HR-9909-119
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Sponsored by Ronny Jackson (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would direct the Secretary of Defense to establish or designate one or more test and training corridors within the national airspace for small unmanned aircraft systems (drones) and counter-drone technologies. The corridors would support research, development, testing, evaluation, and military training on drones, anti-drone weapons (including lasers, microwave systems, and electronic warfare), and related software and payloads. The Secretary would be required to notify Congress within 90 days of establishing any corridor, including details on location, resources needed, and any agreements with other federal agencies.
Who benefits
Active-duty military personnel who would receive structured training on drone and counter-drone systems. Defense contractors and technology companies developing drone hardware, autonomy software, and counter-drone platforms. The broader U.S. military, which would gain faster pathways to field drone-enabled weapons. Communities near selected corridor sites that may see economic activity from construction and operations. Allied nations that benefit from U.S. military drone readiness. Academic and research institutions that may partner with DoD on testing activities.
Who is hurt
Landowners, pilots, and aviation operators near designated corridors who may face airspace restrictions or disruptions from GPS jamming, electronic warfare testing, and directed energy use. Civilian telecommunications users in corridor areas who could experience spectrum interference during testing. Communities near selected sites that may bear noise, safety, or environmental burdens from weapons testing. Foreign drone manufacturers who compete with U.S. firms that would benefit from accelerated domestic development. Taxpayers who would bear construction, personnel, and operational costs, though the bill does not specify an appropriation amount.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that adversaries — particularly China — have rapidly advanced drone capabilities, and that the U.S. military currently lacks dedicated, integrated corridors to test and train on the full spectrum of drone and counter-drone technologies under realistic conditions. They contend that fragmented testing across existing facilities slows time-to-field for critical systems, and that a dedicated corridor would accelerate the development of capabilities urgently needed on modern battlefields, as demonstrated by drone warfare in Ukraine and other recent conflicts.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a broad new infrastructure mandate without specifying funding levels, oversight mechanisms, or clear limits on disruptive testing activities — such as GPS jamming and electronic warfare — that could interfere with civilian aviation, communications, and navigation systems in surrounding areas. They contend that existing DoD test ranges and facilities may already be sufficient for these purposes, and that establishing new corridors without a rigorous cost-benefit analysis or environmental review risks duplicating resources and imposing unexamined burdens on nearby communities.