Legislation is unnecessary when it addresses a situation that does not exist, or it is duplicative of existing law. There is legislation pending in Congress today that addresses a national security situation that has been created out of thin air. Furthermore, the legislation is protectionist and an attempt to shield inferior products from competition abroad. Congress does not have the time to tackle mythical national security threats when there are real ones that go unaddressed every day.
Legislation intended to protect and boost domestically manufactured, less technologically advanced drones has been introduced titled the American Security Drone Act. This legislation intended to restrict the use of foreign-made drones will not do anything to protect our national security. Instead, it will limit choice in the market and harm American businesses and the many government users of drones. The bottom line is that national security is a pretext for the real reason for this legislation – to promote American-made drones that are not as popular as their Chinese manufactured counterparts.
The story of the drone industry in America is a tale of innovation and success. What originally were toys flown alongside model aircraft quickly became a tool for American ingenuity. Today, drones are used by hundreds of thousands of professionals in real estate, filmmaking, agriculture, construction, energy, education, and beyond. Law enforcement and fire agencies across the country, too, have embraced drones as a new way to enhance situational awareness. These professionals and public safety officials have taken this new technology and wielded it to great success, achieving new heights both figuratively and literally.
Unfortunately, some seek to throw a wrench into this success. Chairman of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Joe Courtney (D-CT) have teamed up to introduce the bill which Congress has repeatedly rejected before. It’s based on a misunderstanding of the capabilities of the most popular drones on the market. According to supporters of the legislation, it “prohibits federal departments and agencies from operating or procuring any covered unmanned aircraft system manufactured or assembled by covered foreign entities.” The prohibition risks taking equipment out of the hands of the men and women that depend on these drones for everything from research to disaster recovery to saving lives while punishing the small businesses that make up the American drone industry.
Once you peel back the new McCarthyism fearmongering it is clear that this legislation is a pointless measure that will do nothing to advance America’s national security interests. Even a cursory review of the legislation and its carve outs, exemptions and waivers show that this is not about cybersecurity or data integrity but rather protectionism and corporate welfare for a handful of U.S drone manufacturers. What ASDA will do is harm frontline first responders who, under the bill’s provisions, will be subject to a case-by-case waiver process for coordinating with federal agencies. Clearly, the legislation’s sponsors think that when lives are on the line and communities are at risk, that is a good time to trigger a multi-agency review and approval process. The other group that gets wiped out by ASDA are the hundreds of thousands of American small businesses that can no longer compete for federal contracts or grants just because they use a product manufactured in China. Our economy would crash if we applied the same logic to every product manufactured in China or using component parts. Just think about life without your iPhone.
The fact of the matter is that the most widely used drones, from manufacturer DJI, have repeatedly been found to be secure for commercial and government users alike. One reason is that DJI drones have data security measures built in, and their drones can fly with no internet connection, with users controlling how data is stored or transmitted. Users can even disable the DJI flight application and opt for software developed by U.S companies instead. The body of evidence that these drones are secure includes independent validations by outside analysts and government agencies including the Department of Commerce and the Idaho National Laboratory. Yet supporters of the American Security Drone Act have yet to show any actual evidence to the contrary, to support their claim that these drones are not in fact secure.
Congress has repeatedly rejected adding similar protectionist measures for American drone companies in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This was the right move in the past, but unfortunately, as bilateral relations continue to sour, country of origin bans and restrictions on the use of foreign-made drones are once again the flavor of the day for those who want to look tough on China.
Congress should again reject this protectionist and unfounded piece of legislation and avoid unintended consequences for first responders and the American businesses who have flourished in the existing drone market.
Steve Sherman is an author, radio commentator, and former Iowa House candidate. His articles have appeared nationally in both print and online.
Read Full Article »