Earlier this month Rep. Jackson-Lee (D,TX) introduced HR 54, the Department
of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity Asset Protection of Infrastructure under
Terrorist Attack Logistical Structure or CAPITALS Act. The bill would
require DHS to conduct a study on the feasibility of establishing a Department
of Homeland Security Civilian Cyber Defense National Resource.
Cyber Defense National Resource
There are no details in the bill about how such a resource
would be organized or funded. The only thing that is clear is that this
resource would be separate from any military organization (including the
National Guard). There is nothing in the bill that would address whether or not
the force would be able to address control system security issues.
The study required in this bill is very similar to the Cyber
National Guard study required in HR
60 introduced last session by Jackson-Lee. The only substantial differences
are the change in the agency responsible for the study (the HR 60 study was to
be conducted by the Director of National Intelligence) and the name of the
organization (HR 60 called it the Cyber Defense National Guard).
Section 2(b)(8) of the bill specifically directs the study
to include a look at the impact of having substantial numbers of the ‘resource’
not having “military, intelligence, law enforcement, or government work
experience”. This does raise questions about the source of personnel for such
an organization and how much training in cybersecurity would be a pre-requisite
for membership in the organization.
Moving Forward
The changes in the bill did have a practical political
effect on the bill. HR 60 had been referred to the House Intelligence Committee
for consideration. Since the new study and organization would be a DHS action,
HR 54 has been referred to the House Homeland Security Committee and it’s Cybersecurity,
Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies Subcommittee. Ms.
Jackson-Lee is an influential Democrat on both the Committee and Subcommittee.
Since the bill only requires the conduct of a study and authorizes no funds for
that study and subsequent report, there appears to be no substantial impediment
to this bill being considered.
I suspect that the changes made to this bill indicate that
Jackson-Lee is seriously interested in seeing the bill passed. I suspect that
we will see this bill considered by the Committee in the coming months. I would
not be surprised to see the bill make it to the floor under the suspension of
rules process where it would probably pass with substantial bipartisan support.
No comments:
Post a Comment