[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 91 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Page S3716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       SECTION 2152 OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION REAUTHORIZATION BILL

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the issue of 
preemption and ask to engage in a colloquy with Senators Tillis and 
Nelson.
  I come to the floor today to discuss the Federal Aviation 
Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which passed the Senate on 
April 19 by a vote of 95 to 3. This vote reflects the strong, 
bipartisan work that went into negotiating this bill, and I hope that 
the House will take it up.
  However, there is unfinished business with this bill: the need to 
remove section 2152. This provision of the bill would preempt any State 
or local laws related to the operation, manufacture, design, testing, 
licensing, registration, certification, operation, or maintenance of an 
unmanned aircraft system including airspace, altitude, flight paths, 
equipment or technology requirements, purpose of operations, and pilot, 
operator, and observer qualifications, training, and certification.
  This provision of the bill would be effective on the date of 
enactment prior to the FAA promulgating any regulations in these areas.
  When this came to my attention, as a former mayor, I became very 
alarmed about the possible reach of this provision and how it might 
impact local communities, State parks, schools, infrastructure, and 
other areas with a strong State or local interest.
  So I filed two amendments, and, ultimately, the managers of this 
bill--Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson--agreed to accept an 
amendment to strike the provision from the underlying bill.
  This is amendment No. 3704, filed by myself and Senator Tillis, and 
cosponsored by Senators Blumenthal, Perdue, Lee, and Markey.
  I would now like to yield, if I could, to my colleague from North 
Carolina, Mr. Tillis.
  Mr. TILLIS. As a former State legislator, I very much agree with what 
my colleague from California has said. In North Carolina, we worked 
hard to get the regulatory and legislative framework right for this new 
technology. In fact, we commissioned a legislative research committee 
to propose legislation and obtained input from stakeholders prior to 
the bill's passage. You see, not all wisdom resides at the Federal 
Government. Our system is designed to let States and localities weigh 
factors that bureaucrats in Washington might not consider, such as 
potential privacy concerns, law enforcement operations, search and 
rescue, natural disaster mitigation, infrastructure monitoring--the 
list goes on.
  I would add that it was my understanding as well that Chairman Thune 
and Ranking Member Nelson had graciously agreed to accept this 
amendment and that it had been cleared as part of a group of 
noncontroversial amendments. I was disappointed to see that package 
held up over a disagreement on unrelated matters between other Members. 
I am encouraged, however, by the chairman's and ranking members' 
commitment to continue addressing our concerns in conference committee.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from North 
Carolina, Mr. Tillis, is correct. Chairman Thune and I did agree to 
accept this amendment as part of a package of 26 amendments agreed to 
by all but one of our colleagues.
  While I am disappointed that these amendments could not clear the 
full Senate, including one that preserves certain State and local 
powers to deal with public safety concerns regarding drones, I will 
work with Chairman Thune to address this and other issues in the 
conference committee once the House has acted.

                          ____________________