U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–701 PDF 2011

THE ROLE OF UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS IN 

BORDER SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARITIME, 

AND 

GLOBAL COUNTERTERRORISM 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 15, 2010 

Serial No. 111–75 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

VACANCY

VACANCY

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

I. LANIER AVANT, Staff Director 

ROSALINE COHEN, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNOR, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARITIME, AND GLOBAL 

COUNTERTERRORISM 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

AL GREEN, Texas 

VACANCY

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

ALISON NORTHOP, Staff Director 

NIKKI HADDER, Clerk 

MANDY BOWERS, Minority Subcommittee Lead 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global 

Counterterrorism .................................................................................................. 1 

The Honorable Candice S. Miller, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism .................................................................... 4 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security .. 6 

WITNESSES

Mr. Michael C. Kostelnik, Major General, USAF (Ret.), Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air and Marine, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

Mr. Vincent B. Atkins, Rear Admiral, Assistant Commandant for Capability 

(CG–7), United States Coast Guard: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

Ms. Nancy Kalinowski, Vice President, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration; Accompanied by John 

M. Allen, Director, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for Michael 

C. Kostelnik .......................................................................................................... 43 

Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi for Nancy 

Kalinowski and John M. Allen ............................................................................ 44 

(1) 

THE ROLE OF UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS 

IN BORDER SECURITY 

Thursday, July 15, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER, MARITIME, AND GLOBAL

COUNTERTERRORISM, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Henry Cuellar [Chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Cuellar, Thompson, Jackson Lee, Kirkpatrick, Pascrell, Green, Miller, Rogers, McCaul, and Smith. 

Also present: Representative Carney. 

Mr. CUELLAR [presiding]. The subcommittee will come to order. 

The Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism is meeting today to receive testimony on the role of unmanned aerial systems in border security. 

We meet here today at a critical juncture at our Nation’s border 

and homeland security. As 21st Century threats evolve, our country is facing new challenges that demand new solutions. 

At our northern and our southern border, we have taken critical 

steps to interdict the flow of illegal weapons, people, drugs, and 

cash. Since 2007, Congress has continued to increase border security funding. As a result, we have doubled the number of border 

patrol agents from 10,000 in 2004 to over 20,000 today. 

Still, our Nation’s communities along our borders and coastal 

waters face a unique exposure to threats. To mitigate those risks, 

we have to deploy a combination of manpower, knowledge, and resources to strengthen our strategy for securing our borders. Unmanned aerial system and a remotely pilot aircraft, known as the 

UAV, or the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, is a relative new means for 

providing real-time intelligence to combat illegal activity along our 

borders. 

For the past 5 years, this aircrafts have patrolled our northern 

and southern border, providing critical intelligence to our law enforcement officers. UAVs essentially put eyes in the sky to give us 

real-time view of what is happening on the ground. 

In remote sections of our borders, these aircraft give us a window 

we don’t otherwise have with ground patrol alone. UAVs are a force 

multiplier for our Federal, State, local law enforcement as they provide the intelligence to help detect, disrupt, and dismantle unlawful activity along our borders. 
2 

UAVs also give law enforcement and prosecutors the necessary 

evidence to prosecute criminals engaged in narcotic, human, and 

bulk cash smuggling, as well as arms trafficking. Increasingly, 

UAVs will become a familiar means for providing our homeland security. Thus, we are joined here today to discuss how the Department of Homeland Security uses UAVs within their portfolio to secure our Nation. 

Many of us here today understand the challenges of expanding 

this program. Through this forum, I would like for us to inspire 

new ways to overcome these challenges. 

Currently, there are five UAVs patrolling our borders, plus a 

most recent maritime variant, that just completed a pilot off the 

coast of Florida this spring. After months of work with Customs 

and Border Protection, the Federal Aviation Administration—the 

first-ever certificate authorization allow UAVs flights in Texas was 

approved this June. We say thank you. 

Effective September 1, this approval will allow UAV flights to patrol the Texas-Mexico border which shares waters with neighboring 

Mexico. 

Keep in mind that the Texas-Mexico border spans 1,200 miles of 

the 2,000-mile border of the Nation’s southern border. Thus, deploying a UAV to Texas is a critical step in securing the U.S.-Mexico border. 

As a representative of the Nation’s largest inland trading port in 

Laredo, Texas, I can tell you that communities that I represent are 

the front line of the U.S.-Mexico policy every day. Mrs. Miller will, 

of course, in a very eloquent way, talk about the northern border 

and, of course, the coastal that is so important. 

As violence continues in neighboring Mexico, our communities 

feel the impact across the Rio Grande, the narrow river that connects our two nations. 2010 has reached a boiling point as turf 

wars and gunfire unfold just minutes from our neighborhoods, and 

American families don’t travel to Mexico as frequently as they did, 

and now Mexicans fear traversing the Mexican border towns to 

enter the United States. 

Since January alone, just miles from my district in neighboring 

Mexico, we have seen two consulates forced to be closed and reopened, two USDA livestock inspection sites in Mexico closed, then 

reopened on the U.S. side because they don’t want to send their 

personnel across the river, most about drug-related shootings, pirates intimidating American boaters on the Falcon Lake and other 

activities that have disrupted the lives of U.S. citizens. 

These are types of situations where putting eyes in the sky can 

assist law enforcement in monitoring patterns and practices of our 

criminal organizations along the border. Monitoring these situations will give us an opportunity to prevent a spillover of violence 

from Mexico into the United States. 

Moving forward, I want to hear how DHS will expand the role 

of UAVs as a means of border security in the future, lessons 

learned, plans looking ahead, and what Congress needs to do in the 

mean time. 

I do want to thank, of course, the presentation that the assistant 

commissioner, Mr. David Aguilar, and all have made to McCaul 

and myself and a couple other folks. We appreciate that. 
3 

But, you know, we certainly want to look at how we can work 

with us. As—you know, my—standard language has been it is not 

us versus you, the Executive versus Congress, as we provide oversight. I am sure you don’t take that personal, but it is one of the 

things that I think we need to look at, how we can work together 

as a team. 

So therefore, we are very, very interested in looking at the funding that we passed in the supplemental, waiting for the Senate. 

Hopefully the Senate will provide this funding, which is, in my 

opinion, one of the largest infusion of cash that we have added for 

border security, which includes an additional two UAVs also. 

But despite this funding, we have other obstacles to overcome. I 

know training pilots to fly these UAVs at home has proven difficult 

at times when similar aircraft have been used in wars in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. Today, I look forward to discussing, General, with you 

your view on how best we can attract and train and retain the 

UAV pilots to keep up with the pace of the new UAV systems in 

the United States. 

Specifically, we need to examine the challenges of training these 

pilots, the time it takes and what necessary means are to fulfill the 

future needs of this program. Then, we look to FAA, who is the entity responsible for approving the flights of this aircraft system. I 

am in particular interested in the process of how FAA approves the 

flights of this aircraft, the safety implications involved, and the 

timetable for their approval. 

Specifically, we need to discuss our border National security request for the certificate of authorizations filed in the—of other COA 

requests. We understand there is from universities to ag to many 

other requests, but certainly we are hoping that this border National security are at the top of the line. 

As I understand, you have over 180 pending COA requests before 

the FAA, and priority hopefully will be given to Homeland Security 

submittals. But what if there are multiple Homeland Security 

issues at one given time? 

Does the FAA have a contingency plan to place—to approve 

UAVs to respond to multiple National emergencies? Americans 

know threats don’t wait for us to prepare, and now is the time for 

us to strengthen our strategy for combining technology and manpower to protect the homeland by way of domestic capability in addition to our efforts abroad. 

UAVs are one more tool for us to stay steps ahead and leaps 

above the threats that we face, and they can help deter and prevent illegal activity and threats to terrorism against the United 

States. In the event of a National crisis, they will provide critical 

eyes in the sky for what we can’t see or do from the ground. 

So I look forward to our hearing today to examine and explore 

the role of unmanned aerial systems in providing border security, 

and certainly thank the witnesses for their time. 

For our Ranking Member, let me ask first if we have—we do 

have a video, but we are having a little—problems with the sound. 

Is everything ready to go, hopefully? Okay. 

At this time, for the Ranking Member and Members, I would like 

to view a video provided by DHS. It is a brief video clip, I think 

about 2 minutes and 25 seconds, to show us the capability of the 
4 

CBP UAV program. I think this will be good to give us an idea of 

what—the UAV. So hopefully the sound is also working along with 

the video, and then—Mrs. Miller said that it might be a stealth 

drone where there is no sound, and I think we can. If we are 

ready? If not, we will continue. There is no pressure at all. Everything is fine. 

Well, as the young lady is figuring this out, I am going to now 

recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the gentlelady 

from Michigan, Mrs. Miller, for an opening statement. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to make 

a few short comments, and hopefully we will get to the video. 

I think it is important that we see the capability of the UAVs. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing because as we think about what is happening in our Nation, and one 

of the issues that we see on the news every single day is the Arizona law and how that is a manifestation of a lot of frustration of 

citizens across the Nation about our not securing our border. 

What we are doing on this subcommittee I think is very important, because we have to think about all available resources that 

we have as a Nation, as a creative people, of how we can secure 

our borders. Certainly, when we see ourselves involved in theater, 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, I mean, even in South Korea at the DMZ, 

we are securing borders for other countries, and we can’t secure 

our own border. 

We need to think about all of the resources that we have available. I mention Afghanistan and Iraq in particular because we see 

the fantastic capabilities of the UAVs. Here we have a situation 

where the American taxpayers have already paid for this. This is 

an essentially off-the-shelf hardware that has proved incredibly effective in theater with al-Qaeda and smart bombs. 

You know, they are flying along at very high altitudes, 50,000- 

plus feet. Too bad if you lose one, but guess what? You didn’t lose 

a soldier. 

You know, my husband was a fighter pilot in Vietnam theater, 

so—from another generation, but I told him, I said, ‘‘Dear, the 

glory days of the fighter jocks are over.’’ The UAVs, Unmanned 

Aerial Vehicles, are coming. 

They are fantastic technology, and now you see our military sitting in a cubicle sometimes in Nevada, drinking a Starbucks, running these things in theater and being incredibly, incredibly successful. So I really appreciate us talking about these UAVs today. 

I think it is a critical component of a mix of resources. We are 

all very enthusiastic about the President sending National Guard 

troops to the border. We are enthusiastic about ramping up customs and border protection along the border, not only the southern 

border, but the northern border. 

This committee has had numerous hearings about SBInet, again 

not only along the southern border, but the northern border. I mention the northern border because Chairman talks about the southern border. 

I always say this: Believe me, I am incredibly sensitive and cognizant of what is happening on the southern border of our Nation 

with the drug cartels, with the kidnappings, with all of the terrible 

things that are happening there. 
5 

But I represent a State, Michigan, along the northern border, 

and I always want to just make sure that we don’t forget about the 

northern border as well. We have incredible things that are happening on the northern border, and we feel that we are getting a 

bit short-changed there. God forbid something is going to happen 

and they are going to say, ‘‘You took all these resources down to 

the southern border, and you don’t have anything at the northern 

border that you need there.’’ 

So I would just mention that. I don’t mean it in a parochial way. 

I say it because I think it is in a very important part of our evaluation of how we secure our border and why these UAVs are so incredibly important. Because the Border Patrol says that we only 

have 32 miles under effective control for the north border, northern 

border, which is over 4,000 miles. 

I live on the Great Lakes and, you know, when you just look at 

the water as far as you can see there, and realize the lack of resources that are happening there and the busy border crossings 

that we have—the busiest border crossings on the northern border 

in Michigan—the Ambassador Bridge, the Blue Water Bridge, 

which are the two busiest border—the CNN Rail Tunnel, the busiest rail entry into the entire Nation. So, again, I think having this 

kind of situational awareness that the UAVs can help us on the 

southern border, but also on the northern border as well. 

I would just mention that General Kostelnik and myself talked 

about a UAV mission at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, or at 

least having a ground mission somewhere along the northern border in my region, over 2 years ago. We were—and I will have a 

question about that—but we were told at that time we would have 

a ground mission by 2010. 

Of course, now we are moving all of that to the southern border. 

Again, I understand, but I do think, and I would ask this committee, to think about the northern border as well. 

I am glad to see the FAA here. We obviously can’t talk about 

UAVs without the FAA here. I understand, everybody has a different mission, and have an expectation of you to accomplish your 

mission under extraordinarily challenging conditions. 

Easy for me to talk about the northern border when you have 

Detroit Metro Airport there that has almost half a million sorties, 

or flights, annually. It is incredibly busy air space. I don’t know if 

it is a problem, but you have that challenge in New York and some 

of the other areas you have looked. You certainly have that in the 

Chairman’s area, as well. 

I think, what the subcommittee wants to find out today is, how 

can we accommodate what is absolutely a priority for the Nation 

and the Congress as a reflection of the American people, securing 

our border and how we can utilize UAVs effectively. We do need 

to have the FAA’s help with accommodating all of that. 

Again, I recognize the challenges. You just can’t start flying 

these drones without thinking about what can happen in a very, 

very, very busy airspace with an antiquated air traffic control system. No fault of the FAA, but Congress needs to be moving a little 

further along on that, as well. 

But at any rate, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the subcommittee 

having this hearing. I think, again, it is very, very important. We 
6 

all share the same concerns and want the same outcome, which is 

border security and utilizing every resource that we have available 

to do so. 

With that, I would yield back. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you again very much. Mrs. Miller, we appreciate it. I think this is good to have, make sure we cover both 

the southern and the northern border, of course the coastal areas 

also. 

At this time, the Chairman now recognizes the Chairman of the 

full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for 

an opening statement. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

thank you for holding today’s hearing to examine the Department 

of Homeland Security’s use of unmanned aerial systems in its border and maritime security missions. 

You have worked diligently on this issue, and I thank you for it, 

which is particularly vital to you, given the district that you represent along our Nation’s border. 

Last week I visited Arizona, where I heard first-hand from residents about the need to—and to secure America’s southwest border. So it is particularly fitting this hearing is being held today. 

Along with providing appropriate personnel and infrastructure, 

deploying effective technology is an essential part of the Department’s border and maritime security efforts. I am interested in 

hearing more today about unmanned aerial systems can assist Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard in that regard. 

At the same time, we know that this technology can be utilized 

in disaster response, such as the recent Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill. It is my understanding that DHS’s UAS assets have been 

tasked with providing aerial images from the Gulf in the wake of 

this spill. 

Like my colleagues, I strongly support providing the men and 

women of DHS with the tools they need to carry out their vital 

work on behalf of our Nation. However, I have some questions for 

our panel. Today, I hope to hear specifics about how UASs can help 

CBP and the Coast Guard to fulfill their missions. 

Technology is intended to be a force multiplier. Given the cost of 

this technology, we should have a clear understanding of what the 

American taxpayers are getting for their money. 

I also hope to hear about some of the challenges CBP and Coast 

Guard face in deploying UASs along our borders and shores and 

how we might be of assistance. For example, there might be a great 

deal of concern about the length of time it takes DHS to obtain a 

certificate of authorization to fly UASs in the Nation’s airspace. 

It is my understanding that this process has improved of late, 

which is good to hear. However, FAA and DHS must continue to 

work together to ensure that these COAs are issued in a timely 

manner while still ensuring the safety of our airspace. 

CBP has also reported that a shortage of qualified UAS pilots is 

a persistent problem given the demand for such pilots in the military and elsewhere. If funding is provided for additional UASs, this 

pilot shortage must be addressed. 

To the extent that Congress can be helpful in overcoming these 

challenges, we certainly want to do so. Both CBP and Coast Guard 
7 

intend to expand their UAS program significantly in the coming 

years. 

It is imperative that they do so in a way that makes the most 

of our limited homeland security resources. Certainly the American 

people and border community residents in particular expect no less. 

I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward 

to their testimony. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At this time, I ask for unanimous consent that Representative 

Carney, a Member of the committee, be able to sit and question the 

witnesses at this morning’s hearing. 

Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under 

the committee rules, opening statements may be submitted on the 

record. Now welcome our panel of witnesses. 

The first witness is Major General Michael T. Kostelnik, is the 

assistant commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Office of Air Marine, the world’s largest aviation and maritime law 

enforcement organization. 

The general has served in the Government for over 38 years. 

Prior to joining CBP, he was deputy associate administrator for 

space station and space shuttle at NASA. 

Before joining NASA, the general spent 32 years on active military duty with the U.S. Air Force and serving as a fighter pilot, 

experimental test pilot, and a designated acquisition commander, 

among other positions. His best qualification, he is also a Texas 

A&M graduate, Aggie, from the university there. 

By accident, Mr. Chairman, we also have another Texan from 

San Antonio. It was not planned this way. Right, Michael? 

Our second witness is Rear Admiral Vincent B. Atkins from the 

San Antonia area, Lamar, who is an assistant commander for capability for the United States Coast Guard. In that position, Admiral 

Atkins is responsible for identifying and providing service-wide capability and capacity and for developing standards for staffing, 

training, equipment, sustaining and maintaining, employing Coast 

Guard forces to meet mission requirements. 

He previously served as the deputy director of response policy, 

where he oversaw the development of strategic doctrine and policy 

guidance for the Coast Guard’s statutory mission. Rear Admiral Atkins has served innumerable afloat-ashore staff assignments since 

graduating from the Coast Guard Academy in 1982. 

We also have our third witness, Ms. Nancy Kalinowski, which is 

the vice president of assistance operations services to the air traffic 

organization at the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA. She is 

responsible for the overall Nation’s National guidance for the air 

traffic flow of management, airspace management, information 

management, as well as the delivery of safe, secure, and efficient 

air traffic management and flight services for the National airspace 

system. 

During her more than 30-year career with the FAA, she has 

served in management and executive positions in human resource 

management, budget, communications, flight service, airspace management, design, and other sort of management and aviation safety. Certainly, as it was said a few minutes ago, we welcome the 

FAA here with us also. 
8 

Our fourth witness, Mr. John Allen, joined the Federal Aviation 

Administration November 1991 and was appointed as the director 

of flight standard service in December 2008. He leads an organization of more than 4,800 aviation professionals responsible for the 

promoting safety for civil aircraft by setting regulation standards 

for aircraft agencies, general aviation, airmen, and designees. 

Flight standards also is responsible for the certification and inspection of surveillance investigation enforcement of aviation regulations. Mr. Allen retires a Brigadier General from the Air Force 

Reserves in 2009 after holding various command positions during 

his 31 years of active duty and Reserve military career. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ full statements will be inserted 

in the record. I now ask the witnesses to summarize their statements for 5 minutes, beginning with the general. 

But General, we are going to ask you—we always come up with 

practical solutions to problems that we might have. Since we are 

missing the audio, we will ask you to, before you do your statement, ask you to narrate the video there. 

I think hearing it from the general, this would be the best way 

to hear this. It was actually planned, Mr. Chairman, as we did 

this. 

So, General, if you want to go ahead and—why don’t we run the 

video first, Members, so you can get an idea of what the UAVs are 

and the stations and the work, and then, after that, we will start 

with your prepared statement. General. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Before we run, if I could—— 

Mr. CUELLAR. Yes, hold it a second. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. I have to say, this is actually a historic event 

that occurred last year almost at this same time. This was taking 

the Predator UAS to Oshkosh, the largest gathering of manned aviators in the world. 

Because there has been such a debate on see-and-avoid and aircraft, we are there routinely with other members of the Federal 

Government showcasing military aviation capabilities across a 

spectrum of missions. 

But in the last couple years, we have always brought the Predator B model, which is about—has a wingspan of about 4 feet, very 

small sits on the table, and we show video to all the traveling pilots 

that come through the displays at Oshkosh. Almost to a person, 

they all thought that that little four-foot thing was a Predator. 

In reality, the Predator B, the MQ–9, which is the military Reaper that we fly is a very large aircraft. It is 66-foot wingspan, it is 

10 foot tall, it is 36 foot long, but it is unmistakable. 

So at the request of the Experimental Aircraft Association, and 

with the partnership and support of the FAA, last year we brought 

the Predator—you will see that we are trucking in a control set so 

we can land it. We flew the Predator across through the National 

airspace, landed at Oshkosh, and then, for a week, had that aircraft on display for the American public that travels and would be 

most affected by the risk of unmanned aviation in the National airspace come by, talk to the pilots, look at the control set, see the 

aircraft. To a person, I believe they came away with a different perspective of the system, the risk and the mission that that aircraft 

does. 
9 

As an aside, last year was a difficult year financially. There was 

another aircraft that was there, the Airbus A380. It is the largest 

airplane in the world. According to the EAA, in their own words, 

attendance at Oshkosh last year was up 36 percent, and it was up 

primarily due to one of the smallest aircraft there, the Predator 

UAS, and one of the largest. 

So what you will see—and I will narrate through—this is our 

short vignette of our experience at Oshkosh air venture last year. 

You can run it, and I will navigate. 

[Begin video.] 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. We have a truck that—the ground control station. This is the formal system that we fly the airplane with, and 

you will see it being disassembled. 

This is our director, who runs our Oshkosh show. In the background, you will see the classic MQ–9, the aircraft that the military calls the Reaper, the aircraft that we call the Predator. Ours 

are unarmed but have all of the other systems. 

You can see it is a very large aircraft. This is in the early days 

of the show when we have flown the aircraft in. People would get 

a chance to look at the systems, look at the capabilities. You can 

see in the forward part an electro-optical ball. This provides this 

type of video, so the aircraft sees in multiple spectrums—electrooptical, which is low-light level TV. 

This is an inside view, looking at the imagery. This is the kind 

of imagery that we will get in the ground. This is the actual control 

set. That is the pilot on the left side flying the displays. He is looking out through cameras in either the EO or clear ball looking out 

the front. 

This is typical of the kind of imagery. It is a movable ball, so you 

can look around. You can clear, and you are doing it in multiple 

spectrums. The EO optics, this is what it looks like looking behind 

the airplane. This is some of the image that we actually took during the hurricane support a couple years ago. 

Mr. Krogh was one of our most experienced launch and recover 

pilots. This is the crown jewel of UAS operations, those that actually take off and land the Predators. This is typical of the kind of 

imagery that we take, you know, during our mission sets. 

There are concerns about privacy that have been raised. But if 

you look at the type of imagery that we are taking, the things we 

are looking at and where we are, we are really on solid ground in 

those regards. 

This is a air pavilion behind it, just different vignettes of the 

equipment on the inside. What you are looking at is the kind of displays that the pilots have. All of our crews are FA-certified pilots. 

Both the left seat pilot and the right seat sensor operator are FAcertified pilots, all part of our risk reduction program. 

That just gives you a good sense. It is a very popular show, and 

I think it offered a new perspective to the aviators when they saw 

the size of the airplane, the fact that it wasn’t something programmed on its own but something being hand-flown virtually 

through the satellite infrastructure that came away with a different sense. I think the rest is probably repetitive. 

[End video.] 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you for that narration. We appreciate it. 
10 

General, why don’t we go ahead and go with your actual statement? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Okay. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Then we will proceed at that time. So you are recognized for 5 minutes to summarize your statements. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL C. KOSTELNIK, MAJOR GENERAL, 

USAF (RET.), ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF AIR 

AND MARINE, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Chairman Thompson, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Miller, thank you for your leadership, and thanks for 

this committee’s support of homeland security mission. 

Air and marine is a very small organization on world standards, 

but in this area of flying unmanned vehicles, we are setting policy. 

We are the world leaders in homeland security. 

The Department of Defense has many more aircraft and a lot 

more experience overseas, but in the homeland, you might be surprised to know that we are the world’s second-largest operator of 

the Predator B, this large Predator system that I have shown. 

There are about 35 aircraft in the Air Force inventory and, at the 

end of this year, we could have as many as 10 operational in our 

own. 

But on the world stage, taking these high-end—DOD technologies and applying them in the homeland, that is a unique skill. 

That is a unique talent. In the world stage, there is no organization 

that is more capable or more experienced for flying these technologies safely and effectively in the homeland. 

We have been operational for more than 5 years. We have flown 

more than 6,000 hours. We have flown the southwest border and 

the northern border on routine operations. 

In North Dakota we deployed, to Congressman Miller’s point, to 

upstate New York. We have flown in partnership with our Canadian brothers along the St. Lawrence Seaway. 

While those have been routine operations helping to secure the 

Nation’s border as part of a more complete secure border strategy, 

when we lay these assets down, people of all type wonder why are 

these things here. They are concerned about this or that. 

We are there for security reasons, but once we are there, we can 

do a great many things. In fact, 3 years ago when we had the unprecedented flooding in Iowa that caused a lot of problems, we 

could have put our assets into play to help there, but there wasn’t 

the vision. There wasn’t the thought. There wasn’t the process. We 

didn’t really quite have the capability. 

But 2 years ago, the leadership in the State of North Dakota, 

and it was bipartisan both sides, you know, specifically requested 

that we would help them in their time of need in terms of floods. 

So, 2 years ago, we flew the floods in North Dakota. We got a great 

response from the FAA. Short-notice emergency colors were able to 

support that flood. 

Last year, or this past year, we flew the floods not only in North 

Dakota, but also in Minnesota as a result of our experience in 

North Dakota. 
11 

Of course, we are into hurricane season now in the part of the 

country where I come from, the Gulf, and we flew 2 years ago all 

three hurricanes during that time period, again with the support 

and the cooperation of the FAA. These were, you know, unique and 

first-ever applications of this technology in those type of, you know, 

contingencies. 

Part of that experience was an unmanned flight that took off 

from NAS Corpus Christi and flew all across the country up to 

Delaware, making synthetic aperture radar cuts of all the significant infrastructure along the coast of the United States. That is in 

our databases. 

Now, from those same stills, if we get hurricanes in those same 

areas this year, we can, after the event, fly the same aircraft with 

the same technology and do fore-and-after difference analysis with 

our help from the NGA. From that we can determine early on significant infrastructure damage to dikes, dams, marinas, bridges, all 

of those kinds of things in a great new application of technology. 

While we are moving aggressively in this area to protect the 

country from terrorists, to support our missions in immigration and 

narcotics interdiction, you know, who could have imagined the 

Deepwater Horizon event? We are currently operational with both 

a Predator B, which we borrowed temporarily from our friends in 

North Dakota but will return to the northern border. 

We have our joint aircraft, the Guardian, flown jointly by the 

U.S. Coast Guard as well as CBP, stationed out at Cape Canaveral. 

For the last 2 weeks, we have been flying nightly missions in support of the Deepwater Horizon event using the unprecedented forward-looking infrared with professional maritime filters to create a 

unique database, feeding this information live to key management 

infrastructures not only in the Gulf but other places across the 

country. 

This, I think, conversation will be not only about performance 

and capability, but clearly about risk, given my friends with the 

FAA that are here. These aircraft are not without their risk. We 

are well early into this system, and there is a wide variety of capability with our UAS, everything from small handheld things to very 

large things. 

What should be allowed to fly on National airspace? Well, I think 

there are four things that capture this distinctly. 

One: What system you are flying? Ours is the most experienced 

in the world, more than a million operational flight hours. 

Two: Where you are trying to fly? 

Three: When you are trying to fly?—all of these things. 

Finally, the last W is the most important: Why you are trying 

to fly? 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is a part of the Department 

of Homeland Security. We are flying to protect the country. We are 

trying to do the things to prevent a 9/11. But certainly, if there was 

a recurrence, we would put these aircraft into that same mode. 

I look forward to your questions, and appreciate your help and 

support in this area. Thank you, sir. 

[The statement of Gen. Kostelnik follows:] 
12 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL C. KOSTELNIK

JULY 15, 2010 

Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Miller, Members of the subcommittee, it is 

a privilege and an honor to appear before you today to discuss the employment of 

the Predator B and Guardian Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) for homeland security missions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Office of Air and Marine (OAM), and in particular their role in border security operations. I want to 

begin by expressing my gratitude to the committee for its continuing support of the 

CBP mission, especially as it relates to our efforts to expand UAS operations over 

both the land and maritime borders of the United States. 

CBP has operated the Predator B UAS for over 5 years and has pioneered the 

employment of this high-end, long duration, remotely-piloted aircraft in the National 

Airspace System (NAS) for border security and disaster assistance. Predator Bs, 

which can operate in excess of 20 hours during a single border search mission, currently patrol parts of both the southern and northern U.S. land borders and have 

logged more than 6,500 flight hours in support of CBP’s border security mission. 

The newest addition to CBP’s UAS family, a maritime search variant of the Predator B called the Guardian, carries a broad-area sea-search radar with impressive 

long-range detection and tracking capabilities. Together, the Guardian and Predator 

B have enabled CBP to support the response to large-scale natural events such as 

hurricanes, floods, and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; and have positioned CBP 

to confront ever-changing threats to the homeland in the future. 

CURRENT OPERATIONS AND DEPLOYMENT STRATEGY

CBP currently operates six Predator B aircraft, including the first maritime 

Guardian which was developed under a joint program office with the United States 

Coast Guard (USCG). A seventh aircraft, our second Guardian, is scheduled for delivery before the end of this year, and funding for a third Guardian is included in 

the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request. The Predator family of aircraft has 

an evolving sensor suite and has flown over 1 million hours on defense missions. 

The CBP version of the aircraft has a 66-foot wing span and weighs over 10,000 

pounds. Since 2005, the main operating base for the UAS has been the U.S. Army’s 

Fort Huachuca, located near Sierra Vista, AZ. CBP has three Predators deployed 

to Sierra Vista to conduct missions along the southwest border, and to develop tactics, test new sensors, and train new pilots and sensor operators. Since the UAS is 

designated by CBP as a National asset, broad operations are directed from OAM 

National Air Security Operations Office (NASO) in Washington, DC. Individual mission assignments are generally based on specific intelligence, intelligence trends, 

and requests from the CBP Field Commanders at the southwest and northern borders. Other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) component agencies, such as 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the USCG, as well as outside Federal agencies, such as the FBI and DEA, also make requests. 

In December 2008, CBP deployed its first Predator B to North Dakota to commence northern border operations and enhance pilot training opportunities. By February 2009, two aircraft were operating from Grand Forks Air Force Base, North 

Dakota. In the fall and winter of 2008 to 2009, CBP Predators drawn from both the 

northern and southern borders supported FEMA missions during the southeastern 

hurricanes and the floods in North Dakota. During the hurricane activity, the Predators conducted pre- and post-event missions that mapped 260 critical infrastructure 

points of interest and provided FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers vital video 

and change detection information on storm damage. During the North Dakota and 

Midwest floods of 2009, the aircraft flew nearly 100 hours during 11 missions, and 

provided video on the formation of ice dams so that action could be taken to destroy 

them and prevent the floods from expanding. 

CBP and the USCG began cooperating on UAS operations in 2007, beginning with 

a UAS rapid deployment demonstration to North Dakota named Agile Falcon. Using 

a USCG C–130 cargo aircraft, a complete system including the Predator B support 

equipment and ground control station was successfully airlifted, proving the capability that will eventually be used to support the introduction of the Guardian into 

the eastern Pacific drug transit zone. In March 2008, the USCG participated in a 

CBP-led demonstration of a maritime UAS capability off Tyndall Air Force Base, 

Florida. And in the months that followed, the USCG joined CBP in the creation of 

a Joint Program Office for the development of a maritime Predator variant. 

On the heels of a highly successful partnership with the North Dakota Air National Guard, CBP aggressively sought to expand operations to the eastern half of 

the northern border. In June 2009, OAM conducted a successful surge operation to 
13 

the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, operating from the Army’s Wheeler-Sack 

air field at Fort Drum, New York. The air field at Fort Drum is perfectly located 

to support routine UAS operations along the northern maritime border, as well as 

contingency operations along the eastern seaboard. OAM also began work on a longrange partnership with the New York Air National Guard’s 174th Fighter Wing 

(FW) in Syracuse, New York, to share maintenance, training, and logistic support 

common to CBP Predators. The 174th FW also possesses the capability to support 

CBP UAS operations, either from Wheeler-Sack Army Air Field at Fort Drum, or 

directly from Hancock Field in Syracuse. 

ACCESS TO THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS)

The Predator B and Guardian are two high-end, remotely-piloted unmanned aircraft routinely operating in the NAS under Certificates of Authorization (COAs) 

from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). CBP has worked with the FAA to 

meet all requirements of its COA application process and the detailed, tailored requirements of individual certificates. OAM has demonstrated that the Predator B 

can be flown safely in the NAS, with operational limitations that ensure the safety 

of other NAS users and people and property on the ground. It is a proven operational system with redundant command and control, under the operational oversight of the Air and Marine Operations Center (AMOC), and the flight safety oversight of the FAA. It is flown along the Nation’s borders and coastlines, primarily 

at night when civilian air traffic is low, and it is flown in support of critical National 

security missions. To date, 35 of 36 COA requests made by CBP have been approved 

by the FAA. The latest COA approvals have increased the miles of airspace available for UAS operations, including 1,103 miles above Texas, enabling CBP to deploy 

its unmanned aircraft from the eastern tip of California, across the land borders of 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and into the maritime border just short of the 

Texas and Louisiana border. The other recent COA approval granted access to airspace needed to deploy the Guardian UAS, and a Predator B temporarily re-deployed from North Dakota, over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. CBP continues to 

work with the FAA to expand access from 240 to over 900 miles along the northern 

border, west of North Dakota, and then, as resources permit, back to the Great 

Lakes and St Lawrence Seaway. The FAA has assured CBP that homeland security 

COA requests will be given top priority. 

EXPANDING INTO THE MARITIME DOMAIN

Work on a maritime variant of the Predator B began in late 2007 and the path 

forward to the new capability took shape after the UAS Maritime Demonstration 

conducted in March 2008. By November 2008, CBP and the USCG had signed a 

charter for the Joint Program Office. Within a few months thereafter, modification 

of an existing Predator B as the first prototype Guardian began and the completed 

aircraft was delivered to CBP in December 2009. The Guardian’s primary enhancement was the addition of a SeaVue broad-area maritime search radar, common to 

the radars being flown on CBP’s P–3 long-range tracker aircraft and the DHC–8 medium-range patrol aircraft. Other enhancements included electro-optical/infrared 

sensors with maritime haze filters, a 360-degree maritime automatic information 

system (AIS), and an upgraded power subsystem with twice the output of a standard Predator B. 

The Guardian maritime UAS successfully completed operations test and evaluation in May 2010, and the early results indicate that it will provide DHS with an 

impressive capability for maritime surveillance and interdiction missions in the 

source and transit zones. The aircraft is currently deployed to Canaveral Air Force 

Station, Florida, and is an additional asset in use with the unified response command assisting with the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Plans are in place for embarking on the first joint CBP/USCG mission in the Caribbean Sea later this summer. Eventually, the aircraft is expected to be deployed alongside the P–3 patrol aircraft, searching for bulk drug carriers, such as semi-submersible vessels and bulk 

drug submarines, in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Less than 1 year after the 

selection of a radar system, CBP introduced a unique, long-range maritime search 

asset to the DHS inventory, unmatched by any other capability on the world stage. 

FUTURE PLANS

When DHS approved the UAS Program as a component of CBP’s Strategic Air 

and Marine Plan (StAMP), OAM was authorized to acquire up to 24 complete systems. Consistent with the available resources, OAM has acquired seven aircraft, including five Predator B land configuration aircraft and two maritime Guardians. As 

previously stated, the fiscal year 2011 budget request includes funding for an eighth 
14 

aircraft, also a Guardian. To support the aircraft, their command and control systems, operations personnel, maintenance and logistics, and other infrastructure, 

OAM established three launch, landing, and mission control sites (Sierra Vista, Arizona; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Cape Canaveral, Florida), along with a mission operations site at the AMOC. 

To further bolster our southwest border security resources, CBP re-deployed a 

ground control station from the AMOC to the Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, 

Texas this month. Current plans call for occasional surge operations to Corpus 

Christi until sufficient aircraft, crew, ground support equipment, and operating 

funds become available, and a launch site agreement is reached with the U.S. Navy. 

Since the approval of the FAA COA for southern Texas and Corpus Christi, CBP 

has made steady progress on a basing agreement. With aircraft launched from both 

Sierra Vista, Arizona, and Corpus Christi, Texas, CBP can cover the full length of 

the 1,185 miles of airspace approved for homeland security operations by the FAA. 

ENHANCING UAS PERFORMANCE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY MISSIONS

CBP UAS operations provide leading-edge capabilities to homeland security missions. No other CBP aircraft can provide persistent surveillance for over 20 hours 

in a single mission, respond to urgent calls from ground agents for unparalleled situational awareness, and host a variety of sensors to meet the evolving threat on 

the land and maritime borders. 

Over the past 3 years, CBP has established formal relationships with the Department of Defense (DOD) and its components to leverage capabilities developed for use 

overseas that may have applications to homeland security missions. The capabilities 

fall into three broad categories: Sensor systems; video and data capture and exploitation systems; and hardware support. Since OAM is an operating organization with 

minimal research and development staff or supporting test and evaluation infrastructure, it is logical and efficient to take advantage of technological advances by 

the DOD, industry, and other agencies. 

I would like to highlight three specific DOD capabilities that are being tested or 

adopted by CBP to enhance UAS performance for homeland security. The first 

would provide CBP with a radar capability with active, near-real-time vehicle and 

dismounted change detection, to support border ground operations, especially in 

areas subject to high levels of border violence. Once proven on the Predator, the capability could be distributed to other CBP surveillance aircraft. The second capability would provide enhanced signals direction-finding capabilities that could be 

used both over land and during coastal and long-range maritime operations. A third 

capability, funded by Congress in fiscal year 2010, will provide infrastructure for the 

timely exploitation of information and video from a variety of aviation platforms and 

sensors, beginning with the UAS and P–3 long-range patrol aircraft. Exploitation 

can be defined as the detailed analysis, interpretation, and distribution of information from many sources; eventually this will provide a Nation-wide capability to coordinate aviation mission assignments during broad border area campaigns and 

major events. Located at the AMOC, the first processing, exploitation, and dissemination cell is being patterned after similar capabilities employed by the U.S. Air 

Force and is expected to be operational before the end of this year. 

THE ROAD AHEAD

No aviation program, no matter how effective and efficient, is without challenges. 

The greatest near-term challenge faced by CBP’s UAS Program is a shortage of pilots and sensor operators, specifically pilots certified to launch and land the aircraft. 

There is a significant amount of competition among the DOD, industry, and DHS 

to hire UAS pilots. Last year, Congress provided funds for 24 new pilots and though 

all were hired, only a few brought with them significant UAS experience. The rest 

are undergoing training that will take the better part of this year to complete. CBP 

does not plan to hire additional UAS pilots in fiscal year 2011, except to cover retirements, and therefore has begun to cross-train pilots and sensor operators from 

other high-in-demand units, primarily those stationed at the CBP P–3 branch in 

Corpus Christi. Since CBP plans to operate Predators and Guardians from Corpus 

Christi, it is logical and efficient to share resources to the maximum extent possible. 

As previously mentioned, CBP continues to work very closely with the FAA on 

UAS access to the NAS, with the objective of eventually establishing long-term or 

permanent corridors through which CBP can routinely fly missions along the Nation’s land and coastal borders, into the source and transit zones, and respond to 

emergency missions across the country. The relatively recent establishment of a 

UAS Executive Committee that includes DHS, FAA, DOD, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, will help to address Government-wide NAS ac-
15 

cess needs. Since CBP has a homeland security mission in the NAS, the agency’s 

COA requests will receive top priority by FAA. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity 

to testify about the work of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, particularly in regard to the impressive capabilities that unmanned aircraft systems bring to our 

homeland security missions. Your continued support of CBP and the UAS program 

has led to significant improvements in the security of our borders and our Nation. 

I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, General, for your testimony. 

At this time, we now recognize Admiral Atkins to summarize his 

statements for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF VINCENT B. ATKINS, REAR ADMIRAL, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR CAPABILITY (CG–7), UNITED STATES 

COAST GUARD 

Adm. ATKINS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman 

Miller, Chairman Thompson, and distinguished Members of the 

subcommittee. As the Coast Guard assistant commandant for capabilities, I am honored to appear before you today to talk about the 

utility of unmanned aircraft systems to secure our maritime borders, as well as support the full range of Coast Guard missions to 

the benefit of U.S. economic and environmental security. 

With our unique combination of civil and military authorities, 

the Coast Guard serves as the Nation’s principal maritime law enforcement authority and lead Federal agency for maritime homeland security. Our broad responsibilities extend from our inland 

waters to the Great Lakes to over 95,000 miles of coastline and 

into the high seas. 

In support of this security mission, the Coast Guard and other 

Government agencies employ a layered defense and depth strategy 

to prevent the entry of illicit contraband and people across a broad 

and asymmetric maritime border. 

In general terms, National security is a concerted effort to prevent attacks within the United States, reduce our Nation’s vulnerability to terrorism, and to protect our resources and commerce. In 

the maritime environment, this not only includes our physical borders but the exclusive economic zone and also the approaches to 

these areas and in those areas between our ports of entry. 

To provide this security, it is imperative that the Coast Guard 

maintain a high degree of Maritime Domain Awareness, or MDA, 

across a vast and geographically diverse region. When integrated 

with our manned air and surface assets, the Coast Guard sees 

great promise for land and cutter-based UAS in support of maritime security. 

While the Coast Guard operates jointly with our partner agencies, we often perform as a sole entity typically due to our mission 

and/or geography. This is most apparent in long-range counterdrug and counter-migrant operations from the Equatorial Pacific of 

Central and South America to the deep Caribbean. 

In terms of fisheries protection and enforcement operations, we 

operate from the far reaches of the Bering Sea along the Maritime 

Boundary Line to the Georges Bank in the North Atlantic. Also in 
16 

the North Atlantic, the Coast Guard monitors and tracks ice movements, ensuring the safety of heavy commercial shipping. 

Closer to home, we protect our ports and waterways, shores, and 

living marine resources from foreign and domestic threats. Homeland security missions, both civil and military, benefit from improved maritime domain awareness, which in turn is improved by 

persistent surveillance provided by unmanned aircraft systems. 

To achieve this UAS capability, the Coast Guard is leveraging 

partnerships with Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Navy, 

the Federal Aviation Administration, and other Federal UAS users. 

Our goal is to identify best practices, minimize risk to future UAS 

acquisition and operations, and to understand how to best integrate 

land and cutter-based UAS into our broad mission set. 

With CBP, the Coast Guard created a Joint Program Office, 

which has since facilitated the development, testing, and fielding of 

maritime version of the Predator, also known as the Guardian. 

Coast Guard pilots jointly operate the Guardian UAS and assist in 

developing tactics, techniques, and procedures for maritime UAS 

operations. 

We look for operational opportunities to understand how to leverage UAS maritime capabilities, including the support of the interagency response to Deepwater Horizon, and also in future counterdrug missions. We are working with the Navy on their Fire Scout 

program to better understand shipboard rotary-wing UAS applications. 

Additionally, the Coast Guard is part of an inter-agency effort to 

safely integrate unmanned aircraft into the National airspace system. The Congressionally-mandated UAS Executive Committee is a 

highly active and collaborative effort and represents the best opportunity for successfully integrating unmanned aircraft into the NAS. 

Sir, the Coast Guard believes there is a real role for UAS in maritime security, and we appreciate this subcommittee’s oversight 

and guidance as we move forward to realize these benefits. 

Thank you, and I stand ready to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The statement of Admiral Atkins follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VINCENT B. ATKINS

JULY 15, 2010 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. I 

am honored to appear before you today to speak about the employment of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in support of the Coast Guard’s mission to secure 

our borders. 

The Coast Guard is a military service and branch of the armed forces of the 

United States. We are also the only service in the Armed Forces with statutory law 

enforcement authority. Since our beginnings as the Revenue Cutter Service in 1790, 

the Coast Guard has seen tremendous expansion in our roles and responsibilities, 

continuing with the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Coast Guard functions as 

the Nation’s principal maritime law enforcement authority and lead Federal agency 

for maritime homeland security. The Coast Guard is also designated as lead agency 

for maritime drug interdiction under the National Drug Control Strategy, the lead 

agency for maritime and aeronautical search-and-rescue in coastal and international 

waters and airspace, and the co-lead agency with Customs and Border Protection’s 

Office of Air and Marine (OAM) for air interdiction operations. Of these roles, many 

overlap with other agencies, while others fall solely within the purview of the Coast 

Guard. 
17 

America’s borders encompass over 95,000 miles of coastline. To secure America’s 

borders, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other Government agencies employ a comprehensive ‘‘layered security’’ strategy, which aims to provide security at and between U.S. ports of entry while simultaneously extending the zone 

of security beyond the physical border to include the Exclusive Economic Zone. 

These waters contain living and non-living marine resources that are of substantial 

economic value to our Nation. 

The layered security strategy depends on effective and efficient Maritime Domain 

Awareness (MDA), which refers to the persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance of all vessels, cargo, aircraft, and people approaching and seeking 

entry into the United States, legally or illegally. Along with the Coast Guard’s fleet 

of manned aircraft, UAS will provide required capability to monitor open seas and 

littoral waters providing additional data and imagery to maritime operational commanders and other users throughout the U.S. Government. The resulting improvement in MDA will support other Coast Guard’s efforts to detect, monitor, track, and 

if necessary, interdict targets of interest. This capability will, in turn, increase the 

effectiveness of the Coast Guard and its partners in performing our core homeland 

security, defense, and law enforcement missions. 

As envisioned in the Deepwater Mission Needs Statement (MNS), UAS is critical 

to support many of the Coast Guard’s missions (e.g., Search and Rescue; Drug Interdiction; Alien Migrant Interdiction; Living Marine Resources; Other Law Enforcement; Defense Readiness; and Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security) in direct 

support of the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report. 

For example, these capabilities would augment surveillance efforts currently provided by manned Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Sensor data would be made available to 

Coast Guard and other Government agency command and control units, tactical 

units, and exploitation sites. 

To achieve a well-balanced capability, the Coast Guard’s UAS strategy is threefold: • Evaluate existing cutter-based and mid-altitude, land-based UAS options and 

leverage existing Department of Defense and CBP acquisition products; • Exploit information available from U.S. Navy High Altitude Long Endurance 

(HALE) platforms; and • Develop knowledge and experience through partnerships within DHS and the 

Department of Defense. 

This strategy will be used to safely and pragmatically guide the implementation 

of a UAS solution. 

In February 2009, the Department of Homeland Security approved the Coast 

Guard’s strategy to acquire mid-altitude long-range and low-altitude cutter-based 

tactical UAS’s to meet mission requirements. The strategy also emphasizes commonality with existing DHS and Department of Defense (DoD) programs that are 

already technologically and production mature. This approach will streamline the 

Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations and the development of UAS Mission 

Needs Statements and Capability Development Plans already underway. 

The Coast Guard is proactively leveraging partnerships with CBP, the Department of Defense, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to explore the 

abilities of UAS to contribute to Coast Guard mission sets. To this end, the Coast 

Guard significantly enhanced collaboration with CBP by establishing a Joint Program Office with four officer billets in 2009. At the same time, the Coast Guard created senior officer liaison billets with the Navy and the FAA. 

In cooperation with CBP, the Joint Program Office has provided significant expertise in maritime surveillance, sensors and data management capabilities, resulting 

in the development and fielding of the Guardian UAS, an offshore version of the 

land-based Predator UAS. In addition, the Joint Program Office assisted in securing 

facilities to support Guardian test activities and routine flight operations. 

The Joint Program Office’s efforts also enabled three Coast Guard aviators and 

one sensor operator to receive Predator training at CBP facilities. Upon completion 

of the training, Coast Guard personnel operate the Guardian UAS and assist CBP 

in developing tactics, techniques, and procedures for UAS operations in the maritime environment. This mutually beneficial relationship provides a valuable resource for both agencies, as it enables the Coast Guard to develop critical UAS skill 

sets within the service, and provides manpower and maritime expertise to CBP, permitting expanded and flexible flight operations in domestic and international 

waters. 

A recent example of the benefits of this cooperative effort was the Coast Guard’s 

request to employ the Guardian UAS in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

Pilots from both agencies have employed UAS to map the spill, locate and track responding surface assets, and transmit imagery to supporting command centers, ef-
18 

forts which enabled the Coast Guard to evaluate the UAS’s ability to support largearea surge operations. 

In addition, the Coast Guard is observing other new technologies in existing systems that can support a wide variety of missions in the maritime. Over the last 

year, the Coast Guard has been monitoring the Heron I UAS in routine exercises 

sponsored by U.S. Southern Command, including the joint development of test and 

mission plans, as well as observation of flight operations in Central America and 

command and control activities in the United States. Data gathered in these efforts 

will be invaluable in acquiring and operating a UAS capable of meeting the Coast 

Guard’s mission needs. 

The Coast Guard’s mission also requires a cutter-based, rotary-wing UAS program 

which will provide a tactical enforcement tool to extend the range and capability of 

our new cutter fleets. Our partnership with the Department of Defense has ensured 

that we maintain the expertise to develop a robust cutter-based program, enabling 

one Coast Guard aviator to qualify on the Navy’s Fire Scout UAS, and two other 

aviation personnel to observe Fire Scout operations and maintenance aboard the 

USS McInerney. The Coast Guard’s close relationship with the U.S. Navy in this 

effort led to the option of installing a sea search radar aboard Fire Scout. Although 

this was not originally included in the Navy’s payload requirements, it is critical for 

Coast Guard missions and provides a more robust and capable surveillance capability. Having completed a ‘‘dry fit’’ of the Fire Scout aboard the NSC Bertholf in 

2008, engineering and design plans have been completed to support a Fire Scout 

technical demonstration aboard the NSC in fiscal year 2011. 

CONCLUSION

Since its inception, Coast Guard aviation has been at the leading edge of applying 

new technologies to efficiently accomplish our many responsibilities. It is our unique 

authorities, capabilities, competencies, and partnerships, both foreign and domestic 

that enable the Coast Guard, in partnership with our fellow DHS components and 

the other branches of the armed forces, to consistently and effectively provide maritime security. In the context of the U.S. layered security strategy for the maritime 

domain, the introduction of UAS would extend the reach of Coast Guard’s ability 

to protect America’s maritime borders. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I will be happy to answer your questions. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Ms. Kalinowski to summarize her statement for 5 minutes on behalf of herself and Mr. Allen. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY KALINOWSKI, VICE PRESIDENT, SYSTEM OPERATIONS SERVICES, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY 

JOHN M. ALLEN, DIRECTOR, FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Thank you very much, Chairman Cuellar, Congresswoman Miller, and distinguished Members of the committee. 

The FAA appreciates the invitation to come speak to you today in 

support of both our missions, the FAA, CBP, and Coast Guard. 

The FAA sets the parameters for where an unmanned aircraft 

system may be operated and how these operations may be conducted safely in the National airspace system. Our main focus 

when evaluating UAS operations in the National airspace system 

is to avoid any situations in which an unmanned aircraft would endanger other users of the NAS or compromise the safety of persons 

and property on the ground, as Mrs. Miller said. 

The FAA recognizes the great potential of unmanned aircraft in 

National defense and homeland security and, as such, we strive to 

accommodate the DOD and the DHS’s needs for UAS operations. 

But we must do so without jeopardizing the safety of the National 

airspace system. 
19 

Currently, if a Government agency or a public university or a 

State or local law enforcement organization wishes to fly an unmanned aircraft system in the civil airspace, the FAA may grant 

a certificate of waiver or authorization, commonly referred to as a 

COA. The proponent applies to the FAA for a COA, detailing what 

and how they intend to fly the UAS in the airspace. The FAA 

works with the proponent to mitigate any risks that flying the UAS 

in the civil airspace may present. Risk mitigations frequently include special provisions unique to the requested type of the operation. 

For example, the applicant may be restricted to a defined airspace or restricted to operating during certain times of the day. 

The UAS may be required to have a transponder or, if it is expected to be flown in a certain type of airspace, a ground observer 

or an accompanying chase aircraft may be required to be the eyes 

of the UAS. 

Other safety enhancements may be required, also depending on 

the nature of the proposed operations. I have more information 

later on about the COA process, which I can go into detail if the 

committee wishes. 

As noted by Congressman Thompson, we have recognized the 

need to streamline our process for evaluating COA applications. To 

address the timeliness concerns of the applications, the FAA is 

working to simplify the COA process and has also increased the 

staffing levels by more than a dozen people. 

The FAA’s working better to standardize the review process and 

to increase communication and transparency between our partner 

agencies and the applicants. We take this process very seriously, 

and while we are taking specific steps to improve the COA process, 

we are always going to take the time we need to ensure that these 

operations can be conducted safely in the NAS. 

These efforts are already showing improvements. In 2009, we 

issued 146 COAs, but so far this year we have issued 122 COAs 

in the first 6 months, and we are on track to issue over 200 this 

year. 

At the current time, we have over 268 active certificates of authorization on 133 different aircraft types. They have been issued 

to 151 different proponents. The CBP currently has 11 COAs 

issued to them. 

Normally, the COAs are worked on a first-come, first-serve basis. 

However, if an agency such as Customs and Border Protection has 

a priority mission request, it receives priority consideration from 

the FAA. As General Kostelnik discussed, we also recognize that 

there are emergency and disaster situations where the use of UASs 

can save lives and help our first responders. 

To address these situations, we do have special disaster COAs 

and emergency COAs that can be issued in a matter of hours or 

even minutes, and we have responded to the CBP in this manner. 

We are also working with our partners in Government and the 

private sector to advance the development of UASs and their ultimate integration into the NAS. 

First, in accordance with 2009 Defense Reauthorizations, the 

DOD and FAA have formed the Executive Committee that Admiral 

Atkins just referred to, the ExCom, to focus on conflict resolution 
20 

and identification of range policies, technical issues, and procedural 

concerns rising from the integration into the NAS. We have also included the Department of Homeland Security and NASA to more 

capture broadly the other Federal agency concerns and missions. 

The focus of this U.S. Com is to enable an increase, and then ultimately a routine access of Federal public UAS operations into the 

NAS to support all of our missions. We thank the Congress for enabling the formation of the ExCom to advance the work of UAS integration. 

Unmanned aircrafts are a promising new technology, but one 

that was originally and primarily designed for military purposes to 

support the war fighter. Although the technology incorporated into 

UASs has advanced, their safety record warrants careful review. 

We are trying to integrate the aircraft into the NAS, but we need 

to continue to take a very hard look at the risks that UASs pose 

to the aviation community and the traveling public, as well as the 

risk to persons or property on the ground. 

We seek to balance our partner agencies’ security, defense, and 

other public needs with the safety of the National airspace system. 

We will not compromise the safety of the National airspace system. 

We look forward to continuing to work with our partners, and we 

thank you, the Congress, and especially this committee, for the 

guidance that you have given us, the support that you personally, 

Chairman Cuellar, and your committee have provided to the Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard missions to further enable this partnership. 

Thank you. 

[The joint statement of Ms. Kalinowski and Mr. Allen follows:] 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY KALINOWSKI AND JOHN ALLEN

JULY 15, 2010 

Chairman Cuellar, Congresswoman Miller, Members of the subcommittee: Thank 

you for inviting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to this hearing. We are 

Nancy Kalinowski, Vice President of System Operations Services in the Air Traffic 

Organization (ATO), and John Allen, Director of the Flight Standards Service in the 

Office of Aviation Safety at the FAA. Together, we have distinct yet related duties 

in carrying out the FAA’s mission to ensure the safety and efficiency of the National 

Airspace System (NAS). Mr. Allen’s organization is charged with setting and enforcing the safety standards for air operators and airmen. Ms. Kalinowski’s role is to 

provide overall guidance for air traffic procedures and airspace issues and her office 

is the focal point for daily ATO interface with the Department of Defense (DoD) and 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding air transportation security 

issues. 

As the most complex airspace in the world, the NAS encompasses an average of 

over 100,000 aviation operations per day, including commercial air traffic, cargo operations, business jets, etc. Additionally, there are over 238,000 general aviation aircraft that represent a wide range of sophistication and capabilities that may enter 

the system at any time. There are over 500 air traffic control facilities, more than 

12,000 air navigation facilities, and over 19,000 airports, not to mention the thousands of other communications, surveillance, weather reporting, and other aviation 

support facilities. With this volume of traffic and high degree of complexity, through 

diligent oversight, the FAA maintains an extremely safe airspace. 

With regard to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), we—the FAA—set the parameters for where a UAS may be operated and how those operations may be conducted 

safely in the NAS. Our main focus when evaluating UAS operations in the NAS is 

to avoid any situations in which a UAS would endanger other users of the NAS or 

compromise the safety of persons or property on the ground. The FAA recognizes 

the great potential of UASs in National defense and homeland security, and as such, 

we strive to accommodate the DoD and DHS’ needs for UAS operations, but we 
21 

must do so without jeopardizing safety. Because airspace is a finite resource, to help 

mitigate risk, FAA sets aside airspace for an operator’s exclusive use when needed. 

These exclusive use areas are known as Restricted or Prohibited Areas. The DoD 

conducts most of its training in such airspace. Along the southern border of the 

country, the DoD has elected to share that restricted airspace with Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP). However, the CBP also operates UASs in civil airspace, 

as discussed below. 

When new aviation technology becomes available, we must first determine whether the technology itself is safe and whether it can be operated safely. Whether the 

technology is to be used by pilots or air traffic controllers, we determine the risks 

associated with putting that technology into the NAS. Once we address and mitigate 

those risks, we move forward with integration in stages, assessing safety at each 

incremental step along the way. Unforeseen developments, changing needs, technological improvements, and human factors all play a role in whether the new technology is safe enough to be permitted into the system. 

The FAA is using this same methodology to manage the integration of the new 

UAS technology into the NAS. While many view UASs as a promising new technology, the limited safety and operational data available does not support expedited 

or full integration into the NAS. For example, some of the data that we do have 

comes from the CBP, and while we have reason to believe that the safety data that 

we do have may not be a representative sampling of UAS operations, it is all we 

have. To the extent that this limited data from CBP are representative, they suggest that accident rates for UASs are higher than in general aviation and may be 

more than an order of magnitude higher than in commercial aviation. 

For example, from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year-to-date 2010 (July 13, 2010), CBP 

reports a total of 5,688 flight hours. The CBP accident rate is 52.7 accidents per 

100,000 flight hours (the standard safety data normalization factor/the standard on 

which safety data is reported). This accident rate is more than seven times the general aviation accident rate (7.11 accidents/100,000 flight hours) and 353 times the 

commercial aviation accident rate (0.149 accidents/100,000 flight hours). 

While the CBP accident rate appears to be higher than general or commercial 

aviation, we note that CBP’s total reported flight hours of 5,688 are very small in 

comparison to the 100,000 hour standard typically used to reflect aviation safety 

data and accident rates. CBP has had seven deviations (where the aircraft has done 

something unplanned or unexpected and violates an airspace regulation) so far this 

fiscal year in over 1,300 hours of flight time, as compared to the five deviations in 

1,127 hours of flight time in fiscal year 2009. Continuing review of UAS operations 

will enhance FAA’s ability to assess the safety to improve on-going use of this technology. 

This is the crux of the FAA’s responsibility. More data is needed before an informed decision to fully integrate UASs into the NAS can be made. Because of this, 

the FAA must make conservative decisions with respect to UAS NAS integration. 

Until such time as the data can support an informed decision to integrate UASs in 

the NAS—where the public travels every day—in accordance with our safety mandate, the FAA must continue to move forward deliberately and cautiously. 

For UASs to gain access to the civil airspace, the FAA has a Certificate of Waiver 

or Authorization (COA) process. This is the avenue by which public users (Government agencies, including Federal, State, and local law enforcement, as well as State 

universities) that wish to fly a UAS can gain access to the NAS, provided that the 

risks of flying the unmanned aircraft in the civil airspace can be appropriately mitigated. Civil UAS operators must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate—Experimental Category to gain access to the NAS. This avenue allows the civil user 

to operate the UAS for research and development, demonstrations, and crew training. The Special Airworthiness Certificate does not permit carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. Commercial UAS operations in the United States are 

not permitted at this time. 

Risk mitigations required to grant a COA frequently include special provisions 

unique to the requested type of operation. For example, the applicant may be restricted to a defined airspace and/or operating during certain times of the day. The 

UAS may be required to have a transponder if it is to be flown in a certain type 

of airspace. A ground observer or accompanying ‘‘chase’’ aircraft may be required to 

act as the ‘‘eyes’’ of the UAS. Other safety enhancements may be required, depending on the nature of the proposed operation. 

To apply for a COA, public entities may submit an application on-line with the 

FAA. The FAA then evaluates the request. Internally, ATO first examines the application for feasibility—airspace experts review and ensure the operation will not severely impact the efficiency of the NAS. The application is then sent to Flight 

Standards to evaluate the operational concept, the airworthiness release of the air-
22 

craft, the pilot/crew qualifications, and the policies and procedures used by the operator. From that in-depth evaluation, special provisions are written. These internal 

FAA offices then confer together to address any remaining concerns and harmonize 

the provisions needed to ensure the safe operation of the UAS. Once these steps 

have taken place, the COA is signed and given to the applicant. 

We have recognized the need to streamline our process for evaluating COA applications. To address the timeliness concerns of applicants, the FAA is working to 

simplify the COA process and has also increased staffing levels by more than a 

dozen people. The FAA is working to better standardize the review process and increase communication and transparency between the agency and the applicants. We 

take this process seriously and while we are taking specific steps to improve the 

COA application process, we will always take the time needed to ensure these operations can be conducted safely. 

These efforts are already showing improvements. In 2009, we issued 146 COAs. 

So far this year, we have issued 122 COAs, and we are on track to issue over 200 

this year. At the current time, we have 268 active COAs on 133 different aircraft 

types, issued to 151 proponents. CBP currently has 11 COAs issued to them. 

Normally, COAs are worked on a first-come, first-served basis. However, given 

that there are emergency and disaster situations where the use of UASs has saved 

lives and otherwise mitigated emergency situations, the FAA has issued three special disaster COAs, one to CBP and two to the DoD. Both agencies have requested 

COAs using the special process, and most disaster COAs have been issued before 

either agency had the aircraft and personnel in place to fly the mission. In addition, 

there is a second type of special ‘‘emergency’’ COA. Emergency COAs have been 

used to help with California wildfires, the Deepwater oil spill, and special law enforcement missions. These have been issued in minutes or hours, not days and 

weeks. The FAA has issued three disaster COAs and 16 emergency COAs to CBP 

for its use. 

These are only a few of the many improvements that the FAA is implementing 

to address the concerns with the COA application process. In the mean time, we 

are working with our partners in Government and the private sector to advance the 

development of UAS and the ultimate integration into the NAS. First, in accordance 

with Section 1036 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for fiscal year 2009, Public Law 110–417, the DoD and FAA have formed 

an Executive Committee (ExCom) to focus on conflict resolution and identification 

of the range of policy, technical, and procedural concerns arising from the integration of UASs into the NAS. Other ExCom members include DHS and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to capture more broadly other Federal agency efforts and equities in the ExCom. The mission of this multi-agency 

UAS ExCom is to enable increased, and ultimately routine, access of Federal public 

UAS operations into the NAS to support the operational, training, developmental, 

and research requirements of the FAA, DoD, DHS, and NASA. All of these partner 

agencies are working to ensure that each department and agency is putting the 

proper focus and resources to continue to lead the world in the integration of UAS. 

We thank the Congress for enabling the formation of the ExCom to advance the 

work of UAS integration into the NAS and streamline the COA process. 

The FAA expects small UASs to experience the greatest near-term growth in civil 

and commercial operations because of their versatility and relatively low initial cost 

and operating expenses. The agency has received extensive public comment on small 

UASs, both from proponents who feel their size dictates minimal regulation and 

from groups concerned about the hazards that UAS pose to piloted aircraft as well 

as persons and property on the ground. 

In April 2008, the FAA chartered an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to 

examine these operational and safety issues and make recommendations on how to 

proceed with regulating small UASs. The agency has received the ARC’s recommendations, and is drafting a proposed rule. Ensuring the safety of all airspace 

users while not putting undue burdens on small UAS operators is a challenging 

task; the FAA hopes to publish the proposed rule by mid-2011. 

Additionally, the FAA has asked RTCA—an internationally recognized standards 

organization that frequently advises the agency on technical issues—to work with 

the FAA and industry and develop UAS standards. RTCA will answer two key questions: 

1. How will UASs handle the challenges of communication, command, and control? and 

2. How will UASs ‘‘sense and avoid’’ other aircraft? 

These activities are targeted for completion before 2015. 

As the FAA moves forward with improving the processes for integrating UAS into 

the NAS, we want to acknowledge and thank our partner agencies from DHS in 
23 

helping to keep our skies safe. CBP, in cooperation with the FAA, conducted a comprehensive training session for all of their UAS pilots and sensor operators just last 

month. The 16-hour CBP training safety meeting was conducted June 14 and 15 

with classroom training, as well as guided discussion periods involving pilots and 

sensor operators from CBP. This approach to safety provided the two agencies with 

an environment to share knowledge and experience and forged a partnership that 

takes into account both the security of the homeland as well as the safety of our 

airspace. We look forward to continuing that partnership with the CBP, as well as 

the other Federal agencies, as UAS technology matures. 

Unmanned aircraft systems are a promising new technology, but one that was 

originally and primarily designed for military purposes. Although the technology incorporated into UASs has advanced, their safety record warrants careful review. 

Now, as we attempt to integrate these aircraft into the NAS, we need to take a hard 

look at the risk that UASs pose to the traveling public as well as the risk to persons 

or property on the ground. As the agency charged with overseeing the safety of our 

skies, the FAA seeks to balance our partner agencies’ security, defense, and other 

public needs with the safety of the NAS. We look forward to continuing our work 

with our partners and the Congress to do just that. 

Chairman Cuellar, Congresswoman Miller, Members of the subcommittee, this 

concludes our prepared remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions you 

might have. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you again very much. Again, to all the witnesses, thank you for being here with us. 

I would like to remind each Member that he or she will have 5 

minutes to question the witnesses, and I now recognize myself for 

questions. 

General, let me go ahead and ask you this particular question. 

Give me the overall vision of what the UAVs will be as part of the 

border security. In other words, summarize what we were talking 

about yesterday. What does that mean for the southern border? 

What does that mean for the northern border? What does that 

mean for the coastal area when we talk about the UAV program? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Thank you, sir. 

Our program is a growing and a planned program. For the last 

several years, each year we have provided the Congress a formal 

strategic vision, a strategic plan for where we are going. 

In my view, our UAS program has always been a part of the 

more comprehensive secure border initiative program. Well, mostly 

that has been associated with the fans and ground-based radars. 

The UAVs have always been the virtual air piece. 

We have purposely laid down our infrastructure where the Air 

National Guard infrastructure is, where they are flying the wartime Predator missions overseas, our AMOC in Riverside, California; North Dakota, the Hooligans up there fly Predators overseas. We are going into NAS Corpus Christi. We are going into Syracuse for our maintenance facility. They fly Predators overseas. 

Our focus is to provide the air picture in concert with our 

manned aviation and our ground-based technology and aviation 

systems to provide a complete border security net. Not that whatever be every piece 24/7, but providing the right type of manned 

or unmanned capability at the right time, at the right place, you 

know, to provide the security, you know, that that is needed. 

We have targeted our lay-down into places like Sierra Vista, 

given the focus on the Southwest border, or into North Dakota, 

given the focus on the northern border in concert with the five 

manned aviation branches we have stood up in the last 5 years. We 

have deployed and explored operations out of New York State. 
24 

We are now going in with your help into Corpus Christi. That 

will be the next base that we stand up. We are over at the Cape. 

So we are starting to lay down, and as through our program, we 

lay down other sites. 

There will be other additional sites on the northern border such 

that, when we reach the end game of our complete lay-down, not 

only will we have the capability to do daily and routine border security ops, supporting immigration, narcotics interdiction and terrorists, you know, activities, but also with those lay-downs, we are 

uniquely placed to respond to contingencies of all kinds, natural 

ones like the floods in the north and the hurricanes in the south, 

environmental ones like the Deepwater Horizon event. 

But most importantly, I believe this capability—and Ms. 

Kalinowski was right. I mean, this is based on wartime capability, 

but these things have found so much use overseas, why wouldn’t 

we use the same technology to protect ourselves in the homeland 

that we apply overseas to do that mission there? 

Increasingly, with the Uganda event, Mumbai not too long ago, 

you know, it is clear that, you know, the world is increasingly an 

unsafe place, and one needs to be prepared for the unexpected. 

Now, UASs are not a panacea. They don’t do anything themselves. 

They must work in conjunction with manned assets. 

But if you look honestly at the technology, this single aircraft can 

do things none of the other aircraft in the Department of Homeland 

Security can do in a package. I think those kind of capabilities, you 

know, kind of set the stage. 

We are early on in that maturation process. We are clearly still 

growing. We are clearly still learning. The technology is well in advance of the National policy and the vision for National use, but 

that will come with your help and your leadership in a measured 

way. 

But the difficult things, the technologies that we should be implying, we are getting very good at. I would offer that, while these 

things are not without their risks, we actually do have a good safety record for this aircraft in this homeland in the way we fly it with 

our efforts. So that is our way ahead. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Of course, on the safety issue, do everything possible, I know the FAA is in charge of that. But again, make sure 

there is no linkage losses and all that, just do everything possible 

to make sure we provide that safety. Because especially some of 

those drones will be flying over populated areas, and we certainly 

want to make sure that we do everything possible on that. 

The other point that I want to mention, I got a note from the 

Texas Sheriffs association that was asking, General, as you provide 

that real-time information—and I assume it goes directly to Border 

Patrol. Is that correct? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. It is actually a wide variety of users. Some of 

it could go to any one of our intel functions. We can stream the 

video sometimes to some of the DOD components in concert with 

other missions. Once it goes to the Air and Marine Operational 

Center in Riverside, it can be distributed to users anywhere in the 

country. 

In fact, we can stream our information across the ordinary internet channels with very low levels of encryption because, really, 
25 

most of the images there is not a lot to be concerned with. So if 

I had an aircraft flying today and we were wired to the internet, 

I could show you live video from one of our aircraft today. 

While it might be not the resolution you want on a TV monitor, 

it gives leadership wherever you have, whether it is here in the 

country or out in the field at a command and control infrastructure 

at emergency management response, you know, unbelievable situational awareness about what is going on real-time. 

When we flew the hurricanes 2 years ago, we were feeding that 

image not only to FEMA sites across the country but to headquarter sites at DHS and CBP. You could see real-time as a Predator flew by an oil derrick whether there was a leak in that derrick 

or not. That kind of information is priceless in the sense of commercials. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Right. But the intent is to work with our other 

partners, State and local, depending on the situation whether you 

use a fusion center or whatever the case might be, but there is an 

intent to work with our local folks, is that correct, local and State? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Yes, sir. As a matter of policy, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection aviation and maritime law enforcement assets not only support CBP Border Patrol FO missions, all Department of Homeland Security missions, but outside agencies, including DEA, FBI, and others. We are there. Once we are in a locale, 

you know, that asset supports all State and local contingencies. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. All environmental contingencies of any type. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay, thank you very much. 

At this time, I now recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, gentlelady from Michigan, for questions. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

General, I noticed in your testimony you were talking about the 

CBP suffering from the pilot shortage. Maybe you could flesh that 

out a bit for me, because you were saying that the Congress has 

funded 24 pilot positions, but I think we actually funded 144, is 

what my notes are saying here. 

Also, I am interested in how you train a pilot to do something 

like that? Is there anything that the subcommittee can do to help 

you with making sure you have adequate amounts of pilots and the 

resources that you need to train these individuals? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Well, the 24 pilots that were provided in the 

2009 budget, those have been hired. They are in the process of 

being trained. The 144 number was the plus-up we were looking 

at in 2010, which for internal budget reasons, we did not get. All 

of those would not have been UAV pilots, but a large part of those 

numbers were—— 

Mrs. MILLER. So not to interrupt, but that was an internal decision—— 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Right. 

Mrs. MILLER [continuing]. Not to fund those. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Right. 

Mrs. MILLER. So the resources were shifted somewhere else internally. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Well, it was a matter of the budget issues associated with the 2011 budget and the changes we had to make 
26 

which would not be recurring in 2010 to get there. We did get, of 

that 144, about 24 slots, and some of those will go into UAV pilots. 

Now, in terms of training, this is probably the biggest bottleneck, 

you know, across the spectrum of users. Not only are we having 

issues, the United States Air Force is having users as Secretary 

Gates is trying to grow the number of CAPs they have overseas. 

It is interesting, because it is all about unmanned things, but the 

reality is that UAVs are manpower-intensive, especially, you know, 

the remotely piloted ones like the Predator because—the other pilots and sensor operators—— 

Mrs. MILLER. Right. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK [continuing]. Intel kind of things. So, you know, 

very manpower-intensive. 

In terms of training, the first aircraft, as you recall, we lost in 

2006, one of the early prototypes of the Predator B pilot air, had 

nothing to do with the UAV. Perfectly good airplane. 

Mrs. MILLER. You lost contact with that aircraft, right? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. The pilot cut off the engine. No, we never lost 

contact with that airplane. That was a contractor pilot being 

trained inappropriately on a contract flight who cut off the engine. 

There was a momentary loss link that switched to the second control, which is the normal procedure in a Predator. 

The second set of flight controls were supposed to be in an operate mode. They were in cutoff mode. The guy was poorly trained, 

cut off the engine, didn’t realize it. The airplane continue to do 

what it was supposed to do until it hit the ground. I mean, that 

was a problem on its own. 

Since that time, we have aggressively, with the help and support 

initially through the United States Air Force, and now with our 

own resources, we grow and train our own resources. We have 

more than 40 air marine pilots, dual-qualified, FA-certified, flying 

manned fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft and Predator Bs as part 

of our infrastructure. We have a small cadre of launch and recovery 

pilots, and we are growing that program. There is no quick fix for 

that. It takes time. It takes time. 

Mrs. MILLER. Okay. Not to cut you off, but I have a limited 

amount of time here. 

I did appreciate your narration of the video and taking the predator to Oshkosh. I don’t know if you plan on doing that when they 

have Oshkosh in 2 weeks, but with all of the activity that is going 

on there, I think it is very important and great that you get the 

buy-in of the general aviation community through the EAA, et 

cetera. 

The FAA I think can also hear wonderful input from people who 

are utilizing the airspace in so many different ways if they feel 

comfortable with these drones being out there. I think that is a 

critical component of us, going forward, making sure. 

I would just also want to mention, Mr. Chairman, and for the 

committee as well, I think as a Congress and as a Nation, we need 

to think always about utilizing, as I say, off-the-shelf hardware like 

the drones that the taxpayers have already paid for that are being 

very successfully utilized in theater, in conflict, and how we meld 

those into homeland security as well. 
27 

I think we missed a big opportunity during the last BRAC. Quite 

frankly—they weren’t thinking about it—because we were talking 

about military facilities around the Nation and maybe using 

Stryker brigades and how those could be utilized by the National 

Guard for homeland security. 

Same thing with UAVs, how they could be utilized and how we 

really meld the DOD and the Department of Homeland Security together in facilities around the Nation, the ability to—as the general 

was just saying, you are doing these overlays at Air National 

Guards all over. I don’t know if you are going to do that down at 

the Cape. Are you putting that at Patrick? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. It is actually at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. 

Mrs. MILLER. Okay. So I don’t know if there is Air National wing 

at Patrick, but it would be great to have a ground station there for 

what is happening with the Deepwater Horizon, et cetera, in the 

Gulf. 

So I just think, just generally want to—I think this committee 

can be helpful in talking to the entire Congress—we are going to 

have another BRAC at some point—of how we utilize all of these 

various resources. 

The first and foremost responsibility of the Federal Government, 

which is to provide for the common defense, that is in the preamble 

of the Constitution. All these other issues are important, but nothing more important than National defense, homeland security. I 

think if we can utilize some of these—anyway, I am a huge supporter. 

I know I am out of time. If I could just ask one other question 

quickly. What is the reaction of your Canadian counterparts to the 

UAVs, and even some of the aerostats or other kinds of technology 

that you are utilizing there? You know, they are very concerned 

about the thickening of the border. They are very concerned that 

we are over-reacting to this threat sometimes. They are our greatest neighbor and ally, and we always have to be sensitive to that. 

Thank you. General. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Should I respond to that? 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. When we stood up North Dakota, we took the 

UAVs up there. That was the first northern border deployment. Of 

course, we had a very strong presence, the Canadian Border Security and the RCMP. Of course, behind the scenes, we have great 

partnerships with our law enforcement and security forces up 

north. I mean, went through the iVet process and iBid process. 

There is a lot going on. 

On the aviation side, when we stood that up, that is the question 

that you get from mostly the media. The law enforcement types get 

it, but the Canadian media says, ‘‘Well, why are you militarizing 

the border?’’ You know, why are you bringing these planes up here? 

But the reality is, you know, border security serves everybody 

well on both sides of the border, because the kind of things, the 

places we are flying, the things we are looking at, the things we 

are going after, the people who are in those areas are only up to 

no good. It really serves the vast majority of the American-Canadian public well to have a secure force. 
28 

Oh, by the way, I remind them, you know, when we put this aircraft here, it is there to support contingencies. It wasn’t 3 months 

after we stood up North Dakota that we had that flood—and North 

Dakota, you may realize that the waters run north—and the Canadian government was on the edge of asking us to fly the Predator 

into Canadian airspace to help them with their flood support. 

So the reality is—and this is important to the American public, 

because once we put these aircraft in place, South Texas, when we 

get down to Corpus Christi, that will be new. I get a lot of questions from San Antonio and Corpus. I mean, that is my home town. 

But the reality is, when the airplane is there, we won’t have to sortie an airplane down there to do response to hurricanes. 

If there are tornados in other parts of the country that need response, we won’t have to deploy aircraft from halfway across the 

country to get there. This airplane, with the EO, with the IR, with 

the laser designator, you can find people lost in the wilderness. You 

can find warm bodies in cold water. You can relay that information 

to man recovery and response assets. It just brings more Federal 

capability to State and locals that they would never have. 

I mean, if you were a local law enforcement type, your question 

in south Texas, wouldn’t you like the same capability that the special operator war fighters have overseas in your hometown towards 

your mission? Once we are there, we support them as a priority. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you to the Ranking Member. 

At this time, Members, we do have one vote, so I am going to 

ask the Chairman to go ahead and do the question, then we will 

rush off and then come right back because that is only just one 

vote. So as Members, you know the rules, recognize other Members 

for questions according to committee rules procedure. We will go 

with the start of the seniority, who we have got here first. 

But at this time, we will go ahead and recognize the Chairman 

of the full committee for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Cuellar. 

Ms. Kolinowski—yes, okay, all right. I am sure you have been 

called better or worse, you know, just according. 

Your prepared testimony states that data does not support expedited or full integration of UASs. You further go on to say that the 

limited data you have suggests that accidents rate could potentially 

be higher. Your information is concerning. Can you explain that? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Yes, I can, sir. We have enjoyed a very positive 

working partnership with Customs and Border Protection in this 

past year, and they have been very forthcoming with their information and their data on their operations in the civilian NAS. 

We still need to understand and receive more data from our partners in the Department of Defense in order to fully understand all 

the safety challenges that we have with these unmanned aircraft 

systems. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Excuse me, what kind of information from DOD 

are you lacking? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Mr. Allen, would you like to address that? 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, sir, information we would desire are accident 

rates, the true picture of how the aircraft performed in the combat 

environment in Iraq and Afghanistan so we can get a better pic-
29 

ture, understanding that that environment is totally different from 

the environment that we have here, but a full picture of how they 

have operated in the past, and then how we will operate in the future and get that data would give us a better understanding in 

terms of the risks that we are dealing with so that we can make 

the best decisions, moving forward, for safety. 

Mr. THOMPSON. How outstanding is that data request from 

DOD? 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, sir, we are continually working on that on a 

continual basis. I would offer that sometimes it is a matter of understanding what data is asked for and how people perceive data. 

I know there are concerns of misinterpretation of data and some 

concern of giving data misinterpreted, and therefore not arriving at 

the right conclusion. 

So we have been working at this over at least the past year, and 

we are getting more data from them all the time. But the main 

point here is that explaining our conservative approach at times, 

because we want to make sure we ensure safety, the more data we 

get, then the more leaning-for we can be in providing access of the 

UAS to the NAS. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So you continue to request additional data? 

Mr. ALLEN. We request and we work, and we get it as well, sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So now, does that continuing to request data 

lengthen the time for the certificates of authorization to be issued? 

Mr. ALLEN. No, sir. I would argue that it does not. It will help 

us strategically to provide guidance and improve our process, but 

I would argue that it doesn’t provide a direct bearing on the time 

frame that we are approving these certificates of authorization. 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. When we are dealing with specific certificates 

of authorization, we will receive the information that we need in 

order to evaluate the safety case for that particular operation, 

whether it be for Customs and Border Patrol, Coast Guard, or for 

the Department of Defense or any other operation within the civilian NAS. 

What we are looking forward to is more complete understanding 

of how all the different aircraft operate, their accident rates, the 

problems that they may have had with lost link or communications, 

and the problems that we—the challenges that we have found together in training pilots and bringing them forward into a safety 

management system. The more we understand about safety, the 

more we can work toward integration more fully into the National 

airspace system on a regular basis. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

I mentioned I was in Arizona last weekend, along the southern 

border, Douglas, Arizona, the Tucson sector. It is difficult to say to 

the ranchers a UAS is better than boots on the ground. 

One of the things, General, I think you will need to provide the 

committee with is the successes or whatever justification for interdictions, or what have you, that have occurred within a period of 

time so that, the next time I am there, I can be, pardon the pun, 

a little armed with information. We have had some difficulty, as 

you know, getting that hard data. 

Just for my information, we now buy Predator UASs. Am I correct? 
30 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. It is in the Predator family, but it is the MQ– 

9, not the MQ–1. So in the Air Force terminology, the Predator is 

the smaller one. The Reaper is the larger one, and the Predator B 

is the same as the Reaper. That is the one we are flying, the large 

Predator. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Have we found an equal UAS that is cheaper than what we are 

paying now that provides the same level? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. No, sir. There is no real clear competitor on the 

world stage with the experience. This is from a family of Predator 

series vehicles, starting with the MQ–1, MQ–9, now Reaper, then 

the Guardian. These aircraft have flown more than a million hours. 

That experience alone, there is no other UAV with that kind of experience. That is part of the risk reduction. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Yes, the experience is one thing, but the capability is the other. So your testimony is that, from your experience, that capability does not exist anywhere else? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. No. There is no clear competitor for the Predator B class with the equipment, sensors, and the capability at this 

time. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Members, we are going to go ahead. We have got, actually, none 

time remaining, so we have got to run up there. We will be right 

back. We will go ahead and recess this committee meeting for a 

couple minutes till we get back. So, at ease. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CUELLAR. We will go ahead and get the committee as we are 

waiting for Members to come in. 

As we are doing this, let me ask a question to Admiral Atkins. 

Tell us a little bit about the pilot program that you are all doing 

in Florida, the maritime—I believe you are doing that with CBP. 

Adm. ATKINS. Well, yes, sir. In fact, it is using the Guardian, and 

it is basically for us to understand, in the maritime, how do we 

take the sensors on that Predator B that have been marinized and 

how do we use it? In fact, that is the same bird that we are using 

on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

So given the sensors, and given its altitude, how do those sensors 

act in terms of finding the oil, tracking the oil, and how do we 

move that information from the bird to the shore and to those folks 

who can use it? So it is a real good effort to understand how to expand the utility of this tool to something that we didn’t think about 

before, oil spills. You know, Deepwater Horizon was eye-opening in 

a lot of ways, and this is one in particular. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Okay. All right. 

Why don’t we go ahead and continue with the Ranking Member, 

Mr. McCaul, from Texas? Recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me say what an 

honor it is to be the acting Ranking Member on this subcommittee. 

Want to thank the witnesses, and it is good to have some Texans, 

I hear, as well. I also want to thank the FAA for the certificate of 

authority that was issued for Texas, Corpus Christi, and commend 

the Chairman, Chairman Cuellar, for his hard work in getting that 
31 

certificate accomplished. I am not sure if you heard that or not, but 

I was complimenting you. 

Mr. CUELLAR. No. well, I was just—the gentleman next to me. I 

thought it was—— 

Mr. MCCAUL. So I know you worked hard to get that certificate, 

and I was commending you for that. 

I want to talk about—in general, I appreciate the meeting we 

had yesterday, very insightful. I think we in the Congress think, 

you know, all we have to do is appropriate dollars for UAV and it 

is taken care of. But the fact of the matter is, when you talk about 

the systems and the complete systems, there is a lot more that goes 

into this, more than just a UAV. There is a ground control station, 

airfield infrastructure, the pilots that you have mentioned, and 

other additional funding for that. 

Which kind of takes me to my next question. This is going to be 

really, I think, focused more for the general and the admiral to answer this question. In terms of the—and let me say first, the UAVs 

I think are real integral part of our secure border initiative. They 

are not the complete 100 percent answer to it, but I think it is one 

piece to providing the surveillance that we need. 

I think the point has been made that we are using this technology in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, and it is been effective to 

help secure that border. We ought to be using it, in my judgment, 

on the southwest border and northern border, which I am pleased 

to see that we are going in that direction. 

But in terms of resources and needs, that is what we like to help 

you accomplish in terms of the mission. The long-term mission in 

providing full security on the border with respect to UAVs, what 

is the need? What can Congress do to authorize and appropriate 

the appropriate resources that you need to accomplish this mission? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Well, I would say a good first look at that 

would be the annual strategic plan that we provide the Congress. 

It covers more than just the UAS systems. It covers the aircraft as 

well. 

But, you know, we have been working on our program now for 

5 years, and I think we have built a pretty credible, though still 

small and maturing force. In that plan, the last one, you know, 

calls for a ultimate fleet of about 18 aircraft and the pilots and the 

associated equipment to go along with it. 

So if you look at your vision and your operational kind of need, 

some of which is still evolving because it is based on a threat, perhaps, we haven’t seen, well, I think the UAVs in their current deployment are very helpful in terms of the missions we apply it for. 

I believe we are building a force for a threat and an experience we 

really haven’t seen yet. It is something that is in the future. 

So you really have to decide what your need will ultimately be 

in terms of mission set. From that, you can get to aircraft, and 

from that you can get to control sets and bases and all those 

things. We have had, you know, very good support from the Congress in building this program. We have another aircraft we will 

procure, you know, next year, and that is very helpful. 

Our shortcomings have been in pilots. Some of that is just the 

time it takes to grow, and finding people that want to do it and 
32 

are competent to do it. We certainly need help in O&M. People forget that it takes, you know, gas and spare parts, and most of the 

Predators are contractor support from General Atomics, not inexpensive. 

Then, ultimately, when you go into main operating bases and the 

airplanes are just airplanes, but they do require hangars, and Corpus would be a good example. It is a Navy training base. Hopefully, 

with their support, we are going to be posted there, but, you know, 

hangars become, you know, an issue. 

So the reality is I think that strategic plan would give the Congress a good sense, and then consistence on, you know, National 

priorities and resources, one can, you know, pick and choose about 

how rapid the growth could be based on emergent needs. Today, 

our—of 18 aircraft would be modified by our experience with the 

Guardian. 

So now, we would look in our end-game and have an acquisition 

decision memorandum for a fleet of ultimately 24. Today we have 

seven that are procured. We will have eight next year in the supplemental. I believe the President has also offered a couple additional ones. But our normal procurement in each budget cycle is 

about one system per year, so you can see how long that would 

take to get there. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I appreciate that. 

So as I understand it, I mean, the ultimate goal would be to get 

to 24? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. If you—a vision that you would want the capability to provide this kind of overhead support on a contingency 

basis, in fact that plan for 24 would allow for a 3-hour response to 

have a Predator overhead anywhere in the continental United 

States. 

Maybe we don’t need that kind of capability. I mean, that is the 

uncertainty that you plan for. While we haven’t seen that strong 

requirement to pull yet, maybe you only need part of that. So we 

are building as quickly as we can. 

The limits really aren’t aircraft right now. Sometimes it is COAs. 

Now that, you know, we have made some progress there, it is not 

COAs. Today it is really pilots, in fact, people who can launch and 

recover. 

It goes back to the issues. We are all here talking about unmanned. The real issues have nothing to do with the unmanned 

part. The real issues are all about the manned piece, and this is 

a manpower-intensive system. 

Mr. MCCAUL. We talked a lot about that yesterday. I think the 

pilot is, as you mentioned it, is an important piece that is overlooked. I know you requested 144. You have only received 24 of 

those positions. Would 144 help you complete this long-term mission? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Well, there really wasn’t anything magic about 

the 144. The 24 was a specific appropriation from the Congress to 

help us with UAV pilots, and that was in 2009. The 144 actually 

included a lot of program managers, engineers. I mean, air marine 

is a very small, high-ops tempo. We do everything the Air Force, 

Navy, Army does, but we are really more like the special oper-
33 

ations piece. So our program office in the Air Force might be 100 

people or four or five people, you know, doing multiple things. 

So the 144 was a plus-up to cover a lot of bare areas besides just 

the pilots. There might have been another 20 or so pilots in that 

number that would be helpful, but pilots, you know, right now, 

having them operational is a concern. We can qualify many of the 

pilots that we have on board. 

Mr. MCCAUL. When you mention the 24 number, you are talking 

about complete systems, UA systems? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Well, you wouldn’t necessarily need 24 of everything. That would be 24 aircraft, and then below that there would 

be so many GCSs, because you don’t need a ground control system 

for every GCS. You would have six operational sites, so you like to 

have two control sets at each site, one for a backup, and then we 

deploy these assets—with the Coast Guard. 

We can fly the airplanes. We can truck them. So, if you move to 

deploy the airplanes to other places on this hemisphere, in fact, for 

other kind of missions supporting other Federal and National entities, then you may need other things. But once you decide on a 

strategy and a plan, you know, then you start to lay in. But 24 aircraft would be correct, but you wouldn’t buy 24 GCSs. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Right. This won’t happen overnight, either. It takes 

time. I think, incrementally, each year you build to get to that 

number. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Right. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I know my time has expired, but is it okay if—indulge the Chair? 

Admiral, do you have any response to that question? 

Adm. ATKINS. Yes, sir. The Coast Guard is right now in the 

needs definition phase, and that is why Congress last year appropriated $5 million through our research and development test and 

evaluation fund to help us work with CBP and the Navy to understand existing on-going efforts relative to UAS. So, our plan is to 

reduce our acquisition risk, reduce our operational risk by understand and leveraging lessons learned from other UAS users already, DOD and our DHS brothers and CBP. 

In terms of future resources requirements, the Coast Guard requirement is going to be predicated on the type of bird that you ultimately decide you need and its capabilities, and how does that fit 

into our fixed-wing—our gap, you know, because our fixed-wings 

provide so many resource hours to fly on a mission. So, depending 

on how much mission you have, you end up with a gap. 

So anticipating that gap and working UAS into that gap is part 

of our solution set. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Let me just close with this comment, and that is 

I think there is clearly bipartisan support for this mission. I look 

forward—I know the Chairman does as well—working with you to 

identify what the needs in terms of resources are for you. 

I think as the Chairman mentioned in his opening statement, we 

are really here to work with you and not against you. So I just 

wanted to, you know, close with that comment. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. McCaul. 
34 

At this time, the Chairman recognizes the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Pascrell. A pleasure. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Ms. Kalinowski, has the DEA and the ATF applied for these COAs? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. I can get back to you with that specific information. But to my knowledge, no. 

Mr. PASCRELL. You don’t have a breakdown of the applicants for 

the COA? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. I do back at the office. I did not bring that with 

me. 

Mr. PASCRELL. General, thank you for your service. I would like 

to ask a very specific question about how much stronger these unmanned aerial systems will make our border security efforts. 

I would like to talk about two specific areas. The two specific 

areas are arms traffic and drugs, illicit drugs. I would like to know 

what we are doing about it, be it north, south, in space. What are 

we doing about it as far as what we have been talking about here 

today? Secondly, what cooperation are you getting from DEA and 

ATF? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Well, of course, ATF has a lot of efforts ongoing, and as the DEA on the arms transport. Much of that is done, 

as you probably know, through the ports of entry, so there are a 

lot of sophisticated scanning and intelligence-based operations trying to interdict the flow of U.S. weapons going south through the 

ports of entry. 

DEA, we have a lot of relationship with. They have their own Air 

Force activities, but they do not operate the military-style equipment that we do, nor do they have the UAS capability. We routinely support very high-end DEA missions in the United States 

and outside U.S. borders in the Caribbean and other places with 

our Blackhawks and with our, you know, high-end equipment. 

Mr. PASCRELL. How effective would the unmanned craft be in 

seeking out the tremendous—what we have been reading, anyway—transportation of drugs across the border into Mexico from 

the United States of America? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Now, I think these are very effective. They do 

similar things that the manned aircraft do, as the admiral was 

talking about. In fact, we fly a lot of these aircraft, or P3s, to similar kinds of work with the Coast Guard cutters out in the, you 

know, eastern Pacific. 

But let me just offer you a little vignette to give you a sense for 

how it is actually working. You know, we have ultralights flying 

across the Arizona border now, very small, single-manned, not very 

sophisticated. It carries 250 pounds of marijuana. We can see these 

things from radar on some cases, depending on their altitude, and 

we track those to where they go. 

When there is a Predator overhead, and we can hand over that 

track to the Predator and the Predator is talking with man assets, 

and these aircraft, when they used to land in the desert, we could 

have a helicopter with a Border Patrol agent to interdict, get the 

airplane, get the dope, get the individual. I mean, that is pretty 

good. 

With the UAV, though, you have some options. You don’t really 

have to interdict the airplane. Now they are dropping the drugs on 
35 

the ground rather than landing because our interdiction has gotten 

so good. But what you can do is you can wait and loiter, because 

now the UAV can fly all night. 

You can see who comes to pick the drug up, and, depending on 

where they are going, you can tail with overhead surveillance the 

drug to the stash house, and you can take down the accumulation 

of all the loads plus all of the infrastructure. So there are a wide 

variety of capabilities that the UAVs have been bringing to our 

southern border operation for the past 5 years. We have groundbased sensors, Vietnam-era sensors, laid all across our border. 

Mr. PASCRELL. How many agencies, General, are involved in interrupting and confiscating weapons across the borders of the 

United States of America? How many agencies are involved? Can 

you tell the committee that? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. I would say that the bulk of the ones that you 

have named—certainly ATF, certainly ICE, certainly DEA, certainly U.S. Customs and Border Protection—then our partners, you 

know, down south. In fact, there is a unified command, inter-agency, including the FBI, of all of the interested—and Coast Guard— 

all of the interested agencies that are focused on all of these things. 

They pick up weapons. They pick up narcotics. They pick up illegal immigrations and are looking for terrorists. The ATF is the primary agency responsible for those things, but we look for all of 

these things in the interdiction efforts. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman. I would like to have, and I think the committee 

would like to have—and we have asked for it before—all of the 

interdictions, the number of them and—in other words, let’s quantify this. 

I want to know how effective we are in interdicting ourselves between the weapons that are coming from the United States into either Canada or Mexico, and I want to know all of these—and we 

have—if we have a unified command, and I will take the General’s 

word for that, we should be able to tap into that command and find 

out how effective manned, as well as unmanned, craft are doing in 

helping us do that. 

I think we will be astonished to learn what those results 

are.They are kind of unbelievable. The same thing in terms of drug 

traffic and with drugs across our borders back and forth. 

I have never seen a real detailed report to this committee about 

how effective we are in doing that, and I am not convinced, Mr. 

Chairman, that this is a priority of our Government’s, to interdict 

weapons that are moving from the United States into Canada or 

Mexico, et cetera. 

These weapons are being used against not only the populations 

of the countries I have just mentioned, but against our Border Patrol and our agencies, ATF and DEA specifically. I believe it has 

gone on to a epidemic proportion, and I think that we need to know 

this. 

Can I rely on you to get that information? 

Mr. CUELLAR. Let me go ahead and say this: I think it is extremely important that we see results, because there was an investment to be put in in large numbers. We certainly have to see 

those results. 
36 

So, General, go ahead and get us, within 5 working days from 

today, that information. I will put it specifically in writing. I will 

have the committee clerk get that. We will work with you to make 

sure that we get that results. Like to get also the Coast Guard also 

to make sure we get that information within 5 working days. I am 

sure you have got that information available, and I think that 

would help, for the ones that do believe in this project, to make 

sure we sell this, that if there are individuals that do have questions, in order for them to analyze this, we need to get that information. So 5 working days from today. 

At this time, Mr. Pascrell, if you are finished, I am going to go 

ahead and move on to—we will get you that information to be 

shared with the committee Members. 

At this time, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank the Chairman. Appreciate the committee holding this hearing with the Ranking Member. 

I apologize for not being here for testimony. We were engaged in 

meetings regarding the on-going crisis in Haiti and maybe the potential for individuals seeking asylum here on the basis of the devastating conditions there. But I appreciate your presence and the 

importance of this hearing, and would like to just note some comments, and this will be the framework of my questioning. 

The Arizona law that is now in the center of controversy is obviously implemented on the basis of the inaction of the Federal Government and the need for States to take charge. It is moving toward epidemic stages because the State of Texas now has a legislator who has indicated that they intend to file similar legislation. 

Again, it falls back to, well, the Federal Government is not enforcing the law. 

These are unique equipment, or unique assets that I assume are 

to be used to help us enforce the law. They are particularly unique 

in their technology because they are unmanned and they should 

give us the kind of information that could calm the fears of the citizens of Arizona and/or the leadership of Arizona, and hopefully the 

rational leadership of Texas. 

I would like to be able to be an advocate that we are, in fact, enforcing the law and that we need to further reform our laws 

through comprehensive immigration reform to be able to answer 

some of the concerns of my friend and colleague from New Jersey, 

and that is to protect our borders, to protect our staff in Customs 

and Border Protection, and to rid ourselves of the bad guys. 

So I would like to hear from Major General Kostelnik and Rear 

Admiral Atkins if this—and I don’t know. I will yield to the two 

of you as to some direct success stories in the utilization of the unmanned aerial systems. 

Is it one could point to some success stories on the border of Arizona? Can one point to some success stories on the border of Texas? 

Obviously there are a number of other, New Mexico, California, 

that would have some ultimate impact. 

But if you would, let’s start with you, Major General. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Yes. In response to that, I would offer, you 

know, a vignette about how the Predators have been used particularly in the Arizona border, where that is one of the major quarters 
37 

for illicit trafficking, both immigration and narcotics, with the platform. 

In the old classic days of border enforcement—and I know you 

all have been out to the desert. It is very remote, very rugged, you 

know, not a lot of infrastructure, so the Border Patrol still have 

horse patrols out there, drive out in ATVs and all type of things. 

With these sensors that we have across the border, the ones I was 

mentioning to the Congressman, they detect vibration or motion. 

So we have those arrayed all across the border on the U.S. side, 

and when something passes or something happens in the traditional sense, a Border Patrol agent on a horse or a car or walking 

had to go out and see what set that sensor off. 

Unfortunately, these things are not very dependable. Wind will 

set them off. Animals will set them off. Sometimes it is a small 

group of migrants, sometimes it is a large group of migrants. Sometimes it is 50 people carrying weapons and 50-pound bags of marijuana, and it makes a big difference. 

Today, and for the past 5 years, we have had Predators not in 

the air all the time but in the air nightly, and they are on patrol. 

When a sensor goes off, we don’t send people out to look at the sensors anymore. The Predator is already airborne, already loitering, 

flies over, looks at the sensor with a FLIR, and on a typical night 

we might have 25 sensor activations go off in a 10-hour period. 

At a standard 15 sensor activations, 12 of them might just be the 

wind. Two might be animals. One might be a group of migrants, 

and one might be a big group carrying drugs. 

If it is a small group, we will launch a single Border Patrol agent 

on a small helicopter. They will land and they will take care of the 

issue. If it is 50 people carrying weapons and 50 pound bags of 

marijuana, which we have had on numerous occasions, we launch 

the Blackhawk with a Border Patrol special team. 

The Blackhawk lands short, Predator stays on top. You know, everybody has on night vision goggles. We use the laser from the system. Very efficient and effective way of getting the job done. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. Let me quickly get this last question in, 

and then, Admiral, if you can answer. 

But to the FAA quickly, and if the Chairman will indulge me an 

additional—I ask unanimous consent for them to be able to answer 

the question. This goes to the two representatives, and particularly 

Mr. Allen, and then if Nancy Kalinowski would like to answer. Admiral, I would like you to finish on my first question, if you would. 

Many have expressed concerns about the length of time it takes 

the FAA to approve a certificate of authorization to operate a UAS 

in the National airspace. I am concerned that, if it is a certificate 

of authorization and it is not regulated. I, frankly, find that a problem. 

I would like you to explain how FAA’s COA process works, what 

are FAA’s primary concerns when it is determining whether to approve a COA, and finally, that some reports have indicated the 

FAA is concerned about the potential for mid-air collision involving 

UASs. Would you elaborate? Would you think that there are safety 

challenges? What measures do you think the FAA UAS operators 

need to take to keep air traffic safe? 

Mr. Allen. 
38 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, ma’am. Ms. Kalinowski would be best disposed 

to talk to the COA process itself, so I will address your other questions, if you please. 

In terms of priority basis, as was stated earlier, it is a first-come, 

first-serve basis except for when the mission dictates that there is 

an issue of National security, of National defense, of a higher priority in terms of a National disaster. Obviously then we up the priority and address those COAs immediately. We also have standing 

COAs to be approved at a moment’s notice to address security and 

National catastrophe issues so that we do address those issues 

right away. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What is right away—24 hours, 10 hours? 

Mr. ALLEN. Actually within hours, within minutes, actually. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you consider the COAs that these gentlemen work with as the National security? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. ALLEN. If you are looking at the track record, the first time 

they provided a COA request, I think it languished for approximately 2 years. We agree that that was not appropriate. At the 

time, we did not know or not advised of the priority. When we were 

advised of the priority, those were worked very, very quickly to provide that capability. 

But in terms of, let’s say, a hurricane relief, fires, we have COAs 

ready to go to allow them to operate the UASs expeditiously and 

not waiting days, not waiting weeks. That is the IAF priority. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Ms. Kalinowski, you have the answers to the 

other questions? 

Ms. KALINOWSKI. Yes. To apply for a certificate of authorization, 

Congresswoman, the proponent submits the application on-line to 

the FAA, and then the FAA evaluates the request. Internally, the 

Air Traffic Organization examines the applications for feasibility, 

the airspace experts review and ensure the operation will not severely impact the efficiency or the safety of the National airspace 

system. 

The application is then sent to Mr. Allen’s organization in Flight 

Standards to evaluate the operational concept, the airworthiness of 

the release of the aircraft, the pilot and the crew qualifications, and 

the policies and the procedures used by the operator for the particular mission that they are proposing. 

From that in-depth safety evaluation, we write out special provisions, and then our internal offices confer together to address any 

of the remaining concerns that we might have and to harmonize 

some of the provisions that we have put forward in order to ensure 

that there is safety associated with a particular certificate of authorization. 

We work closely with the proponents to understand their operational needs, their mission needs, and to balance that with the 

FAA’s safety concerns for the operation to ensure that there is no 

safety impact to the National airspace system. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will wait for my other answers, then I will 

yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you very much. 

At this time, the Chairman recognizes Mr. Carney for 5 minutes. 
39 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize if this was 

covered while I was away. 

You know, in my other capacity—I think you know that I am a 

Predator-Reaper mission commander, and one of the things that we 

have a challenge with is using all the data, or interpreting all the 

data gathered. You know, even in the small, short-duration mission, there is a lot of information there. 

Are you set up, or setting up, to be able to exploit all that information? Do you have PIs in place that can look at the information 

and interpret it, you know, and do the studies that you need to do, 

looking at, for example, known crossing areas when they have 

been—you know, that sort of thing? 

You know, do we have in place the infrastructure needed to exploit everything we are going to get from this resource? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Well, 2 years ago, the answer to that would 

have been no. When we started operating the sensors in support 

of the hurricanes, clearly that was the part of our focus. Today, you 

know, thanks to some support we have had from the Hill, we are 

putting in a classic DOD PED cell into the AMOC this summer. In 

fact, it will be operational towards the end of September. 

A PED cell is a Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination. So 

it does the real-time, photo interpreted as real-time analysis, and 

then it does back-shop dissemination to all the National users. 

For the last year since the hurricanes, actually we have been 

using exactly the same capability at NGA. In fact, in supporting 

the Deepwater Horizon event, the Guardian is feeding imagery 

real-time to the NGA PED in St. Louis, and they are doing the 

data analysis and then sending it back to the management team, 

you know, in the Gulf. 

So, no, this was the last piece of our operation that we had to 

build. As we get into this next fiscal year, we are going to have 

that complete capability. 

Then, downstream, we will be putting other distributed PED 

cells at other places on the country, but we already have the 

connectivity and the relationship not only within CBP and DHS, 

but also with the DOD protectorates, NORTHCOM, SOUTHCOM, 

JIATF SOUTH, to feed the real-time imagery direct to those infrastructures, as well. 

Mr. CARNEY. So are the DOD components actually helping back 

up what you guys are doing now? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Well, we are not using them on the PED cell, 

but we are actually buying exactly the same system that the Air 

Force Special Ops 11th Intel Squadron uses so we don’t reinvent 

the wheel. We are not taking any risk. We are buying that capability right off the shelf. Clearly, their program officers are helping 

us with those acquisitions. 

Mr. CARNEY. But your PED cells are fully manned? 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Well, that is the next stage. We have some of 

those capabilities in place. Clearly, we will have to grow those analysts over time. 

Mr. CARNEY. Right. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. In the short-term, we do have help from DOD 

and other components that have that kind of expertise to help. But 

we will grow that over time. 
40 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. You know, we all understand the importance 

of the data gleaned. You know, we miss things in the heat of the 

operation that become useful later when we are planning other 

missions and a better understanding of what is going on. So whatever you need Congress to do to authorize more PED cell development, do not hesitate to contact us. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK. Since you raise that issue, I would offer— 

maybe you are aware of this, and perhaps not. But, you know, the 

Predator Reaper is pretty limited streams, you know, pretty limited 

field of view and so forth. Of course, the Air Force is developing, 

and about to deliver, Gorgon Stare—— 

Mr. CARNEY. Gorgon Stare, yes. 

Gen. KOSTELNIK [continuing]. Which is a wide area. If we have, 

you know, too much data to deal with now, when that system 

comes on-line, it is going to be extraordinary. 

In fact, I just served on the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board 

Somerset in UAS this year, and this is one of the biggest emergent 

problems with the United States. They are generating so much information, just the ability to actually get the real data from the information is the problem. 

That is even a investment that is harder to appreciate. You can 

see an airplane on the ramp. You can’t see, you know, a digital analyst behind, you know, working these kind of things, but fundamentally important to the future, a real problem. 

Mr. CARNEY. Absolutely. 

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the hospitality you have shown me in letting me sit in on your committee. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure. 

Members, I think we are pretty much done. Want to thank—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I know the Chairman’s time is moving. Could 

the admiral just—I cut him off when I asked whether there was 

any impact on the—— 

Mr. CUELLAR. One minute to answer that question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Adm. ATKINS. Just very brief, ma’am, we don’t fly any UASs, so 

I defer to the general’s answers. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you not—well, they are not flown. They 

are unmanned. Do you not use any? 

Adm. ATKINS. Not yet, ma’am. We are in the exploration phase. 

We are looking to get into the game. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. I know you don’t. I understand your 

mission. But you are here, and so the question is whether you 

would be using any unmanned. 

I would just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I have a 

level of discomfort on the process of certification, and I have level 

of discomfort of the effectiveness of them. I think the major general 

did a very good job, but he spent a lot of time saying there was 

99 percent throwaways, and we got one or two, and when we got 

them, then we swoop down and get them. 

I don’t know whether or not—well, my question then is I would 

like a detailed—and I think it was Mr. Pascrell’s comment—response as to what are the success stories and whether or not there 

is a direct coordination that works between major general’s team 
41 

and FAA so that it is immediately assessed that the National security issue and all of the talk that was done about process, it is 

moved quickly and confirmed to be utilized. I would hope that we 

can get those answers as quickly as possible. 

I yield back to the distinguished Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. Right. Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

I would ask the FAA, Ms. Kalinowski, if you all could go visit 

and spend some time with the Chairwoman on this particular 

issue. I think that would be good. I know that I have spoken to the 

administrator several times on this issue, and tell him I appreciate 

the work that he is doing. But if it is okay with you, Ms. Jackson 

Lee, I would ask you to spend some time. 

But General, I think you are understanding—getting a feeling 

from some Members, they want to see the results, including myself. 

If you would get that to us, and Ms. Lee, we are going to prepare 

a letter to give you the exact information. We will get it out today, 

because I do want to get it 5 working days from today so he can 

get it back to the committee. 

So we will put a letter with your input, get it over to our clerk. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CUELLAR. All right. Well, at this time, I want to thank all 

the witnesses for being here, for testifying, and we thank you for 

the information you have provided, and of course the Members. 

Members might have additional questions, as you just saw, so 

please provide that over to us. 

Hearing no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

Thank you. Good day. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(43) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON OF MISSISSIPPI FOR MICHAEL C. 

KOSTELNIK

Question 1a. In 2004, CBP tested the Hunter and Hermes 450, two medium altitude-medium endurance UASs, as part of its Arizona Border Control (ABC) Initiative. CBP reported success with both of these UASs, but the following year purchased the Predator UAS, and has continued to do so as it has acquired additional 

UASs in recent years. 

Did CBP have success with intermediate-sized UASs? 

Answer. No. CBP’s experience with intermediate-sized UASs was limited to the 

2004 proof-of-concept demonstration using the Hermes and Hunter unmanned aircraft in the restricted airspace of the Libby Army Airfield. These platforms were 

chosen due to their availability, but were sensor limited (Electro Optical Infra-Red 

(EOIR) capable only). They were used solely to evaluate the possible effectiveness 

of an unmanned aircraft in a law enforcement role. The demonstration proved UASs 

merited further examination for use by DHS, but would require significant analysis 

by CBP end-users to assess what type of UAS and sensor configuration would be 

most effective for border security missions. 

Although adequate for the purpose of the proof of concept demonstration, intermediate-sized UASs failed to meet CBP’s operational requirements for endurance, 

performance, sensor capability, and flight in the National Airspace. 

Question 1b. If so, why does CBP continue to purchase larger, more costly Predator UASs? 

Answer. As stated, intermediate-sized UASs did not meet CBP operational requirements, and were only used as a proof of concept platform. 

The Office of Border Patrol, in conjunction with CBP’s Technology Solutions Program Office, developed operational requirements for UAS employment that led to 

the development of a number of key performance parameters (KPPs). These KPPs 

could not be satisfied by intermediate-sized unmanned aircraft. 

Question 1c. Has CBP conducted an analysis that shows the Predator is the best 

tool for the border security mission? If so, please share that analysis with the committee. 

Answer. The analysis that led to the selection of the Predator B was in conjunction with the DHS Source Selection Team technical evaluation and source selection 

of July–August 2005. With the exception of the General Atomics Predator B, all of 

the aircraft examined by the source selection team failed to meet CBP’s technical 

specifications for payload carrying capacity and capabilities; take-off performance 

with the required payloads; requirements for remotely-piloted operations; time on 

station; and a number of other requirements. 

Question 2a. CBP currently owns and operates six UAS, but only one is based on 

the northern border (at the Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota). 

What is CBP’s justification for its current UAS resource deployment? 

Answer. It is correct that CBP currently owns and operates 6 UASs, but actually 

two are located at Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota. 

CBP’s UAS resource deployment is based on several factors including threat assessment and mission sets. In addition, all UAS operations in the National Airspace 

System (NAS) must be approved and authorized by the FAA to determine that they 

meet the appropriate level of safety and air space management requirements. Accordingly, FAA regulations currently limit where and when CBP can operate the 

UAS. 

Question 2b. How does CBP prioritize which sectors to devote UAS resources to? 

Answer. Prioritizing of UAS assets is accomplished by ensuring that all mission 

sets are reviewed and analyzed against threat assessments from multiple intelligence sources, in conjunction with the requesting customer (Office of Border Patrol, ICE, FBI, DEA, FEMA etc.) we are currently supporting. 
44 

These mission sets consist of: 

Response to National Catastrophic Events.—Chemical, biological, and nuclear attack, earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding, and mass migration. 

Border Security.—Response to border violence, people smuggling, and drug trafficking, National special security events; support to other Federal, State, local, and 

Tribal authorities; cooperative operations with Mexico and Canada (extension of existing agreements and building on past operations, i.e., HALCON). 

Maritime Security.—Persistent, wide-area surveillance of open ocean/source transit zones. 

Forward Operating Locations.—The UAS Program is postured to rapidly deploy 

throughout the western hemisphere to provide humanitarian and homeland security 

support. Capability exists to deploy entire systems to Central and South America, 

to support joint missions with DEA and cooperative countries, and to leverage foreign basing agreements already in place with the USCG. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON OF MISSISSIPPI FOR NANCY

KALINOWSKI AND JOHN M. ALLEN

Question 1a. Our committee is interested in understanding the FAA’s perspective 

regarding the challenges of operating UASs in the National Air Space. 

What is the current volume of air traffic in the corridors where CBP has been 

granted permission to operate UASs? 

Answer. Attached are spreadsheets that tally flight through areas of Arizona/ New 

Mexico/west Texas and south Texas for a sample period of May 1 through May 7, 

2010. The spreadsheets are categorized by instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual 

flight rules (VFR) flights. The source of the data is the FAA Offload Program database. 
45 

NUMBER OF IFR FLIGHTS PER WEEK DAY 

Source = FAA Offload database 

Region Corridor SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT Grand Total 

South Texas: 

Brownsville East to Houston ...... 1,103 1,548 1,560 1,580 1,509 1,537 1,081 9,918 Brownsville West to Laughlin .... 441 612 665 634 636 743 456 4,187 

South Texas Total ............. ....................................................... 1,544 2,160 2,225 2,214 2,145 2,280 1,537 14,105 

AZ/NM/WTexas: 

Yuma to Nogales ......................... 338 421 491 514 533 534 388 3,219 Nogales to El Paso ...................... 271 275 308 312 335 326 324 2,151 El Paso to Laughlin .................... 622 736 735 767 775 713 696 5,044 

AZ/NM/WTexas Total ........ ....................................................... 1,231 1,432 1,534 1,593 1,643 1,573 1,408 10,414 
46 

Question 1b. Are there certain areas of the country that pose special considerations? Please explain. 

Answer. The United States National Airspace System has different classes of airspace. Each class of airspace has specific operating requirements. Currently, the 

only class of airspace that does not have Unmanned Aircraft Systems is Class B 

and, in most cases, the associated Part 91, Appendix D, Airports/Locations: Special 

Operating Restrictions. In addition, flight over populated areas is not allowed. 

Æ