[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 91 (Thursday, May 25, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3219-S3220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Lee, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. 
        Cotton):
  S. 1272. A bill to preserve State, local, and tribal authorities and 
private property rights with respect to unmanned aircraft systems, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drone 
Federalism Act of 2017. This good government bill provides a clear 
legal framework to the modern day challenges of drone regulation and 
empowers every level of government to issue reasonable restrictions on 
drone operations. I thank Senators Lee, Blumenthal, and Cotton for 
joining me on this bill, and I appreciate their support.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S3219, May 25, 2017, in the third column, the following 
appears: Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drone 
Federalism Act of 2017.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drone Federalism Act 
of 2017.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  In recent years, small unmanned aircraft have emerged as a 
transformative new technology. These devices--more commonly known as 
drones--are highly capable, commercially available, and operable even 
by novice consumers.
  The way that drones are flown in the daily life of our communities 
and in such great numbers has raised new challenges for safety, 
privacy, and security that demand cooperation between the federal, 
state, and local governments.
  Today, drone operations present an astounding array of challenges. In 
just two years, over 2,500 drone incidents have been reported to the 
Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA. The most recent year of data, 
from October 2015 to October 2016, saw the number of incidents surge 
166% over the prior year. In addition, there have been some

[[Page S3220]]

alarming reports. On February 26th, 2017, a drone crashed through the 
27th floor window of a Manhattan apartment building in New York City. 
The next month, on March 28th, a drone crashed through the 23rd floor 
window of City Hall in Buffalo, New York. Drones have repeatedly 
interfered with medical helicopters. On May 1st, 2016, a medevac 
helicopter trying to land at Florida Hospital East in Orlando was 
forced to abort its initial landing because of a drone. On November 14, 
2015, a helicopter leaving children's hospital in St. Louis, Missouri 
had to take evasive action to avoid a drone, banking 60 degrees. Drones 
also interfere with emergency wild fire fighting. On April 30, 2017, 
multiple drones filming the Opera fire in Riverside, California forced 
firefighting helicopters to suspend operations. This happened eight 
times in 2015, and another eight times in 2016, in California alone. 
Drones have also crashed into the Golden Gate Bridge, including twice 
last month. On April 1st, a drone flown almost two miles beyond line of 
site fell from the sky into a lane of traffic, only a few feet from the 
crowded sidewalk. Again on April 9th, another drone flown beyond line 
of site crashed one of the bridge's towers.
  These incidents are occurring throughout the nation, but each state 
has faced its own challenges. Half of all reported incidents came from 
just five States: California, Florida, New York, Texas, and New Jersey.
  In fact, one-fifth of all drone incidents reported to the FAA 
occurred in California. What works for protecting urban areas will be 
different than what is needed in rural areas.
  The current legal framework for managing the airspace, which evolved 
over a century of manned aviation, is a poor fit for these new 
challenges. Drones bear little resemblance to the manned aircraft that 
came before them.
  First, drones intrude into the everyday life of our communities in a 
way that airplanes do not. Airplanes fly into and out of airports, and 
municipalities can try through zoning to minimize disruptions. Drones, 
on the other hand, can take flight from any location, can hover 
anonymously overhead, and are often used to film whatever aspect of 
public or private life may catch the operator's interest of the 
operator's.
  Second, drones are seldom engaged in interstate commerce once they 
have been purchased. Short communication range and limited battery life 
means that commercially available drones are almost always operated 
locally, and are unlikely to be operated across state lines.
  Third, there are far more drones than there are airplanes. Already, 
more than 750,000 drones have been registered, and the FAA anticipates 
up to 4 million drones by 2020. By contrast, there are little more than 
200,000 manned aircraft registered in the United States.


                           WHAT THE BILL DOES

  The Drone Federalism Act would address the modern challenges of drone 
operations and provide a clear legal framework to regulate drones. The 
bill has three provisions.
  First, the bill preserves the authority of State, Tribal, and local 
governments to issue reasonable restrictions on the time, manner, and 
place of drone operations within 200 feet of the ground or a structure. 
These could include speed limits, local no-fly zones, temporary 
restrictions, and prohibitions on reckless or drunk operators, for 
example.
  There are regulations that the FAA must issue uniformly throughout 
the country to ensure the safety and efficiency of the national 
airspace. This bill does not interfere with that authority. However, 
the bill does require the FAA to consider legitimate state and local 
interests when exercising preemption, and to respect any reasonable 
additional low-altitude restrictions that state and local governments 
choose to impose.
  Second, the bill reaffirms that the federal government will respect 
private property rights to the airspace in the immediate reaches above 
a property, including at least the first 200 feet. Neither Congress nor 
the FAA may authorize drone operations immediately over property 
without the owner's permission.
  Third, the bill promotes cooperation between the levels of government 
by directing the FAA to partner with a diverse group of cities and 
States to test out different approaches and report on best practices.


              STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REGULATE DRONES

  The Drone Federalism Act is consistent with the recent action taken 
by States to regulate drone operations. In response to drone incidents 
and the concerns of their communities, lawmakers throughout the country 
have identified the need for a variety of new approaches to managing 
drones. Indeed, at least 38 States are considering drone legislation 
this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
  These proposals include: definitions of harassment and voyeurism, 
airport protections, penalties for interfering with emergency 
responders, protections against the delivery of contraband at prisons, 
bans on flights over football games, and definitions of aerial 
trespass, among others.
  This exercise of the laboratories of democracy is appropriate. Our 
communities should not have to rely on an already overburdened federal 
agency to craft specific regulatory protections for every local 
context, supply on-the-ground enforcement agents, or pursue complicated 
civil cases in court for every infraction. Local police should be 
empowered to issue citations akin to a traffic violation for clear-cut 
infractions, without having to prove an action meets a vague tort law 
standards of negligence and harm. There should be no question that a 
State has a right to prevent drones from interfering with emergency 
responders or delivering contraband into prisons; to criminalize hit-
and-runs, voyeurism, stalking, or harassment with a drone; to allow 
judges to deny drones to sex offenders.
  Neither should there be any question that a State or municipality has 
a right to restrict the use of drones where it would be hazardous. Just 
as the federal government has banned drone operations over Federal 
Parks, States should have the option to protect State parks. Just as 
the Federal Government banned flights over sensitive areas, like the 
entire Capital region, cities should have the option to protect schools 
or other sensitive areas of their own. Just as the Federal Government 
can impose temporary flight restrictions over major sporting events or 
airshows, a county should have the option to protect its summer 
fairgrounds or holiday parade route.


                               CONCLUSION

  The Drone Federalism Act that I am introducing today, along with 
Senators Lee, Blumenthal, and Cotton, is a proactive, affirmative 
solution. It recognizes the federal interest in protecting the safety 
and efficiency of the national airspace, while also respecting private 
property rights, Tribal sovereignty, the powers reserved to the States 
by the Tenth Amendment, and the general principle of local self-
determination.
  This bill will invite the democratic participation of government at 
every level, avoid the need for years of litigation about the scope of 
preemption, and enable effective local enforcement. It is incumbent on 
Congress to provide clarity and to guarantee all sides an equal voice 
moving forward.
  This bipartisan bill is the way to do that.
                                 ______