PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Mar 16, 2026
Wildfire Aerial Response Safety Act
This bill directs the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to study the effects of unmanned aircraft system (i.e., drone) incursions on wildfire suppression on public lands.
Specifically, the FAA must study drone operations in any airspace for which the FAA issued a temporary flight restriction because of a wildfire on land managed by the Departments of Agriculture or the Interior. Among other things, the study must determine the number of occurrences over the last five years in which a drone incursion interfered with wildfire suppression and estimate the effects of each occurrence.
The study must also evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of (1) deploying counter-drone systems to detect, mitigate, and prevent drone incursions during wildfire suppression operations; and (2) disseminating educational materials related to the effects of the incursions on wildfire suppression operations.
The FAA must submit a report to Congress on the study's findings and any related recommendations.
People & committees
Rep. Bynum, Janelle S. [D-OR-5] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2654)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6618.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2654-2655)
Mr. Taylor moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 471.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-548.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-548.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Oct 7, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6618 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6618 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6618 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6618 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.