US Senate Version of NDAA Holds off DJI Ban

mark.pinskey · Friday at 10:05 AM

tstr14 said:
Perhaps some sanity has returned?

Senate version of NDAA holds off on DJI drone ban demand

From the article:

"The Senate’s decision to exclude the ban from its version of the NDAA reflects a more cautious approach toward the issue. DJI drones are widely used across various sectors — including agriculture, infrastructure, and public safety — and a sudden prohibition could disrupt ongoing projects and impede progress in critical areas.

Recently, representatives of more than 6,000 public safety agencies, police, and fire departments with drone programs across the US wrote to the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to oppose the inclusion of the Countering CCP Drones Act in the NDAA."

Amen

MS Coast · Friday at 10:18 AM

tstr14 said:
Is it a slur if it's true?

It is. It's not. Move along.

anotherlab · Friday at 12:12 PM

Wreckhunter said:
I am just reading the info on it on other sites,I myself do not know one way or the other if the bill was ever put in the senate version or was taken out.

If it (or any amendment) had been added to the bill, the senator who had proposed the amendment would have issued a press release.

tstr14 · Friday at 1:03 PM

MS Coast said:
It is. It's not. Move along.

I'd be happy to teach you how to use the ignore feature. It's not difficult.

MS Coast · Friday at 1:25 PM

tstr14 said:
I'd be happy to teach you how to use the ignore feature. It's not difficult.

You seem to be bothered that I said that it matters whether the drone "ban" was removed from the Senate version of the NDAA or whether there it was simply never a part of the the Senate version. The former would indicate some level of opposition in the Senate that might lead to its omission from the final version of the NDAA. Without Senate opposition, it seems likely that the ban will be added during the reconciliation of the two versions of the NDAA.

If you disagree, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts. It's good to know that you're familiar with the ignore feature; you may wish to use it if the removed v. never incorporated question disturbs you.

tstr14 · Friday at 1:28 PM

MS Coast said:
You seem to be bothered that I said that it matters whether the drone "ban" was removed from the Senate version of the NDAA or whether there it was simply never a part of the the Senate version. The former would indicate some level of opposition in the Senate that might lead to its omission from the final version of the NDAA. Without Senate opposition, it seems likely that the ban will be added during the reconciliation of the two versions of the NDAA.

If you disagree, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts. It's good to know that you're familiar with the ignore feature; you may wish to use it if the removed v. never incorporated question disturbs you.

You win. Take the internet, you earned it!

mavic3usa · Friday at 1:54 PM

I may be a little rusty on the process in Congress, likely because it slightly changes from time to time depending on the leadership. Seems to me the House is not beholden to the Senate and also the Senate is not beholden to the House. Sometimes bills start in the House, sometimes in the Senate. Both need to approve before the President can sign. If the House creates a bill, the Senate just can't chop it up and change things and then give it to the President because the Senate doesn't reign over the House (common known as The People); that isn't the law-making hierarchy. However, it could be true there may be rules about what is important and what is trivial and what constitutes fundamental changes, etc. Bottom line there is a process called reconciliation and how it is conducted is largely irrelevant until we see the process up close and in motion. The People have always been told you don't want to see how the sausage is made and this might be one of those times where committees are involved, rules are invoked, favors are given, steps are skipped, etc and it's probably best to observe and learn so we know what we are up against. There are too many factors that we just don't know about at this point especially when it comes to timing. Such is one of the many roles of advocacy organizations who we should depend on to keep us educated, grounded, and more importantly stay strong and committed, since we're all on the same team.

anotherlab · Friday at 2:19 PM

If a bill has been amended after going from one house to the other house, it goes back to the first house that originated the bill and they can either agree or disagree to what was changed. If they disagree, Congress can form a conference committee to resolve the differences. If they can't resolve the differences, the bill dies.

No one in Congress is going to let the NDAA die, or more importantly, no one wants to be on the side that lets the bill die. or stumble in an election year. Stefanik's amendment was never about espionage, it was always political theater to enhance her chances of being asked to run for higher office. She could let that amendment die and still take credit for introducing it and getting it passed in the House.

At least that is one train of thought. She's gone off the rails before, she could decide to run the crazy train to the end of the line.

MS Coast · Friday at 2:41 PM

There's a thunderstorm moving in, so checking the update I just did on the Mini 4 Pro is on hold. So, a quick Internet search turned up two entertaining videos on how bills become law in the U.S. The first, from the 70s series Schoolhouse Rock (teachers loved it) lays out the by-the-book process. The second is from a 1996 Simpsons episode and provides a more cynical, and possibly more accurate, explanation. And I ran across this more detailed educational video, but didn't have the patience or curiosity to get through 15+ minutes. They're cartoons, but the first and third were widely used in schools and apparently accurate.

Does anyone know if the Senate version of the NDAA was created separately from the House version or whether it used the House version as a starting point? One page I saw suggests that the Senate took the House version and carved out all the non-defense add-ons, like the drone ban.

mavic3usa · Friday at 3:21 PM

MS Coast said:
There's a thunderstorm moving in, so checking the update I just did on the Mini 4 Pro is on hold. So, a quick Internet search turned up two entertaining videos on how bills become law in the U.S. The first, from the 70s series Schoolhouse Rock (teachers loved it) lays out the by-the-book process. The second is from a 1996 Simpsons episode and provides a more cynical, and possibly more accurate, explanation. And I ran across this more detailed educational video, but didn't have the patience or curiosity to get through 15+ minutes. They're cartoons, but the first and third were widely used in schools and apparently accurate.

Does anyone know if the Senate version of the NDAA was created separately from the House version or whether it used the House version as a starting point? One page I saw suggests that the Senate took the House version and carved out all the non-defense add-ons, like the drone ban.

This is a good summary overview of the NDAA:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10515#

Starz · Friday at 3:37 PM

You guys are great!
Keep up the”picking”.
Fun read.

Dave Pitman · Friday at 10:59 PM

MS Coast said:
I've seen Skydio blamed for the bill in the House, but I've seen no evidence of that, just allegations and rumors. Do you have anything concrete?

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik is the author of the house bill. Her former advisor on national security, Joe Bartlett, is the current Director of Federal Policy at Skydio. Most don't think this is a coincidence.

Recently, Skydio's CEO Adam Bry testified before a congress select committee more or less advocating for the ban. Although he has said that Skydio had nothing to do with the legislation.
Commentary:

Full testimony:

There is various other evidence that I don't have links to right now.