Chuck Grassley Asks DHS Official How Expanding State Counter-Drone Powers Would 'Enhance Public Safety'

Forbes Breaking News

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing prior to the congressional recess, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked Deputy Director for the Department of Homeland Security's Counter-UAS Program, Steven Willoughby about granting greater anti-drone authority to local and state law enforcement.

Transcript

00:00Can you hear me now? I can get closer, I bet. We got on the Democrat side disorder, Durbin,

00:25Klobuchar, Blumenthal on the Republican side, Grassley, Cornyn, Blackburn, Britt, Moody,

00:33Schmidt, and Hawley. I'll start. Five-minute rounds. Mr. Willoughby, we all know the federal

00:43government can't be everywhere at once, so please tell us how expanded counter-drone authority for

00:51state and local law enforcement would support your department's efforts and enhance overall public

00:57safety. Yes, thank you, Chairman, for the question. Really, as you mentioned, the federal presence

01:04is limited in its capacity, and we require participation from state and local tribal and

01:09territorial law enforcement entities to provide the security within their local and state jurisdictions.

01:15As Mr. Torfey mentioned, there are tens of thousands of events nationwide that go unprotected

01:22from the threat of UAS, and the state and locals within those jurisdictions are ultimately responsible

01:28for protecting games, whether it's a college football game in Iowa or an airport in Chicago.

01:35You know, the state and locals, again, are the primary first responders to prevent and respond to

01:41an incident. And giving them the authority to detect and potentially mitigate drones would enhance our

01:46collective ability as law enforcement and public safety officials to deter and defend against those

01:52types of threats. Okay. Mr. Hardy, drones continue to proliferate, as we know. We need to ensure that

02:00our criminal laws keep pace with technology. Can you identify a few major gaps in our criminal code or

02:08other laws that need to be addressed to keep up with the emerging threat?

02:13Thank you, Senator. As I indicated in my statement, we have supported your past legislation,

02:21the Drone Act, which covers some of the key areas that we view as gaps. The first would be

02:27weaponization of drones. Currently, it is generally a civil offense to weaponize a drone. We believe there

02:33should be a more comprehensive approach to that, and it should be a felony. The second area is

02:38prohibiting knowingly flying drones into protected airspace. That is also now a misdemeanor. Even

02:45taking photos of a sensitive DOD facility is a misdemeanor. So that is an area that we also believe

02:50should be addressed in additional criminal laws. The third area is the using of drones to interfere

02:56with aircraft, airports, vessels, and vehicles. There's currently fragmentary coverage now in the

03:03criminal code, and the penalties are generally inadequate. The fourth, which is also addressed in your

03:10past legislation, would be using drones to transport contraband into places like prisons. That is an

03:16increasing threat and a risk, and we're seeing it on more and more cases of that across the country.

03:22Fifth area would be criminalizing or making a felony the impairment of drone identification information. That's going to be a

03:30foundation for integrating drones into the U.S. airspace. And then the last area would be

03:35using drones to impair with emergency response activities. That's another area where the criminal

03:41code is fragmentary. There are some provisions for interfering with wildlife suppression operations

03:46or others, but it's not comprehensively addressed, and the penalties are generally inadequate. So those are the

03:52main areas, and those reflect your good work in the past legislation, and we're willing to work with you

03:59and the rest of the committee to scope those provisions and ensure that we do it appropriately

04:04and cover all the different areas that we really need to cover. Thank you.

04:07Mr. Torfey, some privacy advocates suggest that law enforcement should be required to secure a warrant prior to

04:16detecting or mitigating a drone that may threaten public safety. Speaking from your hands-on experience,

04:24is this a reasonable suggestion? If not, why not?

04:29Thank you for the question, Chairman. Unfortunately, that is not a reality,

04:35realistic possibility in the actual operations. Our operators have often mere seconds to determine

04:42whether a drone presents a credible threat. The warrant requirement would also require specificity

04:49of the target that we are attempting to detect, track, identify, and potentially mitigate,

04:54and we do not know that in advance, right? We are a safety net. Our operations,

04:59our personnel and equipment, serve as that last-ditch safety net to protect special events

05:06and other cover facilities. So that is not a realistic expectation.

05:13Mr. Willoughby, can you describe your department's process of coordinating with

05:18federal aviation administration and other agencies to ensure that counter-drone resources

05:24are employed safely and responsibly? And then that'll be my last question.

05:29Absolutely. Every piece of equipment for every deployment at every bespoke location

05:35is coordinated directly with the FAA and potentially with the NTIA or FCC as appropriate.

05:42It's important for us to maintain that close coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration

05:46because our security efforts must go hand-in-hand with the protection of the NAS

05:51and to be good stewards of the commercial air traffic and the others that are operating in the airspace.

05:56It's critical that we maintain that relationship, the framework for which was developed

06:00as part of the 2018 Preventing Emerging Threats Act, and we hope to continue that framework

06:07in the event that our authority is extended and then also expanded to others.

06:12We expect them to be held to the same standard.

06:14Thank you all for answering my questions. Senator Rubin.

06:18Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

06:19Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended