Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 4432

Should Homeland Security Study the Threat of Drones to Critical Infrastructure?

Argument in favor

Drones are an emerging terrorism threat to critical infrastructure and public safety. It’s important for Homeland Security to ensure Congress has the information it needs to make appropriate policies.

Stephanie's Opinion
···
02/10/2020
Now if you can treat our infrastructure with the same importance by allocating funds to fix it so that terrorist might actually feel that they are viable targets. Just a suggestion.
Like (17)
Follow
Share
···
02/10/2020
Shouldn’t Homeland security study all perceived threats? Isn’t that kind of their job?
Like (11)
Follow
Share
djpearson's Opinion
···
02/10/2020
Drones are a rising way of destruction around the world. We need to be proactive.
Like (4)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

There are already various anti-drone efforts underway in both the executive branch and various federal agencies, so there’s no need to task DHS with more research on the topic.

John's Opinion
···
02/10/2020
We need to study the threat of Donald Trump and Lindsey Graham to our national security.
Like (72)
Follow
Share
Ticktock's Opinion
···
02/10/2020
The actual threat is from domestic drone owners not foreign entities and a threat of that nature would fall under the responsibility of the FBI and the CIA. As far as regulating drone ownership and operation the FAA should investigate and license the operation of both industrial and personal use. Legislators tend to allude to terrorist in order to sensationalize the topic but most terrorist are domestic not foreign and most drone operators will be owned domestically by citizens or businesses here in the U.S.
Like (41)
Follow
Share
Leslie's Opinion
···
02/10/2020
No need to duplicate existing efforts (waste money)! “There are already various anti-drone efforts underway in both the executive branch and various federal agencies, so there’s no need to task DHS with more research on the topic.
Like (27)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 4432?

This bill — the Protecting Critical Infrastructure Against Drones and Emerging Threats Act — would require the Dept. of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis to develop a report assessing the terrorism threat to critical infrastructure posed by unmanned aircraft system (UAS or drones). The report would be developed in consultation with other governmental agencies at the federal, state, and local levels plus the private sector.

The report would be submitted to the House & Senate homeland security committees.

Impact

Drones; terrorists & criminals; Homeland Security; and Congress.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 4432

The CBO estimates that enacting this bill would cost less than $500,000 because it wouldn’t require any substantial new actions by the agencies involved.

More Information

In-Depth: Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) introduced this bill to ensure that U.S. policymakers are adequately informed about the threat that drones pose to national security.

Criminals and terrorists are using drones for a range of criminal and terrorist activity, including  dropping explosives and hazardous materials, ferrying drugs, conducting surveillance against critical infrastructure and other potential targets, and sending contraband into prisons. Drones appeal to these actors because they’re cheap, and the federal response to them isn’t coordinated yet:

“Unlike military drones that can cost more than $15 million and look like small airplanes, mini quadcopters can be obtained for a few hundred dollars—and their capabilities are exciting the imaginations of bad guys. Criminals have used drones to drop drugs into prisons. Mexican smugglers have flown them above the border to spy on the movement of patrolling federal officers. ISIS used them to drop crude bombs on U.S. and allied forces in Iraq and Syria… It is the widespread availability of commercial drones that poses the largest threat. Almost everybody who uses a drone in the U.S.—and the Federal Aviation Administration has licensed more than a million operators—flies by the rules. But not everyone, and perhaps the major lesson of 9/11 was to look for threats from unexpected places, especially overhead. Yet on drones, the federal response has been largely haphazard and behind the curve.”

This legislation passed the House Homeland Security Committee by unanimous consent and has the support of one House cosponsor, Rep. John Katko (R-NY). 

In the previous Congress, the House passed this bill’s predecessor on a unanimous voice vote.


Of Note: The Heritage Foundation notes that recent UAS incidents have made it apparent that the U.S. needs more robust UAS detection, identification, and counter-attack processes:

“The increasingly common use of drones by terrorists to launch strikes abroad has raised concerns that domestic malefactors may plan and execute similar attacks. Some criminal actors, meanwhile, are using drones to smuggle drugs across the border or into prisons, or otherwise to support their nefarious enterprises. These incidents, as well as others, including unauthorized flights over sports stadiums and in controlled airspace near airports—and even a crash onto the White House lawn—have exposed both the vulnerability of sensitive facilities and critical infrastructure to hostile or recklessly operated UAS, and serious shortcomings in the capabilities of law enforcement and national security agencies to address these threats. Rectifying this will require national security and law enforcement agencies to develop robust means of detecting, identifying, and countering hostile or threatening UAS by disrupting, seizing control of, or even destroying them.”

The U.S. military has already faced the drone danger abroad: Special Operations forces fighting to retake Mosul from ISIS in fall 2016 faced attacks by fleets of small drones carrying grenades and miniaturized explosives.

In 2019, a drone attack carried out by Iranian proxies struck major Saudi Arabian oil facilities.

Domestically, the DOD has limited authority to protect its assets in the U.S. from UAV threats. However, these authorities don’t apply to DHS and the Justice Department.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell with contributions from Lorelei Yang

(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / scanrail)

AKA

Protecting Critical Infrastructure Against Drones and Emerging Threats Act

Official Title

To require the Department of Homeland Security to prepare a terrorism threat assessment relating to unmanned aircraft systems, and for other purposes.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
    IntroducedSeptember 20th, 2019
    Now if you can treat our infrastructure with the same importance by allocating funds to fix it so that terrorist might actually feel that they are viable targets. Just a suggestion.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to study the threat of Donald Trump and Lindsey Graham to our national security.
    Like (72)
    Follow
    Share
    The actual threat is from domestic drone owners not foreign entities and a threat of that nature would fall under the responsibility of the FBI and the CIA. As far as regulating drone ownership and operation the FAA should investigate and license the operation of both industrial and personal use. Legislators tend to allude to terrorist in order to sensationalize the topic but most terrorist are domestic not foreign and most drone operators will be owned domestically by citizens or businesses here in the U.S.
    Like (41)
    Follow
    Share
    The FAA already addresses threats from drones of all sizes that can endanger in-flight aircraft along their flight path, and the part of the FAA that does this was already made part of DHS. Drones used for criminal intent are already part of FBI’s charter and weaponized drones are already being assessed by the military. So I am not sure why we need specific legislation to ask these folks to sit down and compare notes on occasion to generate an annual report. It would help each ‘agency’ in their primary missions do their job. I am concerned about making this a legislated directive which would be another excuse to make new ‘offices of’ and assigned staff for no particularly good reason. Further, the kinds of drones that could damage infrastructure or be weaponized have to have a payload capacity and battery life sufficient for sustained flight times to do meaningful damage. These are not the lower priced hobbyist/enthusiast drones and cost more than a couple hundred dollars. This is not a one-size-fits-all problem that requires legislation. If this legislation were to move forward, it will need to have some delineation regarding payload capacity, altitude limits, flight time, flight controller range, flight speed, programmability and maybe other pertinent factors. Drones that can be weaponized could become an infrastructure issue in the future and may need restrictions or licensing. I would not think that most hobbyist-class drones need to be included.
    Like (39)
    Follow
    Share
    No need to duplicate existing efforts (waste money)! “There are already various anti-drone efforts underway in both the executive branch and various federal agencies, so there’s no need to task DHS with more research on the topic.
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    No need for wasting money on duplicate efforts. Made yet ANOTHER account SneakyPeat/Dave/Steve? You are violating the TOS again. Don’t be shocked when you get banned. Again.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Has anyone stopped to think about the educational implications of all the recent restrictions on drones? Kids need to have hands on opportunities to learn, try and explore new technologies. Ron, if your going to ban everything that can be “weaponized” why don’t you start with toothpicks and caster beans.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill, without amendments, would stop Union members for being able to exercise their rights to picket during a strike. I highly disagree with this bill, unless amended to allow Union to exercise that protected activities during a labor dispute
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    Shouldn’t Homeland security study all perceived threats? Isn’t that kind of their job?
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    I don’t see any compelling reason to pursue this report, especially considering there are already similar actions in place. I’d rather see these resources go towards humanitarian aid abroad —bolstering our aid efforts abroad will help to reduce the threat of foreign terrorism in the future— or researching effective ways to neutralize home-grown terrorist threats.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Worrying about drones from foreign Terrorists is a waste of time & taxpayer money because internal terrorism is a much greater problem. Foreign terrorists aren’t shooting & killing children everyday. More people have been killed by American terrorists than soldiers overseas. American drone owners not foreign ones are the threat for our people. They would come under the responsibility of the FBI and the CIA. The FAA should be responsible for investigating and licensing the ownership & operation of drones being used for industrial & personal use. The republicans blame foreign terrorists so that they can sensationalize & spread misinformation that most terrorist are foreign when they are actually domestic. Drone operators will be citizens or businesses here in the U.S.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    The stupid, narcissistic drone in the White (Supremacy) House is the biggest threat to national security. No study needed!!
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a waste of taxpayer money. Soon the government will want to reduce our social security and Medicare, things that I have paid for for over 40 years, in order to pay for frivolous things like this.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    OPEN BORDERS are a THREAT To Nation Security- and Bills such as the DNC ‘New Way Forward ACT’ are a GRAVE Threat. The DNC want Votes at all costs- NOT a Safe Country!!
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    We do not need another agency to study drones & their threat to infrastructure. What we need is for those government entities to share amongst agencies the drone threats, who needs to respond and how. Agencies, send your best to share at a drone/GCS summit to plan and begin implementing protections. This should be done yearly, as the technology advances, the plan may change. You can do it!
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE has all n ecessary information on drones in terms of capacity, payload, as well as its impact on infrastructure!! Not only that but we have used drones extensively to know a lot more that the public will never know!! combining drones with limited nuclear devastation that is presently deployed in our submarines would force nations to surrender before Trump declares war on anybody!!WE ARE BECOMING A STATE TERRORISM LIKE THE WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE!!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    It would be cheaper to supply prison guards with shotgun nets to shoot down drones. Might even be more feasible to create and implement an automated jamming system that prevents drones from coming within a prescribed distance of specific structures. The US Government already has this capability, why research anything else?
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    I think we need to spend money on our infrastructure and investigate in the criminal in the people’s house.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Perhaps a review of programs already in place?
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Why does this administration just blow through money like it’s nothing? WTF ever happened to being fiscally conservative? The GOP just said fuck it when DickStain Donnie hijacked your party! Remember why you lost EVERYTHING on Election Day. Because you chose to follow your orange false prophet over the cliff! You’re all imbeciles who deserve what’s coming!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE