U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–559PDF 2017

COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING: 

FACILITATING INNOVATION AND LEADERSHIP 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

September 7, 2016 

Serial No. 114–89 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama, 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

AMI BERA, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

September 7, 2016 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Statement by Representative Donna Edwards, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Witnesses: 

Mr. Kevin O’Connell, President and CEO, Innovative Analytics and Training 

LLC; Former Chair, Federal Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote 

Sensing (ACCRES) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Mr. Kevin Pomfret, Executive Director, Centre for Spatial Law and Policy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 35 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37 

Ms. Michele R. Weslander Quaid, President, Sunesis Nexus LLC 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 44 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 47 

Mr. Michael Dodge, Assistant Professor, Department of Space Studies, University of North Dakota 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 57 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 59 

Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz, Professor Emerita, University of Mississippi School 

of Law 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 66 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 68 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 82 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. Kevin O’Connell, President and CEO, Innovative Analytics and Training 

LLC; Former Chair, Federal Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote 

Sensing (ACCRES) ............................................................................................... 96 

Mr. Kevin Pomfret, Executive Director, Centre for Spatial Law and Policy ...... 106 
Page

IV 

Ms. Michele R. Weslander Quaid, President, Sunesis Nexus LLC ..................... 111 

Mr. Michael Dodge, Assistant Professor, Department of Space Studies, University of North Dakota ....................................................................................... 118 

Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz, Professor Emerita, University of Mississippi School 

of Law .................................................................................................................... 130 
(1) 

COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING: 

FACILITATING INNOVATION AND 

LEADERSHIP 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Babin 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman BABIN. The Subcommittee on Space will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the 

Subcommittee at any time. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled 

‘‘Commercial Remote Sensing: Facilitating Innovation and Leadership.’’ 

For over two decades, the United States has led the world in 

space-based commercial imagery, supporting our civil, commercial, 

and national security communities. In just the past few years, 

American innovation in space-based remote sensing has enjoyed a 

period of immense growth. American companies are investing in 

and developing a host of new and innovative technologies, services, 

applications, including space-based full motion video, hyper and 

multi-spectral imaging, space to space remote sensing and commercial signals intelligence. 

As these technologies grow, we must ask why, what, and how 

should we regulate space-based remote sensing activities? The last 

time Congress passed legislation on this subject was the 1992 Land 

Remote Sensing Act. Back then, cube sats had not yet been invented or standardized. Computers, sensors, and other key technologies were orders of magnitudes more expensive, and far less capable. Today we depend on these technologies, and the geospatial 

data that they produce. Satellites, UAVs, and many other data collection systems provide the public with unprecedented information. 

After 24 years, it’s time to take a hard look at these changes, and 

see where the laws, regulations, and policies governing this industry need reform. 

Section 202 of the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness 

Act directed the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing, also known as ACCRES, to 

report on statutory updates necessary to license private remote 

sensing space stations no later than November the 25th of this 

year. For this report to be worthwhile, the Secretary should ensure 

the Advisory Committee has sufficient time to contribute to and inform the report. Let me say again that Congress directed consultation with ACCRES. 

Yet, as we near the due date for the report, I have some concerns. The last time the Department of Commerce held an 

ACCRES meeting was in June 2015, over a year ago. This is unacceptable, in light of the law passed by Congress, and signed by the 

President, directing the Department of Commerce to seek guidance 

from ACCRES. Slow rolling and obstructing this law is not only an 

affront to Congress and the President, but also to the American 

people. The Department has had ample time to draft the report, 

call an ACCRES meeting, and solicit their input. In addition, since 

the passage of the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, 

the Department has changed the composition of ACCRES by including representatives from federal agencies. And while the inclusion of federal representatives on ACCRES is within the authority 

of the Secretary, it is completely unnecessary. The Department already has a multitude of ways to engage with other federal agencies. 

In a response to the recent oversight letter, the Department argues that including federal representatives in ACCRES’s member-
5 

ship facilitates meaningful interaction among government experts, 

knowledgeable industry representatives, and other critical stakeholders to provide advice to the Department. While this may be 

true, it’s also true that such interaction does not necessarily require inclusion of federal representatives on the Advisory Committee. One thing is certain, if ACCRES operates on a consensus 

basis, the inclusion of federal representatives gives the Executive 

Branch a means to influence and control of the advice provided, including advice directed by Section 202 of the Commercial Space 

Launch Competitiveness Act. 

We, as Congress, and as a Nation, must adhere to certain principles as we reform that which governs private space-based remote 

sensing. First we must ensure U.S. industrial leadership, and this 

requires regulatory certainty, and a permissive environment that 

promotes innovation. In addition, we must, to the greatest extent 

possible, have both friend and foe justifiably rely on U.S. private 

sector services and applications. Finally, we must address broader 

national interests, particularly our national security interests. 

Few would contest these principles. The challenge lies in achieving the right balance. And right now the balance is all out of 

whack. This is partially a result of the policy Congress established 

in the 1992 Land Remote Sensing Act, and partially due to Executive Branch policies and regulatory processes. Congress and the administration can, and must, work together on reforms that encourage U.S. industrial innovation in a way that aligns with national 

security interests. We cannot have the private sector compete with 

national security. 

Make no mistake, we need reform. Over the past several years, 

NOAA’s commercial remote sensing license applications have increased exponentially. Many of these applications are precedent 

setting, and challenge the legal construct of the 1992 Land Remote 

Sensing Act. Some of NOAA’s licensing actions are months, if not 

years, over the 120-day determination timeline which is required 

by law. Companies are applying and waiting, without understanding as to why NOAA takes so long to get back to them. Stakeholders report significant uncertainty with licensing actions, including modifications to operational license conditions without notice or due process. 

American remote sensing startups want to stay in the United 

States, but must plan for overseas operations due to uncertainty in 

the regulatory approval process. Without reform, we risk losing 

American leadership in commercial remote sensing. Such a loss 

hurts our national security and our economic competitiveness. We 

saw this happen before when, in the 1990s, a number of U.S. companies sought to establish commercial space-based synthetic aperture radar, or SAR, remote sensing satellite service. But due to regulatory uncertainty and dysfunction in the Executive Branch license determination processes, U.S. investment went overseas, unfortunately. Instead, Germany and Canada benefitted. Each established for-profit commercial synthetic aperture radar remote sensing satellite services, which to this day dominate the international 

commercial market. 

We can’t make the same mistake again. I am dedicated to continuing vigorous oversight on this subject, and working with my 
6 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve constructive reform. 

I want to thank today’s witnesses for joining us as we discuss these 

very important issues, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Chairman BABIN. And I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 

gentlewoman from Maryland, for an opening statement. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing today on Commercial Remote Sensing: Facilitating Innovation and Leadership. And I’d like to welcome our distinguished 

panel of witnesses today. 

Since the 1980s, Congress, across Democratic and Republican 

Presidents and Congresses, has set policy to encourage the development of commercial remote sensing industry, as well as the government’s purchase of commercial remote sensing data, as appropriate. The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, as the Chairman mentioned, established the framework for licensing and regulation of commercial remote sensing satellites under the Department of Commerce. Establishing a licensing regime was needed to 

fulfill our obligations under the Outer Space Treaty for supervision 

of non-governmental activities in space, and for providing U.S. private entities with a legal mechanism for carrying out commercial 

space-based remote sensing operations. 

Subsequently, since 1996, the Department of Commerce has 

issued about 100 licenses for commercial remote sensing systems. 

Over the past few years, the explosion of cubesats and advances in 

sensing capabilities have led companies to propose novel approaches to collecting space-based remote sensing data. Indeed, 

commercial remote sensing is now a dynamic and growing industry. In addition, the societal benefits these data provide for such 

global issues as natural disasters are evident with the appearance 

of commercial remote sensing imagines in televised news and headline newspaper articles. These exciting developments, however, 

mean that the days of relatively straightforward license applications are indeed over. As part of the licensing process, novel architectures, orbital mechanics, and new sensing capabilities must undergo careful consideration across the government to assess any 

impacts to national security and foreign policy, and to ensure the 

safety of existing orbital operations. 

Several stakeholders, including NOAA’s Advisory Committee on 

Commercial Remote Sensing, have indicated that delays in approving licenses and operational constraints imposed by the licensing 

process may be impeding the current growth and evolution of the 

industry. And, in fact, Title II of the Commercial Space Launch 

Competitiveness Act was enacted last fall—just last fall—last year, 

requires a report on potential statutory updates that might be 

needed for licensing commercial space-based remote sensing systems. That report is due in the coming months. In fact, a year from 

enactment, the report is due in November. I certainly hope, Mr. 

Chairman, that the Subcommittee will have an opportunity to examine that report with NOAA before considering any potential updates to law, policy, or regulations. And, indeed, it would’ve been 

helpful to have invited NOAA to appear here today. They are not 

the enemy. They’re our partners in trying to figure this out for the 

future. 

But before closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight the enabling role that federal research and development continues to have 

in enabling the success of this industry. It is federal investment in 

remote sensing research and development, the free and open dis-
11 

semination of federally provided remote sensing imagery, and the 

Federal Government purchase of commercial remote sensing data, 

that makes this vibrant industry, and its supporting value-added 

enterprises, possible. And I hope that we can have a partnership 

as we move forward both with the industry and with our federal 

executive partners to make sure that we’re setting policy in the 

right direction. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I now recognize the 

Chairman of our Full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The commercial remote sensing space sector continues to experience unprecedented 

innovation and growth. Investments are being made in new technologies and applications with the potential to significantly improve the world we live in. 

According to the Satellite Industry Association, in 2015 Earth observation services revenues grew by ten percent over the previous 

year. This growth is attributed to the development of smaller satellites, lower manufacturing costs, lower launch costs, and a growing customer base for remote sensing data. In other words, innovation. The Institute for Defense Analysis, Science, and Technology 

Policy Institute reached similar findings in its 2015 report, Global 

Trends in Space. The report stated that ‘‘Expectations are especially high in the space remote sensing and space’’—‘‘Earth observation sectors, where high resolution, frequently updated 

geospatial imagery can provide information on the location and 

movement of people and objects.’’ 

Fortunately, the United States leads the world in these promising entrepreneurial endeavors. U.S. satellite remote sensing companies continue to push ahead and make the headlines. But the 

laws, regulations, and policies that govern private remote sensing 

space systems have not been updated for decades, are outdated and 

cumbersome. It’s time for Congress to take a hard look at how we 

can streamline and reduce regulatory burdens. The private sector’s 

innovation and leadership continue to outpace the government’s 

ability to keep up with the industry, with very serious consequences. In fact, the United States may lose its innovators, its 

investors, and its leadership due to outdated and improper regulation and policy. 

Last year the Federal Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing stated the U.S. government needed to fundamentally 

re-think its approach to commercial remote sensing and policy. The 

committee found that traditional conceptions of remote sensing as 

in aerospace technology are outdated. It stated, ‘‘Agencies continue 

to think about remote sensing as a traditional aerospace technology 

when, in fact, it is increasingly an information technology, requiring a different regulatory philosophy, and regulatory actions. U.S. 

Government stakeholders must tailor policy and regulations to reflect the fact that remote sensing is no longer a U.S. only, exclusively satellite based effort, but is instead a global information 

technology that relies on a wide range of platforms.’’ 

One of the complex challenges with reform stems from the fact 

that there are not only legal or regulatory challenges, but also process and oversight challenges. For oversight, Congress needs certain 

types of information in order to ensure that the administration follows the law. Unfortunately, Secretary of Commerce and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration have not been timely in 

producing such information. The Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, signed into law last November, directs the Secretary to report, every year, basic information about how many license applications were received, how they were adjudicated, and 

how long it took. This information would let Congress know wheth-
15 

er or not NOAA is satisfying their statutory responsibilities under 

existing law. But even this basic information hasn’t yet been provided to Congress. 

The United States can continue to lead the world in commercial 

remote sensing, but we must ensure the law, regulations, policies, 

and processes governing this industry are well suited for the realities of our time. I do thank our witnesses for being with us today, 

and look forward to hearing their testimony. I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 
16 
17 
18 

Chairman BABIN. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now recognize 

the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you holding this hearing, and thank the panel of witnesses 

that are here today. 

Enabled by years of federal investment, the commercial remote 

sensing industry has made significant progress. In addition to selling high resolution imagery to government and commercial customers, a number of companies are proposing new approaches to 

remote sensing, including using constellations of smaller satellites 

to provide imagery more frequently. 

As many of the Members of this Subcommittee know, the licensing operations of private space-based remote sensing systems fall 

within the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, namely 

NOAA’s Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information 

Services Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs Unit. Industry growth has impacted the licensing workload of that unit. 

For example, while 26 licenses were issued from fiscal year 1996 

to fiscal year 2010, 75 licenses were issued from fiscal year 2010 

to fiscal year 2015. And just within fiscal year 2015, 33 applications for licenses were filed with the unit. 

With this backdrop, I look forward to hearing from our panel of 

witnesses on ways in which NOAA’s regulatory function can be improved in the face of evolving technology and projected operational 

advancements. In particular, I’d like to know whether there is a 

need to update NOAA’s licensing regulations, and whether NOAA 

operations can be streamlined, for example, in dealing with the increasing number of cubesats requesting a license. I would also be 

interested in hearing whether new regulations can be developed 

without unduly limiting the promise of innovative commercial remote sensing technologies, while at the same time addressing any 

legitimate concerns of the intelligence and national security communities. 

Chairman Babin, today’s hearing is important, and I appreciate 

you having it. In addition to today’s testimony, I would urge you 

to invite NOAA representatives to a future hearing to lay out the 

challenges they face and actions they plan to take to address them. 

I thank you, and yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
19 
20 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. I would add that, we 

will invite them after the report is delivered, okay? 

Now I’d like to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today 

is Mr. Kevin O’Connell, President and CEO of Innovative Analytics 

and Training. Mr. O’Connell is a leading analyst, scholar, and writer on national security and intelligence issues. For over three decades he has been deeply involved in identifying, analyzing, and 

helping manage emerging threats to the Nation’s interest, whether 

governmental or commercial. His prior U.S. Government experience 

has included assignments with the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the National Security Council, Office of the Vice 

President, and the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence. He 

serves today as a senior consultant to the Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence. He was a longstanding member, and later 

chairman, of NOAA’s Federal Advisory Committee on Commercial 

Remote Sensing, or ACCRES, between 2002 and mid-2016. He received his B.A., his Bachelor of Arts, in International Studies from 

The Ohio State University, and his Master’s in Public Policy from 

the University of Maryland. 

We’ll recognize you for five minutes, Mr. O’Connell. 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. KEVIN O’CONNELL, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

INNOVATIVE ANALYTICS AND TRAINING LLC; 

FORMER CHAIR, FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

ON COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING (ACCRES) 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Good afternoon Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Edwards, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson. Thank 

you so much for inviting me to testify today on how we can sustain 

U.S. leadership and innovation in commercial remote sensing. 

Today I’ll be speaking from my own personal vantage point, having 

looked through all of the assignments that the Chairman has mentioned over the years, at the issue of commercial remote sensing. 

And I’m proud to have served on NOAA’s Federal Advisory Committee since inception in 2002 until recently, both as a member, 

and then, in more recent years, as the chairman. 

Remote sensing technologies, processing, and analysis, as has 

been already said, are changing dynamically. American companies, 

like Black Sky Global, Digital Globe, Harris Systems, Omni Earth, 

Planet, Terrabella, and others are at the cutting edge of the global 

commercial remote sensing market. They feature a remarkable diversity of technical approach, business models, and operational concepts, world class technology that’s supported by fast breaking parallel developments in areas like cloud computing, advanced analytics, and others, and they’re able to leverage new funding sources 

in the private sector and venture capital markets, and the ability 

to leverage a broad geospatial ecosystem that is global. 

In my written testimony I identified six big trends that I think 

influence the global market. I’ll only mention them here, and we 

can talk about them later. One, a growing demand for new applications, both in the government and in the commercial sector, the 
21 

rise of analysis, increased access by a wider range of participants, 

increased globalization, changing business models, and, last but not 

least, the growing importance of non-technical factors, such as national prestige and workforce development. 

U.S. policy has been consistently forward-looking and bipartisan 

over the past 20 years, but our future rests atop a more uncertain 

foundation created by traditional bureaucratic mindsets, an outdated regulatory system, and deep concerns concerning the tradeoffs between innovation and national security. The U.S. Government needs to benefit from leveraging by solely creating the kinds 

of capabilities, information, and analysis that are increasingly 

available in the market. 

The U.S. Government, including Commerce and NOAA, play five 

roles in the market; customer, patron, a regulator, a competitor, 

and an advocate. And, by the way, these are not purely theoretical 

roles: they are active policy roles, every one of the five. They sometimes conflict with one another. But the speed of technology and innovation is rapidly changing and outpacing the ability to keep up 

with policy regulatory developments. As is the case with many 

other information technologies, the U.S. Government must re-formulate its approach and practice if it wants to remain on the cutting edge of these technologies. 

Let’s talk for a moment about the regulatory regime. The regulatory regime needs to be modernized both substantively, and from 

a process perspective, to objectively reflect the current market and 

technology trends. Speed is an important market, and even national security, discriminator. Other than consolidation of existing 

statutory authority in 2010, there have not been modifications, as 

has been said, to the Commerce Department’s authorities, in this 

area for over a decade, during which time novel technologies, operational concepts, and business models have emerged. 

Current regulations, for example, don’t extend beyond the 

electro-optical realm. They’re out of date, in terms of control and 

leverage mechanisms, and they don’t reflect modern ideas about 

how to shape global markets, and thereby enhance U.S. national 

security. I understand that proposed NOAA resources in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2017 are welcome, but that does not 

necessarily guarantee that the regulatory regime will be modernized in such a way that is both limited and efficient. Policy and 

regulation should be anticipating future opportunities and challenges, not looking backwards, as is sometime the case. 

Let’s talk for a minute about security issues. Remote sensing has 

a very rich history in the security of our Nation. That security history sometimes clouds our thinking about how to advance security 

and leadership through successful commercial remote sensing. Four 

key points. We need to attract top talent and investment to the 

United States under a functioning regulatory structure. The U.S. 

maintains leverage, and shapes global developments. Failure to 

adapt our mindset will push innovation offshore. 

Secondly, we need to re-frame our thinking about imagery within 

the national security toolkit, especially as it helps with shaping the 

national security environment in areas like humanitarian relief, 

and others. I would note, for example, some of the work being done 
22 

at NGA by Mr. Cardillo in thinking in a different way about how 

to apply imagery and information sharing. 

Third, given concerns about space security, the U.S. benefits 

from the resilience created by a robust commercial market. Diffuse 

global reliance on commercial satellite systems redefines the strategic environment for space. And fourth, very important, something 

I’ve written about for almost 20 years, we need to learn how to live 

in a much more transparent world. We need to update our thinking 

about how to protect U.S. troops, U.S. facilities, U.S. public at large 

for this world, but not fixate on information control. Obviously the 

United States Government will retain the option for dire national 

emergencies, but we need to think about security differently. 

I’ll close in saying that the Nation still holds a leadership position and a strategic advantage in commercial remote sensing, and 

we have a bipartisan policy to encourage it. U.S. policy and regulatory mechanisms need to be updated for the current technology 

and market factors, and must anticipate newer developments, with 

an eye toward efficient and practical regulation, and incentive creation for U.S. industry. The Nation as a whole benefits from this. 

Inaction and indecision will result in strategic failure, and being 

defensive only cedes advantage to foreign competitors. Given longstanding U.S. policy aims, and an American innovation culture, in 

my view, the only long term strategy is offense. And on that note, 

I’ll look forward to the other testimony, and certainly your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Connell follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. O’Connell, appreciate that. 

And our second witness today is Mr. Kevin Pomfret. He’s the 

founder and Executive Director for the Centre for Spatial Law and 

Policy. He’s also a partner at the Williams Mullin law firm, and cochair of both the firm’s Unmanned Systems and the Cyber Security 

and Data Protection practice groups. His career began as a satellite 

imagery analyst, where he helped to develop imagery collection 

strategies to monitor arms control treaties and identify requirements for future collection systems. In addition, he is a member of 

the National Geospatial Advisory Committee. He earned his J.D. 

from the Washington Lee University School of Law, and his B.A. 

from Bates College. So I will recognize you for five minutes, Mr. 

Pomfret. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. KEVIN POMFRET, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CENTRE FOR SPATIAL LAW AND POLICY 

Mr. POMFRET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to you, 

and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to 

speak on behalf of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy in connection with the hearing on commercial remote sensing. 

Geospatial information can be generally defined as information 

about a person, place, or thing that can be tied to a particular place 

on Earth. It can be collected in a variety of ways, using a number 

of different technologies. For example, geo-information can be collected from sensors mounted on satellites, manned aircraft, drones, 

automobiles, ships, and mobile devices, such as smartphones. Alternatively, it can be collected from fixed ground-based sensors, or by 

individuals walking around a neighborhood with a notebook, collecting information for a census. 

Geo-information includes the location, size, and shape of a lake, 

the median income of a particular zip code, a street address, hours 

of operation of the closest Starbucks, or the coordinates of a suspected terrorist. There are a number of legal and policy issues associated with the collection, analysis, storage, and distribution of remote sensing data, and other types of geo-information. These issues 

include intellectual property rights, privacy, licensing, liability, and 

national security. These issues are global, and cut across a number 

of technology platforms, including commercial remote sensing satellites. 

The commercial remote sensing industry is an integral part of a 

global ecosystem of businesses, government agencies, NGOs, research organizations, and citizens that collect, analyze, and distribute to you information. Each stakeholder in this ecosystem can 

serve as both a data collector and a data user, often simultaneously. This ecosystem creates products and services that allow 

analysis and visualization of information from business and government databases overlaid on an image, or a map created from 

imagery, and aggregated with geo-information collected and shared 

by individuals through tools such as Open Street Map. 

Geo-information is a versatile and powerful asset that is being 

used in a growing number of important business, governmental, 

and environmental applications that have tremendous economic 

and societal value. For example, a satellite image can be used by 
36 

a business in deciding where to open a new store, by a consumer 

using his or her satellite navigation device to find the store once 

it is opened, by the city’s Department of Transportation to decide 

where to put lights in order to address the traffic issues associated 

with the store’s opening. Unfortunately, like other technologies, it 

can also be used by a criminal in planning to rob that store. 

This power of information to assist in decision making is based 

upon a number of factors, including data type, timeliness, accuracy, 

precision, and completeness. In general, decision making improves 

with a greater availability of higher quality geo information. This 

versatility and power enhances the value of geo-information, however, it could also be a significant challenge from a policy and regulatory standpoint. For example, efforts by law enforcement to control the collection and use of imagery to reduce store robberies will 

also limit the ability of businesses, governments, and consumers to 

use the same information in ways that save time, money, and lives. 

Historically the United States has been a global leader in most 

geospatial technology. However, today the geo-information marketplace is truly global. For example, Singapore is on the cutting edge 

of using geo-information for transportation and smart cities. In 

2011 the United Nations formed the UN Global Geospatial Information Management Initiative to assist in the global development 

of geospatial information, and to promote its use to address challenges such as disaster response, food security, migration, and the 

sustainable development goals. 

The geo-information marketplace is extremely competitive. Technology advancements have contributed to a dramatic increase in 

the number of platforms that collect new information, including, as 

discussed today, small sats, drones, and mobile devices, as well as 

improved software tools to analyze and visualize this information. 

Despite these changes in the market, consumers of geo-information 

still are more interested in whether the product or service will help 

them in their decision making, rather than the platform or sensor 

in which the geo-information is collected. As a result, overly restrictive regulations on one technology or one platform will make that 

sector less competitive. 

Technology policy inherently involves balancing perceived risks 

with potential benefits. Concerns associated with commercial remote sensing satellites need to be weighed against the growing role 

that geo-information is playing in our daily lives. Policies should 

also consider the opportunity costs associated with not collecting 

the information or realizing its full value. Laws and regulations 

that pertain to geo-information should be narrowly tailored and 

transparent, and such laws and regulations should be continuously 

reviewed and updated to reflect this changing technology landscape. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pomfret follows:] 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Pomfret, we appreciate that. 

And our third witness today is Ms. Michele Weslander Quaid, 

who is founder and President of Sunesis Nexus LLC. Prior to 

founding her own company, she served as Google’s Chief Technology Officer for the public sector, and Chief Innovation Evangelist. Before joining Google in 2011, Michele served in both industry and government. Her government service includes Deputy 

Technical Executive for the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Intelligence Community Deputy Chief Information Officer for 

the Director of National Intelligence, and Chief Technology Officer 

for the National Reconnaissance Office. She is also an ACCRES 

member. She earned a Bachelor of Science from Seattle Pacific University, a Master’s Degree in Optics from the University of Rochester, and she is a graduate of Harvard University’s Kennedy 

School of Government Program for Senior Managers in Government. 

So we will give you five minutes, Ms. Quaid. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. MICHELE R. WESLANDER QUAID, 

PRESIDENT, SUNESIS NEXUS LLC 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. It’s an honor to be here to speak with 

you today on this important topic of commercial remote sensing, 

and keeping America’s leadership position in this area. Please refer 

to my written testimony for further details on my experience, but 

I want to highlight some specifics here. 

In my last assignment in government, I served as the DNI, Director of National Intelligence, representative to the Secretary of 

Defense Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force. 

We were focused on stability operations in Afghanistan, and 

around the globe, and something that really was driven home by 

that experience is the importance of information sharing—not only 

with the Commonwealth, not only with the Coalition, but with nontraditional partners, and those can include local citizens, private 

volunteers, and humanitarian organizations. Those people don’t 

have clearances, and they need access to information in a 

geospatial context. So this geospatial information we’re talking 

about form commercial satellites is critical to those type of operations. 

So, as was mentioned, after my government service, I joined one 

of the most innovative companies in the world, Google. And one of 

the things I want to highlight on that environment is defaulting to 

trust, and empowering people to innovate, and make decisions, and 

affect positive change. Also highlight something, a default to share 

model, while also employing a security team that is second to none. 

And in that environment, how innovation could flourish, and the 

national security community would benefit from that type of model. 

These experiences that I’ve had throughout my career have really shaped my perspective, and, again, more details are highlighted 

in my written testimony, and more details on several national security issues, but I want to highlight some themes. The only constant 

is change. Heraclitus said that in 500 B.C., and it’s even more important today. The speed of change in the remote sensing industry 

is unprecedented. The U.S. Government must strive to make itself 
45 

a veritable Delaware for commercial remote sensing, attracting the 

top talent, and creating an environment in which they can innovate 

and flourish, and thereby enable U.S. to maintain a leadership role. 

If we don’t share together, we risk dying together. Commercial 

imagery, being open, can be freely shared. National technical 

means imagery, being from a classified source, and therefore classified, cannot be easily shared. It’s rare these days that we are in 

a U.S. only operation. More often than not we find ourselves working with partners we have not previously worked with before, and 

embark on an endeavor with these partners where shared situational awareness is not only key to the success of the mission, but 

also critical to the safety of all involved. For example, counterterrorism operations and humanitarian assistance and disaster response operations, or HADR, require the ability to share information with the coalition of the day, which often includes those nontraditional partners I mentioned before. By sharing this information in a geospatial context, we can enable what I call unity of effort, without unity of command. 

Imagery from commercial remote sensing is critical to these operations, whether in Afghanistan, or Haiti, or the United States. It’s 

not just about pixels, it’s about information services derived from 

the data. If you talk to most any of the big names in Silicon Valley, 

they cared so much about the imagery and the pixels. They care 

about the information services they can derive from that data, and 

constantly updating the services they provide, many of which become very critical, and we depend on in our lives today. 

In addition, geo-referenced social media and news sources can 

provide valuable insight and additional context to an HADR scenario, as we saw following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. Once 

again, commercial imagery provides critical, shareable context. Utilizing commercial remote sensing assets and automatic processing 

can be a huge competitive advantage. Commercial companies, like 

Google, have cybersecurity expertise, and can provide an ability to 

share data securely, and the government could benefit by harnessing commercial data and the automated processing to provide 

secure access to data information and expertise around the world. 

We collect massive amounts of data every day. But just because we 

collected it doesn’t mean we’re any smarter, because you can’t do 

intelligence by osmosis. Someone has to look at the data, and we 

don’t have enough human resources to do it, so we need to get the 

machines to do it, and tip the humans what to look at any given 

day, in any given hour. 

If we don’t take intelligent risks, we risk becoming irrelevant. In 

my experience, the biggest barriers to innovation are culture, policy, and technology, and most often culture is the biggest challenge. 

In the case of remote sensing, the government used to be the only 

game in town, and now others have entered the field. There is no 

way for the government to predict what could come next, or to keep 

pace, or to accurately judge the viability of commercial business 

model. Creating an overly burdensome regulatory environment and 

oversight policy that holds commercial innovation back until such 

time that the government can catch up or get comfortable with it 

is not reasonable or responsible use of authorities, and can have 

devastating consequences for the industrial base. The burden 
46 

should not be put on industry to justify why. The burden should 

be put on the government to justify why not. What has made this 

country great is our industrial base and intelligent risk taking. 

There are completely new fields being invented, and we do not 

tend to see the same level of government regulation and oversight 

in those arenas as we have observed in the commercial remote 

sensing arena, yet some of these capabilities have become just as 

critical to our national security and our way of life. Government 

should empower, not compete, with industry. We’re dealing with 

limited resources, so we must focus the resources government does 

have on things unique to its mission, and uniquely governmental, 

and leave the rest to industry. 

The potential loss of our industrial base is a national security 

issue. U.S. policy articulates a very supportive environment for 

commercial satellite industry, and artificially constraining what 

U.S. commercial industry can build or sell handicaps them in the 

international marketplace, which is quickly being flooded with others who do not face the same restrictions. And the over-regulation, 

as is highlighted before, has led to the demise of commercial U.S. 

satellite ventures in the past. So leadership has set the vision in 

NSPD 27, PPD 4, and the 2011 National Security Space Policy. 

Now we must implement that vision. 

So, in conclusion, we cannot lose sight of the characteristics that 

have made the U.S. a global leader, and that includes courage, intelligent risk taking, and innovation. Our world is changing at an 

unprecedented pace, and we must allow our industry to keep pace 

and be agile and adaptive, so our regulatory environment must enable them to do so, and not thwart the very characteristics that 

have enabled the U.S. to enjoy a leadership position. Thank you for 

your time and attention, and I’m happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Weslander Quaid follows:] 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Ms. Quaid. We appreciate that 

very much. 

Our fourth witness is Mr. Michael Dodge, Assistant Professor 

and Graduate Program Director in the Department of Space Studies at the University of North Dakota. At the University of North 

Dakota he teaches courses that include Space Law, History of the 

Space Age, Space Politics and Policy, and Remote Sensing Law and 

Regulation. He’s also an editor of the Journal of Space Law. He received his J.D. from the University of Mississippi School of Law, 

and his LLM in Air and Space Law at McGill Faculty of Law in 

Montreal, Canada. 

So we give you five minutes, Mr. Dodge. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL DODGE, 

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF SPACE STUDIES, 

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. DODGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

Committee. I’d like to thank you for inviting me to participate in 

the hearing today, and it’s a privilege to be invited, so I’m happy 

some thoughts on this timely topic. 

For the most part, extent commercial remote sensing law and 

regulation has served the United States and its commercial interests quite well. However, the current system is no longer ideal for 

either the federal government or industry, and changes to the nature of technology and business over the years, since the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, have generated new opportunities 

that can be successfully exploited with regulation that more fully 

conforms to the spirit of the national space policy, as well as NSPD 

27, more commonly known as the U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing 

Policy. 

Indeed, the laws and regulations respecting space-based private 

remote sensing systems stand ready for change. Because, although 

generally effective in supporting the needs of both the Federal Government and the industry, they nevertheless often cause unintended negative consequences for industry participants. In particular, complaints have been lodged that the system, in its current 

instantiation, has caused unnecessary obstruction in the licensing 

of certain data, and even substantial delays in action on applications for the sale of data that can exceed statutory and regulatory 

limits. 

If Congress chooses to act with respect to this issue, there are 

a few mechanisms that can be utilized to ameliorate the current 

situation. Congress can, for instance, change the policy behind the 

law in an effort to better align the system. It can also choose to 

change the regulatory structure by modifying the statute governing 

private remote sensing systems. And, as has been called for by 

some in the industry, better enforcement of extent standards could 

help relieve some of the pressure facing private entities seeking licensure and governmental permission to sell data and imagery. 

Possible changes could be done either by replacing the 1992 act 

with a modern incarnation that better reflects the needs and interests of all the interested parties, or it could be done with clarifying 

amendments. If replacing the law wholesale proves too far for cur-
58 

rent Congressional interest, the current system can still be improved with surgical statutory modifications that lead to refined 

regulations, renovating where necessary to assist with concerns 

such as more rapid response to license applications, as well as reforming, and, when possible, speeding the process of inter-agency 

review of matters that require input from the Departments of Defense or State. 

Recent legislative efforts have reinforced the notion that the role 

of government should adapt to benefit the needs of the private remote sensing industry. As an example, Title III of the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act requires the Office of 

Space Commerce to foster the conditions for the economic advancement of the United States Space Commerce industry. Indeed, this 

provision helps to demonstrate the need for legal and regulatory 

clarity vis-a-vis commercial remote sensing. Moreover, this provision lends credence to utilizing clearer, consistently applied regulatory work for commercial interests. 

This philosophy is supported by United States policy, including 

the National Space Policy as espoused by the Executive Branch, 

and the U.S. Commercial Remote Sensing Policy, which note that 

the success of the commercial remote sensing industry is not only 

desirable, but closely linked with increased national needs, including strengthening United States national security. It should be emphasized that, in most instances, there need not be friction between 

promoting commercial success and protecting national security and 

that the two can and often do complement one another. 

Finally, clarity, be it in regulatory reform or by modification of 

the 1992 Act, helps the United States to fulfill its longstanding 

public international law obligations under certain key provisions of 

the Outer Space Treaty. In particular, Article VI requires authorization and supervision of the State Party to the treaty for all of 

its non-governmental entities acting in space. In the current system, licensing can serve as the requisite authorization. Knowing 

when to license and, in colloquial terms, changing the presumption 

of licensing new technologies and available data resolutions to yes, 

rather than we will see, will both promote the success of an industry struggling to keep up or, in some cases, catch up, with international competitors, as well as provide a clear statement to the 

international community that the United States intends to continue following its Article VI obligations through a more consistent 

and transparent process. 

I thank the Committee for allowing me to speak at this hearing, 

and I am happy to answer questions as needed. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dodge follows:] 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Dodge. And our 

final witness today is Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz, Professor Emerita 

at the University of Mississippi, School of Law. Mrs. Gabrynowicz 

is the Director Emerita of the National Center for Remote Sensing 

Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi’s Law Center 

and Editor-in-Chief Emerita of the Journal of Space Law. Mrs. 

Gabrynowicz has taught space law for 28 years and lectures at various universities including the University of Vienna and the Beijing 

Institute of Technology. She received her BA from Hunter College 

and a JD from Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law. I now 

recognize Mrs. Gabrynowicz for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. JOANNE GABRYNOWICZ, 

PROFESSOR EMERITA, 

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI SCHOOL OF LAW 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Committee 

Members for this opportunity to be here today. The entire text of 

my testimony has been submitted for the record. I will address four 

points. The first, a key question to be considered is whether federal 

grants, contracts, or subsidies will be used to facilitate new national remote sensing legislation. And if so, what is the policy the 

funds are intended to enable? 

In approximately one decade as military and intelligence space 

imaging requirements changed, the commercial remote sensing satellite industry decreased from three companies to one. The remaining company continues to operate due to its continuing NGA contract. After years of exchanging funds, contracts, products, and 

services, there is not a sustained long-term U.S. commercial satellite space-based industry. A single entity exists because of military funding, not because of an independent market. 

The NGA has announced a new commercial strategy that plans 

to use emerging technologies. Therefore, the question going forward 

is, will the previous cycle be repeated but with newer technologies? 

That is, an infusion of military funds into a few companies whose 

overwhelming focus must be to meet mission needs, followed by industry reorganization catalyzed by change in requirements, followed by a winnowing of companies that will be likely rendered 

technologically less relevant in the face of the next new technology. 

Going forward, it ought to be clear whether Congressional intention is to facilitate a true commercial information industry with a 

vibrant market or a dedicated capability dependent on military 

funds. The possibility of repeating the cycle requires consideration 

of two concepts: first, what constitutes commercial, and second, 

what should be done by the public sector and what should be done 

by the private sector. And I refer you to my written testimony for 

a full discussion. 

The second point is the global commercial remote sensing legal 

landscape. U.S. remote sensing law is the apparent standard for remote sensing law around the world. Changes in U.S. law will be 

closely observed by other remote sensing nations. It should be expected that in some cases changes made in U.S. law will be adopted by other nations. In addition to the U.S., there are currently 22 

nations that have remote sensing laws and policies. The prolifera-
67 

tion of remote sensing legislation was in response to the commercialization of high-resolution data. 

Some laws are more restrictive than U.S. law. In Canada, government satellites require licenses. That would be analogous to 

NASA or the Defense Department having to get a license for their 

satellites. In Germany, a satellite operator can be subject to criminal sanctions if it finds out that data distributed got in the hands 

of entitles that were adverse to Germany’s national interests. The 

U.S. only has civil sanctions. 

Third, two important policies. The first one is the non-discriminatory access policy created by the United States and adopted 

twice by this Congress. The second time it was adopted by this 

Congress, the committee said, ‘‘The Committee refrained from making any changes in the policy. Specifically the Committee is reluctant to take any action which might revive the debate in the 

United Nations about the legitimacy of remote sensing without 

prior consent. It is in the U.S. national interest to ensure that the 

non-discriminatory access policy is continued.’’ 

Another important policy is the National Satellite Land Remote 

Sensing Data Archive. The scientific value of data grows over time, 

and in the era of big data, it now also grows in economic value over 

time. It is crucial to both public and private interests that the 

United States has data archiving policies in place for the very long 

term. 

And the fourth and final point I will address is the onerous licensing process that currently exits. Current regulations embody a 

worldview that reflect the closing days of the Cold War more than 

the globalization era technology development. This is most clear in 

the method of dispute resolution in an interagency disagreement. 

The Secretary of Commerce is required to personally consult with 

the Secretaries of State or Defense, and this function ‘‘shall not be 

delegated below the acting Secretary.’’ This dispute resolution 

structure gives substance to an often-voiced criticism of the licensing process, namely that the government is overly protective of remote sensing capabilities and technologies. The regulations were 

promulgated in 2000 and revised in 2006. The interagency process 

was not revised. It may not be necessary to change the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act. However, after a full 16 years, revisiting 

the interagency process is appropriate. Among the potential 

changes that ought to be considered are mechanisms to determine 

if and when an individual agency policy is bringing more influence 

to bear than a national policy; the failure to reach a decision is 

based on disparity of political power more than anything else; and 

the establishment of an authoritative dispute resolution mechanism that can be accessed below the Cabinet level. 

I thank the Committee for giving me this opportunity and thank 

you for your work in developing the law of space. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gabrynowicz follows:] 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Ms. Gabrynowicz. I’d like to thank 

the witnesses for their testimony, and the Chair now recognizes 

himself for five minutes. 

Mr. O’Connell, in the 1990s, a number of U.S. companies sought 

to sell synthetic aperture radar images. Prohibition and dysfunction in the Executive Branch licensed the termination processes, 

pushed these companies overseas. Today, a number of U.S. companies are developing new and innovative space-based remote sensing 

systems such as space-to-space remote sensing. 

Are we in a similar situation that we were in in the 1990s with 

the possibility that American innovation and investment will go 

overseas to foreign competitors because of these regulatory challenges? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. Absolutely we’re in that same position, and as a side comment, I’d 

make this comment as well. When we look at the 20-year modern 

history of commercial remote sensing, it’s highly illustrative in both 

a good and a bad way for other areas of space commercialization: 

space debris, asteroid mining, others. And so we should learn our 

lessons from this particular area. But we’re absolutely in that same 

case again. And we used to talk about this mostly in theoretical 

terms. Could companies go overseas? The reality is that the 

globalization of this technology and the information that’s coming 

from it now creates incentives for other countries to offer deals, opportunities, for people to move overseas. 

And so I would greatly worry about that. I do see that NOAA has 

recently licensed a commercial radar capability, which is a bright 

note. But the commercial radar capability issue is a history to 

avoid. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes. Thank you very much. Ms. Quaid, I don’t 

think anyone would disagree that protecting U.S. national security 

interests is paramount. However, from a policy perspective, it 

seems that there’s a question of what these interests should be, 

particularly in light of increasing international competition and 

wide availability of commercial remote sensing and geospatial data. 

Current policy places the obligation to mitigate national security 

risks on licensees, not necessarily on the government. As a result, 

foreign commercial operators are catching up with, and in some 

cases, passing the United States. It doesn’t make sense to have 

policies that hold American innovation back and yet assists foreign 

competitors. 

Isn’t it better to stay in the lead and dictate terms from a position of strength? And how should we as a Nation be evolving our 

understanding of national security interests within this domain to 

ensure that America remains the leader? 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. Thank you for the question, and I wholeheartedly agree with the statements that you made. I absolutely 

think, as I highlighted in my testimony, that taking the shackles 

off commercial industry, allowing them to innovate, allowing them 

to do their best is absolutely what we must do because we want 

to maintain a leadership position. If we continue to handicap them, 

we will lose our industrial base, which is a national security concern. 
83 

Furthermore, if we have the U.S. in the lead, those are friendly 

parties. And should we need to, in a crisis, there are ways to do 

regulation, such as delay of release of information or, just like we 

do with overseas military sales, restricting who we could sell to. So 

those are things that we can enact, as needed, if there is a crisis 

without overly burdening the commercial industry. 

Chairman BABIN. Absolutely. Thank you very much. And Mr. 

O’Connell, in your testimony you identified that there’s a need to 

reform the law, regulations, and processes governing commercial 

remote sensing. What are the policy outcomes reform should 

achieve? And what, if any, specific recommendations do you have 

to effectuate such outcomes? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think ironically 

that the intent of the current policy, as has been mentioned at the 

table already this afternoon is exactly right. It’s to advance American foreign policy, national security interests. I would argue, in 

addition, scientific interests through the creation of a robust commercial remote sensing industry. And so that’s the broad dimension. Not much has to change there, quite frankly, in terms of intent. 

What does that allow us to do? It allows us to make investments 

on the government side of scarce budgetary dollars and stretching 

the limits of science, safety, and security on the one hand while 

taking advantage of a whole new area of a commercial market in 

remote sensing and the knowledge that it creates. 

You know, in the industry there’s been sort of a question over the 

years, what’s the killer application in commercial remote sensing? 

And maybe for now we just have to be comfortable with the idea 

that the killer application is a much more detailed understanding 

of lots of different developments that are on our planet. 

And so in addition to that, the knowledge base, the encouragement of young children and others to get involved, be excited by 

this whole set of issues that’s coming forward, I think that’s a 

starting point of some of the outcomes that we should achieve. 

To your former question about the national security interests, I’d 

just add one other thing. We do recognize there are consequences 

to our national security from a robust commercial imagery market. 

We have to deliberately understand those and take an objective 

view of how to deal with them. 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. Mr. Chairman, if I could add to that? 

Chairman BABIN. Sure. Go ahead. 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. That is to say that having a robust commercial marketplace provides resiliency for our national security 

architecture. 

Chairman BABIN. Well said. Thank you, Ms. Quaid. Thank you, 

Mr. O’Connell. Now I’ll recognize Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

witnesses. It feels like we’re having this same discussion in the 

commercial space flight arena as well, sort of how to balance government and regulation and government participation with the interests of facilitating a robust industry. And that is true here. It 

does occur to me, of course, that the 1992 Act that established the 

licensing framework for commercial remote sensing was enacted 

before the evolution of the commercial remote sensing industry. 
84 

And while the industry has grown over time as has been noted by 

Mrs. Gabrynowicz, that it’s still pretty heavily dependent on government contracts and grants and resources. So it is not truly a 

commercial sector as yet. Over the last few years a number of entrants and advances in the capabilities and operations has also 

been quite dramatic. 

And so I’m trying to understand, and I heard some of this in Mr. 

Dodge’s testimony, whether the proposal is that there needs to be 

a foundational statute that has to change or whether it’s the implementation of the current law and regulations that need to be updated. And I wonder, if starting with Mrs. Gabrynowicz, if we could 

begin with you? 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Thank you. There’s no doubt that the interagency process needs a lot of work. There’s no doubt. And that can 

be done through the MOU of 2000 which is appended to the regulations in the CFR, the Code of Federal Regulations. I would be very 

careful about wholesale changing the ’92 statute because there are 

a lot of things in there that, in addition to commercial remote sensing, that might come in play under a political process. For example, 

there is a National Archive which is something we absolutely need, 

and that could be put back on the table. There is the balance between the public sector and the private sector regarding Landsat 

that has a tortured 25-year history being pulled back and forth between the public and the private sector. 

So I think there’s no doubt that the licensing has to change, that 

there has to be mechanisms put in place. But that can all be done 

through revising and renegotiating the MOU of 2000 without necessarily touching the statute. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And you could also then touch all the underlying 

regulations as well? 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Yes, absolutely, because it’s part of the CFR. 

I mean, if you go to the statute first, you’ll have to figure out 

what’s going to go into that, and then you’re back to square one 

with the regulations, whereas I agree with Mr. Dodge’s statement 

about a surgical approach, and the surgery starts with the 2000 

MOU. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so Mr. Dodge, could you comment on the 

areas where we could have changes to regulation or maybe there 

need to be amendments to the ’92 Act? But could you elaborate on 

your testimony? 

Mr. DODGE. Whether a number of areas that could use some 

change, but I guess off the top of my head one of the areas could 

be the fact that there’s a 120-day period of time for the interagency 

process for reviewing whether or not there can be approval of a license. That is a long time. And for a business, for example, that 

can be onerous to their needs and interests. 

So you could make a, as I said earlier, a surgical modification to 

modify that, for example, going down from 120 days to maybe 90 

days or 60 days or whatever would be sufficient to both serve the 

needs of the industry whilst maintaining the interests of the government and those sorts of data. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. Mr. O’Connell, I wonder if you could 

tell me, I mean there has been reference to the 120-day period. 

How much of that is impacted by the relatively static budget that 
85 

the regulators face in terms of them being able to move forward the 

process? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think it’s very 

much affected by that as well as the extensive set of stakeholders 

in the U.S. Government that have equities in remote sensing. And 

so you see I think NOAA sometimes struggles with shepherding all 

of those entities and their viewpoints as we think about the licensing piece. 

I think one of the things that troubles me is that there are—I’ll 

say it this way: there are too many people who can say no and too 

many people who can stop the clock without direct accountability 

in the regulatory process. And as has already been mentioned, 

sometimes those 120-day delays are really onerous on businesses 

that are trying to get off the ground. 

And so how do you make sure that there’s a transparent process? 

And again, there are way too many examples of companies saying 

that on day 119, they’ve gone through a faithful discussion with 

NOAA about what they intend to put in the license. The clock runs 

on the day 119. They get a letter that says, oops. We’re not ready 

to do this yet. We’ve got to think about it a little bit more. And beyond that, there is opacity in the process. And lots of people, like 

I said, can stop the clock, and lots of people can say no in the process. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. O’CONNELL. So I think that’s partly a resource issue as 

you’ve suggested. But there also needs to be more transparency in 

the whole process. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And thank you. Mr. Chairman, can we let Ms. 

Gabrynowicz finish her comment? 

Chairman BABIN. Yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Thank you, and the only other thing I wanted 

to state is that the clock can be stopped at the level of the cabinet 

and special assistants to the President. When you’re up in that 

stratosphere, there’s no control anymore by the rank and file and 

the licensees. To have to reach Cabinet level where the clock can 

be stopped for reasons you won’t know is a serious problem. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman 

from Alabama, Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is directed 

first at Mr. O’Connell, and so if you’d give your response? And then 

following that, Ms. Quaid, if you would add your insight. And then 

should any of the other three panelists wish to add their insights 

thereafter, please feel free to do so. 

National security is a major application for remote sensing capabilities. It constitutes an important market for the industry. At the 

same time, national security concerns may constrain the commercial market through means such as licensing requirements that 

limit image resolution. 

Considering the international development of increasingly advanced remote sensing capabilities, how effective are current 

United States requirements such as resolution limits, shutter control, and export control regimes at addressing national security 

concerns? And if we fail to achieve meaningful reform, how will 
86 

United States national security interests be impacted? Mr. 

O’Connell? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. On 

the one hand, we have a national policy that says we’re going to 

lead in the international world, not follow, not harmonize, et 

cetera. And I’d like to make that point first. National security is 

enhanced by us taking maximum advantage of these capabilities 

consistent with what we’re doing on the government side. 

And so some of the mechanisms that you’ve referred to, we really 

have to be proactive in thinking about innovation that comes from 

them for the government’s purposes in addition to what may go on 

in the commercial market. 

And so we have to be sensitive to the national security implications of allowing things at say better spatial resolution, some of the 

other things that you’re talking about. 

It’s a complex regulatory landscape, and some alignment has to 

be done to look across those to see what the effect is on the actual 

industry and its effect on national security in accordance with that. 

Mr. BROOKS. Ms. Quaid? 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. I think the resolution limits—the example we have with SAR where we had a license granted, and they 

were not allowed to sell better than five meter, which is not very 

useful—and we had another license granted where they were not 

allowed to sell better than three meter, which is also not very useful and viable in a commercial marketplace. 

And so we are looking at a reality where the U.S. is not a leader 

in synthetic aperture radar right now as a result of that. 

And then if we look at something like shutter control, if you step 

back, and a lot of times the people writing the policy don’t realize 

the practical implications of this, but saying I’m going to black out 

certain regions of the globe and having to implement that on the 

commercial side can be extremely burdensome and complex and 

very costly, versus saying, as I suggested before, where they might 

say a delay in release of imagery or you know, sells not to certain 

areas. But we must recognize there are other vendors that are not 

U.S. that may sell that data to someone that we don’t want to have 

that data. So I think there are definitely better ways to provide 

this. Have a collaborative nature to say, let industry lead. Let them 

innovate. That is in our national security interest. Those assets 

provide resiliency. And then we have a cooperative partnership 

with them in the national security community. And when the need 

arises, we can invoke something that will help protect national security interests. 

And, for those of us with intelligence backgrounds, there are always ways to potentially spend money and ask them to task someplace else on that pass so they are not looking at the area that you 

are concerned with, so there are ways to get around this. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Ms. Quaid. Does anyone else wish to 

add any insight? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Could I have one follow-up, please? 

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, Mr. O’Connell. 

Mr. O’CONNELL. There’s an important 20-year history to recognize here on issues related to shutter control and national security 
87 

and it’s that there has never been an example where government 

and industry have not cooperated, especially when the government 

is clear in both space and time on its concerns about national security, okay? So that’s a very positive history that we need to leverage going forward as we think about this. 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. And if I can add, we’re all American citizens, whether industry or government, and we all care very deeply 

about the national security. So I agree with what Kevin said. Absolutely there’s been cooperation when we needed it for the country. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Chairman BABIN. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, 

Mr. Beyer. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being 

here. Mr. O’Connell, you wrote, ‘‘We need to update our thinking 

about how to protect U.S. troops, facilities, and operations in this 

increasingly transparent world, not fixated on information control 

as a source of security.’’ Ms. Weslander Quaid, you said again and 

again, because expanding the sensing capabilities gives us the resiliency, makes us more secure. 

How much pushback do you get from the Department of Defense 

and from flag officers on this perspective? It seems to me easier to 

be in the industry that is growing and doing so well to argue this 

than perhaps it is from someone who has the responsibility to protect troops and protect the Nation. 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. Thank you for the question. In my time 

down range with those combatant commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan, the need to share was paramount. And you had them taking 

essentially their authorities and saying we may be violating policy, 

but we’ll ask forgiveness later because lives are on the line. And 

I think that’s important, that we have data from assets that is freely sharable that can be provided in the context where we’re going 

to, you know, go after a terrorist and they’re doing an operation at 

night. And that intel picture is great in the intel cell, but then they 

can’t take it with them when they’re going on the mission. And 

often the resiliency that we talk about with commercial assets, 

maybe the intel asset has not been over most recently but a commercial asset has been. And that is the timely intelligence they 

need as they’re doing their mission planning. 

So that’s what I’ve seen. When lives are on the line, they will 

take it from any source. And the most important thing is that they 

can share that and they can share it with the commonwealth, the 

coalition, and the coalition of the day. 

Mr. BEYER. But in listening for the last hour it seems to me the 

great conflict here, the source of all this burdensome regulation, 

the need for new philosophy, is the conflict on national security. So 

isn’t it possible also to have the national security leaders sitting at 

the same table to argue this? Would they be willing to do that? Or 

are they going to resist this? 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. There are those of us on ACCRES for example who have held TS/SCI clearances—for me for my entire career, and we would welcome that discussion to understand specific 

national security concerns that cause them to raise the national security flag. In my experience, I don’t know what they could be. 
88 

Mr. BEYER. Okay, because that does seem to be the existential 

crises here driving all this. 

Mr. Pomfret, you lead the Center for Spatial Law and Policy. You 

know, our Chairman, Mr. Smith, at the beginning talked about, 

quote, the outdated and improper federal regulations and policy 

and that we need a different regulatory philosophy. There’s been 

lots and lots of general comment about how outdated the process 

is. How do we go about fixing this? What process do we create to 

get something that is actually forward-looking, 21st century? 

Mr. POMFRET. I think the first step is to recognize, one, that the 

remote sensing industry is a global one and some of the national 

security threats that people were concerned about back in 1992 and 

in 2000 and in 2004 from U.S. commercial systems are now not the 

U.S. commercial systems. There are a number of other actors that 

have sensors that are collecting this information, not just from satellites. So any balancing—I talk about the inherence of balancing 

between the perceived risks and the benefits. Any balancing needs 

to take that into effect. 

I also think that we need to start thinking about—and you’ll 

know in my comments I talked a lot about geo-information and not 

about just remote sensing because I think we tend to have on 

blinders and to think about regulating a certain sector, whether it 

be the commercial remote sensing sector or whether it be drones 

or whether it be issues associated with mobile devices and to start 

thinking about it more broadly in terms of all this information 

that’s being collected and how it’s going to be used because that’s 

what the consumers care about. And that’s what industry cares 

about. And even if we talked about here before about doing sort of 

just a surgical change to a particular law or regulation to me is a 

short-term fix and doesn’t address the long-term implications of 

where this technology is going in what, if you want to have a location-enabled society, what that’s going to look like and where the 

commercial remote sensing industry fits into that. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. Thank you. Mr. O’Connell, is NOAA’s enforcement requirement on visiting all ground stations reasonable? Is 

this a place to start? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. This is certainly one place to start, Congressman. And this is a topic that we did take up in the committee probably about a year ago. It is an old-fashioned way of doing it. The 

need to visit every single ground station, I would argue perhaps 

the technical limits, that we’re living in a world where I might be 

able to control a satellite with an iPad or some sort of a mobile device. And so it’s probably impractical, certainly within the resources that NOAA has to visit every single ground station at least 

once a year. And that’s certainly one place. 

On the committee in public session we recommended a number 

of things for NOAA to consider in that regard. One of them was 

for example deputizing another federal official overseas. Give them 

a checklist, ask them to go out and do the inspection themselves, 

someone closer to where the ground station would be, and that was 

not agreed to, as best as I understand. 

Mr. BEYER. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman 

from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine. 
89 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here and testifying today. I wanted to ask you, Mr. 

O’Connell. Earlier you said current regulations don’t address capabilities outside the electro-optical spectrum. Is that correct? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. That’s correct. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. And I think just a few minutes ago you said 

that there was recently a license given for radar, space-based 

radar? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. That’s correct. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So how do you reconcile those two? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Well, I think there was a large discussion that 

went on, a large and lengthy discussion, about applying what they 

could out of the regulations and nonetheless going ahead and 

issuing the license. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So they are regulating and they are licensing. 

Do they have statutory authority to do that? Is that something we 

should give? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think you should take a look at it. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. That’s important. When you think about 

transparency, we’ve heard from a lot of folks, I’ve heard, our office 

has heard from a lot of folks that at the end of the day, they don’t 

get a yes or a no but they don’t get a why, either. 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Right. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. And sometimes they get a no but they don’t 

get a why. If you have a company that’s cleared, do we have an 

obligation or should we have an obligation to make sure they understand why? Because ultimately we have an interest in making 

sure this industry is successful so that we want them to go and get 

more capital investments. We want them to build more satellites. 

We want them to get more geospatial intelligence resources for us. 

But then we’re not giving them an explanation of why they’re not 

getting a license which prohibits them from doing all those great 

things we need them to do. 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Congressman, that’s a great question, and it 

calls for a better conversation between the government on its precise national security concerns and the industry. There’s clearances 

involved. There’s all the other artifacts associated with doing that. 

We have to have a better way to convey those national security 

concerns clearly and crisply to companies that are in the market. 

One of my best examples of this is when I hear government colleagues say, gee, do the business models close on these companies? 

You know, are these companies going to be profitable? It is proper 

for anyone in the government that expects to spend money with a 

commercial enterprise to have some sense of that. But as you 

might imagine, government officials are uniquely not positioned to 

make that kind of evaluation. One of the things that I’ve been pursuing is some surrogate that could come from an organization closer to the business model world—space insurance, space finance— 

just as examples that we thought about. But you’re absolutely on 

the right track which is we need a much better conversation, a 

clearer conversation. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Can you do space insurance for a risk that nobody can possibly measure? We’re talking about political risk I 

guess in this case? 
90 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Or business model risk. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. Sure. I had another thought that I read 

recently which is that the law requires that the Secretary of Commerce consult with, but not concur with, necessarily the Department of Defense or the Department of State. Is that correct? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Correct. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So ultimately, the Secretary of Commerce, unless told a very explicit reason why not to do it, could just say let’s 

go forward with this, according to the law? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. That’s correct. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Anybody here disagree with that? So if we had 

maybe an aggressive Secretary of Commerce that was willing to 

push on that, could we get better results for the intelligence community and for the industry in general? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. I think that conversation would be improved, 

Congressman. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I’m not saying we need a new Secretary of 

Commerce. 

Mr. O’CONNELL. No, no. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I’m just saying that maybe that’s one area that 

the Secretary of Commerce could look at. The one area, another 

area, that I’ve heard and I have concerns on is this retroactive 

changing of licenses where people, you know, get their license 

maybe not revoked but changed in a way that is not as beneficial 

to them in the future and they can’t sell their products as much. 

What do we do to compensate them as a government? If they make 

investments based on a contract with the U.S. Government, and 

that contract might be just a regulatory deal, maybe not a monetary deal but a regulatory arrangement, and they go out and they 

start selling products and then they have their license maybe altered and they can’t close that business model as you suggested 

earlier, what do we do to compensate when government makes that 

decision? And are we at risk of putting people out of business or 

maybe not quantifiable but are we at risk of having people not 

enter a business that they otherwise would have entered? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Absolutely, Congressman. I can’t comment on 

what we would pay them and how we’d make that calculation. And 

to my knowledge— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Do we? Does that ever happen? Anyone? It 

does happen? 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. A license can be an asset, and if it gets modified or changed, its economic value changes. And there are other 

contract regulations. You need to talk to a good contract officer 

here—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. —about for the needs of the government, 

when something needs to be modified or ended that wasn’t 

planned, how that’s paid for. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. Last question, Mr. Chairman, if you’ll 

give me just a few more seconds here. 

Chairman BABIN. Certainly. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. When you think about hyperspectral and synthetic aperture radar, we’re always talking about space-based, lookdown capabilities. What about space-based look-up capabilities, 
91 

maybe for better space-based, space-situation awareness? Do we 

regulate that at all? Is there anybody trying to get a commercial 

license to do that kind of activity? And maybe anybody that you 

guys either represent or have represented that is involved in that 

activity? And would NOAA or the Department of Commerce be involved in issuing such a license? 

Mr. O’CONNELL. I’ve talked to a couple of people who say they’re 

going to start companies in that arena. I do not believe that the 

regulatory process, or at least a reasonable one, exists to license 

that kind of capability. 

That’s the point I was making before. I think we ought to look 

at this 20-year history as something to consider when we think 

about other areas of space commerce that people, that companies, 

are starting to enter: space weather, SSA (space situational awareness), space debris, other things like that. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. Mrs. Gabrynowicz, I would like to thank 

you for your testimony explicitly because it said—you were talking 

in there about the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of 

State and the Secretary of Defense, and that if they don’t agree— 

remember, this is after it’s gotten through the staffers, it goes to 

them. If they don’t agree, then it goes to the President. 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Well, the assistants to the President and then 

the President. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. And then the President. 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Do we know that that’s ever happened? 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. I personally have no knowledge, yeah. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. That seems like a bit much. I think the President has other things to do. If that’s the process and if that’s the 

process that’s written down, there’s no wonder it takes such a long 

time. 

So I thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back what time I 

don’t have anymore. 

Chairman BABIN. Yeah, I gave you an inch. You took a mile 

there, Mr. Bridenstine. No problem. I now recognize the gentleman 

from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I’ll start with where Mr. 

Bridenstine just left off. I mean, two words, obviously jump front 

and center: transparency and opacity. And the other two words 

that come to mind are pecking order because everybody at the 

table, all you panelists, probably have much higher clearances than 

anybody up here. And obviously, I’ve run into this. I’ve actually 

had a conversation with the Secretary of Commerce about a particular issue dealing with Digital Globe and something that’s been 

hanging out there for two or three years now. And my sense is that 

whether there is some specificity in the law or not, there is a real 

or perceived pecking order in how decisions involving something 

that might be used by the intelligence community or might be used 

by the military or might be moved over to the civil side, how that 

all is developed. 

And so I want to start with you, Ms. Quaid, and then go to you, 

Ms. Gabrynowicz, just to talk about reality here. Theory is great. 

I’m a lawyer, okay? That’s what I do. I try to deal with the law. 

But in these kinds of things—and Ms. Quaid you talked about 
92 

when life is on the line, when somebody’s life is on the line, whatever these rules may be seem to go out of the window. If somebody 

at a Cabinet level or some lower level or the Special Assistant to 

the President says, wait a second, this could get a bunch of our soldiers hurt, you don’t think that’s going to stop NOAA from issuing 

a license? I mean, that’s what I’m sensing here. 

So talk to us about reality. You had a chance to be on the 

geospatial, you were with that department, so how does it work? 

How does it really work? 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. Well, I’ll tell you, the biggest question— 

and it goes to this Congressman’s question as well as when they 

got a no or they got the license revoked, were they given a why? 

And we have heard time and time again, especially in ACCRES 

about the national security concern. And as I mentioned before to 

say let’s have the meeting, let’s have the discussion, because we 

have to advise the Secretary of Commerce. And frankly, in the discussion we finally had, which I think was a whopping 30 minutes, 

none of us who were in that session could agree that there was 

really a valid reason to say there’s a national security concern and 

further thwart the requests that were coming forward. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Were you dealing with one of the intelligence 

agencies or was this with NOAA? 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. No, it was with quite a few of the intelligence agencies in the room in a skiff, as we’d say, where they 

have—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. —secure discussions. And so what I 

think as I mentioned in my testimony, the burden of proof being 

on the government to say why not and articulate that. And where 

there’s those of us in the advisory roles who are kind of mediating 

between those in the national security community, because we 

have the clearances, and with the Secretary of Commerce that we 

can be informed, and therefore we all want the best interests of 

America here. But when there is—we’re fighting ghosts, it’s hard. 

You know, give me some tangible reason and then I can go explain 

to the Secretary of Commerce why she shouldn’t do this. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. And so without that data, you know, it’s 

hard to justify why we would say no. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Let me go to Ms. Gabrynowicz and then 

to you, Mr. Pomfret. Okay. 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. I have not had the kind of in-the-trenches experience that Ms. Quaid has had. But my observation has been 

that sometimes what happens is there’s an agency policy that participants hang onto and promote which may be different than a national policy. And it will stop there. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Mr. Pomfret? 

Mr. POMFRET. Thank you. I guess the perspective that I want to 

bring is that this isn’t just unique to the United States and it’s not 

just unique to remote sensing satellites. Most geospatial technology 

has come out of the defense and intelligence communities over the 

years. And in many countries around the world they have the first 

or last say, if you will, as to whether something can and can’t be 

used for a commercial or civilian use. And they will play the na-
93 

tional security card quite a bit. And I think it’s natural given 

where they’re sitting and their perspective and their background. 

So I don’t necessarily fault them. But in countries around the 

world, in India they’re trying to deal with mapping legislation that 

would make it illegal for people who weren’t government authorities to create maps. And there are similar situations in a lot of different countries around the world, evolving geospatial technology 

and geospatial information. 

And so when we have this discussion, I think part of it is to recognize that yes, the technology started in these communities but 

the environment has changed. And maybe some of the deference 

that was paid before isn’t necessarily as critical as it was. I’m not 

saying that, no, that they shouldn’t have any say but the balancing 

has changed. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. All right. Last question if I could, Mr. Chairman. The last question would be so to go back to placing the burden on the government or the intelligence community or the military to say, okay, in a SCIF or in a secured environment, say here’s 

why we don’t want this to be available to the public. Is it going to 

be written down and then published? Is it just available in a confidential way? I mean, what are you thinking about here? Because 

there may be a middle ground for us so that the Secretary of 

NOAA actually can say, you know, this is why I’m not issuing this 

license. But right now, she can’t. Do you see what I’m saying? 

Ms. WESLANDER QUAID. And some of the discussion can be can 

we go ahead and let them build it and launch it and operate it? 

And then when there is truly a national security concern, say a 

high res collection over a certain area, that’s when we say you can’t 

disseminate it—24 hours, 48 hours, ever—or you can’t give it to 

these parties. And so we’re not tying the hands of American innovation. What I worry about is going back to that SAR example 

where they said, no, you can’t sell the one meter, and then— 

boom— two international competitors pop up while we’ve held 

them back. We could have been the leader there. And we don’t 

want to repeat that. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman BABIN. You bet. Thank you. They’ve called votes, so 

we’re going to get our last question in here. And Mr. Davidson, I’ll 

give you five minutes. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I’ll keep it brief 

so I know we all have places we have to get to. So I’ll just ask one 

general question that may take a little bit for you all to answer. 

What areas are we behind? And if I just think about this from the 

perspective of an entrepreneur, I get this great idea, want to 

launch it. How do I know that, well, you can’t sell that? How do 

I then, if I’m sitting behind the desk at Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base looking for the greatest geospatial resources, how do I know 

that it even exists? You know, it’s not like all this stuff is going 

to wind up on eBay. So how does our Intelligence Committee know 

that there’s an entrepreneur working in a garage to come up with 

this radar? How does the guy that’s working on this, you know, latest/greatest, you know, geo thing, whatever the void in technology 

is, how do these people come to be aware that they’re working on 

something that could be helpful to one another? 
94 

Mr. O’CONNELL. Thank you, Congressman. I guess that’s the 

place that the licensing process should be the enabler, not the 

blocking mechanism. In essence, that’s the basis for someone to understand in the government that a new kind of capability is being 

considered under commercial considerations. So that’s the entry 

point where we know what people are thinking about, and at least 

in my time looking at this, there’ve been a lot of people coming for 

with interesting capabilities. Not all of them will necessarily succeed for lots of different reasons. But that licensing process is the 

starting point at which somebody comes and says, ‘‘I’m so serious 

about this.’’ I’m going to create a business for it. And that should 

be the basis. That should be the enabler, ultimately, for doing that, 

for creating that capability. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Okay. So what are some examples where that 

didn’t go correctly? So you look at it and say, hey, oops. Now this 

is out there. We really wish that didn’t. The downside of a total security environment is you don’t get all the innovation, you know. 

An upside of it is you don’t compromise stuff. It preserves the status quo. And since we’re in the lead on a lot of things, we might 

like that. It doesn’t do good things for the market, but I guess 

that’s the thing. How does there become this market? Simply licensing, just the fact that the people that know this space know, 

gee, if I know enough to create this contraption, I know that I have 

to license it. How do they find that they’ve committed a violation 

of the law? Surely they wouldn’t be prosecuted without an intent. 

Mr. POMFRET. My experience is, and I’m not sure if this directly 

answers your point, but that entrepreneurs, they operate very well 

in a vacuum. And so the uncertainty, because of the business, the 

technology, the legal and regulatory uncertainty isn’t a problem for 

them. They will fill that void. It gets to be a problem when you 

have a business that’s actually up and running and operating, and 

you have products to sell and you hire lawyers. And lawyers look 

at it and say I have no idea what you can and can’t do. And so it’s 

easier for me to say no and yes. So I think you see—and we’ve 

heard that there are a number of companies that have applied for 

licenses because they just—their business risk is so great that just 

filling out this regulatory paperwork is not that big of a deal for 

them. But when you do start running a business and you’re trying 

to figure out when you can sell to NGA and when you can sell to 

a foreign entity and what you can sell to someone else, that’s where 

it gets really complicated. And that’s where a lot of companies are 

hitting the wall because they see who their customers are or they 

think they know where they can get investments. But the challenge 

is that the uncertainty is such that they don’t want to spend the 

money or they don’t want to spend the 300 days waiting to get approval. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you so much. That was my second 

warning that votes have been called. But I would like to thank the 

witnesses for your valuable testimony and the Members for your 

questions. The record will remain open for two weeks for additional 

comments and written questions from the Members. And so this 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(95) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
96 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Kevin O’Connell 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 

Responses by Mr. Kevin Pomfret 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 

Responses by Ms. Michele R. Weslander Quaid 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 

Responses by Mr. Michael Dodge 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 

Responses by Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 

Æ