[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING:
FACILITATING INNOVATION AND LEADERSHIP
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
September 7, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-89
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-559PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
STEVE KNIGHT, California PAUL TONKO, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Space
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma AMI BERA, California
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama, ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
STEVE KNIGHT, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
September 7, 2016
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Donna Edwards, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 18
Written Statement............................................ 19
Witnesses:
Mr. Kevin O'Connell, President and CEO, Innovative Analytics and
Training LLC; Former Chair, Federal Advisory Committee on
Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES)
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 23
Mr. Kevin Pomfret, Executive Director, Centre for Spatial Law and
Policy
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Ms. Michele R. Weslander Quaid, President, Sunesis Nexus LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 47
Mr. Michael Dodge, Assistant Professor, Department of Space
Studies, University of North Dakota
Oral Statement............................................... 57
Written Statement............................................ 59
Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz, Professor Emerita, University of
Mississippi School of Law
Oral Statement............................................... 66
Written Statement............................................ 68
Discussion....................................................... 82
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Kevin O'Connell, President and CEO, Innovative Analytics and
Training LLC; Former Chair, Federal Advisory Committee on
Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES)............................. 96
Mr. Kevin Pomfret, Executive Director, Centre for Spatial Law and
Policy......................................................... 106
Ms. Michele R. Weslander Quaid, President, Sunesis Nexus LLC..... 111
Mr. Michael Dodge, Assistant Professor, Department of Space
Studies, University of North Dakota............................ 118
Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz, Professor Emerita, University of
Mississippi School of Law...................................... 130
COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING:
FACILITATING INNOVATION AND LEADERSHIP
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Babin [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. The Subcommittee on Space will come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time. Welcome to today's
hearing entitled ``Commercial Remote Sensing: Facilitating
Innovation and Leadership.''
For over two decades, the United States has led the world
in space-based commercial imagery, supporting our civil,
commercial, and national security communities. In just the past
few years, American innovation in space-based remote sensing
has enjoyed a period of immense growth. American companies are
investing in and developing a host of new and innovative
technologies, services, applications, including space-based
full motion video, hyper and multi-spectral imaging, space to
space remote sensing and commercial signals intelligence.
As these technologies grow, we must ask why, what, and how
should we regulate space-based remote sensing activities? The
last time Congress passed legislation on this subject was the
1992 Land Remote Sensing Act. Back then, cube sats had not yet
been invented or standardized. Computers, sensors, and other
key technologies were orders of magnitudes more expensive, and
far less capable. Today we depend on these technologies, and
the geospatial data that they produce. Satellites, UAVs, and
many other data collection systems provide the public with
unprecedented information. After 24 years, it's time to take a
hard look at these changes, and see where the laws,
regulations, and policies governing this industry need reform.
Section 202 of the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness
Act directed the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Advisory
Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing, also known as ACCRES,
to report on statutory updates necessary to license private
remote sensing space stations no later than November the 25th
of this year. For this report to be worthwhile, the Secretary
should ensure the Advisory Committee has sufficient time to
contribute to and inform the report. Let me say again that
Congress directed consultation with ACCRES.
Yet, as we near the due date for the report, I have some
concerns. The last time the Department of Commerce held an
ACCRES meeting was in June 2015, over a year ago. This is
unacceptable, in light of the law passed by Congress, and
signed by the President, directing the Department of Commerce
to seek guidance from ACCRES. Slow rolling and obstructing this
law is not only an affront to Congress and the President, but
also to the American people. The Department has had ample time
to draft the report, call an ACCRES meeting, and solicit their
input. In addition, since the passage of the Commercial Space
Launch Competitiveness Act, the Department has changed the
composition of ACCRES by including representatives from federal
agencies. And while the inclusion of federal representatives on
ACCRES is within the authority of the Secretary, it is
completely unnecessary. The Department already has a multitude
of ways to engage with other federal agencies.
In a response to the recent oversight letter, the
Department argues that including federal representatives in
ACCRES's membership facilitates meaningful interaction among
government experts, knowledgeable industry representatives, and
other critical stakeholders to provide advice to the
Department. While this may be true, it's also true that such
interaction does not necessarily require inclusion of federal
representatives on the Advisory Committee. One thing is
certain, if ACCRES operates on a consensus basis, the inclusion
of federal representatives gives the Executive Branch a means
to influence and control of the advice provided, including
advice directed by Section 202 of the Commercial Space Launch
Competitiveness Act.
We, as Congress, and as a Nation, must adhere to certain
principles as we reform that which governs private space-based
remote sensing. First we must ensure U.S. industrial
leadership, and this requires regulatory certainty, and a
permissive environment that promotes innovation. In addition,
we must, to the greatest extent possible, have both friend and
foe justifiably rely on U.S. private sector services and
applications. Finally, we must address broader national
interests, particularly our national security interests.
Few would contest these principles. The challenge lies in
achieving the right balance. And right now the balance is all
out of whack. This is partially a result of the policy Congress
established in the 1992 Land Remote Sensing Act, and partially
due to Executive Branch policies and regulatory processes.
Congress and the administration can, and must, work together on
reforms that encourage U.S. industrial innovation in a way that
aligns with national security interests. We cannot have the
private sector compete with national security.
Make no mistake, we need reform. Over the past several
years, NOAA's commercial remote sensing license applications
have increased exponentially. Many of these applications are
precedent setting, and challenge the legal construct of the
1992 Land Remote Sensing Act. Some of NOAA's licensing actions
are months, if not years, over the 120-day determination
timeline which is required by law. Companies are applying and
waiting, without understanding as to why NOAA takes so long to
get back to them. Stakeholders report significant uncertainty
with licensing actions, including modifications to operational
license conditions without notice or due process.
American remote sensing startups want to stay in the United
States, but must plan for overseas operations due to
uncertainty in the regulatory approval process. Without reform,
we risk losing American leadership in commercial remote
sensing. Such a loss hurts our national security and our
economic competitiveness. We saw this happen before when, in
the 1990s, a number of U.S. companies sought to establish
commercial space-based synthetic aperture radar, or SAR, remote
sensing satellite service. But due to regulatory uncertainty
and dysfunction in the Executive Branch license determination
processes, U.S. investment went overseas, unfortunately.
Instead, Germany and Canada benefitted. Each established for-
profit commercial synthetic aperture radar remote sensing
satellite services, which to this day dominate the
international commercial market.
We can't make the same mistake again. I am dedicated to
continuing vigorous oversight on this subject, and working with
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve
constructive reform. I want to thank today's witnesses for
joining us as we discuss these very important issues, and I
look forward to hearing your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. And I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from Maryland, for an opening statement.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing today on Commercial Remote Sensing: Facilitating
Innovation and Leadership. And I'd like to welcome our
distinguished panel of witnesses today.
Since the 1980s, Congress, across Democratic and Republican
Presidents and Congresses, has set policy to encourage the
development of commercial remote sensing industry, as well as
the government's purchase of commercial remote sensing data, as
appropriate. The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, as the
Chairman mentioned, established the framework for licensing and
regulation of commercial remote sensing satellites under the
Department of Commerce. Establishing a licensing regime was
needed to fulfill our obligations under the Outer Space Treaty
for supervision of non-governmental activities in space, and
for providing U.S. private entities with a legal mechanism for
carrying out commercial space-based remote sensing operations.
Subsequently, since 1996, the Department of Commerce has
issued about 100 licenses for commercial remote sensing
systems. Over the past few years, the explosion of cubesats and
advances in sensing capabilities have led companies to propose
novel approaches to collecting space-based remote sensing data.
Indeed, commercial remote sensing is now a dynamic and growing
industry. In addition, the societal benefits these data provide
for such global issues as natural disasters are evident with
the appearance of commercial remote sensing imagines in
televised news and headline newspaper articles. These exciting
developments, however, mean that the days of relatively
straightforward license applications are indeed over. As part
of the licensing process, novel architectures, orbital
mechanics, and new sensing capabilities must undergo careful
consideration across the government to assess any impacts to
national security and foreign policy, and to ensure the safety
of existing orbital operations.
Several stakeholders, including NOAA's Advisory Committee
on Commercial Remote Sensing, have indicated that delays in
approving licenses and operational constraints imposed by the
licensing process may be impeding the current growth and
evolution of the industry. And, in fact, Title II of the
Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act was enacted last
fall--just last fall--last year, requires a report on potential
statutory updates that might be needed for licensing commercial
space-based remote sensing systems. That report is due in the
coming months. In fact, a year from enactment, the report is
due in November. I certainly hope, Mr. Chairman, that the
Subcommittee will have an opportunity to examine that report
with NOAA before considering any potential updates to law,
policy, or regulations. And, indeed, it would've been helpful
to have invited NOAA to appear here today. They are not the
enemy. They're our partners in trying to figure this out for
the future.
But before closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight the
enabling role that federal research and development continues
to have in enabling the success of this industry. It is federal
investment in remote sensing research and development, the free
and open dissemination of federally provided remote sensing
imagery, and the Federal Government purchase of commercial
remote sensing data, that makes this vibrant industry, and its
supporting value-added enterprises, possible. And I hope that
we can have a partnership as we move forward both with the
industry and with our federal executive partners to make sure
that we're setting policy in the right direction. And I thank
you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I now recognize the
Chairman of our Full Committee, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The commercial
remote sensing space sector continues to experience
unprecedented innovation and growth. Investments are being made
in new technologies and applications with the potential to
significantly improve the world we live in.
According to the Satellite Industry Association, in 2015
Earth observation services revenues grew by ten percent over
the previous year. This growth is attributed to the development
of smaller satellites, lower manufacturing costs, lower launch
costs, and a growing customer base for remote sensing data. In
other words, innovation. The Institute for Defense Analysis,
Science, and Technology Policy Institute reached similar
findings in its 2015 report, Global Trends in Space. The report
stated that ``Expectations are especially high in the space
remote sensing and space''--``Earth observation sectors, where
high resolution, frequently updated geospatial imagery can
provide information on the location and movement of people and
objects.''
Fortunately, the United States leads the world in these
promising entrepreneurial endeavors. U.S. satellite remote
sensing companies continue to push ahead and make the
headlines. But the laws, regulations, and policies that govern
private remote sensing space systems have not been updated for
decades, are outdated and cumbersome. It's time for Congress to
take a hard look at how we can streamline and reduce regulatory
burdens. The private sector's innovation and leadership
continue to outpace the government's ability to keep up with
the industry, with very serious consequences. In fact, the
United States may lose its innovators, its investors, and its
leadership due to outdated and improper regulation and policy.
Last year the Federal Advisory Committee on Commercial
Remote Sensing stated the U.S. government needed to
fundamentally re-think its approach to commercial remote
sensing and policy. The committee found that traditional
conceptions of remote sensing as in aerospace technology are
outdated. It stated, ``Agencies continue to think about remote
sensing as a traditional aerospace technology when, in fact, it
is increasingly an information technology, requiring a
different regulatory philosophy, and regulatory actions. U.S.
Government stakeholders must tailor policy and regulations to
reflect the fact that remote sensing is no longer a U.S. only,
exclusively satellite based effort, but is instead a global
information technology that relies on a wide range of
platforms.''
One of the complex challenges with reform stems from the
fact that there are not only legal or regulatory challenges,
but also process and oversight challenges. For oversight,
Congress needs certain types of information in order to ensure
that the administration follows the law. Unfortunately,
Secretary of Commerce and the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration have not been timely in producing such
information. The Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act,
signed into law last November, directs the Secretary to report,
every year, basic information about how many license
applications were received, how they were adjudicated, and how
long it took. This information would let Congress know whether
or not NOAA is satisfying their statutory responsibilities
under existing law. But even this basic information hasn't yet
been provided to Congress.
The United States can continue to lead the world in
commercial remote sensing, but we must ensure the law,
regulations, policies, and processes governing this industry
are well suited for the realities of our time. I do thank our
witnesses for being with us today, and look forward to hearing
their testimony. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now
recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Ms.
Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate you holding this hearing, and thank the panel of
witnesses that are here today.
Enabled by years of federal investment, the commercial
remote sensing industry has made significant progress. In
addition to selling high resolution imagery to government and
commercial customers, a number of companies are proposing new
approaches to remote sensing, including using constellations of
smaller satellites to provide imagery more frequently.
As many of the Members of this Subcommittee know, the
licensing operations of private space-based remote sensing
systems fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of
Commerce, namely NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Satellite
and Information Services Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory
Affairs Unit. Industry growth has impacted the licensing
workload of that unit. For example, while 26 licenses were
issued from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2010, 75 licenses
were issued from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015. And just
within fiscal year 2015, 33 applications for licenses were
filed with the unit.
With this backdrop, I look forward to hearing from our
panel of witnesses on ways in which NOAA's regulatory function
can be improved in the face of evolving technology and
projected operational advancements. In particular, I'd like to
know whether there is a need to update NOAA's licensing
regulations, and whether NOAA operations can be streamlined,
for example, in dealing with the increasing number of cubesats
requesting a license. I would also be interested in hearing
whether new regulations can be developed without unduly
limiting the promise of innovative commercial remote sensing
technologies, while at the same time addressing any legitimate
concerns of the intelligence and national security communities.
Chairman Babin, today's hearing is important, and I
appreciate you having it. In addition to today's testimony, I
would urge you to invite NOAA representatives to a future
hearing to lay out the challenges they face and actions they
plan to take to address them. I thank you, and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. I would add that,
we will invite them after the report is delivered, okay?
Now I'd like to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness
today is Mr. Kevin O'Connell, President and CEO of Innovative
Analytics and Training. Mr. O'Connell is a leading analyst,
scholar, and writer on national security and intelligence
issues. For over three decades he has been deeply involved in
identifying, analyzing, and helping manage emerging threats to
the Nation's interest, whether governmental or commercial. His
prior U.S. Government experience has included assignments with
the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the
National Security Council, Office of the Vice President, and
the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence. He serves
today as a senior consultant to the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence. He was a longstanding member, and later
chairman, of NOAA's Federal Advisory Committee on Commercial
Remote Sensing, or ACCRES, between 2002 and mid-2016. He
received his B.A., his Bachelor of Arts, in International
Studies from The Ohio State University, and his Master's in
Public Policy from the University of Maryland.
We'll recognize you for five minutes, Mr. O'Connell.
Mr. O'Connell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir.
TESTIMONY OF MR. KEVIN O'CONNELL,
PRESIDENT AND CEO,
INNOVATIVE ANALYTICS AND TRAINING LLC;
FORMER CHAIR, FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ON COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING (ACCRES)
Mr. O'Connell. Good afternoon Chairman Babin, Ranking
Member Edwards, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson. Thank
you so much for inviting me to testify today on how we can
sustain U.S. leadership and innovation in commercial remote
sensing. Today I'll be speaking from my own personal vantage
point, having looked through all of the assignments that the
Chairman has mentioned over the years, at the issue of
commercial remote sensing. And I'm proud to have served on
NOAA's Federal Advisory Committee since inception in 2002 until
recently, both as a member, and then, in more recent years, as
the chairman.
Remote sensing technologies, processing, and analysis, as
has been already said, are changing dynamically. American
companies, like Black Sky Global, Digital Globe, Harris
Systems, Omni Earth, Planet, Terrabella, and others are at the
cutting edge of the global commercial remote sensing market.
They feature a remarkable diversity of technical approach,
business models, and operational concepts, world class
technology that's supported by fast breaking parallel
developments in areas like cloud computing, advanced analytics,
and others, and they're able to leverage new funding sources in
the private sector and venture capital markets, and the ability
to leverage a broad geospatial ecosystem that is global.
In my written testimony I identified six big trends that I
think influence the global market. I'll only mention them here,
and we can talk about them later. One, a growing demand for new
applications, both in the government and in the commercial
sector, the rise of analysis, increased access by a wider range
of participants, increased globalization, changing business
models, and, last but not least, the growing importance of non-
technical factors, such as national prestige and workforce
development.
U.S. policy has been consistently forward-looking and
bipartisan over the past 20 years, but our future rests atop a
more uncertain foundation created by traditional bureaucratic
mindsets, an outdated regulatory system, and deep concerns
concerning the trade-offs between innovation and national
security. The U.S. Government needs to benefit from leveraging
by solely creating the kinds of capabilities, information, and
analysis that are increasingly available in the market.
The U.S. Government, including Commerce and NOAA, play five
roles in the market; customer, patron, a regulator, a
competitor, and an advocate. And, by the way, these are not
purely theoretical roles: they are active policy roles, every
one of the five. They sometimes conflict with one another. But
the speed of technology and innovation is rapidly changing and
outpacing the ability to keep up with policy regulatory
developments. As is the case with many other information
technologies, the U.S. Government must re-formulate its
approach and practice if it wants to remain on the cutting edge
of these technologies.
Let's talk for a moment about the regulatory regime. The
regulatory regime needs to be modernized both substantively,
and from a process perspective, to objectively reflect the
current market and technology trends. Speed is an important
market, and even national security, discriminator. Other than
consolidation of existing statutory authority in 2010, there
have not been modifications, as has been said, to the Commerce
Department's authorities, in this area for over a decade,
during which time novel technologies, operational concepts, and
business models have emerged.
Current regulations, for example, don't extend beyond the
electro-optical realm. They're out of date, in terms of control
and leverage mechanisms, and they don't reflect modern ideas
about how to shape global markets, and thereby enhance U.S.
national security. I understand that proposed NOAA resources in
the President's budget for fiscal year 2017 are welcome, but
that does not necessarily guarantee that the regulatory regime
will be modernized in such a way that is both limited and
efficient. Policy and regulation should be anticipating future
opportunities and challenges, not looking backwards, as is
sometime the case.
Let's talk for a minute about security issues. Remote
sensing has a very rich history in the security of our Nation.
That security history sometimes clouds our thinking about how
to advance security and leadership through successful
commercial remote sensing. Four key points. We need to attract
top talent and investment to the United States under a
functioning regulatory structure. The U.S. maintains leverage,
and shapes global developments. Failure to adapt our mindset
will push innovation offshore.
Secondly, we need to re-frame our thinking about imagery
within the national security toolkit, especially as it helps
with shaping the national security environment in areas like
humanitarian relief, and others. I would note, for example,
some of the work being done at NGA by Mr. Cardillo in thinking
in a different way about how to apply imagery and information
sharing.
Third, given concerns about space security, the U.S.
benefits from the resilience created by a robust commercial
market. Diffuse global reliance on commercial satellite systems
redefines the strategic environment for space. And fourth, very
important, something I've written about for almost 20 years, we
need to learn how to live in a much more transparent world. We
need to update our thinking about how to protect U.S. troops,
U.S. facilities, U.S. public at large for this world, but not
fixate on information control. Obviously the United States
Government will retain the option for dire national
emergencies, but we need to think about security differently.
I'll close in saying that the Nation still holds a
leadership position and a strategic advantage in commercial
remote sensing, and we have a bipartisan policy to encourage
it. U.S. policy and regulatory mechanisms need to be updated
for the current technology and market factors, and must
anticipate newer developments, with an eye toward efficient and
practical regulation, and incentive creation for U.S. industry.
The Nation as a whole benefits from this. Inaction and
indecision will result in strategic failure, and being
defensive only cedes advantage to foreign competitors. Given
longstanding U.S. policy aims, and an American innovation
culture, in my view, the only long term strategy is offense.
And on that note, I'll look forward to the other testimony, and
certainly your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Connell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. O'Connell, appreciate that.
And our second witness today is Mr. Kevin Pomfret. He's the
founder and Executive Director for the Centre for Spatial Law
and Policy. He's also a partner at the Williams Mullin law
firm, and co-chair of both the firm's Unmanned Systems and the
Cyber Security and Data Protection practice groups. His career
began as a satellite imagery analyst, where he helped to
develop imagery collection strategies to monitor arms control
treaties and identify requirements for future collection
systems. In addition, he is a member of the National Geospatial
Advisory Committee. He earned his J.D. from the Washington Lee
University School of Law, and his B.A. from Bates College. So I
will recognize you for five minutes, Mr. Pomfret.
TESTIMONY OF MR. KEVIN POMFRET,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
CENTRE FOR SPATIAL LAW AND POLICY
Mr. Pomfret. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to
you, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this
opportunity to speak on behalf of the Centre for Spatial Law
and Policy in connection with the hearing on commercial remote
sensing.
Geospatial information can be generally defined as
information about a person, place, or thing that can be tied to
a particular place on Earth. It can be collected in a variety
of ways, using a number of different technologies. For example,
geo-information can be collected from sensors mounted on
satellites, manned aircraft, drones, automobiles, ships, and
mobile devices, such as smartphones. Alternatively, it can be
collected from fixed ground-based sensors, or by individuals
walking around a neighborhood with a notebook, collecting
information for a census.
Geo-information includes the location, size, and shape of a
lake, the median income of a particular zip code, a street
address, hours of operation of the closest Starbucks, or the
coordinates of a suspected terrorist. There are a number of
legal and policy issues associated with the collection,
analysis, storage, and distribution of remote sensing data, and
other types of geo-information. These issues include
intellectual property rights, privacy, licensing, liability,
and national security. These issues are global, and cut across
a number of technology platforms, including commercial remote
sensing satellites.
The commercial remote sensing industry is an integral part
of a global ecosystem of businesses, government agencies, NGOs,
research organizations, and citizens that collect, analyze, and
distribute to you information. Each stakeholder in this
ecosystem can serve as both a data collector and a data user,
often simultaneously. This ecosystem creates products and
services that allow analysis and visualization of information
from business and government databases overlaid on an image, or
a map created from imagery, and aggregated with geo-information
collected and shared by individuals through tools such as Open
Street Map.
Geo-information is a versatile and powerful asset that is
being used in a growing number of important business,
governmental, and environmental applications that have
tremendous economic and societal value. For example, a
satellite image can be used by a business in deciding where to
open a new store, by a consumer using his or her satellite
navigation device to find the store once it is opened, by the
city's Department of Transportation to decide where to put
lights in order to address the traffic issues associated with
the store's opening. Unfortunately, like other technologies, it
can also be used by a criminal in planning to rob that store.
This power of information to assist in decision making is
based upon a number of factors, including data type,
timeliness, accuracy, precision, and completeness. In general,
decision making improves with a greater availability of higher
quality geo information. This versatility and power enhances
the value of geo-information, however, it could also be a
significant challenge from a policy and regulatory standpoint.
For example, efforts by law enforcement to control the
collection and use of imagery to reduce store robberies will
also limit the ability of businesses, governments, and
consumers to use the same information in ways that save time,
money, and lives.
Historically the United States has been a global leader in
most geospatial technology. However, today the geo-information
marketplace is truly global. For example, Singapore is on the
cutting edge of using geo-information for transportation and
smart cities. In 2011 the United Nations formed the UN Global
Geospatial Information Management Initiative to assist in the
global development of geospatial information, and to promote
its use to address challenges such as disaster response, food
security, migration, and the sustainable development goals.
The geo-information marketplace is extremely competitive.
Technology advancements have contributed to a dramatic increase
in the number of platforms that collect new information,
including, as discussed today, small sats, drones, and mobile
devices, as well as improved software tools to analyze and
visualize this information. Despite these changes in the
market, consumers of geo-information still are more interested
in whether the product or service will help them in their
decision making, rather than the platform or sensor in which
the geo-information is collected. As a result, overly
restrictive regulations on one technology or one platform will
make that sector less competitive.
Technology policy inherently involves balancing perceived
risks with potential benefits. Concerns associated with
commercial remote sensing satellites need to be weighed against
the growing role that geo-information is playing in our daily
lives. Policies should also consider the opportunity costs
associated with not collecting the information or realizing its
full value. Laws and regulations that pertain to geo-
information should be narrowly tailored and transparent, and
such laws and regulations should be continuously reviewed and
updated to reflect this changing technology landscape. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pomfret follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Pomfret, we appreciate that.
And our third witness today is Ms. Michele Weslander Quaid,
who is founder and President of Sunesis Nexus LLC. Prior to
founding her own company, she served as Google's Chief
Technology Officer for the public sector, and Chief Innovation
Evangelist. Before joining Google in 2011, Michele served in
both industry and government. Her government service includes
Deputy Technical Executive for the National Geospatial
Intelligence Agency, Intelligence Community Deputy Chief
Information Officer for the Director of National Intelligence,
and Chief Technology Officer for the National Reconnaissance
Office. She is also an ACCRES member. She earned a Bachelor of
Science from Seattle Pacific University, a Master's Degree in
Optics from the University of Rochester, and she is a graduate
of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government Program
for Senior Managers in Government.
So we will give you five minutes, Ms. Quaid.
TESTIMONY OF MS. MICHELE R. WESLANDER QUAID,
PRESIDENT, SUNESIS NEXUS LLC
Ms. Weslander Quaid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members
of the Subcommittee. It's an honor to be here to speak with you
today on this important topic of commercial remote sensing, and
keeping America's leadership position in this area. Please
refer to my written testimony for further details on my
experience, but I want to highlight some specifics here.
In my last assignment in government, I served as the DNI,
Director of National Intelligence, representative to the
Secretary of Defense Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Task Force. We were focused on stability
operations in Afghanistan, and around the globe, and something
that really was driven home by that experience is the
importance of information sharing--not only with the
Commonwealth, not only with the Coalition, but with non-
traditional partners, and those can include local citizens,
private volunteers, and humanitarian organizations. Those
people don't have clearances, and they need access to
information in a geospatial context. So this geospatial
information we're talking about form commercial satellites is
critical to those type of operations.
So, as was mentioned, after my government service, I joined
one of the most innovative companies in the world, Google. And
one of the things I want to highlight on that environment is
defaulting to trust, and empowering people to innovate, and
make decisions, and affect positive change. Also highlight
something, a default to share model, while also employing a
security team that is second to none. And in that environment,
how innovation could flourish, and the national security
community would benefit from that type of model.
These experiences that I've had throughout my career have
really shaped my perspective, and, again, more details are
highlighted in my written testimony, and more details on
several national security issues, but I want to highlight some
themes. The only constant is change. Heraclitus said that in
500 B.C., and it's even more important today. The speed of
change in the remote sensing industry is unprecedented. The
U.S. Government must strive to make itself a veritable Delaware
for commercial remote sensing, attracting the top talent, and
creating an environment in which they can innovate and
flourish, and thereby enable U.S. to maintain a leadership
role.
If we don't share together, we risk dying together.
Commercial imagery, being open, can be freely shared. National
technical means imagery, being from a classified source, and
therefore classified, cannot be easily shared. It's rare these
days that we are in a U.S. only operation. More often than not
we find ourselves working with partners we have not previously
worked with before, and embark on an endeavor with these
partners where shared situational awareness is not only key to
the success of the mission, but also critical to the safety of
all involved. For example, counterterrorism operations and
humanitarian assistance and disaster response operations, or
HADR, require the ability to share information with the
coalition of the day, which often includes those non-
traditional partners I mentioned before. By sharing this
information in a geospatial context, we can enable what I call
unity of effort, without unity of command.
Imagery from commercial remote sensing is critical to these
operations, whether in Afghanistan, or Haiti, or the United
States. It's not just about pixels, it's about information
services derived from the data. If you talk to most any of the
big names in Silicon Valley, they cared so much about the
imagery and the pixels. They care about the information
services they can derive from that data, and constantly
updating the services they provide, many of which become very
critical, and we depend on in our lives today.
In addition, geo-referenced social media and news sources
can provide valuable insight and additional context to an HADR
scenario, as we saw following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.
Once again, commercial imagery provides critical, shareable
context. Utilizing commercial remote sensing assets and
automatic processing can be a huge competitive advantage.
Commercial companies, like Google, have cybersecurity
expertise, and can provide an ability to share data securely,
and the government could benefit by harnessing commercial data
and the automated processing to provide secure access to data
information and expertise around the world. We collect massive
amounts of data every day. But just because we collected it
doesn't mean we're any smarter, because you can't do
intelligence by osmosis. Someone has to look at the data, and
we don't have enough human resources to do it, so we need to
get the machines to do it, and tip the humans what to look at
any given day, in any given hour.
If we don't take intelligent risks, we risk becoming
irrelevant. In my experience, the biggest barriers to
innovation are culture, policy, and technology, and most often
culture is the biggest challenge. In the case of remote
sensing, the government used to be the only game in town, and
now others have entered the field. There is no way for the
government to predict what could come next, or to keep pace, or
to accurately judge the viability of commercial business model.
Creating an overly burdensome regulatory environment and
oversight policy that holds commercial innovation back until
such time that the government can catch up or get comfortable
with it is not reasonable or responsible use of authorities,
and can have devastating consequences for the industrial base.
The burden should not be put on industry to justify why. The
burden should be put on the government to justify why not. What
has made this country great is our industrial base and
intelligent risk taking.
There are completely new fields being invented, and we do
not tend to see the same level of government regulation and
oversight in those arenas as we have observed in the commercial
remote sensing arena, yet some of these capabilities have
become just as critical to our national security and our way of
life. Government should empower, not compete, with industry.
We're dealing with limited resources, so we must focus the
resources government does have on things unique to its mission,
and uniquely governmental, and leave the rest to industry.
The potential loss of our industrial base is a national
security issue. U.S. policy articulates a very supportive
environment for commercial satellite industry, and artificially
constraining what U.S. commercial industry can build or sell
handicaps them in the international marketplace, which is
quickly being flooded with others who do not face the same
restrictions. And the over-regulation, as is highlighted
before, has led to the demise of commercial U.S. satellite
ventures in the past. So leadership has set the vision in NSPD
27, PPD 4, and the 2011 National Security Space Policy. Now we
must implement that vision.
So, in conclusion, we cannot lose sight of the
characteristics that have made the U.S. a global leader, and
that includes courage, intelligent risk taking, and innovation.
Our world is changing at an unprecedented pace, and we must
allow our industry to keep pace and be agile and adaptive, so
our regulatory environment must enable them to do so, and not
thwart the very characteristics that have enabled the U.S. to
enjoy a leadership position. Thank you for your time and
attention, and I'm happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weslander Quaid follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Ms. Quaid. We appreciate that
very much.
Our fourth witness is Mr. Michael Dodge, Assistant
Professor and Graduate Program Director in the Department of
Space Studies at the University of North Dakota. At the
University of North Dakota he teaches courses that include
Space Law, History of the Space Age, Space Politics and Policy,
and Remote Sensing Law and Regulation. He's also an editor of
the Journal of Space Law. He received his J.D. from the
University of Mississippi School of Law, and his LLM in Air and
Space Law at McGill Faculty of Law in Montreal, Canada.
So we give you five minutes, Mr. Dodge. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL DODGE,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF SPACE STUDIES,
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Dodge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. I'd like to thank you for inviting me to participate
in the hearing today, and it's a privilege to be invited, so
I'm happy some thoughts on this timely topic.
For the most part, extent commercial remote sensing law and
regulation has served the United States and its commercial
interests quite well. However, the current system is no longer
ideal for either the federal government or industry, and
changes to the nature of technology and business over the
years, since the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, have
generated new opportunities that can be successfully exploited
with regulation that more fully conforms to the spirit of the
national space policy, as well as NSPD 27, more commonly known
as the U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy.
Indeed, the laws and regulations respecting space-based
private remote sensing systems stand ready for change. Because,
although generally effective in supporting the needs of both
the Federal Government and the industry, they nevertheless
often cause unintended negative consequences for industry
participants. In particular, complaints have been lodged that
the system, in its current instantiation, has caused
unnecessary obstruction in the licensing of certain data, and
even substantial delays in action on applications for the sale
of data that can exceed statutory and regulatory limits.
If Congress chooses to act with respect to this issue,
there are a few mechanisms that can be utilized to ameliorate
the current situation. Congress can, for instance, change the
policy behind the law in an effort to better align the system.
It can also choose to change the regulatory structure by
modifying the statute governing private remote sensing systems.
And, as has been called for by some in the industry, better
enforcement of extent standards could help relieve some of the
pressure facing private entities seeking licensure and
governmental permission to sell data and imagery.
Possible changes could be done either by replacing the 1992
act with a modern incarnation that better reflects the needs
and interests of all the interested parties, or it could be
done with clarifying amendments. If replacing the law wholesale
proves too far for current Congressional interest, the current
system can still be improved with surgical statutory
modifications that lead to refined regulations, renovating
where necessary to assist with concerns such as more rapid
response to license applications, as well as reforming, and,
when possible, speeding the process of inter-agency review of
matters that require input from the Departments of Defense or
State.
Recent legislative efforts have reinforced the notion that
the role of government should adapt to benefit the needs of the
private remote sensing industry. As an example, Title III of
the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act requires
the Office of Space Commerce to foster the conditions for the
economic advancement of the United States Space Commerce
industry. Indeed, this provision helps to demonstrate the need
for legal and regulatory clarity vis-a-vis commercial remote
sensing. Moreover, this provision lends credence to utilizing
clearer, consistently applied regulatory work for commercial
interests.
This philosophy is supported by United States policy,
including the National Space Policy as espoused by the
Executive Branch, and the U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing
Policy, which note that the success of the commercial remote
sensing industry is not only desirable, but closely linked with
increased national needs, including strengthening United States
national security. It should be emphasized that, in most
instances, there need not be friction between promoting
commercial success and protecting national security and that
the two can and often do complement one another.
Finally, clarity, be it in regulatory reform or by
modification of the 1992 Act, helps the United States to
fulfill its longstanding public international law obligations
under certain key provisions of the Outer Space Treaty. In
particular, Article VI requires authorization and supervision
of the State Party to the treaty for all of its non-
governmental entities acting in space. In the current system,
licensing can serve as the requisite authorization. Knowing
when to license and, in colloquial terms, changing the
presumption of licensing new technologies and available data
resolutions to yes, rather than we will see, will both promote
the success of an industry struggling to keep up or, in some
cases, catch up, with international competitors, as well as
provide a clear statement to the international community that
the United States intends to continue following its Article VI
obligations through a more consistent and transparent process.
I thank the Committee for allowing me to speak at this
hearing, and I am happy to answer questions as needed. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dodge follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much, Mr. Dodge. And our
final witness today is Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz, Professor
Emerita at the University of Mississippi, School of Law. Mrs.
Gabrynowicz is the Director Emerita of the National Center for
Remote Sensing Air and Space Law at the University of
Mississippi's Law Center and Editor-in-Chief Emerita of the
Journal of Space Law. Mrs. Gabrynowicz has taught space law for
28 years and lectures at various universities including the
University of Vienna and the Beijing Institute of Technology.
She received her BA from Hunter College and a JD from Yeshiva
University, Cardozo School of Law. I now recognize Mrs.
Gabrynowicz for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MS. JOANNE GABRYNOWICZ,
PROFESSOR EMERITA,
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI SCHOOL OF LAW
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Committee
Members for this opportunity to be here today. The entire text
of my testimony has been submitted for the record. I will
address four points. The first, a key question to be considered
is whether federal grants, contracts, or subsidies will be used
to facilitate new national remote sensing legislation. And if
so, what is the policy the funds are intended to enable?
In approximately one decade as military and intelligence
space imaging requirements changed, the commercial remote
sensing satellite industry decreased from three companies to
one. The remaining company continues to operate due to its
continuing NGA contract. After years of exchanging funds,
contracts, products, and services, there is not a sustained
long-term U.S. commercial satellite space-based industry. A
single entity exists because of military funding, not because
of an independent market.
The NGA has announced a new commercial strategy that plans
to use emerging technologies. Therefore, the question going
forward is, will the previous cycle be repeated but with newer
technologies? That is, an infusion of military funds into a few
companies whose overwhelming focus must be to meet mission
needs, followed by industry reorganization catalyzed by change
in requirements, followed by a winnowing of companies that will
be likely rendered technologically less relevant in the face of
the next new technology.
Going forward, it ought to be clear whether Congressional
intention is to facilitate a true commercial information
industry with a vibrant market or a dedicated capability
dependent on military funds. The possibility of repeating the
cycle requires consideration of two concepts: first, what
constitutes commercial, and second, what should be done by the
public sector and what should be done by the private sector.
And I refer you to my written testimony for a full discussion.
The second point is the global commercial remote sensing
legal landscape. U.S. remote sensing law is the apparent
standard for remote sensing law around the world. Changes in
U.S. law will be closely observed by other remote sensing
nations. It should be expected that in some cases changes made
in U.S. law will be adopted by other nations. In addition to
the U.S., there are currently 22 nations that have remote
sensing laws and policies. The proliferation of remote sensing
legislation was in response to the commercialization of high-
resolution data.
Some laws are more restrictive than U.S. law. In Canada,
government satellites require licenses. That would be analogous
to NASA or the Defense Department having to get a license for
their satellites. In Germany, a satellite operator can be
subject to criminal sanctions if it finds out that data
distributed got in the hands of entitles that were adverse to
Germany's national interests. The U.S. only has civil
sanctions.
Third, two important policies. The first one is the non-
discriminatory access policy created by the United States and
adopted twice by this Congress. The second time it was adopted
by this Congress, the committee said, ``The Committee refrained
from making any changes in the policy. Specifically the
Committee is reluctant to take any action which might revive
the debate in the United Nations about the legitimacy of remote
sensing without prior consent. It is in the U.S. national
interest to ensure that the non-discriminatory access policy is
continued.''
Another important policy is the National Satellite Land
Remote Sensing Data Archive. The scientific value of data grows
over time, and in the era of big data, it now also grows in
economic value over time. It is crucial to both public and
private interests that the United States has data archiving
policies in place for the very long term.
And the fourth and final point I will address is the
onerous licensing process that currently exits. Current
regulations embody a worldview that reflect the closing days of
the Cold War more than the globalization era technology
development. This is most clear in the method of dispute
resolution in an interagency disagreement. The Secretary of
Commerce is required to personally consult with the Secretaries
of State or Defense, and this function ``shall not be delegated
below the acting Secretary.'' This dispute resolution structure
gives substance to an often-voiced criticism of the licensing
process, namely that the government is overly protective of
remote sensing capabilities and technologies. The regulations
were promulgated in 2000 and revised in 2006. The interagency
process was not revised. It may not be necessary to change the
Land Remote Sensing Policy Act. However, after a full 16 years,
revisiting the interagency process is appropriate. Among the
potential changes that ought to be considered are mechanisms to
determine if and when an individual agency policy is bringing
more influence to bear than a national policy; the failure to
reach a decision is based on disparity of political power more
than anything else; and the establishment of an authoritative
dispute resolution mechanism that can be accessed below the
Cabinet level.
I thank the Committee for giving me this opportunity and
thank you for your work in developing the law of space.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gabrynowicz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Ms. Gabrynowicz. I'd like to
thank the witnesses for their testimony, and the Chair now
recognizes himself for five minutes.
Mr. O'Connell, in the 1990s, a number of U.S. companies
sought to sell synthetic aperture radar images. Prohibition and
dysfunction in the Executive Branch licensed the termination
processes, pushed these companies overseas. Today, a number of
U.S. companies are developing new and innovative space-based
remote sensing systems such as space-to-space remote sensing.
Are we in a similar situation that we were in in the 1990s
with the possibility that American innovation and investment
will go overseas to foreign competitors because of these
regulatory challenges?
Mr. O'Connell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
Absolutely we're in that same position, and as a side comment,
I'd make this comment as well. When we look at the 20-year
modern history of commercial remote sensing, it's highly
illustrative in both a good and a bad way for other areas of
space commercialization: space debris, asteroid mining, others.
And so we should learn our lessons from this particular area.
But we're absolutely in that same case again. And we used to
talk about this mostly in theoretical terms. Could companies go
overseas? The reality is that the globalization of this
technology and the information that's coming from it now
creates incentives for other countries to offer deals,
opportunities, for people to move overseas.
And so I would greatly worry about that. I do see that NOAA
has recently licensed a commercial radar capability, which is a
bright note. But the commercial radar capability issue is a
history to avoid.
Chairman Babin. Yes. Thank you very much. Ms. Quaid, I
don't think anyone would disagree that protecting U.S. national
security interests is paramount. However, from a policy
perspective, it seems that there's a question of what these
interests should be, particularly in light of increasing
international competition and wide availability of commercial
remote sensing and geospatial data.
Current policy places the obligation to mitigate national
security risks on licensees, not necessarily on the government.
As a result, foreign commercial operators are catching up with,
and in some cases, passing the United States. It doesn't make
sense to have policies that hold American innovation back and
yet assists foreign competitors.
Isn't it better to stay in the lead and dictate terms from
a position of strength? And how should we as a Nation be
evolving our understanding of national security interests
within this domain to ensure that America remains the leader?
Ms. Weslander Quaid. Thank you for the question, and I
wholeheartedly agree with the statements that you made. I
absolutely think, as I highlighted in my testimony, that taking
the shackles off commercial industry, allowing them to
innovate, allowing them to do their best is absolutely what we
must do because we want to maintain a leadership position. If
we continue to handicap them, we will lose our industrial base,
which is a national security concern.
Furthermore, if we have the U.S. in the lead, those are
friendly parties. And should we need to, in a crisis, there are
ways to do regulation, such as delay of release of information
or, just like we do with overseas military sales, restricting
who we could sell to. So those are things that we can enact, as
needed, if there is a crisis without overly burdening the
commercial industry.
Chairman Babin. Absolutely. Thank you very much. And Mr.
O'Connell, in your testimony you identified that there's a need
to reform the law, regulations, and processes governing
commercial remote sensing. What are the policy outcomes reform
should achieve? And what, if any, specific recommendations do
you have to effectuate such outcomes?
Mr. O'Connell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think ironically
that the intent of the current policy, as has been mentioned at
the table already this afternoon is exactly right. It's to
advance American foreign policy, national security interests. I
would argue, in addition, scientific interests through the
creation of a robust commercial remote sensing industry. And so
that's the broad dimension. Not much has to change there, quite
frankly, in terms of intent.
What does that allow us to do? It allows us to make
investments on the government side of scarce budgetary dollars
and stretching the limits of science, safety, and security on
the one hand while taking advantage of a whole new area of a
commercial market in remote sensing and the knowledge that it
creates.
You know, in the industry there's been sort of a question
over the years, what's the killer application in commercial
remote sensing? And maybe for now we just have to be
comfortable with the idea that the killer application is a much
more detailed understanding of lots of different developments
that are on our planet.
And so in addition to that, the knowledge base, the
encouragement of young children and others to get involved, be
excited by this whole set of issues that's coming forward, I
think that's a starting point of some of the outcomes that we
should achieve.
To your former question about the national security
interests, I'd just add one other thing. We do recognize there
are consequences to our national security from a robust
commercial imagery market. We have to deliberately understand
those and take an objective view of how to deal with them.
Ms. Weslander Quaid. Mr. Chairman, if I could add to that?
Chairman Babin. Sure. Go ahead.
Ms. Weslander Quaid. That is to say that having a robust
commercial marketplace provides resiliency for our national
security architecture.
Chairman Babin. Well said. Thank you, Ms. Quaid. Thank you,
Mr. O'Connell. Now I'll recognize Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses. It feels like we're having this same discussion in
the commercial space flight arena as well, sort of how to
balance government and regulation and government participation
with the interests of facilitating a robust industry. And that
is true here. It does occur to me, of course, that the 1992 Act
that established the licensing framework for commercial remote
sensing was enacted before the evolution of the commercial
remote sensing industry. And while the industry has grown over
time as has been noted by Mrs. Gabrynowicz, that it's still
pretty heavily dependent on government contracts and grants and
resources. So it is not truly a commercial sector as yet. Over
the last few years a number of entrants and advances in the
capabilities and operations has also been quite dramatic.
And so I'm trying to understand, and I heard some of this
in Mr. Dodge's testimony, whether the proposal is that there
needs to be a foundational statute that has to change or
whether it's the implementation of the current law and
regulations that need to be updated. And I wonder, if starting
with Mrs. Gabrynowicz, if we could begin with you?
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Thank you. There's no doubt that the
interagency process needs a lot of work. There's no doubt. And
that can be done through the MOU of 2000 which is appended to
the regulations in the CFR, the Code of Federal Regulations. I
would be very careful about wholesale changing the '92 statute
because there are a lot of things in there that, in addition to
commercial remote sensing, that might come in play under a
political process. For example, there is a National Archive
which is something we absolutely need, and that could be put
back on the table. There is the balance between the public
sector and the private sector regarding Landsat that has a
tortured 25-year history being pulled back and forth between
the public and the private sector.
So I think there's no doubt that the licensing has to
change, that there has to be mechanisms put in place. But that
can all be done through revising and renegotiating the MOU of
2000 without necessarily touching the statute.
Ms. Edwards. And you could also then touch all the
underlying regulations as well?
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Yes, absolutely, because it's part of the
CFR. I mean, if you go to the statute first, you'll have to
figure out what's going to go into that, and then you're back
to square one with the regulations, whereas I agree with Mr.
Dodge's statement about a surgical approach, and the surgery
starts with the 2000 MOU.
Ms. Edwards. And so Mr. Dodge, could you comment on the
areas where we could have changes to regulation or maybe there
need to be amendments to the '92 Act? But could you elaborate
on your testimony?
Mr. Dodge. Whether a number of areas that could use some
change, but I guess off the top of my head one of the areas
could be the fact that there's a 120-day period of time for the
interagency process for reviewing whether or not there can be
approval of a license. That is a long time. And for a business,
for example, that can be onerous to their needs and interests.
So you could make a, as I said earlier, a surgical
modification to modify that, for example, going down from 120
days to maybe 90 days or 60 days or whatever would be
sufficient to both serve the needs of the industry whilst
maintaining the interests of the government and those sorts of
data.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. Mr. O'Connell, I wonder if you
could tell me, I mean there has been reference to the 120-day
period. How much of that is impacted by the relatively static
budget that the regulators face in terms of them being able to
move forward the process?
Mr. O'Connell. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think it's very
much affected by that as well as the extensive set of
stakeholders in the U.S. Government that have equities in
remote sensing. And so you see I think NOAA sometimes struggles
with shepherding all of those entities and their viewpoints as
we think about the licensing piece.
I think one of the things that troubles me is that there
are--I'll say it this way: there are too many people who can
say no and too many people who can stop the clock without
direct accountability in the regulatory process. And as has
already been mentioned, sometimes those 120-day delays are
really onerous on businesses that are trying to get off the
ground.
And so how do you make sure that there's a transparent
process? And again, there are way too many examples of
companies saying that on day 119, they've gone through a
faithful discussion with NOAA about what they intend to put in
the license. The clock runs on the day 119. They get a letter
that says, oops. We're not ready to do this yet. We've got to
think about it a little bit more. And beyond that, there is
opacity in the process. And lots of people, like I said, can
stop the clock, and lots of people can say no in the process.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. O'Connell. So I think that's partly a resource issue as
you've suggested. But there also needs to be more transparency
in the whole process.
Ms. Edwards. And thank you. Mr. Chairman, can we let Ms.
Gabrynowicz finish her comment?
Chairman Babin. Yes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Thank you, and the only other thing I
wanted to state is that the clock can be stopped at the level
of the cabinet and special assistants to the President. When
you're up in that stratosphere, there's no control anymore by
the rank and file and the licensees. To have to reach Cabinet
level where the clock can be stopped for reasons you won't know
is a serious problem.
Chairman Babin. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman
from Alabama, Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is
directed first at Mr. O'Connell, and so if you'd give your
response? And then following that, Ms. Quaid, if you would add
your insight. And then should any of the other three panelists
wish to add their insights thereafter, please feel free to do
so.
National security is a major application for remote sensing
capabilities. It constitutes an important market for the
industry. At the same time, national security concerns may
constrain the commercial market through means such as licensing
requirements that limit image resolution.
Considering the international development of increasingly
advanced remote sensing capabilities, how effective are current
United States requirements such as resolution limits, shutter
control, and export control regimes at addressing national
security concerns? And if we fail to achieve meaningful reform,
how will United States national security interests be impacted?
Mr. O'Connell?
Mr. O'Connell. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. On
the one hand, we have a national policy that says we're going
to lead in the international world, not follow, not harmonize,
et cetera. And I'd like to make that point first. National
security is enhanced by us taking maximum advantage of these
capabilities consistent with what we're doing on the government
side.
And so some of the mechanisms that you've referred to, we
really have to be proactive in thinking about innovation that
comes from them for the government's purposes in addition to
what may go on in the commercial market.
And so we have to be sensitive to the national security
implications of allowing things at say better spatial
resolution, some of the other things that you're talking about.
It's a complex regulatory landscape, and some alignment has
to be done to look across those to see what the effect is on
the actual industry and its effect on national security in
accordance with that.
Mr. Brooks. Ms. Quaid?
Ms. Weslander Quaid. I think the resolution limits--the
example we have with SAR where we had a license granted, and
they were not allowed to sell better than five meter, which is
not very useful--and we had another license granted where they
were not allowed to sell better than three meter, which is also
not very useful and viable in a commercial marketplace.
And so we are looking at a reality where the U.S. is not a
leader in synthetic aperture radar right now as a result of
that.
And then if we look at something like shutter control, if
you step back, and a lot of times the people writing the policy
don't realize the practical implications of this, but saying
I'm going to black out certain regions of the globe and having
to implement that on the commercial side can be extremely
burdensome and complex and very costly, versus saying, as I
suggested before, where they might say a delay in release of
imagery or you know, sells not to certain areas. But we must
recognize there are other vendors that are not U.S. that may
sell that data to someone that we don't want to have that data.
So I think there are definitely better ways to provide this.
Have a collaborative nature to say, let industry lead. Let them
innovate. That is in our national security interest. Those
assets provide resiliency. And then we have a cooperative
partnership with them in the national security community. And
when the need arises, we can invoke something that will help
protect national security interests.
And, for those of us with intelligence backgrounds, there
are always ways to potentially spend money and ask them to task
someplace else on that pass so they are not looking at the area
that you are concerned with, so there are ways to get around
this. Thank you.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Ms. Quaid. Does anyone else wish to
add any insight?
Mr. O'Connell. Could I have one follow-up, please?
Mr. Brooks. Yes, Mr. O'Connell.
Mr. O'Connell. There's an important 20-year history to
recognize here on issues related to shutter control and
national security and it's that there has never been an example
where government and industry have not cooperated, especially
when the government is clear in both space and time on its
concerns about national security, okay? So that's a very
positive history that we need to leverage going forward as we
think about this.
Ms. Weslander Quaid. And if I can add, we're all American
citizens, whether industry or government, and we all care very
deeply about the national security. So I agree with what Kevin
said. Absolutely there's been cooperation when we needed it for
the country.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Babin. I now recognize the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being
here. Mr. O'Connell, you wrote, ``We need to update our
thinking about how to protect U.S. troops, facilities, and
operations in this increasingly transparent world, not fixated
on information control as a source of security.'' Ms. Weslander
Quaid, you said again and again, because expanding the sensing
capabilities gives us the resiliency, makes us more secure.
How much pushback do you get from the Department of Defense
and from flag officers on this perspective? It seems to me
easier to be in the industry that is growing and doing so well
to argue this than perhaps it is from someone who has the
responsibility to protect troops and protect the Nation.
Ms. Weslander Quaid. Thank you for the question. In my time
down range with those combatant commanders in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the need to share was paramount. And you had them
taking essentially their authorities and saying we may be
violating policy, but we'll ask forgiveness later because lives
are on the line. And I think that's important, that we have
data from assets that is freely sharable that can be provided
in the context where we're going to, you know, go after a
terrorist and they're doing an operation at night. And that
intel picture is great in the intel cell, but then they can't
take it with them when they're going on the mission. And often
the resiliency that we talk about with commercial assets, maybe
the intel asset has not been over most recently but a
commercial asset has been. And that is the timely intelligence
they need as they're doing their mission planning.
So that's what I've seen. When lives are on the line, they
will take it from any source. And the most important thing is
that they can share that and they can share it with the
commonwealth, the coalition, and the coalition of the day.
Mr. Beyer. But in listening for the last hour it seems to
me the great conflict here, the source of all this burdensome
regulation, the need for new philosophy, is the conflict on
national security. So isn't it possible also to have the
national security leaders sitting at the same table to argue
this? Would they be willing to do that? Or are they going to
resist this?
Ms. Weslander Quaid. There are those of us on ACCRES for
example who have held TS/SCI clearances--for me for my entire
career, and we would welcome that discussion to understand
specific national security concerns that cause them to raise
the national security flag. In my experience, I don't know what
they could be.
Mr. Beyer. Okay, because that does seem to be the
existential crises here driving all this.
Mr. Pomfret, you lead the Center for Spatial Law and
Policy. You know, our Chairman, Mr. Smith, at the beginning
talked about, quote, the outdated and improper federal
regulations and policy and that we need a different regulatory
philosophy. There's been lots and lots of general comment about
how outdated the process is. How do we go about fixing this?
What process do we create to get something that is actually
forward-looking, 21st century?
Mr. Pomfret. I think the first step is to recognize, one,
that the remote sensing industry is a global one and some of
the national security threats that people were concerned about
back in 1992 and in 2000 and in 2004 from U.S. commercial
systems are now not the U.S. commercial systems. There are a
number of other actors that have sensors that are collecting
this information, not just from satellites. So any balancing--I
talk about the inherence of balancing between the perceived
risks and the benefits. Any balancing needs to take that into
effect.
I also think that we need to start thinking about--and
you'll know in my comments I talked a lot about geo-information
and not about just remote sensing because I think we tend to
have on blinders and to think about regulating a certain
sector, whether it be the commercial remote sensing sector or
whether it be drones or whether it be issues associated with
mobile devices and to start thinking about it more broadly in
terms of all this information that's being collected and how
it's going to be used because that's what the consumers care
about. And that's what industry cares about. And even if we
talked about here before about doing sort of just a surgical
change to a particular law or regulation to me is a short-term
fix and doesn't address the long-term implications of where
this technology is going in what, if you want to have a
location-enabled society, what that's going to look like and
where the commercial remote sensing industry fits into that.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you. Mr. O'Connell, is NOAA's
enforcement requirement on visiting all ground stations
reasonable? Is this a place to start?
Mr. O'Connell. This is certainly one place to start,
Congressman. And this is a topic that we did take up in the
committee probably about a year ago. It is an old-fashioned way
of doing it. The need to visit every single ground station, I
would argue perhaps the technical limits, that we're living in
a world where I might be able to control a satellite with an
iPad or some sort of a mobile device. And so it's probably
impractical, certainly within the resources that NOAA has to
visit every single ground station at least once a year. And
that's certainly one place.
On the committee in public session we recommended a number
of things for NOAA to consider in that regard. One of them was
for example deputizing another federal official overseas. Give
them a checklist, ask them to go out and do the inspection
themselves, someone closer to where the ground station would
be, and that was not agreed to, as best as I understand.
Mr. Beyer. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman
from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here and testifying today. I wanted to ask you, Mr.
O'Connell. Earlier you said current regulations don't address
capabilities outside the electro-optical spectrum. Is that
correct?
Mr. O'Connell. That's correct.
Mr. Bridenstine. And I think just a few minutes ago you
said that there was recently a license given for radar, space-
based radar?
Mr. O'Connell. That's correct.
Mr. Bridenstine. So how do you reconcile those two?
Mr. O'Connell. Well, I think there was a large discussion
that went on, a large and lengthy discussion, about applying
what they could out of the regulations and nonetheless going
ahead and issuing the license.
Mr. Bridenstine. So they are regulating and they are
licensing. Do they have statutory authority to do that? Is that
something we should give?
Mr. O'Connell. I think you should take a look at it.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. That's important. When you think
about transparency, we've heard from a lot of folks, I've
heard, our office has heard from a lot of folks that at the end
of the day, they don't get a yes or a no but they don't get a
why, either.
Mr. O'Connell. Right.
Mr. Bridenstine. And sometimes they get a no but they don't
get a why. If you have a company that's cleared, do we have an
obligation or should we have an obligation to make sure they
understand why? Because ultimately we have an interest in
making sure this industry is successful so that we want them to
go and get more capital investments. We want them to build more
satellites. We want them to get more geospatial intelligence
resources for us. But then we're not giving them an explanation
of why they're not getting a license which prohibits them from
doing all those great things we need them to do.
Mr. O'Connell. Congressman, that's a great question, and it
calls for a better conversation between the government on its
precise national security concerns and the industry. There's
clearances involved. There's all the other artifacts associated
with doing that. We have to have a better way to convey those
national security concerns clearly and crisply to companies
that are in the market.
One of my best examples of this is when I hear government
colleagues say, gee, do the business models close on these
companies? You know, are these companies going to be
profitable? It is proper for anyone in the government that
expects to spend money with a commercial enterprise to have
some sense of that. But as you might imagine, government
officials are uniquely not positioned to make that kind of
evaluation. One of the things that I've been pursuing is some
surrogate that could come from an organization closer to the
business model world--space insurance, space finance--just as
examples that we thought about. But you're absolutely on the
right track which is we need a much better conversation, a
clearer conversation.
Mr. Bridenstine. Can you do space insurance for a risk that
nobody can possibly measure? We're talking about political risk
I guess in this case?
Mr. O'Connell. Or business model risk.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. Sure. I had another thought that I
read recently which is that the law requires that the Secretary
of Commerce consult with, but not concur with, necessarily the
Department of Defense or the Department of State. Is that
correct?
Mr. O'Connell. Correct.
Mr. Bridenstine. So ultimately, the Secretary of Commerce,
unless told a very explicit reason why not to do it, could just
say let's go forward with this, according to the law?
Mr. O'Connell. That's correct.
Mr. Bridenstine. Anybody here disagree with that? So if we
had maybe an aggressive Secretary of Commerce that was willing
to push on that, could we get better results for the
intelligence community and for the industry in general?
Mr. O'Connell. I think that conversation would be improved,
Congressman.
Mr. Bridenstine. I'm not saying we need a new Secretary of
Commerce.
Mr. O'Connell. No, no.
Mr. Bridenstine. I'm just saying that maybe that's one area
that the Secretary of Commerce could look at. The one area,
another area, that I've heard and I have concerns on is this
retroactive changing of licenses where people, you know, get
their license maybe not revoked but changed in a way that is
not as beneficial to them in the future and they can't sell
their products as much. What do we do to compensate them as a
government? If they make investments based on a contract with
the U.S. Government, and that contract might be just a
regulatory deal, maybe not a monetary deal but a regulatory
arrangement, and they go out and they start selling products
and then they have their license maybe altered and they can't
close that business model as you suggested earlier, what do we
do to compensate when government makes that decision? And are
we at risk of putting people out of business or maybe not
quantifiable but are we at risk of having people not enter a
business that they otherwise would have entered?
Mr. O'Connell. Absolutely, Congressman. I can't comment on
what we would pay them and how we'd make that calculation. And
to my knowledge--
Mr. Bridenstine. Do we? Does that ever happen? Anyone? It
does happen?
Ms. Gabrynowicz. A license can be an asset, and if it gets
modified or changed, its economic value changes. And there are
other contract regulations. You need to talk to a good contract
officer here----
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay.
Ms. Gabrynowicz. --about for the needs of the government,
when something needs to be modified or ended that wasn't
planned, how that's paid for.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. Last question, Mr. Chairman, if
you'll give me just a few more seconds here.
Chairman Babin. Certainly.
Mr. Bridenstine. When you think about hyperspectral and
synthetic aperture radar, we're always talking about space-
based, look-down capabilities. What about space-based look-up
capabilities, maybe for better space-based, space-situation
awareness? Do we regulate that at all? Is there anybody trying
to get a commercial license to do that kind of activity? And
maybe anybody that you guys either represent or have
represented that is involved in that activity? And would NOAA
or the Department of Commerce be involved in issuing such a
license?
Mr. O'Connell. I've talked to a couple of people who say
they're going to start companies in that arena. I do not
believe that the regulatory process, or at least a reasonable
one, exists to license that kind of capability.
That's the point I was making before. I think we ought to
look at this 20-year history as something to consider when we
think about other areas of space commerce that people, that
companies, are starting to enter: space weather, SSA (space
situational awareness), space debris, other things like that.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. Mrs. Gabrynowicz, I would like to
thank you for your testimony explicitly because it said--you
were talking in there about the Secretary of Commerce and the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, and that if
they don't agree--remember, this is after it's gotten through
the staffers, it goes to them. If they don't agree, then it
goes to the President.
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Well, the assistants to the President and
then the President.
Mr. Bridenstine. And then the President.
Ms. Gabrynowicz. Um-hum.
Mr. Bridenstine. Do we know that that's ever happened?
Ms. Gabrynowicz. I personally have no knowledge, yeah.
Mr. Bridenstine. That seems like a bit much. I think the
President has other things to do. If that's the process and if
that's the process that's written down, there's no wonder it
takes such a long time.
So I thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back what time I
don't have anymore.
Chairman Babin. Yeah, I gave you an inch. You took a mile
there, Mr. Bridenstine. No problem. I now recognize the
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'll start with where
Mr. Bridenstine just left off. I mean, two words, obviously
jump front and center: transparency and opacity. And the other
two words that come to mind are pecking order because everybody
at the table, all you panelists, probably have much higher
clearances than anybody up here. And obviously, I've run into
this. I've actually had a conversation with the Secretary of
Commerce about a particular issue dealing with Digital Globe
and something that's been hanging out there for two or three
years now. And my sense is that whether there is some
specificity in the law or not, there is a real or perceived
pecking order in how decisions involving something that might
be used by the intelligence community or might be used by the
military or might be moved over to the civil side, how that all
is developed.
And so I want to start with you, Ms. Quaid, and then go to
you, Ms. Gabrynowicz, just to talk about reality here. Theory
is great. I'm a lawyer, okay? That's what I do. I try to deal
with the law. But in these kinds of things--and Ms. Quaid you
talked about when life is on the line, when somebody's life is
on the line, whatever these rules may be seem to go out of the
window. If somebody at a Cabinet level or some lower level or
the Special Assistant to the President says, wait a second,
this could get a bunch of our soldiers hurt, you don't think
that's going to stop NOAA from issuing a license? I mean,
that's what I'm sensing here.
So talk to us about reality. You had a chance to be on the
geospatial, you were with that department, so how does it work?
How does it really work?
Ms. Weslander Quaid. Well, I'll tell you, the biggest
question--and it goes to this Congressman's question as well as
when they got a no or they got the license revoked, were they
given a why? And we have heard time and time again, especially
in ACCRES about the national security concern. And as I
mentioned before to say let's have the meeting, let's have the
discussion, because we have to advise the Secretary of
Commerce. And frankly, in the discussion we finally had, which
I think was a whopping 30 minutes, none of us who were in that
session could agree that there was really a valid reason to say
there's a national security concern and further thwart the
requests that were coming forward.
Mr. Perlmutter. Were you dealing with one of the
intelligence agencies or was this with NOAA?
Ms. Weslander Quaid. No, it was with quite a few of the
intelligence agencies in the room in a skiff, as we'd say,
where they have----
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay.
Ms. Weslander Quaid. --secure discussions. And so what I
think as I mentioned in my testimony, the burden of proof being
on the government to say why not and articulate that. And where
there's those of us in the advisory roles who are kind of
mediating between those in the national security community,
because we have the clearances, and with the Secretary of
Commerce that we can be informed, and therefore we all want the
best interests of America here. But when there is--we're
fighting ghosts, it's hard. You know, give me some tangible
reason and then I can go explain to the Secretary of Commerce
why she shouldn't do this.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay.
Ms. Weslander Quaid. And so without that data, you know,
it's hard to justify why we would say no.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Let me go to Ms. Gabrynowicz and then
to you, Mr. Pomfret. Okay.
Ms. Gabrynowicz. I have not had the kind of in-the-trenches
experience that Ms. Quaid has had. But my observation has been
that sometimes what happens is there's an agency policy that
participants hang onto and promote which may be different than
a national policy. And it will stop there.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Mr. Pomfret?
Mr. Pomfret. Thank you. I guess the perspective that I want
to bring is that this isn't just unique to the United States
and it's not just unique to remote sensing satellites. Most
geospatial technology has come out of the defense and
intelligence communities over the years. And in many countries
around the world they have the first or last say, if you will,
as to whether something can and can't be used for a commercial
or civilian use. And they will play the national security card
quite a bit. And I think it's natural given where they're
sitting and their perspective and their background. So I don't
necessarily fault them. But in countries around the world, in
India they're trying to deal with mapping legislation that
would make it illegal for people who weren't government
authorities to create maps. And there are similar situations in
a lot of different countries around the world, evolving
geospatial technology and geospatial information.
And so when we have this discussion, I think part of it is
to recognize that yes, the technology started in these
communities but the environment has changed. And maybe some of
the deference that was paid before isn't necessarily as
critical as it was. I'm not saying that, no, that they
shouldn't have any say but the balancing has changed.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. Last question if I could, Mr.
Chairman. The last question would be so to go back to placing
the burden on the government or the intelligence community or
the military to say, okay, in a SCIF or in a secured
environment, say here's why we don't want this to be available
to the public. Is it going to be written down and then
published? Is it just available in a confidential way? I mean,
what are you thinking about here? Because there may be a middle
ground for us so that the Secretary of NOAA actually can say,
you know, this is why I'm not issuing this license. But right
now, she can't. Do you see what I'm saying?
Ms. Weslander Quaid. And some of the discussion can be can
we go ahead and let them build it and launch it and operate it?
And then when there is truly a national security concern, say a
high res collection over a certain area, that's when we say you
can't disseminate it--24 hours, 48 hours, ever--or you can't
give it to these parties. And so we're not tying the hands of
American innovation. What I worry about is going back to that
SAR example where they said, no, you can't sell the one meter,
and then--boom-- two international competitors pop up while
we've held them back. We could have been the leader there. And
we don't want to repeat that.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Babin. You bet. Thank you. They've called votes,
so we're going to get our last question in here. And Mr.
Davidson, I'll give you five minutes.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'll keep it
brief so I know we all have places we have to get to. So I'll
just ask one general question that may take a little bit for
you all to answer. What areas are we behind? And if I just
think about this from the perspective of an entrepreneur, I get
this great idea, want to launch it. How do I know that, well,
you can't sell that? How do I then, if I'm sitting behind the
desk at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base looking for the
greatest geospatial resources, how do I know that it even
exists? You know, it's not like all this stuff is going to wind
up on eBay. So how does our Intelligence Committee know that
there's an entrepreneur working in a garage to come up with
this radar? How does the guy that's working on this, you know,
latest/greatest, you know, geo thing, whatever the void in
technology is, how do these people come to be aware that
they're working on something that could be helpful to one
another?
Mr. O'Connell. Thank you, Congressman. I guess that's the
place that the licensing process should be the enabler, not the
blocking mechanism. In essence, that's the basis for someone to
understand in the government that a new kind of capability is
being considered under commercial considerations. So that's the
entry point where we know what people are thinking about, and
at least in my time looking at this, there've been a lot of
people coming for with interesting capabilities. Not all of
them will necessarily succeed for lots of different reasons.
But that licensing process is the starting point at which
somebody comes and says, ``I'm so serious about this.'' I'm
going to create a business for it. And that should be the
basis. That should be the enabler, ultimately, for doing that,
for creating that capability.
Mr. Davidson. Okay. So what are some examples where that
didn't go correctly? So you look at it and say, hey, oops. Now
this is out there. We really wish that didn't. The downside of
a total security environment is you don't get all the
innovation, you know. An upside of it is you don't compromise
stuff. It preserves the status quo. And since we're in the lead
on a lot of things, we might like that. It doesn't do good
things for the market, but I guess that's the thing. How does
there become this market? Simply licensing, just the fact that
the people that know this space know, gee, if I know enough to
create this contraption, I know that I have to license it. How
do they find that they've committed a violation of the law?
Surely they wouldn't be prosecuted without an intent.
Mr. Pomfret. My experience is, and I'm not sure if this
directly answers your point, but that entrepreneurs, they
operate very well in a vacuum. And so the uncertainty, because
of the business, the technology, the legal and regulatory
uncertainty isn't a problem for them. They will fill that void.
It gets to be a problem when you have a business that's
actually up and running and operating, and you have products to
sell and you hire lawyers. And lawyers look at it and say I
have no idea what you can and can't do. And so it's easier for
me to say no and yes. So I think you see--and we've heard that
there are a number of companies that have applied for licenses
because they just--their business risk is so great that just
filling out this regulatory paperwork is not that big of a deal
for them. But when you do start running a business and you're
trying to figure out when you can sell to NGA and when you can
sell to a foreign entity and what you can sell to someone else,
that's where it gets really complicated. And that's where a lot
of companies are hitting the wall because they see who their
customers are or they think they know where they can get
investments. But the challenge is that the uncertainty is such
that they don't want to spend the money or they don't want to
spend the 300 days waiting to get approval.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairman Babin. Thank you so much. That was my second
warning that votes have been called. But I would like to thank
the witnesses for your valuable testimony and the Members for
your questions. The record will remain open for two weeks for
additional comments and written questions from the Members. And
so this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]