HR 2944 Introduced – Misuse of Drones

Rep Gallagher (R,WI) introduced HR 2944, the Drone Act of 2023. The bill would revise 18 USC to expand the coverage of the criminal code for misuse of unmanned aircraft. No funding is provided in this bill. The bill is almost identical to S 157 [removed from paywall], that was introduced in February. No action has been taken on the Senate bill to date.

There is one significant difference between the two bills. The House bill does not include the subclause that was added to the language from S 3542 (117^th session) that would specifically make a drone attack on critical infrastructure an offense under the new 18 USC 40B proposed in the bill.

Moving Forward

While Gallagher is not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to which the bill was assigned for consideration, one of cosponsors {Rep Gooding (R,TX)} is a member. This means that there may be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. There will be some level of bipartisan support for the bill, but it is not clear that it would be sufficient to overcome the objections of the UAV industry. I do not believe that the bill would receive enough support to pass a cloture vote in the full Senate.

Review - S 157 Introduced – Misuse of Drones

Earlier this month, Sen Grassley (R,IA) introduced S 157, the Drone Act of 2023. The bill would revise 18 USC to expand the coverage of the criminal code for misuse of unmanned aircraft. No funding is provided in this bill. The language is very similar to S 3542 introduced in the 117^th Congress.

Moving Forward

Grassley is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there should be sufficient influence to see this bill considered in Committee. Since the bill has four Democrats as cosponsors, the bill should receive some level of bipartisan support, but there should be some opposition from the UAV industry. I suspect that the bill would pass in Committee, but there could be significant changes made in the process.

This bill is not important enough to move to the floor of the Senate under regular order and there should be enough opposition to prevent it from being considered under the unanimous consent process. There is a chance that the bill could be included in some larger piece of legislation or offered as an amendment to another bill.

Commentary

The new Intrusion on Protected Spaces offense includes an interesting provision. It includes ‘rules, regulations, and orders’ of DHS as types of Federal Law that could be used to establish areas where UAVs could be prohibited. There is not currently any specific authority for DHS to establish such areas beyond the very constrained authorization in 6 USC 124n(k)(3)(C)(i) limited to federal facilities protected by DHS.

 

For more details about the provisions of the bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-157-introduced - subscription required.

HR 7965 Introduced – Drone Misuse

Last week Rep Gallagher (R,WI) introduced HR 7965, the Drone Act of 2022. The bill would revise 18 USC to expand the coverage of the criminal code of misuse of unmanned aircraft. This is a companion (identical language) bill to S 3542 that was introduced in February.

Moving Forward

Neither Gallagher, nor any of his three cosponsors, are members of the House Judiciary Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there is probably not enough influence to see this bill considered in Committee. I noted in my post on S 3542 that the Senate bill would probably be opposed by the UAS industry and the same would hold true here. I would not, however, expect that opposition to be sufficient to stop this bill from receiving adequate support for passage.

I do note, however, that Grassley’s bill has received no action in the Senate Judiciary Committee to which that bill was assigned for consideration. Given that Grassley is the ranking member and there are two Democrats cosponsoring his bill, it is unusual that the bill has not been heard in Committee. This is probably due to the general reluctance of law makers to make changes to 18 USC. Changes to the criminal code have more reach than most legislation, especially since there is wide prosecutorial discretion in how the language is interpreted in its application.

Review - S 3542 Introduced – Criminal Drone Misuse

Earlier this month, Sen Grassley (R,IA) introduced S 3542, the Done Act of 2022. The bill would revise 18 USC to expand the coverage of the criminal code for misuse of unmanned aircraft. No funding is provided in this bill.

Moving Forward

Grassley is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there should be sufficient influence to see this bill considered in Committee. Since the bill has two Democrats as cosponsors, the bill should receive some level of bipartisan support, but there should be some opposition from the UAV industry. I suspect that the bill would pass in Committee, but there could be significant changes made in the process.

This bill is not important enough to move to the floor of the Senate under regular order and there should be enough opposition to prevent it from being considered under the unanimous consent process. There is a chance that the bill could be included in some larger piece of legislation or offered as an amendment to another bill.

Commentary

The new Intrusion on Protected Spaces offense includes an interesting provision. It includes ‘rules, regulations, and orders’ of DHS as types of Federal Law that could be used to establish areas where UAVs could be prohibited. There is not currently any specific authority for DHS to establish such areas beyond the very constrained authorization in 6 USC 124n(k)(3)(C)(i) limited to federal facilities protected by DHS.

The similar authority granted to the FAA could be important, if/when the FAA ever gets around to writing its regulation allowing critical infrastructure facilities to petition to be covered by a UAS-specific flight restriction as required by §2209 of PL 114-190 (120 Stat 634). Those regulations were supposed to have been done by January 11^th, 2017.

For more details about the provisions of the bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-3542-introduced - subscription required.

Bills Introduced – 2-1-22

Yesterday, with both the House and Senate in session, there were 52 bills introduced. Four of those bills may receive additional coverage in this blog:

HR 6541 To require the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to establish cybersecurity guidance for small organizations, and for other purposes. Rep. Eshoo, Anna G. [D-CA-18]

HR 6546 To direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish a Wireless Electric Vehicle Charging Grant Program, and for other purposes. Rep. Lawrence, Brenda L. [D-MI-14] 

S 3542 A bill to prevent the misuse of drones, and for other purposes. Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]

S 3543 A bill to support research, development, and other activities to develop innovative vehicle technologies, and for other purposes.

I will be watching HR 6546 and S 3543 for language and definitions that would include cybersecurity provisions within the scope of the bill.

I will be watching S 3542 for language that would include provisions for protecting critical infrastructure from attacks using drones.