The publication is reproduced in full below:
{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 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.
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 170
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up