Often useful to look at a question without “terrorism!”.
A drone flown over one’s own property could be ‘regulated’ like a dog: an id number and owner on record. Maybe you’’d put up “beware of drone” signs. The idea is just for normal insurance purposes. In a rural area like mine anyone would know whose drone it is, but in semi-rural areas a drone could cause damage and the owner may not be identifiable.
A drone used in other’s airspace though would have to be treated like a plane. Transponder, license, insurance, pilot’s license... could skip the physical at least.
These measures also address “terrorism!” requirements to a significant degree.
She mentions tracking the control source. Seems a reasonable request off hand.
Larger drones require extensive FAA permission to operate, including in most cases an individual authorization to fly in a limited area.
The idea that the government can't track a radio source in a law enforcement or counter terrorism situation is a ridiculous assertion. They can do just that, and often do. Why do you think there is an industry that makes fake cell phone transmitters that nearby cell phones connect with instead of the actual cell phone towers? Those devices are only sold to government agencies.
Read about the Harris Stingray as one example. Also, the FCC regularly locates radio emitters operating outside of its regulations.
I suspect we are seeing the usual Beltway "concern" about something that some bureaucrat and his federal contractor buddies want to get paid a lot of money to "study".