[国会记录第158卷，第98号（2012年6月27日星期三）] [House] [页面H4135-H4151]运输，住房和城市发展，以及相关机构拨款法案，2013年[...]先生提供的修正案。Burgess Burgess先生。主席先生，我在办公桌上有修正案。代理主席。职员将报告修正案。职员阅读如下：在短头衔前的条例草案结束时，插入以下内容：秒。__。该法案中没有任何可用的资金可以由交通部秘书授权一个人 - （1）在国家空域系统中经营无人驾驶的飞机系统，以全部或部分地使用无人驾驶飞机系统作为武器或向某人或财产提供武器;或（2）制造，销售或分配无人机系统，或其组件，用于国家空域系统作为武器，或者将武器交给人或财产。 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa reserves a point of order. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of discussion about the use of unmanned aircraft, commonly referred to as drones, in United States airspace, and rightfully so. Beginning with the FAA reauthorization bill which passed this House earlier in the year, the expansion of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in the continental United States was expanded. Arguably, this was a useful expansion because we have vast areas of our border which are difficult to monitor. Sometimes there are search and rescue occurrences that happen in rough terrain where an unmanned aerial vehicle may be indispensable. But since that time, there has been a growing body of people who have been concerned about the effect of allowing these unmanned aerial vehicles the ability to surveil citizens. There has also been talk about the EPA using it to monitor herd size and the grazing habits of farmers. These are questions that are going to need to be answered. But in recent weeks, I have become aware of some discussion that in certain police jurisdictions they were talking about an army of unmanned aerial vehicles to assist in law enforcement. Maybe that's something that's worthwhile to consider, but I can't help but feel that a step taken that far is something that this body should consider. While I appreciate the subcommittee chairman's concern about legislating on an appropriations bill, we're in new territory. We're in uncharted territory, and this amendment is a first-aid maneuver. It is to place a bandage, if you will, on a growing problem to see if we can't stop and have the discussion before the Secretary spends money authorizing the use of armed unmanned aerial vehicles. No one disputes in war zones and in battle space the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle. An armed unmanned aerial vehicle is incredibly useful. No one argues the utility of these unmanned aircraft in that situation. All I would say is that before we allow that to be occurring in our backyards, on our highways and byways, we need to consider the effects of that. Are we, in fact, ensuring the constitutional rights of the people who not just are being surveilled, but who may be being controlled by the armaments that would be present in these weaponized vehicles? My amendment would prevent the Secretary of Transportation, the head of the FAA, from approving any application to use an unmanned aircraft in the United States airspace for the purpose of arming or weaponizing that aircraft. It does not affect the surveillance question. So surveillance drone applications certainly, if they are authorized, may go forward. Nor does it affect weaponized drones that are operating outside the United States airspace. The amendment that I offer today is preemptive. As to my knowledge, no actual applications have been filed with the FAA to use armed drones in U.S. airspace. But I believe it is necessary, as there has been some discussion in the public media about the ability to arm unmanned aerial vehicles. I personally believe this is a road down which we should not travel. It is the old argument of sacrificing safety for security, and ultimately achieving neither objective. I think this is an amendment that would be well advised by this body to consider this evening. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it if it is allowed to stand, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue on my reservation, and I move to strike the last word. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LATHAM. I want to thank the gentleman. Unfortunately, for consistency, we're going to have to pursue the point of order. This issue has been brought to my attention. I've expressed concerns myself as to how information is used. Certainly, we want to make sure that we're very careful as far as privacy issues in this country, the way that these things may be used for purposes that no one quite understands or intended to have happen. While I share your concerns, for consistency reasons here, I must insist on my point of order. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member. [[Page H4144]] Mr. OLVER. I will be very brief. I serve on the Homeland Security Subcommittee for Appropriations, and I don't think that the Homeland Security authorizers have done anything along these lines, and that's where it really ought to be dealt with, I would think. So I will agree with what you're doing. Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. LATHAM. I would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. BURGESS. Here is the problem. It was a simple line in the FAA reauthorization bill. We were all happy when we reauthorized the FAA. It hadn't been done in some 26 attempts--``the dog ate my homework,'' we got IOUs and extensions on the FAA. But then here was this very simple language allowing for the expansion of unmanned aerial vehicles in the national airspace. None of us really thought that was much of a problem, but our constituents are bringing it back to us. They are concerned about privacy, and they're concerned about Federal agencies surveilling normal activities of commerce in which people may be engaged. But then we have gone one step further. If these drones are weaponized, you can--if you've been surveilled unfairly, you can go to court and perhaps seek a remedy. But if a bullet is fired from one of these platforms, you don't have any remedy if you're the recipient of that bullet. All I'm asking is that we take all due care and caution, and exercise all due care and caution. We are entering a Brave New World here, and it is incumbent upon every one of us to be certain we do so with all care and caution before we proceed. I appreciate the gentleman allowing me to express my thoughts on this amendment. I wish it could stand. I wish we could vote on it this evening. I understand for consistency why he is insisting on his point of order. But we're going to have to revisit this. H.R. 5950 is standalone legislation that would prohibit this activity. I encourage Members of Congress to look into cosponsoring that. {time} 2140 Mr. LATHAM. Reclaiming my time, let me just say, in the authorization of the FAA, their specific role was air traffic concerns that they may have safety concerns, collisions with other aircraft. I agree with the gentleman, it should probably be a Homeland Security issue. I also serve on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations. It has not been brought up in that. I do share your concerns. But unfortunately, I must insist on my point of order. Point of Order Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties and requires a new determination. I ask for a ruling of the Chair. The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination regarding the end use of certain aircraft systems and their components. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order. [...]