[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 188 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7131-S7133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SOCIAL SECURITY FAIRNESS ACT OF 2023--MOTION TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Cortez Masto). Under the previous order,
the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R.
82, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 693, H.R. 82, a bill to
amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the
Government pension offset and windfall elimination
provisions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1631
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, in a few moments, my friend Senator
Peters will offer legislation that responds to the reports of unusual
drone activity, and I thank him for his great work and leadership on
this. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan drone
legislation, which the FBI, the DHS, the FAA, and the DOD--the
Department of Defense--all support. The Senate should pass our bill
without delay.
Our bill, among other things, explicitly authorizes State and local
authorities to conduct drone detection and helps them better coordinate
with Federal law enforcement Agencies to keep communities safe.
The people in New York and New Jersey have a lot of questions, and
they are not getting good enough answers.
[[Page S7132]]
The utter confusion surrounding these drone sightings shows that the
Feds can't respond all on their own; they need help detecting these
drones from local officials who have neither the resources nor the
explicit authority to act. The bill fixes that.
We all know drones are a relatively new phenomenon, and there are
millions of them all over the United States. A lot of them are
hobbyists. Some of them are companies doing legitimate work. But the
Federal Government just doesn't have the ability or resources. If we
were to say the Federal Government should look at this completely, they
would be taken away from so many other important jobs. So the most
logical thing to do is say: Let the localities have some authority.
These are law enforcement authorities. These are people we know and we
trust.
Now, for all we know, the recent drone incidents are entirely benign,
but the people of New York and New Jersey understandably still have
questions, and they deserve answers. The problem is, the widespread use
of drones is relatively new in the eyes of Federal law, and therefore
the authority to detect drone activity near sensitive infrastructure is
totally within Federal jurisdiction. That should be fixed in an
appropriate way. The Federal Government just doesn't have the ability
to go in every corner of America and see whether the drones are safe or
not safe.
Local law enforcement is appropriate, and they will work with the
Feds in working on this. The bill is about giving local officials on
the ground greater flexibility and proven technology to detect and
track threats in their jurisdictions. It is about giving people answers
they don't now have, heard directly from authorities on the ground. If
this bill becomes law, we will have better clarity in the future.
So I yield to my friend from Michigan who has worked hard on this
issue for a long period of time. It has broad bipartisan support. I
hope the Senate can act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Madam President, every day, more and more Americans are
using drones for everything from hobby flights to commercial
applications, as well as law enforcement activities. Drones can offer
important societal and economic benefits, but they can also cause
problems if they are not used appropriately.
Recently, in New Jersey, we have seen reports of loud and menacing
drones. And while the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and
other key Agencies have assured the public that these drones pose no
immediate homeland security threat, they have certainly caused unease
and concern for many Americans.
Rogue drones can interfere with commercial air traffic--as we saw
with the recent closure of runways at a New York airport--as well as
large public gatherings like football games or concerts. The National
Football League, a key supporter of this legislation, has shared that
in recent seasons, they have seen more than 2,500 drones violate the
airspace around stadiums, in some cases leading them to stop the
football games to resolve potential threats to their fans as well as to
their teams.
We have also seen how drones operated by a bad actor can quickly
become a very serious security threat. This summer, an assailant used a
drone to surveil President-elect Trump's rally site in Butler, PA, just
hours--just hours--before firing shots in a horrific assassination
attempt.
That is why I have been working to pass bipartisan legislation that
would address these concerns by giving law enforcement the tools and
the authorities that they need to detect, identify, and track drones to
ensure that they do not pose any risk to Americans.
My legislation, which passed out of the committee that I chair--
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs--unanimously last Congress,
out of committee, would equip law enforcement agencies, including State
and local police--like the officials currently dealing with the ongoing
situation in New Jersey--with the tools to better detect and to track
drones and identify cases where they may pose a security threat to
large public gatherings, airports, critical infrastructure facilities,
as well as our communities.
Most urgently, this bill would ensure that law enforcement has the
technology needed to quickly and clearly identify exactly what the
reported sightings of drones across the country actually are. If a
drone is found to be a potential danger, our law enforcement agencies,
they must--they must--have the tools to mitigate these threats
effectively.
That is why my bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security
and the Department of Justice to operate a pilot program so that State
and local law enforcement agencies can conduct drone mitigation
activities to safely disable threatening drones before they cause
serious harm.
This legislation has strong bipartisan support here in the U.S.
Senate. We currently have 28 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle--
14 Democrats, 11 Republicans, and 3 Independents. And as the number of
registered drones continues to grow, so does the need to pass this
critical legislation to ensure that our law enforcement agencies can
address these potential threats.
So I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this commonsense bill
to safeguard our homeland and ensure that law enforcement can better
protect our communities from the potential threats posed by recklessly
or nefariously operated drones.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further
consideration of S. 1631 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; that the Peters substitute amendment, which is at the
desk, be considered and agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be
considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, no one
disputes that drones flying in airspace could be a danger, that drones
flying over the Super Bowl could be a danger, that drones flying over
military bases could be a danger. That is why it is illegal. It is
currently illegal, and the Federal Government has the capacity to
investigate and stop drones that are in airspace over our military
bases, following our ships. We have that capacity.
What is disputed and what the Biden administration is currently
telling us is they don't see a problem. So if there is a problem, let
the Biden administration be forthcoming. Let us know the extent of the
problem. Let us know who is flying the drones. Let us know what is
going on. Instead, this bill says: Well, we don't know. The Biden
administration doesn't know, but why don't we give the power to the
local officials to go after drones.
But I rise today to object to this unanimous consent request because,
at this time, public trust in government is at historic lows. This body
must not rush to grant sweeping surveillance powers without proper
consideration and debate by the committees of jurisdiction, which is
what I pledge to do beginning in January when we will be in charge of
the committees.
Yet what is going on is exactly what this legislation seeks to do
now: to expand Federal authority to intercept communications and
disrupt drone activity, powers that raise serious concerns for
Americans' privacy, civil liberties, and Fourth Amendment protections
against unwarranted search and seizure.
We are being told this legislation is urgent; that it is needed to
address an imminent drone threat. Yet the government itself admits no
such threats exist.
So either there is a threat or there isn't a threat, but the Biden
administration keeps saying: Well, it is all normal stuff, and it is
just planes.
So it is or it isn't. Why don't we try to get to the truth of the
matter of what actually exists and what the threat is before we propose
legislation.
Federal Agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and
the FBI, have stated clearly that there is no current national security
risk, no public safety concern, and no unlawful drone activity
requiring intervention. So there either is a problem or there
[[Page S7133]]
isn't a problem. If there is a problem, let's discuss how to do it
while protecting the communications of innocent Americans whose
communications could be caught up in this legislation.
Until the Federal assessment changes--the assessment that it isn't a
problem changes to that it is a problem, and these are the malefactors,
these are the people that are orchestrating this--let's get that from
the Biden administration. Tell us what the problem is. Tell us the
extent of the problem. Instead, the Biden administration is saying
there is not a problem.
So, Madam President, this pattern is all too familiar. History has
shown us, time and time again, how fear and manufactured urgency are
used as pretexts to expand government power at the expense of freedom.
After 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act. In the name of security,
Americans were promised that these surveillance powers were necessary;
they would only be directed toward foreigners; they would only be
directed toward terrorists--until we discovered that these powers were
being used on Americans. Americans were promised that these powers were
necessary and temporary. Instead, they were abused, misused, and
weaponized. Innocent Americans had their privacy violated, their data
collected, and their rights trampled.
The lesson here is clear: When Congress legislates in haste, without
careful scrutiny, without debate, and without accountability, it is the
American people who suffer the consequences. Today, we are facing a
similar moment.
The bill before us would grant law enforcement significant authority
to intercept private electronic communications without consent.
For example, the bill will allow the government to conduct dragnet
surveillance of the phones of innocent Americans traveling through U.S.
airports, as long as the government claims they are doing it to
neutralize a drone. So in order to look at the information that might
be coming to a drone, it may be that you capture all the information of
everybody surrounding an airport or everybody who lives near an
airport.
Once you have all that data, what are the assurances that the
government isn't looking at your data in addition to the data that may
be related to flying the drone?
This is not just about security. It is about unchecked government
overreach. It is about capitalizing on fear and media-driven hysteria
to jam through sweeping legislation that could violate the civil
liberties of American people.
Congress has a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on
the Executive power, not as a rubberstamp for it.
The Federal Government already has the power to deal with drones. The
Federal Government already has the power to stop any drones that are in
airspace around airports. The Federal Government already has the power
to protect its air bases. So if there is a significant problem here,
the Biden administration needs to come forward and let us know: Who are
these drones? Who is operating these drones?
What is the Federal Government doing to protect either airports or
bases from this? Instead, we are told by the Biden administration there
is no threat to our national security.
Let's first insist on truth and transparency from the Biden
administration before offering up legislation that is feel-good, pat
somebody on the back, and say: Oh, we have done something about drones.
We are strong on drones.
Congress has a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on
Executive power, not as a rubberstamp. We owe it to the American people
to demand compelling justification, meaningful safeguards, and full
transparency before granting new surveillance authorities.
We are a Nation of laws, not fear, not panic, and not manufactured
urgency. We do not trade away our freedoms, our privacy, and our
constitutional protections for vague promises of security.
I will object to this bill today, but I am open to talking with the
authors of this bill about how we could have enhanced ability to
interrupt drone activity, but done while protecting all Americans'
constitutional right to privacy.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
____________________