Committee adopts drone-technology controls and moves companion foreign-ownership bill into substitute SB 9

The Kansas House committee debated and amended a pair of bills addressing national-security concerns: a drone-technology bill (House Bill 2293) restricting acquisition of certain drone components from "countries of concern," and a companion real-property bill (House Bill 2290) that would bar foreign principals from acquiring interests in specified real property near military installations and prevent them from receiving economic-development incentives.

The Revisor described HB 2293 as prohibiting acquisition of critical drone components from identified countries and as also relating to procurement of finished goods by state agencies. The Revisor noted the bills use a defined term "country of concern" and set out proposed enforcement and reporting requirements.

Committee members debated and adopted several amendments to refine definitions and limits. Lawmakers removed a broader Section 2 from HB 2293 after discussion, and they added language expanding the bill—6s definition of "critical component." Representative Williams (motioner) proposed adding clarity that a "critical component" includes any software installed in a drone or any device used to support drone operations; the amendment was expanded to explicitly include network devices and was adopted after Revisor confirmation of scope. Revisor Reimer explained that the definition already referenced "software installed in a drone," and the amendment made the language explicit and allowed the Revisor technical discretion to refine text.

Committee members discussed the operational mechanics that create vulnerabilities: updates and network links between drones, phones or other controllers and remote servers. "The drone will not operate until you update it," Vice Chair Turk said in discussion of the security risk posed by automatic updates and remote servers.

On the companion bill, HB 2290, committee members debated a proposed amendment from Representative Hsu that would have required the attorney general to issue a warning and provide a three-month window for remediation before mandating divestment by foreign principals already owning qualifying property. Hsu said the measure aimed to avoid unduly punishing immigrant-owned businesses or residents who inadvertently had not registered. The committee divided on that amendment and it failed on a division call.

Committee members also discussed enforcement mechanics: the bills assign investigative and enforcement authority to the attorney general, but legislators raised practical questions about how title companies, closing agents or the state would detect qualifying foreign principals given complex ownership chains. Revisor Reimer and members noted those enforcement concerns would require secondary processes and that the bills as amended left enforcement to the attorney general.

At the end of the session the committee approved a motion to remove the contents of Senate Bill 9 and substitute the amended contents of House Bill 2293 and House Bill 2290 into SB 9, creating a House substitute bill for Senate Bill 9; Vice Chair Turk moved the substitution and Representative Penn seconded. The committee—6s motion to create a substitute bill passed by voice vote.

Taken together, the committee adopted targeted changes to the drone definition (expanding "critical component" to include software, devices and networked devices used in support of drone operations), declined to adopt a statutory three-month remediation period for existing owners, and instructed the Revisor to prepare a substitute bill that combines the two companion measures into SB 9 for further consideration.