Bill Overview
Title: Protecting the Border from Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to work with the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of Defense to develop a strategy for a unified posture on counter-unmanned aircraft systems capabilities and protections at certain facilities at or near a U.S. international border (generally, facilities or assets considered high-risk or a potential target and that are related to certain DHS or DOJ missions).
Sponsors: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Target Audience
Population: People working in or living around border facilities targeted by UAS strategies
Estimated Size: 2
- The bill pertains to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and their use near U.S. international borders.
- It will primarily impact those working in or around border security operations.
- Local populations near borders might be indirectly affected if these systems are used or limited.
- Any change in border security operations could influence the broader population's safety.
- DHS, DOJ, FAA, and Department of Defense personnel will be directly involved in policy changes.
- Potential economic impacts on businesses involved in UAS technology development and deployment can be expected.
- The overall national security could show an impact, thus indirectly affecting all citizens.
Reasoning
- The population most directly impacted by this policy includes individuals working in or around border facilities, particularly those involved with border security operations.
- Given the specific budget implications, only a certain subset of U.S. citizens or companies involved with UAS technology would see notable impacts.
- Other populations indirectly affected might include communities near the border, who could experience enhanced safety perceptions.
- There may be economic impacts on businesses involved in UAS technology development, though this is likely limited to the scale of government contracts versus total industry.
- It is unlikely that most U.S. citizens will experience a direct impact on their day-to-day life unless they live near the borders.
- Given these constraints, the simulated interviews focus mostly on those directly and tangentially involved or impacted by UAS near borders.
Simulated Interviews
Border Patrol Agent (San Diego, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will bolster our capabilities to identify and manage unmanned aircraft threats, which is crucial for our operations.
- The focus on working with various departments could streamline operations and improve our safety measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
DHS Employee (El Paso, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Integrating these advanced systems is necessary and timely, given the rising national security threats.
- This will also mean more resources for training and tech adoption, which supports job growth in my field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Local Business Owner (Nogales, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about potential disruptions during initial policy rollout.
- Long-term safety improvements could boost local business if they bring more tourists and customers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
UAS Technology Developer (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might boost opportunities for my company as DHS looks to enhance capabilities.
- We anticipate increased demand for our systems, which can lead to growth and job creation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
FAA Inspector (Brownsville, TX)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should reinforce our existing safety protocols and align multiple agencies under one framework.
- Coordination is key, and this represents a necessary step towards comprehensive management of drone threats.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, DC)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From a policy perspective, though resource-intensive, this strategy is crucial to maintaining border security innovatively.
- Long-term benefits might outweigh the immediate financial burden.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (McAllen, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen many changes over the years; improving security with new tech could be beneficial.
- However, I'm wary of increased government spending with unclear results.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Laredo, TX)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a step towards sophisticated security operations aligning more closely with technological advancements.
- I'm interested to see the long-term data on how these systems affect both security and privacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Owner of UAS Manufacturing Firm (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could increase demand for our products, which would contribute to business growth.
- It's a competitive field, and this might open doors for innovation and improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While directly outside my industry scope, tighter security aligns with my views on responsible drone usage.
- It could lead to broader adoption of our safety solutions if standards become more stringent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $65000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $68000000 (Low: $53000000, High: $86000000)
Year 3: $72000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $90000000)
Year 5: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Coordination among multiple agencies may present logistical challenges and require significant resources.
- The extent of technological development and deployment will heavily influence cost and efficacy.
- Potential privacy concerns related to surveillance technologies along borders.
- The balance between security enhancements and facilitating international trade and travel must be managed.