HR 4402 Introduced – Inland Waterways Threats

Last week Rep. Lesko (R,AZ) introduced HR 4402, the Inland Waters Security Review Act. The bill would require DHS to report to Congress on the current and potential threats to the United States posed by individuals and groups seeking to enter the US via inland waterways.

Threat Analysis

In preparing for the report to Congress, DHS would be required to conduct a threat analysis that includes {§3(a)}:

• Current and potential terrorism and criminal threats posed by individuals and groups;

• Security challenges at United States inland waters ports;

• Security mitigation efforts with respect to the inland waters; and

• Vulnerabilities related to cooperation be13 tween State, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement, or international agreements, that hinder effective security, counterterrorism, anti-trafficking efforts, and the flow of legitimate trade with respect to inland waters.

Moving Forward

Lesko is the Ranking Member of the Transportation and Maritime Security Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that she is likely influential enough to have this bill considered in Committee. Since this is a ‘report to Congress’ bill, there is nothing in the bill that should engender any significant opposition. If the bill were considered in Committee or moved to the floor of the House, I suspect that it would receive significant bipartisan support.

Commentary

It is clear from the language that Lesko is looking for information concerning persons and material entering the US via the inland waterways. For instance, in the paragraph referencing security challenges, the bill specifies {§3(a)(2)} that the analysis look at:

• Terrorism and instruments of terror entering the United States; and

• Criminal activity, as measured by the total flow of illegal goods and illicit drugs, related to the inland waters.

These concerns are certainly important and worthy of analysis and reporting. The bill, however, appears to ignore completely the need for analysis of the potential for attacks against inland waterway infrastructure or critical facilities existing along the shoreline of inland waterways. To be fair, there is one brief mention {§3(a)(1)(B)} of the need to look at people or groups seeking to “exploit security vulnerabilities on inland waters.” But, given all of the other references to ‘entering’ and ‘total flow’ the impression is clear that Lesko is concerned with inland waterways as a route into the country (a seriously legitimate concern) not waterways as critical infrastructure.

This could be remedied by inserting a new §3(a)(1)(B) between the two existing sub-paragraphs that would read:

“(B) attack critical infrastructure of, and/or along, inland waterways, or”

There is one odd administrative matter in this bill that provides some insight into the intra-committee conflicts in the House. In the definition of ‘appropriate Congressional Committees’ {§2(1)} three committees are listed:

• The Homeland Security Committee of the House of Representatives;

• The Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee of the Senate; and

• The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee of the Senate.

Presumably the Senate CS&T Committee was added because of it’s oversight of the Coast Guard, the agency which would presumably provide most of the information and analysis required for the report. The Committee which is responsible for that in the House is the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Failure to include that Committee in the definition is part and parcel of the ongoing attempt by the Homeland Security Committee (under both Republican and Democratic leadership) solidify its place as the sole arbiter of security oversight in the House. While I agree that there is just too much splitting of security oversight in both bodies, the inclusion of the Senate transportation oversight body and not the House committee is just petty.