 And now we're going to shift into the very practical realm. Great thinkers like Will and people at an institution like New America have the luxury of analyzing issues over time and thinking about where we're going to be as a society in three, five, ten years from now. But we're now going to get the perspective of somebody who has to wrestle with a lot of these issues in real time as a legislator, as a member of Congress who has to draw lines and set rules and balance security imperatives with our individual liberties and such. And to moderate this conversation with Congressman Paul Gosar, I have the pleasure of introducing Rosa Brooks, who is a Schwartz Fellow here at the New America Foundation, in addition to a professor of law at Georgetown University, a columnist for foreign policy, and a good friend. Rosa, I'm going to hand it off to you as you get the microphone. No, I'm not going to go up there, Andre, because I'm told that I'm now physically attached to this chair. But thank you, and good morning to you all. This is a terrific turnout, and thank you all for coming. We are really thrilled to have Representative Gosar with us this morning. I know that a lot of the action on drone issues is now moving to Capitol Hill, and he's going to be able, I hope, to tell us a little bit both about what these issues look like from his perspective as a congressman from Arizona's fourth district, but also to talk a little bit about how this whole discussion is beginning to play out on the Hill and what the prospects are for regulation in the future. So, Representative Gosar, you are on the House Oversight Committee on National Security. You're also on the Unmanned Systems Caucus, and I know looking at your bio, you are actually a normal person. You weren't born as a member of Congress. Some of these guys, I think they were. So, you were a normal person. In fact, you had a practice as a dentist and flag staff for 25 years. And so, this issue is probably a good one for you because you are probably, people's reaction to drones is a sort of immediate. And people's reaction to dentistry is very similar. So, are drones like dentistry? Is this something where we should, we've got a lot of irrational fears, but frankly, we should just get over it and realize that at least when properly thought about, drones are good for us, not something to be feared? Well, my staffer once said that, Dr. Gosar, you've gone the wrong way. You know, to a patient in the waiting room, they said, you know, the dentist is waiting to see you. And now you went to the government and I'm here to help you. You know, it's going the wrong way. But there's a two-sided aspect of drones. I mean, I look at it as looking at a bee, a colony of bees. There's killer bees, but there's also drone bees. And drone bees are worker bees, so there's opportunities. But what we have to do is flush out the detail. And as a dentist, the beauty is in the detail, and that's where we have to look at it. So, give us some examples of the, so when the drone bees and the drone drones are doing their good drone things, what do those look like? Well, there's an application. I'm from Arizona and we've become victims of our own environment. You know, we have, in my first term, in my first year, we had the largest forest fire in Arizona's history, called the Wallow Fire. You, as a taxpayer, spent $400 million putting that fire out and you lost $2.5 billion worth of assets. Imagine for a second that you were able to use one of these drones, worker drones, to do your environmental impact statements or your NEPAs and actually do a pattern of actually cutting the forest. And it makes it more efficient for the lumber company, makes it more efficient to make money. But also allows trust to be built because environmentalists don't trust the logging companies. So from a far distant way, you can actually build a pattern. The logger does it very, very quickly, but then also you get confirmation from the environmental community on how do you get that done. So here's an application that actually makes it work and puts it into real life perspective. I mean, you could actually take it into an aspect of looking at our aging infrastructure, where you can actually look at the roads and determine how you're going to prioritize roads and repair and actually look at materials that are experimental in how they're weathering and working under stress. So I think this is an important point, and Will's already made it as well, that we need to separate out the issue of the technology itself from the issue of the various ways we might choose to use those. And those are all a set of policy questions. And I can certainly imagine a lot of extremely beneficial uses of unmanned aerial platforms, including for disaster relief purposes in the wake of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, that sort of thing. But even in the atrocity prevention field, looking at potential genocides and other atrocity crimes overseas, that if US satellite imagery, for instance, during the Balkan Wars was really critical in locating mass graves and being able to trace responsibility for some of the massacres. And I could imagine similar value of surveillance footage from drones, even more so in a more real time kind of way. But I guess the challenge here, obviously, is that the technology itself is just a technology. There's nothing deterministic about how we use it. And yet it enables people to do things that they hadn't been able to do before. And let me give you an example of one of the tough ones, I think. So presumably, I could build a drone or buy a drone, a unmanned remote-controlled vehicle using lawful, publicly available technology that I can buy one on Amazon.com for a few hundred dollars. I could also take a legally registered weapon. And if I'm smart enough, I'm not, trust me, but somebody, I'm sure some of you are, I could figure out how to connect these two things and I can make my very own weaponized drone. So here's a question. You're someone who's been known as a staunch Second Amendment advocate. Should this change the way we think about Second Amendment issues? Is this no issue at all? This is just, hey, you've got a legally-owned gun, you've got a legally-owned remotely-piloted vehicle, you put them together, you've got a legally-owned weaponized remote-piloted vehicle, no problem. Or is this the kind of thing where we need to start going, wait a second, this is actually qualitatively different. This isn't just one plus one is two and two is fine, this is, wow, something just happened here and we need to worry about it in a different way and maybe our constitutional assumptions apply in a different way. Well, this is exactly why we have to flush this out. I'm a very staunch Second Amendment person, but I'm also the person that's voted against SISPA and the NDAA, so I'm very keen about our constitutional implications. Can you explain SISPA? Yeah, this was our cybersecurity aspect. As a dentist, I'm under HIPAA rules for privacy and this law didn't even come close to HIPAA, requirements that I'm supposed to protect my patients. So I'm very keen about the privacy we as American citizens are entitled by our constitution. NDAA, I don't want people to be detained without being charged. I have a wrath of making sure that that government is an arms length away. So this is the issues that we're finding ourselves and I also stood with Rand Paul, I went over to support him in the Senate chambers when he was having his filibuster to have this conversation from the administration. So this is that balancing act and it is one of those ones that we need to have conversation about and we're going to be able to see some of that by the Congress actually passed a 2012 FAA Modernization Act to actually put the sites into play to see how we can actually articulate and see what we can do with this and have a transparent discussion about what its applications are and what are going to be the rules and regulations that govern that. When we were chatting earlier in the hall you said obviously the Constitution needs to be our touchstone for figuring these things out but is the Constitution going to give us answers here? I mean these obviously, these are technologies that are the framers of the Constitution could not even have dreamt of. Do we even have an adequate framework for thinking about either the privacy implications or the lethal implications of these technologies in the hands of private citizens? I absolutely think so because in dentistry we run under a system called KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid and the Constitution is a brilliantly simple articulated message and so you can break it down into simple parts and I think that's what the framers wanted. They could have never envisioned this but the principles are the same. You break it into smaller parts and have that discussion upon that. It all starts with personal accountability and personal responsibility and I think that once you break down the Constitution in that framework it's very easy to have an application. See I get worried because the devil's in the details, right? Oh, I'm a dentist, I'm going to tell you. If I leave the crown high you're going to be coming back over and over again. Beauty is in the details and that's why I feel that I'm perfectly structured and perfectly situated from a state that's very militarily based. We have a border issue, we've got plenty of commercial applications so I'm perfectly situated to be sitting at the table to have those discussions and I intend to have them publicly with the American people. But can I press you on that a little bit though from, for instance, the Second Amendment perspective? I mean, do you see and maybe the answer is simply we don't know, we haven't had that discussion in a serious enough way yet but do you see that this as the notion that private citizens could possess, weaponized remote control flying vehicles as just a totally different issue where no, you actually maybe you don't have, maybe your Second Amendment rights don't extend to that versus do you see this as, yeah, they do, we just need to make sure that the right citizens, maybe we have a different background system. So how would you begin to think about working out the details on something like that? Well, I think we've already started to see it. I think that you saw the conversation that Senator Paul had on the floor was to actually have a discussion with the administration that clearly somebody sitting an American citizen sitting at a cafe wouldn't be a target. I mean, that's the start of the conversation. You start very, very broad and you move it very, very small. And I think that's the nuances that we're actually having. And I think that some of the critical things that, you know, the killing of a terrorist who is a US citizen, what about his son that was in that area? We have that conversation and you methodically, pictorially go through this, but you also have that conversation in the public. You don't keep it behind closed doors. That's why you have to air this out and make sure that the American public's comfortable with it. And I think once you air those things out with the American public, the American public is going to decide and put those parameters in. And I think too long, you just call me a normal person. You know, I tell everybody I'm a dentist impersonating a politician. So things got to rationally make sense to me is that I think when you share that with the American public, are they difficult issues? Absolutely. But what you can do is have that conversation and you'll sort them out by having a clear defined articulated conversation. Do you think that this clearly defined conversation is beginning to happen on the Hill? What are your, what's your prognosis for the likelihood that we are going to, that we are gonna get a sort of serious discussion on the Hill which might lead to some actual legislative action? I think you are. And I mean, just the whole fact that we're now competing for test sites. And in my district, it's a very libertarian based type of a district. We have these conversations all the time. I mean, you know, I'm a hero for not voting for SISPA and for the NDAA. But that's a conversation that you wanna have is take that technology and say, listen, what part of that application can you use? Like for example, the forest industry, pest control in farms and border security. I mean, Arizona's front and center. I mean, look at all the questions we're asking. And so this is, you know, sometimes what I've also said is that, you know, have the discussion be a leader in that discussion. Make sure that you turn up all the questions and start that discussion. And that's one of the things Arizona is very prominent about is that we came into this country kicking and screaming. We wanted to recall judges. That's why we were delayed coming into the country. And we continue that onslaught of asking questions. And ASU, you know, is sponsoring this today is another one of those key element of education. We also have Embry Riddle that actually is one of the top aeronautical schools in the country actually doing some of this. So it's on the forecast and it's on the forefront. And I think this discussion is coming home now that we see its deployment on border security, identification in Cropson and the commercial side of it. Is this something, I know that the border control authorities have already used unmanned aerial vehicles. Just minimally. Just minimally. Is this something where you're seeing from your constituency a lot of interest among private citizens in talking about how do we develop these technologies? How do we put them to use commercially? How do we, are you getting that from local law enforcement? Where's, is there a sort of groundswell of interest at the grassroots level or is this still mostly a executive branch federal matter? No, it's all over. I mean, from our police and local districts, search and rescue. I mean, think of an example. You talked about the mass atrocities. Well, what about just what happened over in Colorado in a naval ranch? Sending one of these up with a thermal imaging. You could actually probably identify where those bodies are or people are so that you get quick responses. Or if you have a hiker stranded up on a mountain, you can actually look at thermal currents and drop food or first aid. So there's lots of applications and it's starting to happen right now. In Arizona, we're seeing it at our police level talking to people. This is what we have for bomb squad, bomb scares to search and rescue. And then people are, we're having that discussion saying, listen, because of the issues of the NDAA and SISPA, people are bringing these into discussion and asking, what do you see Congressman Gosar from your perspective? And I see from behind the scenes that most of my colleagues are having that discussion with their constituents. Is it early on? Absolutely. But we're going to flush some of these things out here shortly in regards to where the test sites are, what are the applications? What are we going to allow the FAA, the military, the police state, the commercial applications to do? And that's part of the legislative process. It's, I did some research for a recent foreign policy column on how easy it is to access these technologies just as a private citizen right now. And I must admit, I was a little astounded at the level of sophistication I personally with my Visa card could achieve just by ordering things off the web. I should say I own three drones. Two of them are little tiny helicopters or my kids own three drones. Two are little tiny helicopters and one is a giant flying goldfish. None of them have been weaponized, but I don't think Will mentioned there was also a recent poll that Reason Magazine commissioned. And obviously, as we know, the devil's also in the details on these polls depending how you ask the question, you get a very different answer. But it came up with the somewhat astounding revelation, if we believe it, which was that something like 47% of Americans felt that if their neighbors or any other person or government agency for that matter were flying a surveillance drone over their property without their consent that 47% of Americans thought that they believed that they had a right to shoot that down. So I'm being very careful with the little fish. I mean, back to maybe irrational fears of dentistry. Are you concerned that in the time it takes our political process to sort of slowly chew over this stuff that we're gonna have some messy situations arising on the ground as private citizens engage in creative but possibly extremely idiotic uses of these technologies? You know, we've seen it already when you start seeing the applications of planes after World War II, helicopters after World War I and helicopters after World War II. You've seen the technology, even in dentistry. You remember the old belt-driven drill? They were like, oh my God, I gotta see that again to air-driven and now to lasers. I mean, all those applications come and there's going to be sticky wickets as we call them that we come across. But you bring those up not to be scared of them but to bring them up and share the light of air to the aspect and have an honest discussion with those. So I think that that's gonna come. That's the natural progression of human nature and a new technology is finding out what it can do, what its parameters are and how do we place it into the best light when we limit it in its negative light. But I think there's always that application. Congressman, I know you're on a pretty tight schedule but we've got a few more minutes. So if you don't mind, let's see if we have any questions from folks in the audience here. And let me ask if you could, when you speak, stand up and identify yourself in your affiliation as well, sir. Thank you. Is it on? My name is Zouq Al-Malik. I'm a national defense university professor from Islamabad and recently arrived as a fellow outside. I've seen a fellow there. So this is very personal to me as well which you've not really talked about and maybe you could understand the way we feel in Pakistan. A lot of people have been talking to me about the fact that Pakistan is not a friend because it has its own strategic objectives to maintain its own interests. And one of those is to safeguard the lives of its own people. So what I feel to understand is that why the American public finds that it's easy to demonize Pakistan for not liking drones. For the fact it's killing, they're killing the children of the country. There's many, many children have died and it's a persistent effort where by one hand you provide money, especially the 2010 floods, for example. There's a lot of extensive help. But on the other hand, children were being killed. And this is how we see it. So what is your take on that? So we've been talking about some of the potentially positive applications of these technologies, but obviously to people in Pakistan, the face of drone technologies is they're killing people. They're killing people, including people who are innocent. Is that, does that speak to, in your mind, Congressman, is that a failure of U.S. policy? Is that something where we've got the policy wrong and we need to review how we think about the so-called targeted killing program, whether by drones or something else, or in your mind is that more of a, we need to do a better job of explaining what we're doing and why? Well, I think there's a lot of different aspects. I mean, personal accountability and personal responsibility are huge in my world. Just so that you know I'm the first of 10 kids, there are five Democrats, four Republicans, one independent. So the first time my wife ever met my family, she called her mom and said, oh my God, these people hate each other. But with that is a responsibility of people to know and to make sure that they're not harboring criminals or international thugs. And I think that's the tell-tale of a communication or a community. So I think from that standpoint, there's a balancing act from the people of Pakistan and harboring criminals. I think there's an aspect from the defense in regards to making sure that we're not targets. And I think there's a way of doing technology in a way that fashions which drones can start to do now is depicting who are the people and picking a civilian versus a militant. So I think that's a conversation here. I don't think that there's any right answer right now because I think there's plenty of rungs to go around. But I think what we have to look at is rewarding good behavior, not honoring bad behavior. And let me just say that we are gonna, most of today's program is focused on domestic issues, but we are gonna talk about some of those foreign policy issues later on today. I think I'm talking about them, in fact, around 1230. So we will come back to some of those issues later on. Can you hear me? I'm Colonel Dale Doucet, retired Air Force scientist. Let me say that I started running drones in the 1930s. They were called kites. And my model airplanes were drones. And about 90% of the drones in this world are really good, peaceful uses. We use them in medicine. We run them down into your body. We're going to have, all of us are gonna have drone cars which we're going to run within the next 10 years. So the reality is that drones are here. And that isn't gonna go away. And most of the uses are peaceful uses. And they're going to increase the quality of our life. So I don't like to see an emphasis on all the negative issues. It doesn't matter what technology you have in this world when it developed, it's gonna have some negative aspects and this is included. So I hope you don't just emphasize the negative issues because they are a small part of the development of drones. Hello, I'm Timothy Reuter and I'm president of the DC Area Drone User Group. We have about 320 members and I like to say we have 320 entrepreneurs and waiting who are ready for when things open up legally in our country to be able to operate our equipment for both social good and commercial purposes. One of my concerns is that there's a lot of talk about large institutions, large companies using drones for commercial purposes. But most of us are operating equipment that costs under $500 is pretty simple to use, weighs under five pounds and how are we gonna make sure that the cost of being certified and legally allowed to use our equipment for commercial purposes doesn't exceed exponentially the cost of the equipment itself. We wanna make sure that somebody who wants to do some simple wedding photography isn't strangled by regulations and various other requirements. So how do you see striking that balance so that the small operators are allowed to flourish and contribute to our national economy? Thank you very much. Well, first of all, if I had that answer, we'd already have a dynamic economy going right now. That's the mission right now. The problems in Washington DC are, how do we look at big business applications versus small business? How do we get an administration to look at the backbone of this country as a small business person? And I was a small business person. So there is this happy medium and boy, I'll tell you what, it's not just in this application of unmanned drone aspects. It's across the board in all business aspects. We need to have tax reform that is more for investment that's broad based and making it a pro-investment type of a policy in the United States. But that's the problem that we have right now in Washington DC so I wish I had the answers. We have to have an application. Typically your big companies are more of the cutting edge although you could argue that it's a small entrepreneur that's moving that across the board. So it is a dynamic interchange and I would like to invite you to utilize your voice when you gather people together as a co-op to articulate that message and make sure that you have the ear of legislators and of Congress just like the big companies do. Congressman, I know we have some more questions but I also know we need to make sure you're not late for your next engagement. So I think we better wrap up and thank you very much for joining us today. Thank you very, very much. I appreciate it.