Earlier in the lame duck session Rep. McCaul (R,TX)
introduced HR 6381,
the ‘DHS Reform and Improvement Act. This is essentially a DHS
authorization bill, except that it only specifically authorizes funds for some
of the programs described in the bill, not for the Department as a whole. The
bill has been cobbled together from a wide variety of previously introduced
(and in some cases amended) bills.
The bill is as wide ranging as is the coverage of DHS.
Sections within this bill that may be of specific interest to readers of this
blog include:
Sec. 101. Drone assessment and
analysis;
Sec. 212. Transportation Worker
Identification Credential waiver and appeals process;
Sec. 533. Medical Countermeasures
Program;
Sec. 601. Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Protection Agency;
Sec. 701. Improving cybersecurity
risk assessments, information sharing, and Coordination;
Sec. 702. Cybersecurity
enhancements to maritime security activities;
Sec. 703. Vulnerability assessments
and security plans;
Sec. 801. Authorization of the
National Computer Forensics Institute of the Department of Homeland Security;
Sec. 901. CBRNE Office;
Sec. 902. Chemical Division;
Sec. 1901. [Cybersecurity] Information
sharing;
Sec. 1902. Homeland security [cybersecurity]
grants;
Sec. 2101. Cybersecurity research
and development projects;
Sec. 3001. State and local
coordination on cybersecurity with the National Cybersecurity and Communications
Integration Center;
Sec. 3231. Surface Transportation
Inspectors; and
Sec. 3234. Security training for
frontline transportation workers;
I am not going to attempt to describe the provisions of all
of the above sections; I’ve dealt with each of them in discussing their source
legislation. Suffice to say there is nothing new here and I have not been able
to find any significant changes in any of the provisions.
It looks like McCaul is making one last attempt to get
Congress to address all of these homeland security issues. Addressing the
individual bills piecemeal in the lame duck session is simply not possible,
even under suspension of the rules. There is a remote chance that this bill
could be considered, but first McCaul has to convince nine other Committee
Chairs to sign-off on the bill before it comes to the floor.
I suspect that the bill could pass with some bipartisan
support. The question is whether or not there is enough bipartisan support to
allow the bill to be considered under suspension of the rules. If not, the bill
is unlikely to be considered in the House and would never be considered in the Senate
before the end of the session.
No comments:
Post a Comment