[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 29, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H5544-H5545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1630
UNMANNED AERIAL SECURITY ACT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 4682) to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland
Security from operating or procuring certain foreign-made unmanned
aircraft systems, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4682
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Unmanned Aerial Security
Act'' or the ``UAS Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OR PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN
FOREIGN-MADE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.
(a) Prohibition on Agency Operation or Procurement.--Except
as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (c)(3), the
Secretary of Homeland Security may not operate, provide
financial assistance for, or enter into or renew a contract
for the procurement of--
(1) an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that--
(A) is manufactured in a covered foreign country or by a
corporation domiciled in a covered foreign country;
(B) uses flight controllers, radios, data transmission
devices, cameras, or gimbals manufactured in a covered
foreign country or by a corporation domiciled in a covered
foreign country;
(C) uses a ground control system or operating software
developed in a covered foreign country or by a corporation
domiciled in a covered foreign country; or
(D) uses network connectivity or data storage located in a
covered foreign country or administered by a corporation
domiciled in a covered foreign country;
(2) a software operating system associated with a UAS that
uses network connectivity or data storage located in a
covered foreign country or administered by a corporation
domiciled in a covered foreign country; or
(3) a system for the detection or identification of a UAS,
which system is manufactured in a covered foreign country or
by a corporation domiciled in a covered foreign country.
(b) Waiver.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security is
authorized to waive the prohibition under subsection (a) if
the Secretary certifies in writing to the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate that a UAS, a software operating system associated
with a UAS, or a system for the detection or identification
of a UAS referred to in any of subparagraphs (A) through (C)
of such subsection that is the subject of such a waiver is
required--
(A) in the national interest of the United States;
(B) for counter-UAS surrogate research, testing,
development, evaluation, or training; or
(C) for intelligence, electronic warfare, or information
warfare operations, testing, analysis, and or training.
(2) Notice.--The certification described in paragraph (1)
shall be submitted to the Committees specified in such
paragraph by not later than the date that is 14 days after
the date on which a waiver is issued under such paragraph.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--This Act shall take effect on the date
that is 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Waiver process.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall establish a process by which the head of an
office or component of the Department of Homeland Security
may request a waiver under subsection (b).
(3) Exception.--Notwithstanding the prohibition under
subsection (a), the head of an office or component of the
Department of Homeland Security may continue to operate a
UAS, a software operating system associated with a UAS, or a
system for the detection or identification of a UAS described
in any of subparagraphs (1) through (3) of such subsection
that was in the inventory of such office or component on the
day before the effective date of this Act until--
(A) such time as the Secretary of Homeland Security has--
(i) granted a waiver relating thereto under subsection (b),
or
(ii) declined to grant such a waiver, or
(B) one year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
whichever is later.
(d) Drone Origin Security Report to Congress.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the
Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate a terrorism threat
assessment and report that contains information relating to
the following:
(1) The extent to which the Department of Homeland Security
has previously analyzed the threat that a UAS, a software
operating system associated with a UAS, or a system for the
detection or identification of a UAS from a covered foreign
country operating in the United States poses, and the results
of such analysis.
(2) The number of UAS, software operating systems
associated with a UAS, or systems for the detection or
identification of a UAS from a covered foreign country in
operation by the Department, including an identification of
the component or office of the Department at issue, as of
such date.
(3) The extent to which information gathered by such a UAS,
a software operating system associated with a UAS, or a
system for the detection or identification of a UAS from a
covered foreign country could be employed to harm the
national or economic security of the United States.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered foreign country.--The term ``covered foreign
country'' means a country that--
(A) the intelligence community has identified as a foreign
adversary in its most recent Annual Threat Assessment; or
(B) the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination
with the Director of National Intelligence, has identified as
a foreign adversary that is not included in such Annual
Threat Assessment.
(2) Intelligence community.--The term ``intelligence
community'' has the meaning given such term in section 3(4)
of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003(4)).
(3) Unmanned aircraft system; uas.--The terms ``unmanned
aircraft system'' and ``UAS'' have the meaning given the term
``unmanned aircraft system'' in section 331 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95; 49
U.S.C. 44802 note).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Guest) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
General Leave
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I
[[Page H5545]]
may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4682, the Unmanned Aerial
Security Act.
Mr. Speaker, to help carry out many of its many missions, the
Department of Homeland Security has increasingly come to rely on
drones.
For instance, DHS utilizes drones to get ``eyes in the sky'' to make
timely assessments about the extent of damage caused by hurricanes,
tornadoes, and other natural disasters in instances in where FEMA
cannot easily deploy personnel to affected areas by ground.
In remote parts of the land border, DHS uses this technology to
detect and prevent illicit drug activities. With so many unmanned
aerial systems in the marketplace today developed in nations that are
considered foreign adversaries, there are legitimate security concerns
about the integrity of data they collect.
In fact, recent reports suggest that Chinese-manufactured drones
might be compromised and used to send sensitive information to the
Chinese Government. In response to security concerns, the Departments
of Interior and Defense have taken steps to limit their use of foreign-
made drones.
H.R. 4682, the Unmanned Aerial Security Act, would direct the
Department of Homeland Security to take similar protective measures. It
would prohibit DHS from purchasing or using drone systems manufactured
in a foreign country that is deemed to be an adversary by either the
intelligence community's Annual Threat Assessment or the Secretary of
Homeland Security.
Importantly, H.R. 4682 does allow the DHS Secretary to waive the
prohibition, case by case, in certain circumstances, such as for
counter-drone research, testing, development, training, or for certain
intelligence operations.
H.R. 4682 has bipartisan support and was reported out of committee by
voice vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my House colleagues to support this legislation,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4682, the Unmanned
Aerial Security Act.
It is imperative that the Department of Homeland Security be able to
protect the Nation against all threats. This defense includes ensuring
that the unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, that DHS
uses and buys, are not made in foreign countries that do not align with
our interests; countries such as China.
DHS requires the dominant, air domain capabilities that drones
provide to accomplish many of its land and maritime missions. We know
that DHS uses drones for surveilling our southwest border. Utilizing
drones is a cost-efficient way to protect large areas of the homeland.
However, many of the commercial drones used in the United States are
manufactured in China, which dominates the United States market. Of the
top 10 drone manufacturers that supply the United States market, a
single Chinese manufacturer towers over all the others with nearly 77
percent of the market share.
DHS has issued warnings in recent years about Chinese-made drones,
specifically citing concerns that they may be sending sensitive data to
their manufacturers in China, where it can be accessed by the Chinese
Government.
Our colleagues in the Senate share our concern. In fact, Senator Rick
Scott has introduced similar legislation to ban the purchase and use of
these drones across the Federal Government, not just at DHS.
Given the role that drones have in protecting homeland security, it
is more important than ever to require DHS to assess its drone fleets.
This bill would require DHS to provide a threat assessment report to
Congress on whether the agency has analyzed the threat of its drone
from adversarial nations; the number of these drones that the
Department is currently operating; and the extent to which the
information gathered by these drones may be a threat to the homeland or
economic security of the United States.
Second, the bill would prohibit DHS from buying or using drones made
in adversarial nations going forward.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Ranking
Member Katko, for being an original cosponsor of this bipartisan
legislation. Along with Members on the other side of the aisle, this is
truly a bipartisan piece of legislation.
With China looming as a growing threat on the horizon, maintaining
our homeland security is of the utmost importance, and I urge my
colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers,
and I am prepared to close after the gentleman from Mississippi closes.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUEST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I urge all
Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Mississippi (Mr. Guest) for
introducing this bill that seeks to ensure the integrity and security
of the drone systems that the Department of Homeland Security operates.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4682, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4682, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________