Committee Adopts Rule for Consideration of HR 2500 – FY 2020 NDAA

Last night the House Rules Committee formulated the Rule for the consideration of HR 2500, the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It is a structured rule with 439 amendments that may be offered (with provisions for en bloc consideration of amendments. I will be watching five of those amendments. Consideration of the bill begins this afternoon.

The Five Amendments

These are the five amendments that I will be watching. These are the five that I briefly listed last week in my post about the report on HR 2500.

53. Aguilar (D,CA) #244 Expands the Department of Defense Cyber Scholarship Program (formerly known as the Information Assurance Scholarship Program) to include students attending certificate programs that span 1 to 2 years.

158. Gallego (D,AZ) #415 Requires a report on the National Guard's capacity to meet Homeland Defense missions.

200. Jackson-Lee (D,TX) #160 (REVISED) Requires that a report from the Secretary of Defense 240 days after the date of the enactment to the congressional defense committees that accounts for all of the efforts, programs, initiatives, and investments of the Department of Defense to train elementary, secondary, and postsecondary students in fields related to cybersecurity, cyber defense, and cyber operations.

363. Speier (D,CA) #395 (REVISED) Increases funding for the Defense Security Service by $5,206,997 for the purposes of procurement of advanced cyber threat detection sensors, hunt and response mechanisms, and commercial cyber threat intelligence to ensure Defense Industrial Base networks remain protected from nation state adversaries.

381. Torres, Norma (D,CA), Panetta (CA), Cisneros (CA), Stevens (MI) #457 (REVISED) Requires the Department of Defense, in consultation with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, to develop policies to assist small- and mid-sized manufacturers to meet cybersecurity requirements.

The Gallego amendment is interesting. It would require a DOD report to Congress setting out “the roles and missions, structure, capabilities, and training of the National Guard and the United States Northern Command, and an identification of emerging gaps and shortfalls in light of current homeland security threats to our country” {new §520(1)}. Critical infrastructure cybersecurity is never explicitly mentioned in the amendment (an odd oversight) but would almost certainly be covered in any DOD report submitted in response to this amendment.

The one specific threat that is mentioned is a “multi-State electromagnetic pulse event” {new §520(2)}. Presumably DOD would also include a geomagnetic storm event in any report on the topic as the response to the two would be similar.

Moving Forward

None of the amendments listed above are very controversial and only one provides a specific spending authorization. Spier would off-set that spending increase by decreasing the spending on “in section 101 for other procurement, Air Force” {new §16XX(b)}. I suspect that all five of these amendments will be adopted; most will be included in en bloc amendments.

HR 2500 will pass, probably along a nearly party-line vote. The Senate already passed their version of the NDAA, S 1790, so differences between the two bills will have to be worked out (probably over the summer recess) in a conference committee. Normally, that reported version of the NDAA would be expected to pass, but with the whimsical nature of the current occupant of the White House, that is not a guarantee that anyone would be willing to make.

Committee Hearings – Week of 02-24-19

This week with both the House and Senate in session there are a wide variety of important congressional hearings taking place. Among those are some that are of particular interest here; EMP effects on the grid, the CFATS program, and two cybersecurity hearings.

EMP and the Grid

On Wednesday the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will be holding a hearing on “Perspectives on Protecting the Electric Grid from an Electromagnetic Pulse or Geomagnetic Disturbance”. A witness list is not yet available.

CFATS Program

On Wednesday the House Homeland Security Committee will be holding a hearing on “Securing Our Nation’s Chemical Facilities: Building on the Progress of the CFATS Program”. The witness list includes:

• David Wulf, ISCD, DHS; and
• Nathan Anderson, GAO

The lack of industry witnesses on the list may be just temporary, or it may indicate that Chairman Thompson (D,MS) intends to take a close look at the most recent GAO report (not yet available) on the program.

Surface Transportation Cybersecurity

Today two subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing on “Securing U.S. Surface Transportation from Cyber Attacks”. The witness list includes:

• Bob Kolasky, CISA, DHS;
• Sonya T. Proctor, TSA, DHS;
• Rebecca Gagliostro, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America;

• James A. Lewis, Center for Strategic and International Studies;

• Erik Robert Olson, Rail Security Alliance; and

• John Hultquist, FireEye

Interesting that there will be witnesses representing pipelines and railroads, but no one from the trucking industry. Hopefully that has more to do with House committee politics than representing a cybersecurity blind spot.

DOD Cybersecurity

Today the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the House Committee on Armed Services will hold a hearing on “Department of Defense Information Technology, Cybersecurity, and Information Assurance”. The witness list includes:

• Dana Deasy, CIO, DOD;

• Lisa Hershman, Acting Chief Management Officer, DOD; and

• BG Dennis Crall, Deputy Principal Cyber Advisor, DOD

This looks like it will be principally an IT cybersecurity hearing, but topics of supply chain security may arise.

Committee Hearings – Week of 4-20-17

With it looking like the FY 2017 spending issue is fixed the House and Senate start to expand their work agenda with many hearings scheduled this week. Three of these may be of specific interest to readers this week; hearings concerning cybersecurity, maritime regulations, and EMP.

Cybersecurity

The House Science, Space, and Technology committee will hold a markup hearing on HR 2105, the NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act of 2017. I did not cover HR 2105 because it sadly does not address control system security issues. Maybe this markup will change that.

Maritime Regulations

The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will hold a hearing on “Maritime Transportation Regulatory Issues”. The witness list includes:

• Paul F. Thomas, United States Coast Guard

• Michael A. Khouri, Federal Maritime Commission

• Todd Schauer, American Salvage Association

• Steven Candito, National Response Corporation

• Nicholas Nedeau, Rapid Ocean Response Corporation

• Norman “Buddy” Custard, Alaska Maritime Prevention and Response Network

• Thomas Allegretti, American Waterways Operators

• Peter Ford, Ports America

• John Butler, World Shipping Council

We might see some discussion on pending regulatory issues related to MTSA, chemical transportation safety and cybersecurity. Do not expect much in the way of details.

EMP Policy

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will be holding a hearing on the threat posed by electromagnetic pulse and policy options to protect energy infrastructure and to improve capabilities for adequate system restoration. A witness list is not yet available.

More Amendments to S 2943 – FY 2017 NDAA – 06-07-16

Yesterday there were 107 Amendments proposed for S 2943, the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, currently under consideration in the Senate. Two of those amendments may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

• SA 4465. Mr. JOHNSON (R,WI) – SEC. 1097. Critical Infrastructure Protection Act. Pgs S3553-4

• SA 4531. Mr. BOOKER (D,NJ) – SEC. 1097. Implementation of outstanding transportation security requirements. Pg S3589

The Amendments

Johnson’s amendment is essentially the EMP defense language seen in the reported version of S 1846.

The Booker amendment would require the TSA to complete (within six months) two railroad security rulemakings required by the the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1162 and 1167). Those requirements address:

• §1162 - Railroad carrier assessments and plans

• §1167 - Railroad security training program

Moving Forward

The Senate began actual consideration of amendments to S 2943 yesterday. The adopted 18 amendments; all but two by voice votes. None of the amendments that I have been reporting on here were considered. Consideration of amendments continues today and there are two amendment cloture votes scheduled for Thursday. At this point it does not look like the Senate will vote on the bill this week.

Committee Hearings – Week of 5-15-16

This week both the House and Senate will be in Washington, but there are only a limited number of hearings currently scheduled that may be of specific interest to readers of this blog; an EMP hearing and four spending bill markups in addition to the Rules Committee hearings on the FY 2017 NDAA I mentioned earlier.

EMP Hearing

The Oversight and Management Efficiency Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing on Tuesday on “Oversight of Federal Efforts to Address Electromagnetic Risks”. The witness list includes:

• Chris P. Currie, Government Accountability Office;

• Brandon Wales, Office of Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis, DHS;

• Joseph McClelland, Office of Energy Infrastructure Security, FERC;

• Judson Freed, Emergency Management & Homeland Security, Minn

The hearing will include a review of the latest GAO study on the federal efforts to counter electromagnetic risks, such as an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), to the nation’s critical infrastructure.

Spending Bill Markups

The House Appropriations Committee will be holding markups this week on three spending bills:

• Markup of FY 2017 Defense Bill;

• Markup of FY 2017 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill; and

• Markup of FY 2017 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill

The Defense bill markup will be on Tuesday before the full Committee, the other two are subcommittee markups. The draft copy of the defense bill being marked up does not currently include any specific mention of cybersecurity matters. No drafts are yet available on the other two bills.

The FDA spending bill will be taken up in the Senate Appropriations Committee this week. On Tuesday the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Subcommittee will conduct their markup and the full Committee will take up the bill on Thursday.

On the Floor

The House will take up HR 4703, the National Cybersecurity Preparedness Consortium Act of 2016 that I discussed last week. As I mentioned in that post, the bill will be considered tomorrow under suspension of the rules. There will be limited debate and a 2/3 vote will be required for passage. It will almost certainly be passed.

The House will also take up HR 4909 on Thursday. That bill will also pass with at least some measure of bipartisan support, but it is hard to say whether or not it will be completed this week.

The Senate will resume consideration of HR 2577, the FY 2017 THUD spending bill. Unless there is some poison pill amendment added to the bill, the Senate will likely finish consideration of the bill this week.

S 1846 Reported in Senate

On Tuesday the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee published their report on S 1846, Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (CIPA) of 2015. The report and revised language of the bill reflect changes made to the bill during a markup hearing conducted last July.

Changes to the Bill

The first significant change to the bill is found in the way it changes definitions in 6 USC 101. Instead of a single definition for ‘EM Threat’, the new language adds two definitions; one for ‘EMP’ (electromagnetic pulse) and a separate definition for ‘GMD’ (geomagnetic disturbance). Both EMP and GMD were included in the definition of EM Threat in the original language.

This revised definition results in a large number of editorial changes in the subsequent wording of the bill where ‘EMP and GMD’ are substituted for ‘EM’ or ‘EM Threat’. The real significance of this change is not apparent until the revised wording for the proposed addition to 6 USC 121(d) is seen. The original change called for a study on how to protect critical infrastructure against EM threats. The new wording calls for a similar report, but only after requiring an “intelligence-based review and comparison of the risk and consequence of threats and hazards, including GMD and EMP, facing critical infrastructures” {new §121(d)(26)(A)}. This means that the EMP and GMD threats are evaluated separately and may be treated differently in the subsequent strategy.

Similar wording changes were made in the proposed language for the new §319 (GMD and EMP Mitigation Research and Development) and the new §527 (National Planning and Education).

Moving Forward

Publication of this report indicates that Johnson is prepared to try to move this bill forward to the Floor of the Senate. I doubt that this bill will engender any significant debate or amendments; it does not allow any new regulations or expenditures. It is probable that this bill would be considered under the Senate’s unanimous consent provisions with no debate and no actual vote.

The House bill on this topic (HR 1073) was reported last August, but there has been no move to bring it to the floor. That bill is not as extensive in its treatment of the EMP threat (the definition of which in that bill encompasses both the EMP and GMD issues identified in this bill).

The big problem here for both of these bills is that there are some congress critters that are passionate about this problem, but for most it is seen as a non-issue. The closer we get to the summer recess, the less likely it is that either of these bills will see floor action. Higher priority bills are going to squeeze them out of the available time.

Commentary

The changes to the S 1846 will place the risks to the grid from EMP attacks or GMD activities in a more realistic perspective. Requiring the evaluation of these risks alongside the other risks to critical infrastructure will help to ensure that appropriate responses to all of the risks are properly prioritized.

HR 8 Amendments

The House Rules Committee met this afternoon to craft the rule for the consideration of amendments to HR 8, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015, on the floor of the House. A structured rule was approved with 38 amendments to be considered during the floor debate.

Amendments of Possible Concern

Of the six amendments that I discussed yesterday only four were included for possible consideration on the floor. Those four are:

4. Franks (R,AZ) #93 (LATE) (REVISED) Secures the most critical components of America's electrical infrastructure against the threat posed by a potentially catastrophic electromagnetic pulse.

9. Jackson-Lee (D,TX) #84 (LATE) Directs the Secretary of Energy to submit to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on methods to increase electric grid (10 minutes) resilience with respect to all threats, including cyber attacks, vandalism, terrorism, and severe weather, no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of the Act.

32. DeSaulnier (D,CA), Lowey (D,NY), Garamendi (D,CA) #34 Requires the Department of Energy to study the maximum level of volatility that is consistent with the safest practicable shipment of crude oil.

38. Norcross (D,NJ) #19 (REVISED) Directs the Secretary of Energy to study weaknesses in the security architecture of certain smart meters currently available.

The revision to the Franks amendment added an exemption from the requirements of the amendment for the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration.  The revision to the Norcross amendment adds a requirement for the Secretary to ‘promulgate rules’ to correct the weaknesses discovered in the required study.

Moving Forward

The amendment process will probably start tomorrow. With only 10 minutes of ‘debate’ on each amendment it should go pretty quickly. I expect that there will be a final vote on the bill tomorrow. While the bill will almost certainly pass, the question will be how many Democrats vote for the bill. With the President promising a veto of the bill the Republicans need a total of 290 votes to override aveto.

Homeland Security Committee Reports HR 1073

Before leaving Washington for the summer recess, the House Homeland Security Committee filed their report on HR 1073, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (CIPA). There are no changes to the bill beyond what I already reported, but there is some discussion about the one controversy surrounding the bill.

EMP vs Geomagnetic Storm

Section 2(a) of the revised bill amends 6 USC 101 by adding the definition of ‘EMP’. That definition includes both intentional man made electromagnetic pulse events and geomagnetic disturbances caused by solar storms.

On page 7 of the Committee Report there is a discussion about the difference between the two types of events. It clearly states that:

“The committee is aware of the concerns of industry in the possible confusion between pulses caused by intentional means, such as a high altitude nuclear weapon detonation, and those caused by natural phenomena such as solar storms. The magnitude and the temporal duration of the energy released are very different.”

Ranking Member Thompson (D,MS), in his ‘additional view’ response to the report on page 19, further explains the distinction between the two types of events this way:

“An EMP event is manmade and expected to impact all microprocessors. A GMD is naturally-occurring and expected to impact primarily bulk power and communication systems.”

This, of course means that the mitigation measures undertaken to lessen the effects of the two types of events will be different. They will both need to provide similar protections of the electric grid, but an EMP event would also have to protect a much wider variety (and much larger number) of electronic devices throughout the country to be effective.

Moving Forward

Because the bill allows no regulatory action or the spending of any new money this bill passed in Committee by a voice vote, even considering Thompson’s concerns. I would expect this bill to see the same bipartisan support on the floor of the House where it will almost certainly be considered under the ‘suspension of the rules’ process with limited debate and no amendments. There is a very good chance that this bill will reach the floor before the end of the fiscal year even with everything else that will be going on the House.

Commentary

While the Committee noted that the intent of their EMP definition was to “keep these electromagnetic pulse initiating events distinct and separate, as well as the resulting impact on critical infrastructure such as the electric power grid” (pg 7) it would seem to me that defining the two terms separately and requiring planning and research activities to address both types of events would have made that distinction clearer.

This is not just a semantic distinction. It may be possible to protect the electric grid from a geomagnetic storm (GMS) event, or at least provide adequate spare parts to get substantial parts of the grid back into operation in a reasonable time after such an event. All it would take is large sums of money. The problem with a large scale EMP event is that while many of those same grid protection measures may be useable to mitigate an EMP event’s effect on the grid, the larger problem of the destruction of nearly all electronic devices within line of site of the nuclear device initiating the EMP event cannot practically be mitigated.

Smaller scale, non-nuclear EMP attacks (like that shown in the movie Oceans Eleven), are of course a different matter. Their small scale and relatively limited impact would still be much more difficult to mitigate than a similar scale GMS event, again because of the simultaneous destruction of microprocessor based devices. But, depending on the size of the device used, it may be possible to throw enough money at the problem after the attack to allow for a reasonable recovery.

This bill will move to the Senate in its current form. There is a remote chance that it will be revised by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee before it comes to a floor vote, but I suspect that it will move straight to consideration on the floor of the Senate by unanimous consent.

This means that we will have to rely on DHS to make a reasonable distinction between these two types of events. Hopefully they would use their limited resources (again no new resources are being authorized in this bill) to concentrate on the GMS threat and pretty much ignore the EMP event. Spending any time or money on the EMP threat will achieve nothing but detracting from other work on more likely threats.

S 1846 Introduced – EMP Protection

Last week Sen. Johnson (R,WI) introduced S 1846, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (CIPA) of 2015. In my initial post about the introduction of this bill I commented that it might be a companion bill to HR 1073; that is not the case even though they share a common title. This bill requires more extensive activities from DHS than just consider electromagnetic pulse events (natural and man-made) in federal planning scenarios.

The bill starts off by adding a definition of ‘EM Threat’ to 6 USC 101 which encompasses electromagnetic pulses caused both by manmade actions and natural events. It then adds a new paragraph to 6 USC 121(d) requiring DHS to develop a “strategy to protect and prepare the critical infrastructure of the American homeland against EM threats, including from acts of terrorism” {new §121(d)(26)(A)(i)}.

It then goes on to add two new sections to the Homeland Security Act of 2002:

SEC. 318. EM threat research and development.

SEC. 526. National planning frameworks and education.

Research

The new §318 would require DHS S&T to conduct research and development to mitigate the consequences of EM threats. That research would include {new §318(b)}:

∙ An objective scientific analysis of the risks to critical infrastructures from a range of EM threats;

∙ Determination of the critical national security assets and vital civic utilities and infrastructures that are at risk from EM threats;

∙ An evaluation of emergency planning and response technologies that would address the findings and recommendations of experts, including those of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack;

∙ An analysis of technology options that are available to improve the resiliency of critical infra- structure to EM threats;

∙ The restoration and recovery capabilities of critical infrastructure under differing levels of damage and disruption from various EM threats;

∙ An analysis of the feasibility of a real-time alert system to inform electric grid operators and other stakeholders within milliseconds of a high-altitude nuclear explosion.

Planning

The planning requirements under the new §526 are very similar to those found in HR 1073. It would require the DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate to:

∙ Include EM threats in national planning frameworks; and

∙ Conduct outreach to educate owners and operators of critical infrastructure, emergency planners, and emergency response providers at all levels of government regarding EM threats.

Restricting DHS Activity

The final two sections of the bill limit the ability of DHS to effectively complete any of the above actions. Section 4 specifically denies DHS any regulatory authority to advance EMP protections. Section 5 specifically requires DHS to execute the actions discussed above with funds currently appropriated to the Department.

Moving Forward

Johnson is the Chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee so he certainly has the political pull to move this bill forward. In fact, the bill was marked up in a Committee business meeting this week. Unfortunately, because the way the Senate does their business the substitute language adopted by the Committee is not posted to the Committee web site like we see in the House. This means that we will have to wait for the Committee Report on the bill to see what changes were made.

It will be interesting to see if Johnson is interested enough in this bill to put his political will forth to move the bill to the floor of the Senate. If it gets there, this bill will likely be passed by a bipartisan majority since it deals with a potentially catastrophic event, but does not require new regulations, nor will it cost any new money.

Commentary

EMP threats are the classic black swan event; absolutely catastrophic consequences but very low probability of occurrence. A cataclysmic geomagnetic storm has about the same probability of happening as a major comet/asteroid strike on the Earth. The difference between the two type of events is significant; we will see a comet/asteroid strike coming and may be able to take actions to prevent the strike. Any warning for a geomagnetic storm will be quite short.

The problem of a man-made EMP event of national significance has been widely overblown. Yes a properly designed nuclear weapon detonation very high over the heartland would very likely result in a catastrophic national-level EMP event. Fortunately, the old Cold War, strategy for preventing such an event is still in place; mutually assured destruction. Long before the weapon reached it detonation point, the massive counterstrike of our nuclear triad would be in route to the country that launched that missile. There are much more deniable methods for our nuclear missile capable adversaries to take out our electric grid infrastructure.

The other main problem with the current efforts to protect the Homeland against a catastrophic EMP event is that they are quite frankly a waste of time. Even if we were able to protect the electric grid from such an event (a very expensive and technologically iffy proposition at best) it would still not stop the virtual destruction of our country. That is because an EMP event of the requisite magnitude would also destroy almost every civilian (and many military) microprocessors in the country. No modern vehicles would be running, no communications would be functioning, no distribution systems would be operating, almost all modern electronic gadgets, widgets and dodads would be dead because their microelectronic circuits would be fried beyond redemption. It would be the ‘end of civilization as we know it’. And the scope of that electronic cataclysm gets worse every day as the internet of things expands.

I am much more concerned about the tactical level EMP event like that seen in the Oceans 11 (2001 remake) movie. A portable electromagnetic device is used to create a localized EMP event. The resulting local chaos would then be used to cover a more common type of terror attack that would be made more effective by a very reduced response due to the lack of communication and physical response capability. But even this type of event is currently at almost the science fiction level possibility, these types of devices would be large, cumbersome and require a large energy source.

Having said all of that, I understand the congressional fascination with EMP events. They are conceivably a societal level cataclysm and no one wants history to record that they did not attempt to do something to prevent them. Unfortunately, because no funding is made available for the work required, this bill will only take resources away from other problems that have a much higher probability of occurrence and it will do nothing to mitigate the underlying EMP problem.

Bills Introduced – 07-23-15

Yesterday there were 70 bills introduced in the House and Senate. Only one of those may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

S 1846 A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to secure critical infrastructure against electromagnetic threats, and for other purposes. Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]

Given yesterday’s hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on the subject, I suspect that the ‘electromagnetic threats’ referenced in the title of this bill refer to electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and geomagnetic storms. We will have to wait and see if this is just another study/planning bill or if it actually outlines very expensive measures to protect CI against these low probability, high consequence events.

Committee Hearings – Week of 7-19-15

This week both the House and Senate will be in Washington, but the hearing schedule looks pretty light as Congress marches on towards its summer break. Only two hearings of potential specific interest to readers of this blog; both in the Senate.

PHMSA Nomination

The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will be holding a nomination hearing on Tuesday to look at Marie Therese Dominguez who has been nominated to be the next Administrator of the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration.

EMP and Solar Storms

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will be holding a hearing on Tuesday to look at “Protecting the Electric Grid from the Potential Threats of Solar Storms and Electromagnetic Pulse”. The witness list includes:

∙ R. James Woolsey, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

∙ Joseph H. McClelland, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

∙ Richard L. Garwin, PhD, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center

∙ Christopher P. Currie, GAO

∙ Bridgette L. Bourge, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

Committee Hearings – Week of 05-11-15

Both the House and Senate will be in session this week. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDA) for 2016 is big on both sides of the Hill. The THUD (Transportation, Housing and Urban Development) spending bill is also moving forward. There are also two other hearings of potential interest to readers of this blog on drones and EMP.

Spending

The Senate Armed Services Committee and various sub-committees will be marking up their NDA (S 1118) all week. The text of that bill hasn’t been released yet, so we will have to wait and see what the final bill looks like, probably next week.

The House Rules Committee only has a general debate scheduled for the House version of the NDA (HR 1735). That hearing is scheduled for tomorrow evening. But the House is scheduled to take up the bill later this week so a rule meeting will almost certainly be held on Wednesday.

The House Appropriations Committee will markup the THUD bill on Wednesday. It would not be surprising to see amendments concerning rail hazmat issues.

Drones

The Oversight and Management Efficiency Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee will hold a markup hearing on Wednesday. Five bills will be addressed, including HR 1646, the Homeland Security Drone Assessment and Analysis Act. This bill has some serious bipartisan support and should move to the floor of the House rather quickly.

EMP

The Interior and National Security Subcommittees of the House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee will be holding a hearing on Wednesday looking at the threat of EMP events. No witness list is yet available.

HR 1073 Introduced – EMP

As I mentioned earlier Rep. Franks (R,AZ) introduced HR 1073, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act. This bill would require DHS to consider electromagnetic pulse events (natural and man-made) in federal planning scenarios.

As I mentioned in my earlier post this bill is closely patterned after HR 3410 which was introduced and passed in the House last session. Now that I have had a chance to actually read HR 1073 it is clear that it is the same bill with two inconsequential additions;

Section 3 was added to specifically state that this bill cannot be “be construed to grant any regulatory authority”;

Section 4 was added to specifically state that this bill provides no authorization for new spending and that it may only “be carried out only by using funds appropriated under the authority of other laws”.

The added wording was superfluous as there is no mention of regulations or spending authority in the bill. As with the previous bill this will require DHS to undertake new work without providing any new money or manpower. That being said I don’t see any significant opposition to this bill in either house.

If it is brought up it will be considered under suspension of the rules in the House and under unanimous consent procedures in the Senate, so there will be not real debate and no amendments offered. If it gets to the floor in either case it will be passed with a substantially bipartisan vote.

Bills Introduced – 02-25-15

There were 66 bills introduced yesterday in the House and Senate. Only one of those bills might be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

HR 1073 To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to secure critical infrastructure against electromagnetic threats, and for other purposes. Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ-8]

I suspect that this will be very similar to HR 3410 introduced last session by Rep. Franks. That bill passed in the House on a voice vote, but was never acted upon in the Senate.

HR 3410 Passes in House on Voice Vote

After just 17 minutes of debate, the House today passed HR 3410 on a voice vote. As I noted earlier today, the bill would require to consider electromagnetic pulse (EMP) events, both natural and man-made, in its emergency planning processes. No new money was allocated to DHS to implement these new planning requirements.

If this bill makes it to the floor of the Senate (always an iffy proposition in the 113^th Congress) I would expect that it would be adopted in that body under their unanimous consent process.

HR 3410 Introduced – EMP Planning

As I noted in an earlier blog post Rep. Franks (R,AZ) introduced HR 3410, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (CIPA), which would require DHS to consider electromagnetic pulse (EMP) incidents in its critical infrastructure emergency planning process.

Section 2(a) of the bill would amend the Homeland Security Act by adding a definition of EMP to 6 USC §101, adding a new section to Title V requiring the Secretary to include EMP incidents in national planning scenarios, and adding a new section to Title III that would require DHS S&T to conduct research on mitigating the effects of EMP events.

The definition would specifically include natural and manmade EMP events. Given the fact that a large scale EMP event (natural or a deliberate attack) would be as devastating to a modern technological society as a full scale nuclear attack (I know, no direct physical destruction, but the simultaneous termination of EVERY ELECTRONIC DEVICE within range of the event would have immediate and long term catastrophic consequences) I suppose that DHS ought to be looking at this. It should rank right up there with planning for a post-nuclear holocaust or the explosion of the Yellowstone super-volcano dome.

Responding to the use of a smaller scale EMP device directed at critical infrastructure, is of course a slightly different situation. Still the technical sophistication required to make an effective weapon based upon this technology probably makes the use of such a weapon by terrorists slightly less likely than their employment of a nuclear weapon.

I suppose that a rational consideration of the extent of the threat explains the lack of authorization of new spending to support the research requirements of this bill.

Since this bill does not actually require anyone to do anything other than come up with yet another bureaucratic plan, this plan would not face significant opposition if it made it to the floor of the House. I would be surprised, however, if this bill made it out of committee due to lack of consideration rather than any actual opposition.

Cyber Threats and Security Solutions Hearing Update

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has updated their hearing web site with additional information about tomorrow’s hearing on Cyber Threats and Security Solutions. Copies of witness testimony have been posted to the site.

The testimony of Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, American Gas Association, will be of particular interest to the cybersecurity community and the pipeline security community. He provides an interesting summary of the various programs that help the pipeline industry identify cybersecurity issues and techniques for dealing with those issues. Since a great deal of the industry’s cyber portfolio deals with control systems over hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines, McCurdy’s testimony is mainly about control system security issues.

You would expect that the testimony from a former head of the CIA, R. James Woolsey, would focus on intelligence issues related to cyber security. Unfortunately, Woolsey’s testimony is a one-trick-pony-show about the threat of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks. I’ll admit that the consequences of an EMP event (natural or man-made) is a potentially catastrophic cyber-problem on a very large scale, but this does not seem to be the place to do more than mention the threat in passing.

Former Directory of National Intelligence (DNI) McConnell does address intelligence and information sharing issues in his testimony. He introduces a new and very scary term “suicide cyber attacks”, fortunately he doesn’t provide a definition of the term that lives up to the scare value of its source term, suicide bomber. How you get the blind acceptance of a sure death linked up with the intellectual curiosity necessary for cyber-attacks is completely ignored.

It looks like the remainder of the nine-member witness panel will be dealing with IT security issues. I’m not belittling those concerns, there are very many more IT computers out there, but I will leave coverage of their testimony for other bloggers.