[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
USING CUTTING-EDGE TECHNOLOGIES.
TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT INNOVATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 22, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-47
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-826 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida Jimmy Gomez, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Raj Bharwani, Senior Professional Staff Member
Lauren Lombardo, Senior Policy Analyst
Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government
Innovation
Nancy Mace, South Carolina, Chairwoman
William Timmons, South Carolina Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Ranking Minority Member
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Ro Khanna, California
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nick Langworthy, New York Jimmy Gomez, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Jared Moskowitz, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 22, 2023.................................... 1
Witnesses
----------
Mr. Ryan Rawding, Vice President of Business Development, Pangiam
Oral Statement................................................... 3
Mr. Wahid Nawabi, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive
Officer, AeroVironment
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Dr. Gavin Kenneally, Chief Executive Officer, Ghost Robotics
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Dr. Benjamin Boudreaux, Policy Researcher and Professor of Policy
Analysis, Pardee RAND Graduate School, RAND Corporation
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Questions for the Record: to Dr. Benjamin Boudreaux;
submitted by Rep. Connolly.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
USING CUTTING-EDGE TECHNOLOGIES.
TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE
----------
Thursday, June 22, 2023
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government
Innovation
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nancy Mace
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Mace, Timmons, Greene, Luna,
Langworthy, Burlison, Connolly, and Lynch.
Ms. Mace. Good afternoon, everyone.
The Ranking Member, Connolly, is on his way, but the
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and
Government Innovation will now come to order.
We want to welcome everyone who is here this afternoon. We
have almost every seat full.
So, without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at
any time, and I recognize myself for the purpose of making an
opening statement.
Good afternoon and welcome to this hearing on the
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and
Government Innovation. Today, we are going to explore the use
of cutting-age technology to protect America's citizens and its
borders. The innovations we will discuss also help to protect
border security officials, law enforcement officers, and
military personnel who put their lives on the line each and
every day to keep the rest of us and our Nation safe.
We will see firsthand today some of the new hardware that
has been deployed. We will hear examples of current-use cases
by Federal agencies and what sort of innovations could be
coming around the corner. Many security-related innovations are
first acquired by the U.S. military. These are then adapted and
adopted by other parts of government, such as U.S. Border
Patrol and other law enforcement.
We will hear today how robotics, scanners, and drone
technology are being put to good use at the border. We will
also discuss what may be coming tomorrow.
At this Subcommittee's first hearing this year, we heard
from experts about how recent developments of in AI, or
artificial intelligence, will change the way we live and work.
They said AI could revolutionize many fields. One such field is
security operations.
Former Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, who testified before this
Subcommittee, testified how critical it is to our Nation's
defense that we maintain our edge over China in AI development.
Our military has for years worked to find ways to harness AI to
enhance our war-fighting capabilities.
And I have a message for Elon Musk today: We are not going
to pause AI development or research or innovation for six
months because China is not going to pause its research or its
AI development at any time or any moment in the near or distant
future. We want to make sure we stay ahead of those who may be
adversaries now or in the future.
But the reality is that the capabilities of robots, drones,
scanners, and other security hardware may be supercharged by
advances in AI, and the implications of that go well beyond
war-fighting. That is why I recently wrote to the Department of
Homeland Security, Secretary Mayorkas, to find out how his
agency intends to use AI to stop the flow of illegal immigrants
and drugs across the southern border.
I have also personally spoken with Border Patrol officials
about how they are using biometrics at the border, how
artificial intelligence can help enhance the effectiveness of
our existing technology.
Guarding the border is hard. It is dangerous work. It often
requires relocating to a remote area, increasing the burden
this can put on morale or the lax policies and weak leadership
of our current administration. The leadership of the Department
of Homeland Security should be as invested in the Border
Patrol's mission as are the dedicated agents patrolling the
southern border, but, unfortunately, today that is not the
case, and it is a situation we must change.
Meanwhile, it should surprise no one that the border patrol
is struggling mightily with recruitment and retention, and in
the district that I represent, South Carolina's First
congressional District in the low country of South Carolina, we
actually have a Border Patrol training academy at FLETC. And we
are very proud of the work that we do there, but we also know
how hard and difficult it is to recruit and retain those who
want to work on our Border Patrol.
Technology alone cannot solve many of the challenges we
face today, but it can help alleviate the demand on manpower by
providing each individual agent the tools to enable them to do
their job more effectively and, even in some cases, more
safely.
In Congress, we can help make that happen. We can help
ensure the most effective new security technologies the private
sector develops gets into the hands of Border Patrol agents and
other Federal law enforcement and law enforcement agencies.
That requires ensuring Federal agencies are acquiring the best
technologies developed by the private sector in a timely and
cost-effective manner. It means ensuring agencies are working
with small, nimble innovators, as well as large, established
contractors. It means ensuring red tape and other entry
barriers are not preventing newcomers from competing to provide
security products and services.
I am pleased that we have witnesses here today who have
volunteered to come forward and share with us directly some of
the hardware that is currently being deployed to keep our
Nation safe, and I honestly, personally, am very much looking
forward to seeing some of the demos and the technology that you
all brought before this Committee today.
It is my hope this hearing will provide Members a better
appreciation of the value proposition these technologies bring
today, as well as their future potential.
And, with that, I am going to go ahead and skip to our
witnesses while we wait on the Ranking Member, Connolly.
Ms. Mace. So, I am pleased to introduce our witnesses for
today's hearing. Our first witness is Mr. Ryan Rawding, Vice
President of Business Development at Pangiam.
Our second witness is Mr. Wahid Nawabi, Chairman,
President, and CEO of AeroVironment.
Our third witness is Dr. Gavin Kenneally, Chief Executive
Officer at Ghost Robotics.
Our fourth witness is Dr. Benjamin Boudreaux, Policy
Researcher and Professor of Policy Analysis at the Pardee RAND
Graduate School at RAND Corporation.
We welcome everyone here today, and we are pleased to have
you this afternoon.
So, pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses, we
would ask you to please stand and raise your right hands.
This is where it gets real.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth so help you God?
Let the record show that the witnesses all answered in the
affirmative.
We appreciate all of you being here today and look forward
to your testimony. I would like to remind the witnesses that we
have read your written statements, and they will appear in full
in the hearing record. Please limit your oral statements this
afternoon to five minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on your microphone
in front of you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After four minutes, the light turns yellow. When you hit
five, it is red. That means stop. We would just ask that you
wrap up your comments.
You all may sit down.
And I would first like to recognize Mr. Rawding to please
begin your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF RYAN RAWDING
VICE PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
PANGIAM
Mr. Rawding. Thank you.
Chairwoman Mace, Ranking Member Connolly, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear today on behalf of Pangiam to discuss cutting-edge
technologies to keep America safe.
My name is Ryan Rawding, and I am Vice President of
Business Development at Pangiam, a trade and travel technology
company.
Before my tenure at Pangiam, I served as a CBP officer
within the office of field operations for 13 years, with a
significant portion spent at CBP's national targeting center.
During my time at the NTC, I drove many of the requirements and
multiple targeting--for multiple targeting and vetting systems,
including the implementation of facial recognition. I
collaborated closely with foreign counterparts across the globe
and established NTC's foreign encounter team.
I am here today on behalf of Pangiam to share with the
Subcommittee my views and experience of how CBP has leveraged
emerging technology in identity resolution in response to U.S.
Border Patrol's recent migrant surge, resulting in the creation
of the mobile intake application.
In the summer of 2021, the U.S. experienced a significant
rise in apprehensions at the southern border, surpassing over
250,000 in December 2022 alone. This surge has hindered Border
Patrol's ability to identify and rapidly process individuals
encountered between the ports of entry.
Prior to the introduction of mobile intake, border patrol
agents in the field relied on a manual process to document
encounters. This resulted in a lack of immediate identity
resolution and threat identification, led to data integrity
issues, and time wasted in duplicative efforts between field
and processing agents.
To tackle these challenges, CBP collaborated with Pangiam
to develop the mobile intake app. This innovative solution
harnesses facial recognition technology, enabling Border Patrol
agents to biometrically enroll migrants using their government-
issued smartphones at the point of encounter.
Mobile intake utilizes AI and computer vision to capture
the subject's face and leverages optical character recognition
to extract biographical information from documents and track
migrants properly. The captured photo is then cross-verified
against previous CBP encounters, allowing agents to confirm the
identity and access prior apprehension data. The app also
allows agents to identify and track families from the point of
encounter, assisting with family unification.
Since January of this year, field agents are instantly
alerted if the enrolled individual has a record on a government
watch list, providing an additional layer of security to those
agents.
Once a group has been captured through the application, the
agent can update the geolocation for accurate tracking, then
submit the data package for instant ingestion into the Border
Patrol case processing system. In the event the agent is in
rough terrain and without connectivity, a peer-to-peer
functionality exists in that the agent can pass the data
package from one device to another via secure WiFi so the
transporting agent can submit the group once connectivity has
been reestablished.
These proactive approaches enable the receiving station to
anticipate arrivals, efficiently allocate resources, expedite
processing, and ensure proper care for individuals within CBP
custody. The successful mobile intake is attributed to the
strategic approach led Border Patrol and the Office of
Information Technology, with its contracting staff.
Comprehensive requirements were accurately defined through
active engagement with the frontline field operators and
subject-matter experts. Following commercial best practices, we
developed a minimal viable product to CBP after 120 days of
active development in March 2022. It has since been expanded to
all Border Patrol sectors with over 13,000 agents using the
application to enroll more than 750,000 migrants to date.
As you can see, the mobile intake app delivered notable
advantages for Border Patrol. It enhances agent safety through
identity resolution, and safeguards migrants by keeping
families intact and identifying potential threats.
As countries in Central and South America strengthen their
border security measures and establish identity verification
processes, manual collection methods have presented the same
challenge that Border Patrol has previously faced. One
potential solution is to provide foreign governments with a
biometric enrollment capability, such as the mobile intake app,
in return share this information back with CBP for advanced
screening of northbound migrants.
In closing, Chairman Mace, Ranking Member, and esteemed
Subcommittee Members, I am grateful for the Subcommittee's
attention to the significant potential that these technologies
hold for improving border security, and I look forward to your
questions today.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Rawding.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Nawabi to please begin
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF WAHID NAWABI
CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AEROVIRONMENT
Mr. Nawabi. Chairwoman Mace, Ranking Member Connolly, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, I am Wahid Nawabi,
Chairman, President, and CEO of AeroVironment, Inc. We are a
52-year-old technology company, publicly traded on the NASDAQ.
I was born and raised in Afghanistan. As a 14-year-old
teenager, I escaped Afghanistan with my three younger sisters,
traveling for two months from Kabul, Afghanistan, through
Pakistan to New Delhi, India. We were reunited with my parents
in New Delhi. I legally immigrated to the United States at age
15, became a U.S. citizen, and started a new life as an
American, learning English, finishing high school and college,
becoming an electrical engineer.
I am an example of a legal immigrant who pursued the
American Dream. I feel a personal obligation and consider it my
duty to help improve the security of our Nation and defend our
values not only in the United States, but around the globe.
I am grateful for the opportunity today to represent the
1,300 employees of AeroVironment and discuss with you our
current and future vision of intelligent robotic systems and
how they will enhance our safety and security.
AeroVironment's robotic systems enable the success and
assure the safety of government and commercial customers. We
are a global leader in unmanned aircraft systems, unmanned
ground vehicles, loitering munition systems, and high-altitude
pseudo-satellites. We are a large supplier of unmanned systems
to the United States Department of Defense, providing products
to all the military services and U.S. Special Operations
Command, as well as the U.S. Department of State, Justice, and
Homeland Security.
Additionally, our small, unmanned aircraft systems are
employed by more than 50 allies around the globe. We have over
a dozen facilities across the country. All our products are
manufactured in the United States, except our unmanned ground
vehicles, which are made in Germany.
In 2021, AeroVironment celebrated its fiftieth anniversary.
Over the last half-century, we have been innovation pioneers,
pushing the boundaries of what is possible and delivering
advanced solutions to support our government and commercial
customers.
In the 1980's, AeroVironment created the first portable,
hand-launched drone for information collection and
transmission. Beginning in the 2000's, the U.S. Department of
Defense selected AeroVironment's small, unmanned aircraft
systems for multiple programs of record. In 2021, AeroVironment
developed critical components for the Mars ingenuity
helicopter, the first powered aircraft flight on another planet
and the 2021 Robert J. Collier award winner for the greatest
achievement in aeronautics or astronautics in America.
Most recently and over the last year, AeroVironment's
innovative solutions have helped Ukraine defend itself from
Russia, providing critical intelligence, reconnaissance,
surveillance, and precision strike capabilities.
AeroVironment's products are not only critical on the
battlefield but also greatly enhance domestic capabilities,
such as law enforcement, Border Patrol, and natural disaster
relief.
Future missions for intelligent robots, integrated with
artificial intelligence and autonomy, not only require
imagination. Systems operating on the ground and up to the
stratosphere will enhance global communication, transportation,
infrastructure and agriculture inspection, weather monitoring,
and provide disaster preparedness and relief.
Our solar-powered, high-altitude pseudo-satellite can
provide a global broadband telecommunications network, weather
monitoring for organizations such as NOAA and FEMA, as well as
space domain awareness. Powered entirely by solar arrays, it is
designed to stay aloft for up to six months in the
stratosphere.
Government and commercial customers are only just beginning
to harness the potential of this revolutionary and cost-
effective capability.
AeroVironment continues to develop unmanned systems with
computer vision and machine learning capabilities, which can
navigate autonomously on its own, sense, analyze, and identify
itself of interest--items of interest, reducing operator
workload and increasing situational awareness and safety. We
constantly evaluate and integrate new capabilities into our
current and future products to assure we stay ahead of our
competitors and our Nation's adversaries.
I would like to share a short video showcasing a few of our
current and future systems employed by our government and
commercial customers. And, if you do not mind, please play the
short video.
[Video played.]
This is our Puma system that you see on the right side
displayed here on your left hand that can be launched off. This
is our stratospheric solar airplane that takes off from a
runway in Spaceport, New Mexico. It has a wingspan that is
longer than an Airbus A380. It goes up to the stratosphere and
stays there for six months at a time, and it can do all sorts
of missions.
Our ground robots are used for EOD purposes. The Capitol
Hill Police uses them here in the Capitol Hill district. And,
of course, our object identification and computer vision can
identify very specific objects in very cluttered large swaths
of imagery. You can give the computer that image, and it will
find out Wahid Nawabi in that very cluttered space.
So, thank you again to the Committee for the opportunity to
be here today. I invite each of you to visit AeroVironment
facilities across the country.
And I welcome your questions.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Nawabi.
I would now like to recognize Dr. Kenneally to please begin
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF GAVIN KENNEALLY
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GHOST ROBOTICS
Mr. Kenneally. Chairwoman Mace, Ranking Member Connolly,
and Members of this Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation
and the opportunity to testify before the Cybersecurity,
Information Technology, and Government Innovation Subcommittee.
My name is Gavin Kenneally, and I am the CEO of Ghost
Robotics, which I cofounded with CTO Avik De in 2015. Avik and
I met while completing our Ph.D.s at the University of
Pennsylvania and started the company based on our shared
commitment of creating highly responsive and agile legged
robots for real-world applications.
Through our research, we discovered that we could design a
legged robot with less complex hardware and more sophisticated
software using motors to directly feel the ground through the
legs. Working closely with our early customers, we developed a
scalable robot that could meet government, as well as
commercial needs, and have created this machine, the Vision 60.
[Demonstration.]
Mr. Kenneally. Great. Thank you very much, Michael.
Mr. Connolly. It looks like my high school algebra teacher.
Mr. Lynch. Like an Avengers movie right now.
Mr. Kenneally. Our robot is able to overcome more
challenging terrain than similarly sized wheeled or tracked
machines. It can move on rocks, sand, hills, ice, and snow, and
can climb up and down stairs. If our robot falls or gets
knocked over, it can even operate upside down or can right
itself to complete the mission.
The Vision 60 can operate in austere environments, from
minus 40 to 130 degrees Fahrenheit. The robot leads its class
in endurance and can walk continuously for over six miles on a
single charge. When the battery runs low, the robot can
automatically recharge itself by going back to a wireless
charging station.
The Vision 60 is currently used by many branches of the
Department of Defense. It performs perimeter security at eight
Air Force bases throughout the country. The robot's ability to
traverse difficult terrain in all weather and in extreme
temperatures makes it ideal for environments found along the
U.S. southern and northern borders. In addition, we have done
field testing with the Science and Technology Office of the
Department of Homeland Security.
The Vision 60 platform has many features that are crucial
for national security and protection purposes. It has onboard
color cameras and microphones, as well as twenty-two pounds of
additional capacity for other payloads as necessary. The robot
can interface with standard off-the-shelf sensors, such as pan-
tilt-zoom, thermal or infrared cameras, and then either analyze
and do anomaly detection on the robot itself or stream the
video back to the controller or base station.
The robot can also interface with many chemical,
biological, radiation, and nuclear sensors to identify all
kinds of dangerous or toxic substances from afar.
When used to traverse difficult terrain found along the
U.S. borders, our Vision 60 robot, equipped with appropriate
sensors, can save lives. For example, patrolling robots with a
Raman Spectroscopy sensor could be used to improve drug
trafficking detection. This is an invaluable asset, given that,
according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, fentanyl
is the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of
50, and the majority of it flows into the U.S. across the
southern border.
In addition, given that several hundred migrants die every
year near the southern border from drowning or heat-related
causes, a thermal camera could be equipped on the robot and
used to identify them before it is too late.
There are many other such beneficial applications from
using these robots for data collection and as communication
nodes, which will emerge with the continued collaboration
between Ghost Robotics and the Department of Defense and other
government agencies.
Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
The robot runs, too, right?
Mr. Kenneally. It does, yes.
Ms. Mace. It jogs.
Mr. Kenneally. It does, yes. It can run at two-and-a-half
meters per second, about a 10 or 11-minute mile.
Ms. Mace. Yes.
Thank you, Dr. Kenneally.
I would like to now recognize Dr. Boudreaux for your
opening statement.
(MINORITY WITNESS)
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN BOUDREAUX
POLICY RESEARCHER AND PROFESSOR
OF POLICY ANALYSIS
PARDEE RAND GRADUATE SCHOOL, RAND CORPORATION
Mr. Boudreaux. Chairwoman Mace, Ranking Member Connolly,
and Members of the Committee, good afternoon, and thank you for
the opportunity to testify today.
I am a policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, a
nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization that manages
federally funded research and development centers for the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.
Before joining RAND, I served as a foreign affairs officer at
the Department of State, and I earned a Ph.D. in philosophy
with a focus in political philosophy and ethics.
Today, I will concentrate my comments on the importance of
ensuring that government technology deployments serve the
interest of the public.
The U.S. Government frequently deploys emerging
technologies that directly affect Americans. For example, DHS
uses artificial intelligence and other technologies that can
recognize human faces, track mobile phone location, and analyze
social media activity. These technologies are purported to
bring a variety of benefits to government missions. For
instance, by increasing the speed and accuracy of decision-
making, such as in the global entry trusted traveler program.
However, the potential of government use of emerging
technologies to keep Americans safe is subject to several
important considerations. This includes an accurate assessment
of the benefits and risks of the technology and the public's
trust that these rapidly advancing technologies are used
responsibly.
Key stakeholders, such as Members of Congress from both
parties, technology companies, and AI researchers have raised
concerns about government use of emerging technologies. These
concerns include risks that government applications violate
privacy and civil liberties, exacerbate inequity, and lack
appropriate transparency and other safeguards.
An essential element to help ensure that government use of
technology serves the public interest is to better understand
the public's perception of their use. Public perception is
important for several reasons, such as to establish trust in
and the legitimacy of government, to facilitate necessary
funding and legislative support from Congress, and to foster
collaboration with technology companies and operational
partners. It is also crucial that the U.S. Government
understand the perspectives of different demographic groups,
especially those voices that are marginalized, to recognize the
disparate impact across communities.
Greater understanding about how the public views potential
benefits and risks of technologies can inform multiple stages
of the technology acquisition and deployment lifecycle.
Drawing on RAND research conducted for DHS, I suggest three
recommendations for the government when it is considering
deploying new technology. First, the government can take steps
to ensure that longstanding core American values apply to new
technologies. The U.S. Government is committed to values such
as privacy and civil liberties, equity and nondiscrimination,
and oversight and accountability.
Even if newly available technologies, including AI systems
and advanced robotics, assist in government missions, the
protection of core values is also essential for keeping
Americans safe.
Second, details of the technology and specific government
application matter for responsible deployment. For instance,
technologies used in sensitive public spaces, such as schools
using AI to surveil on students, might pose increased risks and
thereby warrant greater care. Some emerging technologies, such
as large language models, have capabilities beyond what even
the technology developers themselves anticipate, yet, according
to the Government Accountability Office, some technologies are
being deployed across government without consistent approaches
to even track which technologies agencies are using.
Congress can help ensure that agencies take a coherent and
a risk-informed approach and that government end users are
precise about their goals for a technology, the specific
context of use, and their relevant authorities.
Third, new technology deployments are an opportunity for
public engagement. The government should collaborate with
stakeholders and communities to ensure that technology is used
in ways the public supports. DHS has recently sponsored RAND
research to identify methods to assess public perception, such
as conducting nationally representative surveys of the public.
This type of public perception research, supplemented with
additional surveys, focus groups, and community partnerships,
should be routinely integrated into the technology,
acquisition, and development pipeline. This will help the
government anticipate potential issues, engage affected
communities, and build the public's trust.
I thank the Committee for this opportunity to testify, and
I look forward to your questions.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Dr. Boudreaux.
We have just been called for votes, but my esteemed
colleague from Virginia wants to give a brief opening remark.
So, I'll recognize Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to our panel for being here today.
I will be brief. You and I have agreed that we will have a
conversation offline, but I want to remind the Chair that our
first discussion about the future course of this Subcommittee
was in February, in Munich. The Chair indicated to me she had
17 hearings planned, and I indicated I would be supportive.
However, we wanted to continue to do the bread and butter
that we have done on this Subcommittee with respect to FITARA
and the modernization of IT in the Federal Government. We made
an agreement about having a hearing.
It is now June, almost July. We have always had, in eight
years since we passed FITARA on a bipartisan basis, two
hearings a year on the implementation of FITARA. We created a
scorecard, and, according to GAO, that scorecard has helped
save $25 billion. There are not many programs or pieces of
legislation in Federal history that save money, let alone $25
billion.
I am always open to updating and modernizing tools we have
to measure progress. What I am not open to is not having the
oversight hearing at all, and I hope the Chair and I can work
it out for the sake of harmony on this Subcommittee.
I have worked with Darrell Issa, Mark Meadows, Trey Gowdy,
Jody Hice throughout the years on a bipartisan basis on this
subject matter and on specifically those hearings on that
scorecard.
So, I look forward to working with the Chair and having
offline discussions, but I want to make it very clear: Waiting
until December to have that hearing is not something acceptable
to this side of the aisle. So, I hope we can work it out and
move forward in a cooperative fashion.
I thank the Chair.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
And now that they have called votes, we are going to recess
briefly for our votes, and the hearing will resume after our
last vote.
Thank you for your patience this afternoon.
[Recess.]
Ms. Mace. All right. We are now back in order this
afternoon. Thank you for your patience. We will reconvene.
And I would now like to recognize myself for five minutes
to ask you gentlemen a few questions this afternoon. I would
like to first start with Mr. Nawabi.
In talking about AI and currently the role AI plays on your
company's unmanned drones and unmanned ground robots, et
cetera, what sort of role does AI play? How do you anticipate
AI now and in the future playing a larger role in these types
of technologies?
Mr. Nawabi. Ms. Mace, so the AI is a pretty broad set of
capabilities and spectrum of--imagine the most elementary
capabilities all the way to the very complex missions.
You could argue that today even, in the last decade, we
have had some level of autonomy built into our drones. So, in
most of these drones that you see, and they are not--the
operator or the pilot is not manually flying it most of the
time. Most of the time the pilot is basically telling the UAV
to go from here to here on a map by just touching on a tablet,
and then the UAV and the software algorithms on board, the auto
pilots, actually flies it. It tells it what to fly--how to fly
to get there. So, there is some level of automatic flight and
control already built in.
And we just launched another sort of enablement for the
Puma systems called our visual navigation system. What that
does is--almost all drones that are made rely on GPS for
knowing exactly where they are and relative to the space they
are in, and then to figure out where to go.
So, an example such as in Ukraine where there is a lot of
jamming, you cannot really rely on GPS. So, the module that we
just launched as an enhancement, it has algorithms in it that
allows the sensors on board the drone to figure out where it is
without having any GPS signals at all. And so that is another
level of intelligence and autonomy that is built into it.
The video that I showed that showed a picture of a huge bay
or a large swath of land, there are algorithms that we have
developed that can actually recognize a specific object or
asset, whether it could be a tank, a ship. You can even
specifically tell it to look for a Russian tank or a specific
object that you like.
And so that level of AI and capability keeps becoming more
and more prevalent and more and more out there, and those are
the things that we are working on. So, I see for the next
several years to decades these capabilities to keep getting
better and better and more and more features and capabilities
will be adopted and provided to our customers.
Ms. Mace. And then my second and probably last question,
because I have about two and a half minutes left, I would like
each of you to spend 20 or 30 seconds, and that is a very short
period of time, and it is a loaded question, but there have
been a lot of concerns about AI and technologies, robotics, et
cetera. There are some people that would see the robot dog, as
I am going to call it, and think that that might be utilized,
you know, years from now, not any time soon, against them.
And so, in thinking about some of the concerns, whether it
is data security, cybersecurity, you know, the advent of AI is
moving technology and cybersecurity threats in rapid pace.
So, just some really high-level thoughts in 20 to 30
seconds, sort of how do we prepare ourselves for that future.
What are your concerns? How are we addressing those concerns,
et cetera?
Mr. Rawding?
Mr. Rawding. Thank you, Chairwoman.
In my experience, I think employing a lot of supervised
machine learning models where in the Customs and Border
Protection space the computers and machines are not ultimately
making the decision, but they are giving risk-based scores
where the agents and officers are able to ultimately make that
determination.
And then kind of staying within that public-private
partnership with academia, the government, and its contracting
staff to make sure that all privacy concerns are met so that
the people feel safe while we're employing these technologies.
Ms. Mace. Mr. Nawabi?
Mr. Nawabi. Thank you, Chairwoman Mace.
In general, all of our systems--we take cybersecurity and
the security of our systems very seriously because it's a
requirement by our customers, primarily for not only domestic
applications but also for military.
One of the intentional decisions we made a long time ago
was to develop a lot of our subsystems that go into these
solutions all internally ourselves in the United States. So,
there is already a significant level of security built into the
software, into the design of the UAVs, and to making sure that
we secure the system that it becomes more and more secure.
There are also some FAR clauses, the Federal Acquisition
Regulations Act, that requires contractors, such as
AeroVironment to be compliant, and there are several clauses in
the FAR that does that.
In short, we take it seriously. We have done a lot of
things in there, and we are going to continue to do a lot more.
I think that what distinguishes us from a lot of other consumer
players is this level of security and safety that we provide
that is really going to make it a unique advantage for us and
for a benefit for our customers.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
I have run out of time now. We will come back if we can a
few minutes at the end.
And I would like to yield five minutes to Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I want to thank our panel members for your
willingness to come before the Committee and share your
expertise and help us with our work. Thank you for the
presentations that have been brought forward here. We
appreciate that.
Mr. Boudreaux, as the former Chair of the Subcommittee on
National Security, we have worked with the National Security
Commission on AI and trying to anticipate the opportunities
that might present to heighten our ability to protect critical
assets, but also there is an opportunity here for our
adversaries who are not bound by democratic institutions. They
are not bound by the checks and balances and the way that we in
this country value personal privacy and human rights.
China has basically full-spectrum surveillance of their
entire population. Russia, as well, is in that league.
How do we engage and get the most out of AI?
And we are in a competition here, right. We are in a
competition. We do not want to cede this space to China.
How do we keep up with them or, you know, maintain a lead
in this area and ethically do due diligence in terms of our
obligation to protect privacy rights and, you know, democratic
ideals?
Mr. Boudreaux. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
Yes, we are in this competitive dynamic, but I think it is
important that we do not let this competition allow us to lose
sight of our core U.S. values and core ethical commitments.
This is a key part of legitimacy of our government and the
credibility of the U.S. military and our ability to operate
globally.
I think ethics and the responsible deployment of military
AI systems is really part of the U.S. strength. This is what
allows us to work in multinational alliances with our NATO and
other partners, and so, in this way, a responsible and ethical
commitment to deployment is itself a type of force multiplier.
It is also, I think, what will allow the U.S. Government,
including the Department of Defense and the Department of
Homeland Security, to work with the technology company
providers. A number of technology companies have themselves
raised concerns about the responsible deployment of AI in a
number of Homeland Security or international security context,
and so I think it is important to ensure that the U.S.
Government maintains its commitment to ethical deployment of
these technologies to ensure that that partnership with
technology companies will continue.
I note that the Department of Defense has stated a set of
ethical principles, including the traceability, the
governability, the reliability, and the equity of military AI
systems, and I think there is still some work to do in the
implementation of those principles, but the U.S. can be a
leader in this space by showing that there's ways to deploy
these types of systems ethically and responsibly.
Mr. Lynch. I had an opportunity to read a book called
``Kill Chain.'' It was by one of, I think, John McCain's
staffers, and it talked about the need to have a human in the
chain of some of these weapon systems.
Mr. Nawabi, you seem to be familiar with that.
How do we--I mean it is almost a given that countries that
have less accountability for leaders, such as authoritarian
regimes like Russia and China, would have greater freedom to
use a system that does not have a human in that chain of
decision trees that would allow the use of that weapon.
How do we protect ourselves? What countermeasures, what
might we be able to adopt to face that dilemma?
Mr. Boudreaux and then Mr. Nawabi.
Mr. Boudreaux. Yes, thank you.
I think maintaining, as the DoD itself has stated,
appropriate levels of human judgment in the development and
deployment of these technologies is really crucial, that there
is a human that is making a decision about the deployment of
technology and that they have actually tested and evaluated the
technology to ensure that it is appropriate for the specific
context. And so that, in that way, there is a human that is
actually accountable that can ensure that these technologies
are used responsibly.
I know that there are these pressures to reduce the level
of human control, right, that might help, you know, in some
ways speed the ability to deploy these systems. But at what
cost? And I worry about some of the risks associated with,
perhaps, escalation or even proliferation of systems that
operate outside of human control.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
And will now turn to my colleague from South Carolina, Mr.
Timmons, for five minutes.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, thank you for having this hearing, and thank you all
for coming and testifying.
I am 39 years old. I am a member of the last generation,
members of life before technology has just transformed things.
We did not have cell phones when I was little, and then we had
the big bag phone that people remember, and then, obviously,
the internet. I remember dial-up, and then the iPhone came out
in 2007.
And just think about the time between, I would say, the
early 1990's to the mid, you know, 2010 to today. I mean, it is
just enormous leaps forward in technology, and I think it has
caused a lot of problems. I think our society has a difficult
time dealing with our increased inter-connectivity. It has
really been the end of the media. The way that you purchase and
pursue advertisements has really been a problem. And, while it
has caused a lot of problems in our society dealing with that,
I do think that it can also be the solution. And, whether it is
healthcare, fighting wars, or law enforcement, these are all
things that technology can help us be more efficient at.
And so, I appreciate having this hearing today to discuss
law enforcement and the military's use of this type of
technology.
So, I am going to start with Mr. Kenneally.
The price of--what is the name of the--I call it dog, but
it is not--what is the actual name?
Mr. Kenneally. Yes, so the robot is called the Vision 60 by
Ghost Robotics, and as soon as we sell robots to our customers,
they invariably come up with their own name for them.
Mr. Timmons. Sure.
Mr. Kenneally. They develop this very amazing, really
amazing relationship----
Mr. Timmons. And how much is it? It was----
Mr. Kenneally. Yes, so the robot is $165,000.
Mr. Timmons. Have you done the studies on how much a drug-
sniffing dog or a bomb-sniffing dog costs?
Mr. Kenneally. I do not have that information, you know,
off the top of my head, but those are also very significant
investments that are made over time, and then there is always
the consideration----
Mr. Timmons. It takes years to train, and there is a
service life, and there is food and shelter and care. I mean, I
have to think that it costs drastically more than that so, and
you cannot really have a bomb-sniffing and a drug-sniffing dog.
You have to have one or the other, and yours can do both. So
that is a pretty incredible piece of technology.
And we talked earlier. The military is currently your
larger customer and law enforcement to a lesser extent?
Mr. Kenneally. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Timmons. But I would imagine that the law enforcement
role has enormous potential.
Mr. Kenneally. Yes. There is really three main markets that
we are really focused on most broadly. That would be military,
you know, DoD, law enforcement and first responders, and then
on the industrial side.
So, to date, you know, the majority of our business has
been with DoD, but I think if you look at how the technology
development typically happens, you look at GPS, the internet,
touchscreen phones, it is always kind of DoD leading the charge
as that initial customer, really proving out the use cases,
getting the technology more mature, decreasing cost, and then
it kind of goes into law enforcement, goes into industrial.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you for that.
Mr. Kenneally. So, I think we are kind of following that
similar trajectory as well.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
Mr. Nawabi, the high-altitude pseudo-satellite that you
showed in your video, what are the benefits of that versus a
satellite? Could you talk through that?
Mr. Nawabi. Sure. Thank you, Congressman Timmons.
So, there are several key advantages to a stratospheric
pseudo-satellite or high-altitude pseudo-satellite. No. 1, we
are about sixty thousand or sixty-five thousand feet. You are
about 20 kilometers above ground. You are above all the
weather, but you are still 20 kilometers.
A LEO satellite is, roughly, hundreds of kilometers. Most
of them are in the thousands of kilometers.
Mr. Timmons. So, Starlinks, for example, how high are
Starlinks?
Mr. Nawabi. They are usually in the several hundred, nine
hundred kilometers to a thousand or so. And then geosynchronous
satellites are 20 thousand miles, plus.
Mr. Timmons. And you are allowed--you are able to provide
5G cell service?
Mr. Nawabi. Yes. We actually had two years ago, one of the
flights that you saw the video on, we flew that airplane from
Spaceport, New Mexico. We took off. When we got to the
stratosphere--and I had an LTE payload at that time. With the
LTE payload, I was able to make a four-way Zoom HD-quality
video and voice phone call through that airplane, connecting
Tokyo, Japan; Silicon Valley; Spaceport, New Mexico; and D.C.
Mr. Timmons. What is the distance on the ground that you
can be?
Mr. Nawabi. So, one HAPS can cover about a 200-kilometer
diameter circle on the ground. It has both commercial
applications for disaster relief, for hurricanes, for our first
response. We also HAPS for communications. The main reason why
we developed it was all for commercial applications using our
own commercial dollars, not government funding.
Mr. Timmons. How much is one of those?
Mr. Nawabi. So, these are experimental for this point, and
the price points are going to be competitive with cell towers
for most of the globe.
Mr. Timmons. OK. Well, thank you so much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Nawabi. You are welcome.
Ms. Mace. All right. I will now recognize Congresswoman
Luna for five minutes.
Mrs. Luna. With 81,474 unaccompanied minors or single
minors being encountered at the southern border this fiscal
year, and one-hundred and ninety-three percent spike in human
trafficking during the 2021 fiscal year, we need to ensure that
our Border Patrol agents have the technology and resources
needed to secure our border, as well as address the human
trafficking occurring.
DNA testing and the collection of biometric data at the
southern border ensures that there's a legitimate, familiar
relationship between an illegal alien and the minors that
they're bringing to the border. And, under the Trump
Administration, ICE utilized this DNA testing at the southern
border. Unfortunately, these contracts expired when President
Biden took office.
My question is for you, Mr. Rawding. I recently joined a
letter led by Representative Mills regarding the Biden
Administration's failure to renew the familial DNA testing by
CBP at the U.S.-Mexico border. In what ways has the use of
biometric data coupled with DNA testing been used to address
this crisis we have been currently seeing?
Mr. Rawding. Thank you, Congresswoman.
My expertise would be more in the biometric collection with
facial recognition of what is being deployed right now. I would
not be able to speak to the DNA process there. I would have to
defer you to CBP.
But, specifically with the application that we built and
deployed across the southern border now that is being used by
the 13,000 Border Patrol agents, when migrant families are
encountered and those individuals are enrolled in the
application, the application we built has functionality to
group individuals as family units together so that the agents
can keep track of them throughout the process while they are
there.
Then single adult males can be adjudicated separately, and
then, when they are put into the processing systems, the data
integrity stays with those individuals as they move through the
cycle from initial encounter, through the processing center, to
detainment, to release. So, we have closed those gaps there so
that the data integrity from initial encounter stays there, and
then they can build kind of models off of those different
pieces to, say, from the human trafficking piece, has any
individuals been seen over the course of time.
So, basically, as human traffickers, have they been
encountered at the border, maybe traveled back down to Central
and South America, and now we are seeing that individual, as a
recidivist, that they have been encountered with multiple
groups over a short period of time. And that can really help
the Border Patrol agents while they are interviewing those
individuals.
They have the most data with them in front of them, and
they can adjudicate that and build that into their line of
questioning, which, frankly, border patrol and CBP is the best
in the law enforcement community to do that.
Mrs. Luna. For the purposes of national security, is
biographic only data collection or the combination of
biographic and biometric data collection more effective? So, I
guess in that process.
Mr. Rawding. Thank you.
Yes, the combination of both is kind of paramount here,
right. So, there is derogatory information or information that
is collected that law enforcement agencies would have collected
maybe on just strictly biographic, name, date of birth, and
other information related to that.
But then the biometric collection piece is where you may
have an unknown subject where you would like to vet that
against them, and depending on how individuals are encountered,
if they give a fake name, there's combinations of names, when
you are in the field and trying to adjudicate those individuals
rapidly, it is much easier to, say, to utilize a face to vet
against information that you have in your law enforcement
systems to, say, Ryan Rawding is a match on Ryan Rawding. We
have encountered this individual before. We have seen him
multiple times. He is a face match.
And then we can adjudicate the different types of maybe
biographic information that I give there, but the system is
able recognize that I am who I say I am, or I am not who I say
that I am.
Mrs. Luna. Perfect.
Thank you, Chairwoman. I yield my time.
Ms. Mace. All right. I will now recognize Congresswoman
Greene for five minutes.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you for coming today. I believe that technology
and tools that each of you are presenting to our Committee
today are useful, and they are also useful to save lives, and I
think that is what we are really interested in here.
Thank you for the demonstration of the robot dog. That was
really incredible, absolutely intriguing, and your video
presentation is incredible as well.
I also would like to talk to you all about the risk of
cyber-attacks. This is something that you know we experience
not only in our government agencies, even small businesses and
large coperations experience cyber-attacks, which can be
concerning, especially with technology like yours. And I feel
pretty confident that all of you have worked very hard to
prevent things like that from happening.
Another thing that I would like to talk about today with
each of you is that, as the world progresses into stages that
could be going to more wars, especially given the Ukraine and
Russian war that is happening right now. I would like to ask
each of you how we can make sure that we prevent any types of
technologies or robotics like this to ever be used as weapons
against people, and I think that is extremely important.
Again, it is not weaponizing technology we want to see
happen ever, and I would like to see countries around the world
make agreements to this, especially on emerging incredible
inventions. We do not want to see them turned into something
that would kill people.
But I will start with Mr. Rawding, and I will walk all the
way down. Let us talk about cyber-attacks. How can we--have
you--what steps can be taken to prevent cyber-attacks?
Mr. Rawding. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I will speak specifically to the application that we have
built being utilized by CBP. Our processes adheres to all DHS
and CBP privacy policy. So, as they are building applications
within the network, all the security protocols are in place to
protect the government cell phones that the agents have and
then the software that there lies within them.
Specific to some of the applications that we have deployed
is we do not retain any of that information on the devices once
the initial encounter has occurred and they have been pushed--
--
Ms. Greene. And just to be mindful of everybody's time.
Mr. Rawding [continuing]. Through the processing system.
So, we have set up those protocols in place to protect the
devices and the application that we have built.
Ms. Greene. OK, thank you.
Mr. Nawabi.
Mr. Nawabi. Thank you, Congresswoman.
In terms of cyber-attacks, one of the things that we pride
ourselves--we have been in this business for several decades,
as you know, and we have supplied the U.S. Government, all the
branches, thousands of these systems. There has not been a
single incident of misuse or a cybersecurity breach in our
system so far. We take it very seriously. We invest a lot in
it.
One of the things that actually helps us is the ability to
design, manufacture, and source the entire systems in the
United States, and having it actually developed internally and
not use open-source algorithms or codes and software
dramatically changes that paradigm and actually helps us
protect it.
And that is one of the things that we invested in many
years ago, and we continue to do that. That makes us far better
at this than many consumer-type products that are much less
expensive, but they have a lot of consequences and unintended
concerns with it.
Ms. Greene. Well done. Thank you.
Mr. Kenneally?
Mr. Kenneally. Yes, thank you for that question.
So, the robot, the way we built it, effectively, it is a
server or a computer on legs, and so we are able to use
standard best practices to lock down the robot as much as
possible using fire walls. And then because of the sensitive
nature of our customers, we actually have all of the data that
the robot collects is only stored locally. So, it is a very
much lockdown system.
And then, to be extra safe, we have actually hired an
independent firm to do pen testing, and they were not able to
get into our system. So, that is something we take very
seriously as well.
Ms. Greene. OK.
Mr. Boudreaux.
Mr. Boudreaux. I agree that the risk of cyber-attacks are
significant, and that is why it is important to have good
protections with respect to what type of data is being
collected by these different surveillance systems and
safeguards that are implemented, such as some of the ones
described. But, also, the government could play a role in
instituting some of these safeguards throughout the technology
acquisition and deployment process.
Thank you.
Ms. Greene. OK, thank you.
And times up. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Mace. Yes. I apologize.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Langworthy for five
minutes.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being
here today and extend a gratitude for your role that you all
contribute to our Nation's border security.
We spent a lot of time talking about the southern border,
and very rightfully so, but I want to spend a little time
talking about our northern border today.
New York's 23d District borders Canada on Lake Erie and is
roughly a 20-minute drive from the Peace Bridge in Buffalo that
connects to Fort Erie. It is one of the most trafficked ports
of entry on our northern border.
And, furthermore, across New York, we have a border that is
experiencing an almost eight-hundred percent increase in
illegal immigration in the Swanson Sector alone.
Mr. Nawabi, our northern border often reaches below zero
temperatures and at times zero visibility, with high winds and
heavy snow. Just this past winter, reports of families freezing
to death crossing the northern border stole some headlines.
Do you believe that unmanned aerial systems technology
could be effective in these conditions on the northern border
and, if so, how so?
Mr. Nawabi. Thank you, Congressman Langworthy. The short
answer is yes. The Puma system that you see on my right, that
is actually designed to be all-environment. So, it could fly--
it has flown in Antarctica and the North Pole area and Alaska.
It is flying currently in places like Ukraine, the Middle East,
pretty much every continent around the world.
And so, the systems that we design, one of the things that
is really unique about it is it is made for the type of
environments and applications that our customers require us,
primarily the U.S. military and our allies.
And they need to work in very high temperatures, very low
temperatures. They have got to be able to work in storms. That
has to have, you know, sensors that can operate in those
conditions as well.
So, A, the short answer is yes, they do make a big
difference. And we invest quite a lot of R&D dollars, our own
internal R&D dollars to make sure that our systems are capable
of operating in those environments.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you.
Mr. Kenneally, under these same conditions, could robotics
technology be used on the northern border?
Mr. Kenneally. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for that
question. So, we also have built these robots very purposefully
to go in environments that are incredibly harsh and hard for
humans to traverse. So, we are able to operate the robot down
to minus forty Celsius or minus forty Fahrenheit--it is the
same thing--and then as well as it is fully sealed, so it can
operate in all kinds of different weather conditions.
We have also operated the robots; it can actually walk in
up to two feet of snow. So, we developed systems such that,
even if the sensors are blocked by walking through a
significant amount of snow, the robot's able to continue to
make progress.
We have done testing in snow. We have done testing on ice.
We actually have special treads that we have developed for the
robots for traversing ice as well. So, it can actually not only
walk, but it can run on sheet ice.
So, we have done a lot of that kind of development. And I
think those are--there are many applications where you can work
in those very harsh environments and then do, you know, either
linear inspection of rail or other infrastructure or vehicle
inspection with the appropriate additional sensors at the
border. So, absolutely, yes.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you.
And now I know both of your technologies need human
operation, but could you see your technology having life-saving
impacts on not only individuals crossing the border illegally
in these conditions but also for Border Patrol agents who may
be in a situation where they have to risk their lives in these
conditions?
Mr. Kenneally. Yes. I think--I mean, basically, the robots
are able to collect more data and really provide more
situational awareness. So, it is really our belief that more
data is just going to shed light on the situation and then help
us understand what risks may or may not be there and eventually
save lives.
Mr. Nawabi. Thank you, Congressman. And, yes, the U.S.
Customs and Border Patrol has been our customer. They currently
utilize our Puma systems. And there are lots and lots of very
strong use cases and applications for using technologies such
as ground robots in combination with air robots, or aerial
UAVs, to do border security, to perform it better, cheaper, and
much more reliably as well.
Mr. Langworthy. Excellent. I am sure both of you have very
up-to-date technology, but I know innovation does not stop once
you have the product.
Given the rapid rate at which technology advances and the
slow speed in which the Federal Government works, do you fear
that the government is not acquiring the most up-to-date
technology?
Mr. Nawabi. Congressman, that is a pretty broad question. I
can share with you our experience. I do believe that the rate
of innovation in technologies are very much faster than the
rate that the U.S. Government, in general, acquires it and
enables themselves with the capability.
Probably this Committee could do quite a bit to help in
removing some of the challenges related to the acquisition
process. Really, they are to some extent constrained, ``they''
meaning the agencies that need these systems, both in terms of
funding but also in terms of the speed of the process by which
they are able to acquire and get those capabilities into their
hands, of the users.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much for your testimony.
And I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Mace. All right. Thank you.
And I will now yield to Mr. Burlison for five minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am sorry I did not
get to see the awesome demo, but I can only imagine what you
were demonstrating.
But my first question is for you, Mr. Nawabi: Are the
cartels using drones or any technology? Are you aware of their
activity on the southern border?
Mr. Nawabi. Congressman Burlison, thank you for that
question. I am personally not aware of specific cases, although
I do know, in general, that much more primitive, and simpler
drone technology has been reported to be used by drug cartels.
The technology that we have is far more advanced in its
capability, and, to my knowledge, until--since we have been in
business, it has not been in the hands of the cartels.
Mr. Burlison. Do they ever attack our drones?
Mr. Nawabi. Not to my knowledge, Congressman.
Mr. Burlison. OK. Mr. Kenneally, is that right? I am sorry.
Mr. Kenneally. Yes, it is.
Mr. Burlison. OK, good, I got it.
My question for you is: A few House Democrat Members
reportedly wrote to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection last
year expressing concerns about that robotic dogs could pose a
lethal threat to migrants and Americans.
How legitimate is that concern?
Mr. Kenneally. So, the use case where, as I mentioned, we
did some testing with Customs and Border Patrol, the use case
for the robots at the border is really to collect data.
So, it is--as I mentioned, you can either look for illegal
drug trafficking by adding appropriate sensors to detect for
that, or you can have thermal or infrared cameras on the system
which will let you pick up, you know, humans or other animals,
right, using those thermal signatures.
And so, the robot is really a detection system which will
then actually be used to save lives, right? There are hundreds
of deaths every year from people drowning or getting stuck
trying to cross the border. And, so, more information along
those lines I think can only be beneficial.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you for correcting the record on that.
This is a question for each one of you on the panel. You
know, regulation stymies innovation. In your business or in
your process of development, have you experienced any
regulations that you could tell us about that--that stymie your
innovation? And we'll just begin with Mr. Rawding.
Mr. Rawding. Thank you, Congressman. In my experience, our
experience as a company for some of the applications that we've
developed and targeting systems for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, we're on a current contract. I think CBP has done
really well with having multiple different contracts that kind
of cover agile frameworks and deployment of software solutions.
And that gives them the ability for us to come up with a
concept to design and deploy something very effective to the
frontline operators when they need it rather than the
stovepipes of some other potential procurement processes.
Mr. Burlison. So, you are saying the current setup works;
there is no regulation that has been stymieing you.
Mr. Rawding. In the way that we are operating now for CBP
under the current pace, I would say that is correct.
Mr. Burlison. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Nawabi. Congressman Burlison, yes, we have experienced
several regulatory requirements and hurdles. One that comes to
mind right now that could actually benefit from hopefully your
support is the Federal Aviation Administration because the
deployment and adoption of drones really requires its
integration with the airspace, the national airspace.
The UAV that you saw that flew in the stratosphere, we are
actively now pursuing the certification of that UAV, similar to
a commercial airliner, but it is a very different airplane.
There is no humans in it. There is no fuel on board. There is
batteries and solar cells and electric motors.
So that is an area that the United States--and we are
actually way ahead of our adversaries. And making that easier
and going faster would help. Similar to the drone on my left,
Quantix, was initially developed for the agriculture industry.
You can do inspections of power lines, utilities, railroads.
Mr. Burlison. Bridge, under----
Mr. Nawabi. Bridges, all sorts of infrastructure in
agriculture. But you cannot today fly this unless you are in a
specific test market beyond visual line of sight. So, if you
cannot see the drone, then you cannot fly it.
And a lot of these applications require these drones to
safely--and the technology exists for them to operate beyond
visual line of sight. And that is another area that, again, FAA
is involved, and they should be, but helping the regulations to
address the current technology advancement and the pace by
which the technology is advancing is really critical, and to
not only help us as a country, but to allow us to stay ahead of
our adversaries and to enable our, you know, domestic law
enforcement agencies to be able to use these effectively as
well.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Ms. Mace. In closing, I want to thank you all this
afternoon. I thank our panelists once again for their testimony
today.
Recent developments in AI will change the way we live and
work, and we must maintain our edge over China in AI
development. The capabilities of robots, drones, scanners and
other security hardware may be supercharged by advances in AI,
and we have seen some of those advances today.
We can help ensure the most effective, newest security
technologies the private sector develops gets into the hands of
our Border Patrol and other Federal agencies to keep our
people, our citizens, and our Nation safe.
So, I want to thank all our witnesses today--Mr. Rawding,
Mr. Nawabi, Mr. Kenneally and Mr. Boudreaux--for your testimony
today.
With that, and without objection, all Members will have
five legislative days within which to submit materials and to
submit additional written questions for our witnesses, which
will then be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. So,
if there is no further business today, without objection, our
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:59 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]