HR 2825 Reported in Senate – FY2018 DHS Authorization

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee published their report on HR 2825, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Authorization Act of 2017, as amended by that Committee back in March. There is no new information of consequence in this report, but its publication does effectively clear this bill for consideration by the full Senate.

Interestingly this bill does also include authorization language for the DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency which was earlier authorized by the passage of HR 3359. There are some differences in the CISA authorization language in the two bills. The language of this bill would supersede the language of HR 3359 if it is adopted.

CISA Authorization

The first major difference between the two bills is the addition of the responsibility for the oversight of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) protection and preparedness activities. This is initially set forth in the new 6 USC 2202(c)(5) (pg 940). The requirement is further outlined in the new 6 USC 2204 setting forth the duties of the Infrastructure Security Division of CISA.

Section 2204(d)(6) requires annual reports to Congress on “the threats and con5

sequences, as of the date of the information, of electromagnetic events to the critical infrastructure of the United States”. That report would include outlining DHS activities with respect to {new §2204(d)(6)(B), pg 958}:

• Risk assessments;

• Mitigation actions;

• Coordination with the Department of Energy to identify critical electric infrastructure assets subject to EMP or GMD risk; and

• Current and future plans for engagement with the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other relevant Federal departments and agencies;

The report to Congress would also address present and future collaborative efforts the Department has (or plans to have) with critical infrastructure owners and operators as well as {new §2204(d)(6), pg 958}:

• An identification of internal roles to address electromagnetic risks to critical infrastructure; and

• Plans for implementation and protecting and preparing United States critical infrastructure against electromagnetic threats.

The final major difference between the two bills with respect to CISA authorization is the way they handle the movement of Federal Protective Service within DHS. HR 3359 allowed the Secretary to either move FPS into CISA or some other organization within DHS and then report to Congress on that move. HR 2825 instead requires the Secretary to make a determination on the best place to move FPS and then seek Congressional approval for that move.

There are a couple of relatively minor wording changes in the language of the two bills. One is rather odd. In the new §2202(i), the savings clause that affirms that the revision in both bills has no effect on any existing authorities the following final phrase found in HR 3359 is absent in HR 2825:

“including the authority provided to the Sector-Specific Agency specified in section 61003(c) of division F of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (6 U.S.C. 121 note; Public Law 114–94).”

Moving Forward

As I mentioned earlier this report now clears the bill for potential consideration by the whole Senate. The bipartisan support seen in Committee should mean that the bill would pass the Senate. The problem here, this late in the session is that it will be difficult to bring up the bill in normal order with debate and further amendments. Practically speaking this means that this bill would have to be passed under the unanimous consent process which could be stopped by the opposition of a single senator to even relatively minor provisions in the bill. I suspect that this report is the last we will see of this bill in the 115^th Congress.

Senate Committee Amends and Adopts HR 2825 – DHS Authorization Bill

Last week the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee took up HR 2825, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Authorization Act of 2017, that was passed in the House last July. The Committee Chair and Ranking Member introduced substitute language that was further amended and adopted in Committee by unanimous consent.

The substitute language was essentially a complete re-write of HR 2825. Much of the DHS Headquarters and acquisition language remains in the new bill. It is missing much of the agency specific (TSA, Coast Guard, etc.) language in the original bill, but it does include (with slight modifications) the provisions of HR 3359, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2017.

The following sections in the new version of the bill may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

§1320. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear intelligence and information

sharing.

§1416. Cyber preparedness.

§1419. Study of the use of grant funds for cybersecurity.

§1601. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

CBRN Information Sharing

Section 1320 of the bill contains most of the effective language of HR 677, the CBRN Intelligence and Information Sharing Act of 2017 which was passed in the House in February, 2017. One potentially significant change was made in the new 6 USC 2101. In the sub-paragraph {(a)(3)} requiring the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis to “support homeland security-focused risk analysis and risk assessments of the homeland security hazards”, the Senate language adds “including the transportation of chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological materials”.

Cyber Preparedness

Section 1416 of the bill amends 6 USC 148 (to be changed to §2209 by this bill) by adding to the existing information sharing requirements of §148(c) the requirements to include sharing of ‘best practices’ and to share with ‘State, local, and regional fusion centers’. It also contains a non-binding ‘sense of Congress’ statement that DHS “should, to the greatest extent practicable, work to share actionable information in an unclassified form related to such threats” {§1417(b)}.

Grant Funds

Section 1419 of the bill requires DHS to conduct a study looking at how grants provided under the Urban Area Security Initiative and the State Homeland Security Grant Program during the period 2006 thru 2016 have been used to support cybersecurity initiatives. It would also look at the problems related to funding cybersecurity initiatives using these programs with recommendations as to how the process could be improved.

 

Additional Amendments

As must be expected when looking at large-scale authorization bills like this, there were 27 amendments offered during the two days that this bill was under consideration. The submitted and adopted amendments included the addition of the following sections of potential interest to readers of this blog:

• Cybersecurity Research and Development Projects;

• Hack DHS Bug Bounty Pilot Program;

• Briefing on Pharmaceutical-Based Agent Threats;

• Report on Applications and Threats of Blockchain Technology; and

• Cybersecurity Talent Exchange

The R&D projects section requires DHS S&T to conduct/support and transition to use a fairly comprehensive list of research and development activities supporting the Departments cybersecurity responsibilities. The new section relies on the existing IT-limited definitions of 6 USC 148. No additional funds are authorized to support these activities.

The bug bounty provision is essentially the language of S 1281, the Department of Homeland Security (Hack DHS) Act of 2017.

The pharmaceutical agent amendment requires the Department to prepare a briefing for Congress on the potential threat of pharmaceutical agents. That term is defined as “a chemical, including fentanyl, carfentanil, and related analogues, which affects the central nervous system and has the potential to be used as a chemical weapon” {new §1309(d)(2)}.

The blockchain technology amendment would require DHS to report to Congress on the “potential offensive and defensive cyber applications of blockchain technology and other distributed ledger technologies” {new §1306(c)(1)} as well as the potential terrorist use of “distributed ledger-enabled currency and other emerging financial technological capabilities” {new §1306(c)(2)} to fund terrorist operations.

The cybersecurity talent exchange amendment is actually an amendment to another (unpublished) amendment that would establish some sort of program that would allow private-sector cybersecurity experts to work in DHS and allow DHS cybersecurity experts to work with private-sector organizations to enhance the level of cybersecurity expertise in DHS.

Moving Forward

Since this bill was actually considered by the Committee, the chances of it making its way to the floor of the Senate for consideration have been greatly increased. The fact that there was no opposition to this version of the bill in committee indicates that bill could pass with substantial bipartisan support. This bill would almost certainly have to be considered in normal order with all of the attendant amendments and extended debate.

Any bill passed by this process would have to go back to the House for consideration. It would likely end up going to Conference to iron out the differences between the two bills.

House Passes HR 2825 – DHS Authorization

Today the House passed HR 2825, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Authorization Act of 2017, by a substantially bipartisan vote of 386 to 41. The bill was considered under the suspension of the rules process that limited debate and did not allow any amendments to be offered. The bill easily met the 2/3 vote standard for passage under these rules.

A DHS authorization bill has yet to be introduced in the Senate during this Congress. It would be very unusual for the Senate to take up this bill without first considering an in-house version first.

The bill does include provisions addressing:

• Cybersecurity,

• Maritime security, and

• Surface transportation security

There has not been a DHS authorization bill sent to the President since the Department was originally created in 2002.

Bills Introduced – 2-11-15

Yesterday there were 76 bills introduced in the House and Senate. Three of those may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

HR 861 - Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes. Rep. Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7]

HR 878 - To provide for the authorization of border, maritime, and transportation security responsibilities and functions in the Department of Homeland Security and the establishment of United States Customs...Rep. Miller, Candice S. [R-MI-10]

S 456 - A bill to codify mechanisms for enabling cybersecurity threat indicator sharing between private and government entities, as well as among private entities, to better protect information systems. Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE]

HR 861 is almost certainly a ‘clean’ FY 2015 appropriations bill for DHS. Since Rep. Cummings is a Democrat and not on either the Appropriations Committee nor the Homeland Security Committee this bill has almost no chance of being considered.

I think that recent press reports about the President’s cybersecurity bill being introduced in the Senate refer to this bill (almost no one else reports bill numbers), but according to Sen. Carper’s press release this bill is a blend of the Administration’s bill and “insights and advice from our Committee’s hearing on the topic earlier this month”. According to the release the bill will:

● Authorizes sharing and provides liability protections;

● Sharing within the government and protection of information;

● Government to industry sharing and improved coordination; and

● Builds in strong privacy protections.

The same could be said for a number of information sharing bills, but the devil is in the details. We’ll have to see what the bill actually says.

Bills Introduced – 01-10-14

With only the House meeting in Washington yesterday there were 15 bills introduced and three of them were of potential specific interest to readers of this blog; addressing DHS Authorization, cybersecurity and funding the federal government. Those bills were:

HR 3846 Latest Title: To provide for the authorization of border, maritime, and transportation security responsibilities and functions in the Department of Homeland Security and the establishment of United States Customs and Border Protection, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Miller, Candice S. (R,MI)

HR 3847 Latest Title: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security the responsibility to develop and provide to the Secretary of Health and Human Services risk-based, performance-based cybersecurity standards for the Federal information technology requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the healthcare.gov website, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Barber, Ron (D,AZ)

HJ RES 106 Latest Title: Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5]

This will be my last mention of HR 3847 since it is a federal government IT security bill and as such does not address control system issues. I point it out here because it will almost certainly get considered quickly in the House and might even get Senate consideration; a real oddity for cybersecurity legislation.

Continuing Resolution

The official text of HJ Res 106 is already available from the GPO; hardly surprising given its topic and the fact that it is a one page bill. It simply extends the expiration date of the current spending law (Public Law 113–46) from January 15^th until January 18^th. This is being done to give the appropriations negotiators from the House and Senate time to work out the final details of a spending bill that will continue to the end of the fiscal year. The way this bill is written it also specifically extends the CFATS authorization through January 18^th.

CFATS Authorization

I’m hearing rumors that there will be a CFATS Authorization bill introduced this week by House Homeland Security Chairman McCaul (R,TX). I have yet to see a copy of the bill but I have heard that it will be a two year authorization taking it out of the spending bill authorization process. I’m certainly looking forward to seeing this bill that reportedly is going to be introduced Thursday.

House HS Committee Marks-up HR 3116 – DHS Authorization

Last week in two days of hearings the House Homeland Security Committee marked-up HR 3116, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. The lengthy hearing was necessary because of the more than 70 offered to Chairman King’s substitute language to the bill. While the adopted amendments came from members of both parties, the final vote on passage was a very partisan vote of 20 to 12.

As I mentioned in my earlier posting about this bill there is very little that directly addresses chemical or cyber security matters; much the same can be said about the amendments that were considered. Only four of the adopted and one of the rejected amendments dealt with chemical security matters (very broadly speaking) and only two of the rejected amendments dealt with cybersecurity matters.

Ammonium Nitrate Security Program

There is only one amendment that directly addresses chemical security issues and it was introduced by Ranking Member Thompson (D,MS). The amendment would add a new section modifying the underlying authorization authority for the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program. It addresses some technical issues with the definitions of ‘ownership’ and ‘possession’ that will have to be addressed in the interminably pending DHS regulations.

More importantly it would require DHS to exempt “persons engaged in transportation activities” from coverage under this rule. This is another attempt to ensure that people already vetted under the TWIC program do not have to be re-vetted under another program. Unfortunately, the broad wording of this amendment will cause problems for the regulation drafters (who already have enough problems with the Ag folks) in that it would not technically allow for even checking of the TWIC.

Chem and Bio Testing Equipment

The issue of evaluating chemical detection equipment was addressed by an amendment introduced by Rep. Turner (R,OH). This would require DHS to establish a “test and evaluation program for commercially available chemical and biological detection equipment” {Amendment (e)(1)}. Unfortunately the copy of this amendment available on the Committee web site so it isn’t clear how Turner expects DHS S&T to pay for this program.

TWIC

Two of the five chemical related amendments dealt with the Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC); one adopted and one rejected. Both amendments closely paralleled separate bills addressing the same issues.

Rep. Richmond’s (D,LA) Amendment #1VV addressed TWIC application and renewal processing. This amendment very closely mimics HR 3173, co-sponsored by Richmond. That bill and this amendment would only allow the TSA to require an applicant or renewant (okay I made up that word) to make one visit to a “a designated enrollment center except in cases in which there are extenuating circumstances” {Amendment(b)} for purposes of enrollment, activation, issuance or renewal of a TWIC. The way the amendment is actually worded a renewant would not have to physically appear having already made at least one trip to the enrollment center.

In passing this amendment the Committee is ignoring the recommendations of the GAO, TSA and the requirements of Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 201-1 (addressed in an earlier blog post). They are bowing to political pressure from both unions and many TWIC related companies (so support from political bases of both parties). Once again politics trumps security.

The rejected TWIC amendment was introduced by Ranking Member Thompson and would have extended the expiration dates of current TWICs until December 31, 2014 or whenever DHS implements their final TWIC Reader regulations, whichever comes first. This was nearly identical to HR 1105 introduced by Thompson. Thompson wanted to avoid possible problems that might arise if the TWIC Reader regulations require some changes in the physical TWIC.

Maritime SAR Immunity

Rep. Rigell (R,VA) introduced an amendment that would have added specific language to the suspicious activity reporting (SAR) immunity provisions of this bill that would include maritime SAR reports. The language is much different than was included in Rigell’s HR 2846 but it accomplishes the same thing.

NOTE: I must admit that I have not included any mention of a number of failed amendments that Democrats introduced that would have attempted to address their concerns with the potential profiling issues they see involved in the SARs immunity issue. We will undoubtedly see these re-introduced and rejected if and when this bill gets to the floor of the House.

Cybersecurity

Both cybersecurity related amendments were rejected on party line votes and were introduced by Rep. Clarke (D,NY). The first would have changed NPPD to the Directorate of Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity and establish the National Cybersecurity Division within that Directorate. There was nothing really substantive about cybersecurity issues in that amendment.

The second amendment would have required DHS to train State and local law enforcement personnel on “cybersecurity standards, procedures and best practices” {Amendment (b)(1)}. Actually this would only be a pilot training program. This appears to be primarily directed at protecting law enforcement networks rather than any other information systems. It certainly would not address control system security.

HR 3116 Introduced – DHS Authorization

As I noted in my congressional hearing blog post on Monday, Rep. King (R,NY) introduced HR 3116, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, last week. On Monday he also published an amendment in the nature of a substitute on his Committee’s web site for today’s markup of that bill. Since it is that substitute language that will actually get marked up today, I’ll use that for this review of the chemical security provisions of the bill.

No CFATS Language

As would be expected there is no language in this bill that would authorize or modify the CFATS program. While nearly everyone is firmly in favor of keeping this program in operation the wording of program extension would be very controversial. That controversy might actually prevent the consideration of the bill.

A clean, one-year extension like we see in the spending bills would not be a problem, but switching that extension to the authorization bill, might not allow the program to continue. Congress must pass spending bills each year (in some form or another), but an authorization bill is not really required. Note: there has not been a DHS authorization bill passed since the Homeland Security Act of 2002 brought the Department into being.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Sections 501 through 510 are pretty much a ‘lite’ version of the bioweapons provisions of HR 2356. As I noted in my blog on the introduction of that bill, there is nothing in this lite version that would directly address the use of chemical facilities or transports as defacto chemical weapons. As in HR 2356 there are provisions here that might have effects on chemical security and emergency response planning and execution. Those provision include:

• Sec. 502. Weapons of mass destruction intelligence and information sharing;

• Sec. 503. Risk assessments;

• Sec. 504. Individual and community preparedness;

• Sec. 507. Communications planning;

• Sec. 508. Response guidelines concerning weapons of mass destruction;

• Sec. 509. Plume modeling; and

• Sec. 510. Disaster recovery.

None of these provisions specifically address chemical security, rather they include the generic terminology ‘chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack’ (CBRN). One would hope that any supporting regulations would emphasize the fact that attacks on chemical facilities or transport would be the easiest way to effect a CBRN attack, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

I addressed most of these provisions in some depth in my posting on HR 2356 and see nothing here that would require a change in those comments.

SARS Immunity

Title VIII provides for immunity for reports of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious behavior and response. This is essentially the same wording as found in King’s HR 495 that I addressed in an earlier blog posting on that bill. Nothing new to see here, keep moving.

Moving Forward

Actually, that’s all there is; for chemical security issues at least. Completely overlooked is any mention of cyber security issues or programs within DHS. Since both Rep. King and Sen. Lieberman (I,CT), chairs of their respective homeland security committees, want to see a DHS authorization bill passed, I don’t see any reason why some version of this bill or S 1546 (see my posting on that bill) could not pass in this session; besides consideration of appropriations, jobs and other politically important legislation, of course.

Congressional Hearings – Week of 10-10-11

In this holiday shortened week (What, you forgot about Columbus Day?) there are currently four hearings scheduled that might be of interest to the chemical security or cyber security communities; two dealing with emergency response, a DHS authorization hearing, and a small business look at GPS interference.

Emergency Response

There will be two hearings looking at emergency response at the Federal level. Neither will specifically address chemical emergency response, but one can always hope that someone will ask about planning for large scale chemical releases that could result from a terrorist attack on big chemical facility.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold their hearing on Wednesday looking at "The Federal Role in Disaster Recovery and Response." The current witness list only includes representatives from various federal agencies that might be involved in response efforts; including FEMA (obviously), the Army Corps of Engineers, and even the Department of Agriculture. Unfortunately no one from the US EPA has been included; so much for chemical issues.

On Thursday the House Transportation Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management will look at cutting the costs of emergency planning and response. Their witness list includes more of a front line look at emergency response with FEMA Administrator Fugate being the only fed testifying. The cost cutting focus does not bode well for the possibility of expanding emergency response planning for chemical incidents.

DHS Authorization

The House Homeland Security Committee will meet on Wednesday to markup HR 3116 the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This bill was introduced last week and the text just became available from the GPO this morning. According to the Committee web site there will probably be a substitute language amendment introduced by Chairman King (R,NY). Currently there is no specific mention of CFATS or the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program in the bill.

GPS Interference

Congress continues to look at the potential GPS interference issues associated with the proposed LightSquared broadband system. This time it will be the House Small Business Committee that will look at the GPS interference effects on small businesses. The current witness list includes representatives from airports, ag retailers, and aircraft electronics industries. Again, it doesn’t look like anyone is interested in the potential effects on control system timing issues.

S 1546 Introduced – DHS Authorization Bill

Earlier this week Senators Lieberman (I,CT) and Collins (R,ME) introduced S 1546, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2011. A copy of the bill is not yet available from the Government Printing Office, but it is hardly necessary as the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee printed a copy of substitute language for the bill that is being considered by that Committee in markup hearings conducted this last week and next week. Since that substitute version will be the basis for any other Committee actions, a review of that will be more important than a review of the introduced version.

There is no mention of chemical, transportation, or cyber security in the bill, in fact there is relatively little mention of security in this bill reflecting the current DHS emphasis on recovery. There are still some provisions in this bill that will be of interest to the chemical, transportation and cyber security communities. They include:

• Catastrophic incident planning;

• Guidelines concerning weapons of mass destruction;

• Plume modeling;

• Metropolitan medical response system; and

• Classified national security information program.

Catastrophic Incident Planning

Section 401 sets out requirements for the Department’s responsibilities for “leading, promoting, and coordinating efforts of Federal agencies to conduct catastrophic incident planning” and reviewing plans for “private sector entities for catastrophic incidents submitted to the Federal agencies” {§526(b)(3)}. The Department is specifically tasked with “promoting and supporting appropriate catastrophic incident planning by private sector entities, including private sector entities that own or manage critical infrastructure” {§526(b)(6)}. This should include high-risk chemical facilities.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Section 413 requires the Department to establish guidelines “for responding to an explosion or release of nuclear, biological, radiological, or chemical material” {§531(a)(1)}. Those guidelines would include:

• Protective action guidelines for emergency response personnel;

• Exposure effects of the biological, chemical or radiological agents; and

• Information about effective treatments for WMD victims for emergency response personnel and mass care facilities.

Plume Modeling

Section 414 requires the Secretary to develop an ‘integrated plume model’ (similar to what we used to call a downwind message in the Army) that would serve as a tool for emergency responders for “the assessment of the location and prediction of the spread of nuclear, radioactive, or chemical fallout and biological pathogens resulting from an explosion or release of nuclear, radioactive, chemical, or biological substances” {§318(a)(2)}. Provisions would be required to be made for the release of the model to “nongovernmental organizations and the public to enable appropriate response activities by individuals” {§318(b)(2)(B)}.

Metropolitan Medical Response System

Section 418 reauthorizes the Metropolitan Medical Response System to continue to assist State and local governments “in preparing for, protecting against, and responding to mass casualty incidents by systematically enhancing cooperation and integration of emergency response providers and public health and medical personnel” {§2042(b)}. Last session similar legislation was introduced as HR 4580 and I made some suggestions then as to how CFATS emergency response planning could be incorporated into MMRS preparations.

Classified National Security Information Program

Section 602 would establish a Classified National Security Information Program which will be designed “to safeguard and govern access to classified information shared by the Federal Government with States, local governments, Indian tribes, and private sector entities” {§210G(b)}. This program would implement the provisions of EO 13526 for classified information (presumably intelligence information).

The program would include responsibility for:

• Tracking the status and final disposition of security clearance requests;

• Developing and maintaining a security profile of facilities that have access to classified information;

• Developing appropriate training for personnel with access to classified information; and

• Preparing an annual report on the status of the Program to Congress.

Moving Forward

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held the first of two markup hearings on the bill earlier this week, but there are no real details beyond a link to the web cast currently available. The second of the two hearings will be held this Wednesday, after which we should find more details on the Committee web site.

Congressional Hearings – Week of 9-12-11

There is only one hearing currently scheduled in either house of Congress this week that might be of interest to the chemical- or cyber- security communities. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will be holding a business meeting to look at an as of yet unpublished bill entitled “Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2011”.

There hasn’t been a DHS authorization bill since the Department was formed in 2002. During the last session both Chairman Lieberman (I,CT) and his House counterpart, Chairman Thompson (D,MS), had made it a priority to get an authorization bill passed, unfortunately neither actually introduced an authorization bill, that was left to Rep King (R,NY) who was then the Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee who introduced HR 5590 in June of last year..

That bill was essentially killed when it was referred to all six committees (except the Appropriations Committee) that had jurisdiction over portions of the Department’s operations. If Lieberman’s Committee introduces a bill in this session the same sort of thing will kill the bill in the Senate. Until the Senate and House leadership can agree to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission about the oversight of Homeland Security, these inter-committee rivalries will almost certainly prevent passage of a comprehensive authorization bill.

HR 5890 Introduced

Last Thursday HR 5890 was introduced in the House and the printed version of the bill became available yesterday. This bill would authorize the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for FY 2011. Both Chairman Lieberman (Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs) and Chairman Thompson (House Homeland Security Committee vowed to pass such a bill this year. The odd thing about this bill, however, is that it was introduced by Rep. King (R, NY), the Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and cosponsored by the Republican members of that Committee. That combined with the fact that the bill was referred to six committees, including Armed Services of all things, means that this bill will likely never get considered by the House, particularly in an election year. Chemical Security Provisions This 414 page bill is a comprehensive authorization bill, with the potential to have wide spread affects of interest to the chemical security committee. Some of the titles that could apply to chemical security issues include:

TITLE II—Authorization Of Appropriations TITLE III—Congressional Oversight TITLE VI—Transportation Security TITLE VII—Maritime Security TITLE VIII—Infrastructure Protection And Cybersecurity TITLE XII—Miscellaneous Provisions

The following sections should be of particular interest to our community:

Sec. 685. Pipeline security study. Sec. 692. Surface transportation security. Sec. 694. Limitation on issuance of HAZMAT licenses. Sec. 709. Waterside security of certain dangerous cargo. Sec. 724. Risk-based cargo security program. Sec. 811. Extension of chemical facilities antiterrorism security program. Sec. 904. Metropolitan Medical Response System program. Sec. 1203. Civil liability for disclosure of protected security information.

The §811 provisions would extend the current §550 authorization for the CFATS program until October 4th, 2015. It would also add a voluntary chemical security training program and a voluntary chemical security exercise program. Readers of this blog will recognize that these are the same provisions found in S 2996 and its companion bill HR 5186. Congressional Oversight Even though the CFATS reauthorization provision would be primarily targeted at our community, I think that the most important provision of this bill would be found in §301(c) that deals with Congressional oversight of homeland security matters. That paragraph reads:

“The Speaker shall consider the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States for consolidating oversight and review of homeland security, and to the maximum extent feasible, minimize the impact that the referral to multiple committees of matters under paragraph (a) related to homeland security and the Department of Homeland Security will have on the ability of the House of Representatives to provide clear and consistent guidance to the Department and act on such measures in a timely and effective manner consistent with those recommendations.”

If actually passed (unlikely with so many different committees having to sign off on this bill) this would greatly reduce the number of committees that would have their hand in the homeland security pie. This could greatly streamline the law making process for homeland security matters. I know that the leadership of DHS would greatly appreciate the decrease in the number of times that they have to explain the same thing to different committees. Committee chair are more likely to vote to completely stop their own pay than reduce the areas over which they exert power. This is not a partisan slap as the Republicans did nothing to address this problem when they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. This is strictly a matter of the exercise of personal political power. That means that this provision would probably be doomed even if this bill had a chance