Review – HR 2980 Introduced – Energy Cybersecurity Research

Back in April Rep Ross (D,NC) introduced HR 2980, the Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Act of 2025. After finding that integrating “cybersecurity considerations into the research, design, and development of energy infrastructure represents a cost-effective approach to enhancing the security, resilience, and reliability”, this bill would require DOE to establish an “Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Program”. No money is authorized by this bill for the program.

HR 2980 is essentially the same as HR 302 which was introduced by Ross in January of 2023. The bill was considered by the full House on February 6^th, 2023, under the suspension of the rules process. HR 302 passed by a vote of 357 to 56. No action was taken on that bill in the Senate.

Moving Forward

The House is scheduled to consider HR 302 on Monday under the suspension of the rules process. That process provides for limited debate, allows for no floor amendments, and requires a super-majority for passage. Scheduling a bill for consideration under this procedure indicates that the leadership expects the bill to receive substantial bipartisan support.

Commentary

Two separate sessions of Congress have had this bill passed in the House, only to have it die in the Senate without consideration. Part of this is procedural. The House has the ‘suspension of the rules’ process that allows bills to pass after abbreviated (40 minutes of debate) consideration with a 2/3rds ‘super majority’. While the Senate only requires a 3/5ths majority for passage, that is only after a lengthy (typically multiple days) debate process requiring as many as three procedural votes before the final vote on the bill. This means that only politically important bills generally get considered in the Senate. Minor bills may pass under the unanimous consent process, but a single voice ‘objecting’ to the bill stops that process. There is no requirement that the objection has anything to do with the bill being considered, frequently it is a political ploy looking to trade removing the objection for considering something else entirely.

 

For more information on the provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-2980-introduced-energy-cybersecurity - subscription required.

Review - HR 302 Passes in House – Cybersecurity Research

Yesterday evening, the House took up H 302, the Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Act of 2023. After 11 minutes of debate under the suspension of the rules process, and a demand for a recorded vote, the House voted 357 to 56 (with 20 absences) to pass the bill. The bill would require DOE to establish an “Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Program”. No money is authorized by this bill for the program.

Moving Forward

This bill had strong bipartisan support in the House. There is little indication that it would face substantial organized opposition to consideration in the Senate. While there should be more than sufficient votes to close debate in that body, this is a relatively minor bill that is unlikely to take up time in the Senate. There is a possibility that the bill could be considered under the unanimous consent process, but I suspect that it would be held up by lone voices of opposition.

 

For more details about the debate yesterday, including a discussion about the prospects for funding this program should the bill be enacted, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-302-passes-in-house - subscription required.

Committee Hearings – Week of 2-5-23

This week with both the House and Senate in Washington, there is a slight increase in the pace of committee hearings with a number House hearings on Republican investigations beginning. Organizational hearing still predominate.

Organizational Hearing of Note

House Homeland Security Committee – 2-8-23,

House Appropriations Committee – 2-8-23, and

Senate Homeland Security ang Governmental Affairs Committee – 2-9-23

House Rules Committee Hearing

The House Rules Committee will meet today to formulate a rule on three pieces of legislation to be considered by the House this week, what they are is not particularly important here. What is worth watching, however, is how the new Rules Committee operates and how the Republican leadership continues (or not) their promise of opening up debate in the House.

Of the three bills (actually two resolutions and one bill) only one (HR 185, To terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for proof of COVID–19 vaccination for foreign travelers, and for other purposes) has been opened for proposed amendments. Amendment submissions will close today at 10:00 am for the 5:00 pm hearing. To date eight amendments have been submitted, seven from Democrats and 1 from a Republican. With the light schedule this week, there is no logistical reason why all eight amendments could not be debated on the floor of the House.

The bill is likely to pass on a party-line vote and will probably be ignored in the Senate.

On the Floor

In addition to the three bills mentioned above, the House will consider three additional bills under the suspension of the rules process. Those debates are scheduled for today. One of those bills (as I mentioned Saturday) is of interest here: HR 302, the Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Act of 2023.

Tuesday evening will be the State of the Union address by President Biden. This bit of political theater could get mildly ugly this year, depending on how restrained the right-wing opposition is or is not. I suspect that there will be some loud heckling at the least.

Review - HR 302 Introduced – Energy Cybersecurity Research

Last month, Rep Ross (D,NC) introduced HR 302, the Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Act of 2022. After finding that integrating “cybersecurity considerations into the research, design, and development of energy infrastructure represents a cost-effective approach to enhancing the security, resilience, and reliability”, this bill would require DOE to establish an “Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Program”. No money is authorized by this bill for the program.

Moving Forward

The House is scheduled to consider HR 302 on Monday under the suspension of the rules process. That process provides for limited debate, allows for no floor amendments, and requires a super-majority for passage. Scheduling a bill for consideration under this procedure indicates that the leadership expects the bill to receive substantial bipartisan support.

Commentary

This bill does not authorize any funding for the Leadership Program. Historically, this has been a fairly common practice for relatively low-cost programs. Funding typically comes from the ‘fat’ in the appropriations bill. Under the 118^th Congress, however, this may pose a problem. The new House Rules adopted last month allows anyone to raise a point of order against any money in a spending bill that is allocated to a program in excess of the amount specifically authorized by legislation. Whether this program would draw someone’s congressional ire come appropriations time is hard to predict.

 

For more details about the provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-302-introduced - subscription required.

Bills Introduced – 1-11-23

Yesterday, with just the House in session, there were 49 bills introduced. Eight of those bills may receive additional attention in this blog:

HR 274 To require a report by the Comptroller General of the United States on a national all-hazards disaster insurance program. Jackson Lee, Sheila [Rep.-D-TX-18]

HR 275 To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a study on the circumstances which may impact the effectiveness and availability of first responders before, during, or after a terrorist threat or event, and for other purposes. Jackson Lee, Sheila [Rep.-D-TX-18]

HR 276 To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish a DHS Cybersecurity On-the-Job Training and Employment Apprentice Program, and for other purposes. Jackson Lee, Sheila [Rep.-D-TX-18] 

HR 278 To require the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a study on the feasibility of establishing a Cyber Defense National Guard. Jackson Lee, Sheila [Rep.-D-TX-18] 

HR 280 To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report on cyber vulnerability disclosures, and for other purposes. Jackson Lee, Sheila [Rep.-D-TX-18] 

HR 285 To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for the remediation of cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and for other purposes. Jackson Lee, Sheila [Rep.-D-TX-18] 

HR 286 To amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize grants to health care providers to enhance the physical and cyber security of their facilities, personnel, and patients. Escobar, Veronica [Rep.-D-TX-16] 

HR 302 To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a program to provide financial assistance to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers pursuing certain courses of study relating to cybersecurity and energy infrastructure, and for other purposes. Ross, Deborah K. [Rep.-D-NC-2]

I will be covering: HR 275, HR 278, and HR 302.

I will be watching HR 274 for language and definition that would include major chemical incidents and major cyber attacks within the scope of the ‘all-hazards disaster’ scope of the bill.

I will be watching HR 276 for language and definitions that would specifically include control systems within the scope of the bill.

I will be watching HR 280 and HR 285 for language and definitions that would include private sector cybersecurity vulnerabilities within the scope of the bill.

I will be watching HR 286 for language and definitions that would specifically include medical devices within the scope of the bill.

NOTE: Jackson-Lee is another prolific crafter of legislation (38 bills introduced to date). What sets her legislation apart from the congresscritter that I mentioned earlier this week is that she frequently has co-sponsors (107 in HR 286 for instance), and she has the political connections that would allow at least some of her bills to be considered in committee, even in a Republican controlled House.

Committee Hearings – Week of 09-30-18

This week with just the Senate in Washington (the House is officially on the campaign trail and is unlikely to be in Washington until after the November election) there is a substantially lower number of hearings being held. One hearing of note is the Senate version of the review of the implementation of positive train control (PTC).

PTC Implementation

On Wednesday the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will conduct an oversight hearing on the “Implementation of Positive Train Control”. The witness list will include:

• Ronald Batory, Federal Railroad Administration;

• Susan Fleming, Government Accountability Office;

• Kevin Corbett, NJ Transit; and

• Scot Naparstek, Amtrak

This will essentially be a replay of the House hearing that was held a couple of weeks ago. The GAO report from that hearing provides an excellent summary of the PTC program and the problems that the industry is having with implementing this technological nightmare. It also points out some of the problems that the FRA is having (and will continue to have) with the oversight of program. The conclusion from that report will certainly raise the ire of everyone that saw the PTC program as the solution to deadly train wrecks, but were not really read in on what the program was actually attempting to do; that ‘everyone’ includes a whole slew of congresscritters.

On the Floor

On Friday the Senate began their consideration of the House amendment to HR 302 that I mentioned last week. This amended bill will provide a two-year authorization for the FAA. It also includes a number of other (and wildly unrelated) measures designed to ensure that the bill will be considered and ultimately approved. The most interesting provision is found in Division H of the bill; the Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018, the counter-UAS language that I have discussed elsewhere.

The Senate is scheduled to take up the bill this afternoon with a cloture vote scheduled for 5:30. It looks like the Senate will stay in session tonight until the bill is passed. Sharp-eyed readers will note that the link above shows that a number of inconsequential amendments were agreed to on HR 502 before the announcement was made concerning this week’s process on HR 302. This is a rather typical example of ‘filling the amendment tree’ to allow the Majority Leader to control the debate on a bill while complying with Senate rules requiring consideration of amendments. No other amendments have been offered on this bill.

House Set to Pass Anti-UAS Provisions?

Yesterday I ran across (and was pointed to by a couple of readers) an interesting NBC News article that was headlined: “New law would give federal government the right to shoot down private drones inside U.S.”. I thought that it was an oddly timed article on a couple of bills that I had previously reviewed here (HR 6401 or S 2836), but I went on and read it anyway. It turns out that I was right and woefully wrong.

HR 302 – FAA Reauthorization

The article noted that the bill was part of the FAA reauthorization bill that will be considered in the House tomorrow. I quickly did a search on my machine for FAA reauthorization bills and came up with HR 4, which was passed in the House in April and awaits Senate action. That bill did not contain any anti-UAS provisions and would not be reconsidered in the House until the Senate took action.

So next I looked at the House Majority Leader’s schedule page and scanned down to Wednesday, and sure enough there was a listing for HR 302, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. Its not listed in my files, so I have not covered it; odd.

Then I looked on the Congress.gov web site and found HR 302, the Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act of 2017 (well that explains why I did not cover it). The listing for HR 302 on that site contains no mention of the FAA nor UAS; something is starting to smell here.

So I go back to the Majority Leader’s page and click on the link provided there to HR 302 and low and behold I find a monstrosity; a very much amended version of HR 302 that is indeed renamed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 that includes so much more.

One last thing to check, I go to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee web site and see what I can find there. On that site I find a press release on HR 302 that explains that:

“House and Senate Committee leaders tonight announced that they have reached a bipartisan final agreement on legislation that provides long-term stability and critical reforms to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and transforms federal disaster programs to better prepare communities for disaster.  The agreement also includes a reauthorizations and reforms of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).”

The press release concludes by explaining:

“The announced agreement includes the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018, a three-year reauthorization of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and a four year reauthorization of the National Transportation Safety Board. Also included in H.R. 302 are sports medicine licensure legislation, the BUILD Act of 2018, a requirement for an assessment of the situation in Syria, the Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018, and supplemental appropriations for disaster relief.”

UAS Provisions

The new bill greatly expands the number of UAS provision from those found in HR 4. The version of HR 4 that was passed in the House included 19 sections in Subtitle B of the Safety title of the bill. HR 302 includes 43 sections. Some of the interesting provisions include:

§363 – Prohibition regarding weapons [on UAS, with exceptions];

§364 – US Counter-UAS system review of interagency coordination processes;

§365 – Cooperation related to certain counter-UAS technology;

§366 – Strategy for responding to public safety threats and enforcement utility of unmanned aircraft systems;

§370 – Sense of Congress on additional rulemaking authority;

§371 – Assessment of aircraft registration for small unmanned aircraft;

§372 – Enforcement;

§376 – Plan for full operational capability of unmanned aircraft systems traffic management; and

§382 – Prohibition [flying over wildfires].

Counter-UAS Provisions

Division H of the bill is the Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018. This is essentially a combination of HR 6401 and S 2836 that I have addressed separately. It does contain the more restrictive ‘notwithstanding’ clause in the new §210G(a) that was found in the House bill; limiting the laws that may be ignored in the process of identifying, tracking and bringing down a threatening UAS.

Commentary

The NBC News article that started off the search for this bill with a number of vague or lacking definitions in the bill. I would have preferred to see some of those concerns addressed in the bill, but it is probably more appropriate for those details to be hashed out in the regulatory process required in the new §210G(d).

My specific concerns about the language in the Counter-UAS section of the bill have been addressed in my earlier posts about the two bills that form the basis of the provisions in HR 302. It is clear to me, however, that some sort of authority needs to be provided to address specific threats posed by weaponized UAS. I am not sure that this language is the best way to deal with that, but it is limited enough to be a decent first step.

I do have, however, a major concern with the way this bill is being slid through the House. The FAA provisions have been greatly expanded from those found (and debated) in HR 4. Those provisions have been worked out behind closed doors and likely have many problems associated with them. Pushing them through the House with 40 minutes of debate that will be mainly limited to congratulating the Chair and Ranking Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on their bipartisan coordination in putting this bill together is an egregious misuse of the suspension of the rules process.

This revised bill is, however, an excellent example of the old-fashioned, horse-trading legislative process that Tip O’Neal would have been proud of. The crafters just kept adding divisions to the bill until they bought off every committee chair and ranking member that might have objected to the bill. We will see how well their efforts have paid off tomorrow when this bill comes up for consideration early in the session, though I expect that the vote will come later in the day. The leadership apparently thinks that this will pass and I suspect that they are correct.

There is a good chance, however, that even if this bill slides through the House it will die in the Senate. There it takes only a single senator to object to the political shenanigans involved in this Frankenstein’s monster of a creation to stop the bill from being considered in any abbreviated forum. And there are a number of bomb-throwers in the Senate who might take objection to this bill.