as learning how to read unit prices, or reading nutritional labels and looking for items that you may or may not want to be giving your children. something as simple as choosing between frozen produce or fresh produce, as well as teaching families how to prepare those foods. something as simple as learning

to slice and onion could be a real game changer. this comes back to making sure the families have those skills, coupled with the benefits that they received through these programs to be able to make choices. host: do people who receive snap or wic have items that they can or cannot by? guest: there are requirements. the wic program, because it is targeted for pregnant women and babies, there are some mr. kids. the snap program also has some restrictions, but it is a much broader program. the important point with snap and the foods available, it gives families the opportunity to choose the right food for their families and kids. a recent op-ed in "the new

york times" took a look at the snap program. they talk about some of the nutritional aspects of snap and say this, it is the only federal nutrition program to allow sodas, chips, and candy to be public funds. what do you make of that assessment, and are changes needed? guest: that is certainly a hot issue in something the media is taking a look at now. i think what this really comes back to is the importance of nutrition education and making sure the families happy skills and resources, as well as access to healthy foods in communities across the country to be able to make the right choices. i think by large parents want to make healthy choices for their kids. these families struggling to get

by day the day, we need to be sure we are doing everything to empower them to make good choices. host: here is michael in california, independent line. caller: i'm wondering your foodhts, most likely the they are consuming is a gmo. what are your thoughts about monsanto and the frankenstein creation they call gmo's. thank you a much. guest: thank you so much for that question. i will say, i don't know too much about the issue of jeanne moos, said do not want to -- , but i think this comes down to whether a child is getting food, and where from, and that parents and families know the importance of healthy eating and the spectrum of decisions in front of them, and again, that they are empowered

to make decisions based on good information that they have on food. again, taking a step back, what it comes down to is that every hungry kid in this country has a healthy meal. hungryucy melcher of " -- no. "no kid hungry" joining us. up next, from georgia. caller: i'm telling you right us how to cook, go out and get food. i want to know, when the children, cannot feed what about the faith-based people? the churches and all that.

you can go and get free food or go to the food bank and get it. all you have to do is show how much income you have. to the people know about that? if they can't cut and onion, they have to know about how to go to one of these faith-based places and get food. they have places where i live that will give you a free meal, freeee meals a day -- two meals a day. i have done community service at them, and they're very good. they serve very good food. all of the food is donated to them. i don't think anybody can actually go hungry unless they really don't have any access to food, as far as being held back from it, such as they are starting the children to death. as the guy said, there is an obesity problem. therefore, what is the war on

food or war on poverty, such as what lyndon johnson put out. i think that is all a war for nothing. people can go out and get food, and do it for themselves. it is just these parents take their food stamps, go out and sell them, and get drugs for them. your: thank you for question. i think you but a couple different issues there. the first one i want to go back to is the role that the food banks community and food pantries play and this. .- play in this we know that their only making up a fraction of the need, and we still have children, whether you look at the data that came out, that we are talking about before about food insecurity, whether parents can afford to buy food.

20% of children live in households that are food insecure. we know we have a childhood hunger crisis on our hand. the way to solve that is making sure the federal nutrition program, whether it is the snap program or the school-based programs continue to have strong support, but it will take both sides and both partners working together to solve this problem. the good news is we know this is a solvable problem and something we can do together. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents, (202) 745-8002 . emily is up next in virginia. i there.h lucy, i'm not really sure what your position is, what you are a reporter or part of a think tank . in hopes ofadia

addressing this issue. one thing that has always come to mind is that before and during world war ii, where everybody had a victory garden -- and there are a lot of community gardens out there -- what i would really like to see is a coming together of all of these community-based organizations to take it upon themselves to take every space available at schools, parks, at churches, and community garden spaces to help provide food for the school kids. excess. be an that way, they would get fresh fruits and vegetables that would augment their diets. i have worked as a volunteer at a food bank, and i have to tell

you, sometimes being there and seeing what is given to these families -- the food is sometimes expired, sometimes the bread is moldy. the quality is not that great. panera is very generous, and when they give goods to thed community, that is very generous. to get churches and community centers into production through volunteers, and people who want to, they are part of the programs that need into theelp get food communities. that way, there will not be these food deserts, especially .n poor communities there are empty spaces that could be utilized. i would like to hear thoughts on that. ofst: you bring up a lot

great points there. the issue of community gardening and school gardens is certainly something we have seen a huge increase in in recent years. .here's a lot more space i live in bc, and there is a school across the street from where i live, and i see a areen outside, and the kids picking carrots and greens, and will be eating them during their meals throughout the school day. what is important to remember is that those work in partnership with the federal nutrition program. when they eight from their garden, that is really important and a great way to get volunteers involved in the issue and raise awareness around hunger, and get communities engaged and committed to the issue, but also, something that works only as you mentioned, these came around during the victory --

victory gardens around world war ii. at the same time, that is exactly what a lot of are federal intrusion -- when a lot of are federal nutrition programs were started and got up and running. the school lunch program was started because general military officials were coming to congress and st. kitts and our country are too hungry to fight in our no jury -- military. we need to continue that progress. continue the great work happening on the ground with community organizations, but major it is happening in partnerships with our strong federal nutrition program, as well. host: do they give money directly to food banks? guest: there are programs that help fund food banks. the emergency peace act, a program that provides assistance to food banks. they rely heavily on private donations as well. from individuals, from the business community. i have a simple question

i want to ask. a simple statement. have you seen a hungry child in america? guest: i absolutely have. i have visited schools and community organizations across the country. we see kids come to school, whether it is after a weekend or at the end of summer months who tell the teachers they don't know if they can do well on a math test because they have not eaten since yesterday. they are hungry, frustrated. we work with a great principle in the community. just outside of d.c.. --y told us a story recently he was giving a test to students and the classroom. the student wrote on the paper, i am too hungry to think. when he went and talked to that student and found out, just like the child i had spoken to, he hadn't had anything to eat over the weekend. when he provided a child with soughtst, you merely kids doing better on tests.

kids having less attendance issues, less behavioral issues. we know that these issues are intrinsically linked to education issues "q&a," unday night on robert costa on the 2016 presidential campaign and the similarities between donald trump and 199 presidential candidate ross perot. >> perot has a distinct personality different from trump, the celebrity factor was not there with trump in the same way it drives trump and attracts people to trump people throw themselves at trump for his picture, his autofwraff. but being outside of the republican party, the republican party's relationship with trump has been rocky this year. i broke the story that they called trump and said, can you tone it down on immigration, and

trump said, we'll see. he didn't tone it down. now he's signed this pledge. what happened with perot happened with trump. he keeps saying he wants to be treated fairly. trump could run as an independent regardless of what he says. >> sunday night on "q&a." >> tonight on c-span. devin nunes and the highest ranking member on the committee, adam schiff, talk about national security and intelligence. pope francis visits three u.s. cities next week. he's been critical of some aspects of capitalism recently. we'll bring you a discussion of his views on capitalism in about an hour. republican presidential candidate donald trump holding a campaign rally in los angeles later a road to the white house coverage continues saturday morning with the new hampshire democratic hardy