S 1065 Introduced – State Cybersecurity Grants

Earlier this month Sen. Warner (D,VA) introduced S 1065, the State Cyber Resiliency Act. The bill would establish a new Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) grant program to develop and implement a State cyber resiliency program. This is a companion bill to HR 2130.

Neither Warner nor his sole cosponsor {Sen. Gardner (R,CO)} is a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that the Committee is unlikely to take up this bill for consideration.

There is a possibility that HR 2130, if passed by the House, could make it to the floor of the Senate under the unanimous consent process, but that process is very iffy. It requires the personal support of Sen. McConnel (R,TN) and no member of the Senate objecting to the bill, even objections on grounds unrelated to the provisions of the bill. For this bill, objections to other FEMA grant programs or desire to get more controversial grant legislation to the floor could form a very real basis for objecting to HR 2130 being considered.

HR 2130 Introduced – State Cybersecurity Grants

Earlier this month Rep. Kilmer (D,WA) introduced HR 2130, the State Cyber Resiliency Act. The bill would establish a new Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) grant program to develop and implement a State cyber resiliency program. This bill is nearly identical to HR 1344 from the 115^th Congress; no action was taken on that bill.

Differences in the Bills

There are no substantive changes made in the bill. The only differences are minor editorial changes like substituting ‘5-year’ for ‘five-year’; cosmetic changes only.

Moving Forward

Kilmer is not a member of either the House Homeland Security nor Transportation and Infrastructure Committees to which this bill was assigned for consideration. Rep. McCaul (R,TX), his sole cosponsor, is an influential member of the Homeland Security Committee, so it is possible that this bill will see consideration in that Committee this session. This is different from last year when none of the eleven cosponsors were members of the appropriate committees.

I do not see anything in this bill that would engender any specific opposition to this bill. There is no specific authorization of funds for the grant program so that ‘problem’ has been avoided. I suspect that there would be substantial bipartisan support for the bill if/when it is considered in Committee. That would lead to the bill being considered under the House suspension of the rules process if it makes it to the floor of the House.