Conference Committee Finishes Final Version of FY 2026 NDAA – S 1071

Yesterday the House Rules Committee updated their meeting notice for their Tuesday meeting to include S 1071 as the vehicle for the final version of FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. The Rules Committee web site provides the text of the new NDAA. The Committee will meet tomorrow to formulate the rule for the consideration of the bill. I would expect it to be a closed rule, with limited debate, no further amendments, and a simple majority vote requirement. There should be significant bipartisan support for the bill.

Originally, S 1071 passed in the Senate as “A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disinter the remains of Fernando V. Cota from Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery, Texas, and for other purposes”. According to a press release from Sen Cruz’ office, Cota was a convicted rapist that was interred in the Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery. The text from the Senate passed bill has been included in the final conference version of the bill as §8806.

The bill now includes:

DIVISION E—Department of State Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026,

DIVISION F – Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026,

DIVISION G – Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025, and

TITLE LXXXVI – Securing the airspace, facilitating emergency response, and safeguarding key infrastructure, entertainment venues, and stadiums.

I will have more details in subsequent posts.

Review – S 524 Passed in Senate – CG Authorization 2025

Yesterday, the Senate took up S 524, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025 under the unanimous consent process and approved the bill without opposition. S 524 was introduced by Sen Cruz (R,TX) last month. The bill is very similar (all of the same sections in both bills) to S 5468 that was introduced by Sen Cantwell (D,WA) in the closing days of the 118^th Congress, so it is obvious that the bill has had the support of the staff and leadership of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. It has also been carefully crafted to avoid controversial provisions that would draw opposition to its consideration.

The bill includes one section addressing a relatively minor cybersecurity issue and one title addressing oil pollution response issues, one of potential interest here. No other provisions in the 437-page bill are of specific interest.

Moving Forward  

There has not yet been a Coast Guard Authorization bill introduced in the House this year. This may increase the likelihood that the House could take up this bill. If this bill has coordinated with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee there is a chance that the bill could be considered in the House under the suspension of the rules process as there does not appear to be anything in the bill that would draw organized opposition to the bill. If such coordination has not taken place, then this bill stagnate until the House Committee crafts their own version of the CG authorization bill, at which point S 524 will be ignored.

 

For more details about the provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-524-passed-in-senate - subscription required.

HR 7659 Passed in House – 2024 CG Authorization

This evening the House considered HR 7659, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2024 under the suspension of the rules process. After about 27 minutes of debate (and a 30 minute recess) the House voted to pass the bill by strong bipartisan vote of 376 to 16. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.

Moving Forward

This is one of those bills that, in recent years, has typically been pasted onto one of the omnibus spending bills that have so enraged conservatives. Part of the reason is that while this bill is important, it is probably not politically important enough to take up the time of the Senate to consider it under regular order, especially with the approaching election. The 15 radical republican votes against the bill in the House probably means that the Senate would not be able to consider the bill under the unanimous consent process, one or more of their Senate compatriots would object.

I have not yet seen a CG authorization bill for 2024 introduced in the Senate, but I am relatively certain that Sen Cantwell (D,WA), Chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. would propose substitute language if the bill were considered in the Senate. They would go through the three-cloture motion process that that body went through with the recent FAA bill. And it would be slowed down by the same wrangling over adding non-germane amendments that in recent years has slowed down progress so much in the Senate.

While the FAA is more intertwined with the commerce of this country (almost every county has an airport, there are many fewer ports or Coast Guard Stations), the CG is still an important part of the economy, and it needs to be reauthorized. So, the Senate leadership will probably find a way to get this bill considered, and hopefully before the August recess.

Review – HR 7659 Introduced – CG Authorization

Back in March, Rep Graves introduced HR 7659, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2024. On March 20^th, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a markup hearing that included HR 7659. Graves proposed substitute language for the bill in that hearing, which the Committee adopted by a vote of 53 to 3. On May 8^th, 2024 the Committee published their report (not yet available from the GPO) on the bill. The House is scheduled to take up HR 7659 tomorrow under the suspension of the rules process.

Bill Overview

This review will use the reported version of the bill for simplicities sake.

Sections of potential interest here:

§ 207 Report on establishment of unmanned systems capabilities office.

§ 401 Vessel response plans.

§ 404 Online incident reporting system.

Moving Forward

As mentioned above, the House is scheduled to take up the bill tomorrow. With 14 bills on the calendar, it is very likely that a final vote will not be held until sometime Wednesday. The leadership expects bipartisan support for the legislation, with sufficient support to receive the super majority required for passage under the suspension of the rules process.

 

For more details about the sections of interest, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-7659-introduced - subscription required.

HR 2741 Markup – CG Authorization Act of 2023

Today, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee announced a markup hearing for HR 2741, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2023. The Committee will consider substitute language for the bill that adds a number of new sections. The hearing web page currently lists twenty amendments that will be considered during the markup.

I have not done a detailed review of the introduced version of HR 2741, but there is nothing listed in the bill’s Table of Contents that appears to be of specific interest in this blog. The substitute language adds a new §210 that would require the Coast Guard to establish an on-line application that would be used for “notification of an oil discharge or release of a hazardous substance”. It would also add a new TITLE IV -Oil Pollution Incident Liability, that modifies existing requirements for oil spill liability.

Of the twenty proposed amendments listed, three are potentially of interest here:

• Offered by Rep Rouzer (R,NC) Amends 46 USC 70011(b). Would prohibit “a representative of a government of country that the Secretary of State has determined has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism under section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) from visiting a facility for which a facility [MTSA] security plan is required under section 70103(c).

• Offered by Rep Webster (R,FL) Section 337. Report on establishment of an unmanned systems capabilities office. Includes interesting language authorizing counter UAS operations.

• Offered by Rep Perry (R,PA) 104 Adds: Section 337. Exemption from coastwise laws for vessels transporting liquefied natural gas.

There are some interesting ‘culture wars’ amendments, including one that would prohibit the Coast Guard from purchasing or supporting electric vehicles.

Committee Hearings – Week of 9-11-22

This week, with both the House and Senate in Washington, we have a fairly full hearing schedule, including control system cybersecurity, right-to-repair, CG authorization markup, and social media impact hearings.

Cybersecurity

On September 15^th, 2022 the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation of the House Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing on “Building on our Baseline: Securing Industrial Control Systems Against Cyberattacks”. The witness list includes:

• Eric Goldstein, CISA,

• Vergle Gipson, Idaho National Laboratories

This could end up being a fairly technical hearing. It will be interesting to see how well the staff prepares their principals for asking questions.

Right-to-Repair

On September 14^th, 2022 the Subcommittee on Underserved, Agricultural, and Rural Business Development of the House Small Business Committee will hold a hearing on “Right to Repair and What it Means for Entrepreneurs”. The witness list includes:

• Gay Gordon-Byrne, Digital Right to Repair Coalition,

• Brian Clark, The iGuys’ Tech Shop, LLC,

• Jim Gerritsen, Wood Prairie Family Farm, and

• Ken Taylor, Ohio Machinery Co.

Any action for relief will have to include changes to the copywrite law and that will not happen in the Small Business Committee.

Coast Guard Authorization

On September 14^th, 2020 the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will hold a markup hearing on “Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022” (the Committee web site lists the bill as ‘S.XXXX’ but S 4802 was introduced last week by Sen Cantwell (D,WA) the Committee Chair).

The hearing site includes a link to a committee draft of the bill (GPO version of S 4802 is not yet available). I have not conducted an in-depth review of the provisions, but it does include the following sections that may be of interest:

§231. Enhancing maritime cybersecurity.

§232. Establishment of unmanned system program and autonomous control and computer vision technology project.

§233. Artificial intelligence strategy.

§234. Review of artificial intelligence applications and establishment of performance metrics.

§235. Cyber data management.

§236. Data management.

§237. Study on cyber threats to the United States marine transportation system.

§523. Study on multi-level supply chain security strategy of the department of homeland security.

Social Media Impact

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on “Data Security at Risk: Testimony from a Twitter Whistleblower”. The sole witness scheduled is Peiter “Mudge” Zatko.

On September 14^th, 2022 the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on “Social Media’s Impact on Homeland Security”. Two separate witness panels with industry representatives.

On the Floor

The House has a fairly busy schedule this week, but the leadership is hoping to be able to get to a continuing resolution to push a FY 2023 spending bill until sometime in December. See this article a GovExec.com for more information about the on-going negotiations on the CR. Action on a CR does not ‘have’ to be completed until close-of-business on September 30^th. Early action keeps down the press cries about a ‘potential government shutdown’ and would take the spending bill out of the mid-term political fight.

HR 6865 Passed in House – FY 2022 CG Authorization

Yesterday, the House took up HR 6865, the Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022, under the suspension of the rules process. The bill passed by a reasonably bipartisan vote of 378 to 46. The version of the bill published in the Congressional Record as part of the record (pgs H3901-19) of yesterday’s debate was not the same version as was reported yesterday by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The most obvious difference is the insertion a new TITLE IV—Federal Maritime Commission. I will be able to tell better what other changes were made to the bill before the vote when Congress.gov publishes the engrossed version of the bill.

The debate was interesting as there was actually some opposition voiced to some of the provisions of the bill. Represenatatives Auchincloss (D,MA), Rouzer (D,MA) and Keating (D,MA) objected (pgs H3921-2) to provisions that would interfere with access to wind turbine installation vessels for current and future development of offshore wind projects. Specifically, they asked to have those provisions revised during conference with the Senate. Rep DeFazio (D,OR) assured them (pg H3922) that he would work with them to see their concerns addressed in Conference.

The one pipeline protection measure that I discussed earlier remains in the bill, but it is now found at §502. Providing requirements for vessels anchored in established Anchorage grounds.

T&I Committee to Markup HR 6865 - CG Authorization

This afternoon, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee updated their website for tomorrow’s markup hearing. As I wrote yesterday, that hearing will consider HR 6856, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022. The update today included a link to a Committee Print of the bill and a list of amendments that are currently scheduled for consideration.

There is currently nothing in the bill relating to cybersecurity, or the Maritime Transportation Security Act, or chemical safety issues. Pipeline safety is obliquely addressed in §403, Providing requirements for vessels anchored in established anchorage grounds. It adds a new §70006, Anchorage grounds, to 46 USC. It would require the CG to “define and establish anchorage grounds in the navigable waters of the United States for vessels operating in such waters” {new §70006(a)(1)} as well as regulating such anchorage grounds. Factors to be consider in the definition would include “proximity to undersea pipelines and cables” {new §70006(a)(2)}.

None of the listed amendments are of any particular interest here.

S 2297 Introduced – CG Authorization

Just before the summer recess Sen. Sullivan (R,AK) introduced S 2297, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2019. This annual bill provides continued authority for the operation of the Coast Guard and makes changes to that operation. The House version of this bill (HR 3409) passed in the House by a voice vote.

Port Security

Section 231 of the bill amends 46 USC 70116 which was completely re-written in the last session’s CG Authorization Act (PL 115-282 or S 140 as the PL has yet to be published). This new language expands the authority of DHS (presumably through the Coast Guard) to prevent or respond to security incidents beyond just ‘an act of terrorism’. The Department would have additional authority to prevent or respond to “cyber incidents, transnational organized crime, and foreign state threats” in both subsections (a) and (b).

The DHS actions in support of this authority are exempted from the Administrative Procedures and the Analysis of Regulatory Functions chapters of 5 USC.

No changes were made to the identical language to the existing §70116 found in §70102a.

Security Plan Review

Section 308 of this bill would provide the same requirement for DHS to review MTSA security plans updates as found in §317 of the House bill.

Moving Forward

Sullivan is the Chair of the Security Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. As such he is at least partially responsible for Coast Guard related legislation (the security related provisions anyway) in that Committee. Sen. Markey (D,MA) is the Ranking Member of that Subcommittee and is a cosponsor of this bill. This bill will almost certainly be taken up in Committee in the coming months and it would appear that it would have substantial bipartisan support.

Commentary

It is interesting that none of the cybersecurity provisions found in the House bill (none of them really important or significant) were included in this bill. Markey has tried to make himself known as the cybersecurity senator, but that interest was not apparently extended to Coast Guard operations.

The expansion of the security interests of the Coast Guard is another oddity of this bill. It is not clear to me why Congress created identically worded Sections 70102a and 70116 last session, but it boggles the mind even more why only one of those sections would be changed to provide additional reaction authority to the Coast Guard. There is some sort of legislative logic to this oddity, I just cannot figure it out.

Committee Hearings – Week of 07-28-19

With just the Senate in session (the House already having started their summer recess) the committee hearing list is pretty short this week. We do have two hearings of interest to look at. The first is a markup hearing looking at two authorization bills that were introduced last week and the second is re-look at positive train control implementation.

Authorization Markups

On Wednesday the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will markup two bills:

• S 2297, Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2019; and

• S 2299, Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act of 2019

Neither bill has yet been officially published; the links above are to committee prints. A quick review of S 2297 shows that it includes a similar change to the MTSA rules found in the House version of the bill (HR 3409) requiring DHS to approve updates to security plans. HR 3409 was passed in the House last week.

PTC Hearing

On Wednesday the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will hold a hearing on “Next Steps for Positive Train Control Implementation”. The witness list includes:

• Ronald Batory, Federal Railroad Administration;

• Robert Bourg, Wabtec Corporation;

• Jim Derwinski, Metra;

• Susan Fleming, Government Accountability Office; and

• Chris Matthews, BNSF Railway

Bills Introduced – 07-26-19

Yesterday with both the House and Senate in session, and the House preparing to leave for their summer recess, 176 bills were introduced. As is typical with bill introductions before a long recess, the vast majority of these bills were introduced to show that the congresscritters were concerned about a controversial topic, but with no intention of further working the legislative process. There were two bills introduced yesterday that will receive additional coverage on this blog:

S 2297 A bill to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard, and for other purposes. Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK] 

S 2299 A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to enhance the safety and reliability of pipeline transportation, and for other purposes. Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE] 

The House version of the Coast Guard authorization bill, HR 3409, passed earlier this week by a voice vote in the House.

S 2299 is probably the Senate version of the PHMSA pipeline safety program reauthorization.

HR 3409 Introduced – FY 2020 CG Authorization

Last month, Rep. DeFazio (D,OR) introduced HR 3409, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2019. The bill contains one cybersecurity provision and one emergency response provision. The bill is currently scheduled to be considered in the House this week.

Cybersecurity

Section 414 of the bill would require the CG to expand its current Insider Threat Program to include monitoring of “all Coast Guard devices, including mobile devices”. No definition of terms ‘devices’ or ‘monitoring’ is provided.

Emergency Response

Section 309 of the bill would modify two separate sections of 46 USC:

§70107, security plan implementation grants; and

§70132, Credentialing standards, training, and certification for State and local support for the enforcement of security zones for the transportation of especially hazardous cargo

In both sections the term ‘emergency response providers’ would be substituted for the existing term ‘law enforcement personnel’ or ‘law enforcement agency personnel’ where they are used in those sections. The definition of ‘emergency response providers’ is taken from 6 USC 101(6) and still includes ‘law enforcement’ personnel.

Moving Forward

DeFazio is the Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. That Committee has already amended and adopted the bill in a hearing last month, though the record of which amendments were adopted and the final committee action on the bill is missing from the Committees hearing page.

One of the amendments that was to have been considered (and apparently was, see below) was offered by Rep. Garamendi (D,CA) concerned the application process for the Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC). It would require the CG to establish a pilot program where personnel applying for a merchant mariner credential could jointly apply for a TWIC.

The Committee Report has not yet been published, nor has the amended version of the bill. I suspect that we will see both later today as this bill is supposed to be considered tomorrow under the suspension of the rules process. That would limit debate and require a supermajority for passage. The fact that the leadership is scheduling the bill under this process generally means that they expect the bill to receive substantial bipartisan support.

It is a tad bit unusual for the bill to be considered without the official publication of the reported version of the bill, but the House is trying to get a lot of ‘routine’ measures taken care of before the adjourn for their summer recess at the end of the week. The Majority Leader has provided a link to a revised version of the bill on the current Weekly Leader page; presumably this is the version being reported by the Committee, though it looks like there are additional changes. That may be misleading because of the incompleteness of the Committee’s markup hearing page.

Revised Bill

The two original provisions discussed above remain in the revised bill as does the Garamendi amendment (now §429). Two of the newly added provision need to be addressed here, one is an additional cybersecurity provision and a change to the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) program.

The cybersecurity provision in §422 would establish a “a rotational research, development, and training program” {new §846(1)} within DHS that would allow Coast Guard Academy graduates and faculty to be detailed to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and allow cybersecurity personnel from DHS to be detailed to the CG Academy.

The MTSA provision is found in a relatively short §317. It would amend 46 USC 70103(b)(3), Maritime Transportation Security Plans. It would require the Secretary to review and approve updates to Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans where the current section only requires review and approval of the original plan. A similar requirement is also put into place for extending the current review and approval of Vessel and Facility Security Plans requirements under §70103(c)(4) to include the updates for those plans.

S 140 Amendments Accepted by House – CG Authorization

Yesterday the House accepted the Senate amendments to S 140 that effectively turned that bill into the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018. The action was taken on a voice vote. A similar voice vote was taken on S. Con. Res. 51 to officially change the enrollment of S 140 to reflect the change in purpose of the bill. The Senate amendments were considered under the suspension of the rules process with limited debate and no floor amendments.

Typically, we see very limited ‘debate’ on bills considered under suspension of the rules; a couple of people from both sides of the aisle praising the bipartisan effort to craft and pass the bill. The S 140 debate yesterday was something of an exception to that process. There was some opposition expressed to §834 of the bill that reinstates the fire safety exemption for the Delta Queen (starting with Rep. Garamendi on page H 9648). It was not enough debate to derail (or significantly slow) passage of the bill, but it was an actual policy discussion.

Senate Passes S 140 – 2018 CG Authorization

Yesterday the Senate adopted substitute language (S Amendment 4054) for S 140 which changed that bill to the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act. The new version of this bill is basically a reorganization of the sections of the US Code that are applicable to the Coast Guard. Most of it is way over my head, but it will certainly mess with the way people will reference sections of the code that they have been working with for years.

There are two sections that caught my attention:

§ 514. Backup national timing system [pg S6849]; and

§ 602. Maritime Security Advisory Committees [pgS6853]

Section 514 looks very much like S 2220, the National Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2017. Like that bill it would require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a land-based alternative to the GPS timing signal generally based upon the old LORAN navigation system.

Section 602 would completely rewrite 46 USC 70112, the current authorizing language for both national and local MSACs. I do not follow the CG real closely, but the changes do not appear to be significant.

The revised bill goes back to the House. It is possible that the bill could be dealt with under the same unanimous consent process that was used earlier this week for HR 3359. It depends on if there are any controversial measures buried in the revised Senate language. It does not look like it from the way the bill slipped through the Senate.

HR 2518 – CG Authorization – Markup Hearing

Today the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee announced that there would be a markup hearing on Wednesday. Among the bills to be marked up will be HR 2518, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2017.

I have not reviewed HR 2518 here because there is nothing of specific interest to readers of this blog. I will continue to watch HR 2518 (and S 1119, it’s Senate counterpart) for any amendments that might address cybersecurity, the MTSA program, or chemical transportation safety or security.

Committee Hearings – Week of 05-14-17

With both the House and Senate in Washington this week there are a number of hearings scheduled. Three of those hearings may be of specific interest to readers of this blog. The relate to updating the Emergency Alert System (EAS), a hearing on emerging transportation technologies, and markup of a Coast Guard authorization bill.

EAS

On Wednesday the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing to look at the “Future of Emergency Alerting”. A witness list is not currently available. The staff memo on the topic does not mention potential cybersecurity concerns; a surprising omission given the recent EAS fiasco in Dallas, TX.

Transportation Technologies

The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee will be holding a hearing on “Emerging Transportation Technologies”. The witness list includes:

• Nidhi Kalra, RAND Corporation;

• Mykel Kochenderfer, Stanford University Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics

• David Strickland, Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets and

• Brian Wynne, Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International

There is a distinct possibility that cybersecurity issues may be briefly and lightly discussed.

CG Authorization

The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will hold a markup hearing on Thursday. A number of bills are on the agenda including an as of yet unintroduced bill for the FY 2018 authorization for the Coast Guard. No copies of the bill are currently available on the Committee web site. It will be interesting to see if chemical transportation safety or security, or cybersecurity receive a mention in this bill.

On the Floor

The only thing of potential interest on the floor of the House this week is the consideration of HR 1616, Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime Fighting Act of 2017. I have not covered this bill because it includes no mention or coverage of control system security issues. It is being considered under the suspension of rules process, so there will be limited debate and no amendments. The leadership expects this bill to pass with substantial bipartisan support.

I will be very surprised if we do not hear at least some mention of  WannaCry in the debate on this bill.

House Accepts Senate Changes to HR 4188

This evening the House agreed to the Senate amendment to HR 4188, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 after only 14 minutes of debate and a voice vote. As I mentioned in my earlier post, there are no provisions in this bill that address hazardous chemical shipping, chemical security or cybersecurity. The President is expected to sign the bill.

HR 4188 Amended and Passed in Senate – CG Authorization

On Friday, in the closing hours of the first session of the 114^th Congress, the Senate amended and passed HR 4188, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015. There was no debate offered on the substitution of the Thune Amendment (CREC-2015-12-18, pg 8890) for the text of the House passed version of the bill. The bill passed by voice vote (in a nearly empty Senate chamber).

Like the House version of the bill, there are no provisions in the bill that address the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), chemical safety, or chemical transportation issues.

When the House returns next year, they will have to decide whether they should accept the Senate amendment or request a conference. There appears to be a decent chance that they will just accept the Senate version.

Bills Introduced – 12-08-15

With both the House and Senate in session yesterday there were 27 bills introduced. Of those, three may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

HR 4187 To require certain entities who collect and maintain personal information of individuals to secure such information and to provide notice to such individuals in the case of a breach of security involving such information, and for other purposes. Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]

HR 4188 Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015. Rep. Hunter, Duncan D. [R-CA-50]

S 2372 A bill to require reporting of terrorist activities and the unlawful distribution of information relating to explosives, and for other purposes. Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] 

HR 4187 is yet another breach notification bill. I’ll check it for any ICS references (unlikely) otherwise it probably will not get mentioned again.

The CG Authorization Act has already been published by the GAO (an indication that the House leadership intends to move forward with consideration sooner rather than later). A quick check of the section listings shows no specific mention of chemical safety, chemical security or MTSA so I will not be doing my normal analysis of the bill. I will, however, keep an eye on it as it meanders through the legislative process for any interesting amendments.

The Feinstein bill is not one that I would typically cover in this blog, but it does strike a personal cord as it looks like it is one of those knee jerk reactions to terrorist attacks that cause so many unforeseen problems down the line. The fact that Feinstein is the Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and her co-sponsor is the Chair means that this bill is likely to be going places.

Bills Introduced – 06-18-15

There were 73 bills introduced in the House and Senate yesterday. Of those four may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

S 1608 A bill to protect the safety of the national airspace system from the hazardous operation of consumer drones, and for other purposes. Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]

S 1611 A bill to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2016 and 2017, and for other purposes. Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]

S 1619 An original bill making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes. Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND]

S 1634 A bill to amend the Federal antitrust laws to provide expanded coverage and to eliminate exemptions from such laws that are contrary to the public interest with respect to railroads. Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]

Unless Feinstein’s drone bill specifically addresses critical infrastructure this will probably be the last mention of this bill.

The House version of S 1611 did not contain any references to chemical transportation safety or security and neither will this version (likely). We will see.

The DHS spending bill and its report from the Senate Appropriations Committee has already been printed by the GPO. I’ll probably have a review prepared later today.

Klobuchar’s railroad antitrust bill may be of specific interest to chemical shippers but I won’t cover the bill unless there are specific mentions of chemical shipping provisions.