HR 3586 Passes in House

The House this afternoon took up HR 3586, the Border and Maritime Coordination Improvement Act, under suspension of the rules and passed the bill by a voice vote. The ‘debate’ on this bill lasted only 19 minutes.

I am still waiting to see the Committee Report on this bill to see if it clears up some of the issues that have been identified. The specific authorization of an undescribed Cybersecurity Joint Task Force makes little sense in a border security bill. Additionally, Laurie Thomas over at the Maritime Security/MTSA News blog pointed out an interesting title discrepancy in the bill in a blog post today.

It seems that §12 of the bill, dealing with Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC) is titled “Transportation Worker Identification Credential Waiver and Appeals [emphasis added] Process”. The waiver process is not dealt with at all in this bill and the appeals process is addressed only in a report required in paragraph (b). The main part of this section deals with provisions designed to stop the TWIC being issued to unregistered aliens. Maybe this will be explained in the report (probably not).

House to Consider HR 3586 Today

The House will consider HR 3586, Border and Maritime Coordination Improvement Act, under suspension of the rules today. The bill was reported yesterday. While the actual report is not yet available from the GPO, the revised language is.

The authority for establishment of a Cybersecurity Joint Task Force is still included in the bill, but the location has been changed to the new §435(k)(4) (added in §3). The TWIC provisions for aliens also remain in the bill but they are now found in §12.

Moving Forward

Since the bill will be considered under suspension of the rules, there will be limited debate and no amendments will be offered from the floor. Based upon the voice vote in Committee, I expect that this will pass with substantial bipartisan support today. This will probably be taken up by the Senate under their unanimous consent process, without debate and no vote.

Commentary

I still find it a tad bit odd that a cybersecurity joint task force is being authorized under provisions establishing border security joint task forces. I’m still hoping that the Committee Report will shine some more light on the details of this new organization.

NOTE: I overlooked this bill in my post on Monday because of the title; I seldom cover border issues. I double checked this morning when I noticed that the bill had been reported yesterday and noticed my previous looks at this bill.

NOTE: Laurie Thomas at the Maritime Security Blog, has a nice analysis of the TWIC provisions of this bill. [Added 4-13-16, 13:35 EDT].

Homeland Security Committee Marks-Up Multiple Bills

Last Wednesday the House Homeland Security Committee held a markup hearing that dealt with a large number of bills. As I mentioned in an earlier post some of those bills will be of specific interest to readers of this blog. Those include:

HR 3350, the Know the CBRN Terrorism Threats to Transportation Act;

HR 3490, the Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime Fighting Act;

HR 3503, the Department of Homeland Security Support to Fusion Centers Act of 2015;

HR 3510, the Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Strategy Act of 2015;

HR 3573, the DHS Science and Technology Reform and Improvement Act of 2015;

HR 3583, the Promoting Resilience and Efficiency in Preparing for Attacks and Responding to Emergencies (PREPARE) Act;

HR 3586, the Border and Maritime Coordination Improvement Act; and

HR 3584, the Transportation Security Administration Reform and Improvement Act of 2015.

HR 3350 was adopted without amendments on a voice vote.

HR 3490

HR 3490 was amended and adopted by a voice vote. Rep. Ratcliffe (R,TX) proposed substitute language reflecting the changes made to the bill in a Subcommittee markup which was adopted by a voice vote. Two amendments were offered by Rep. Jackson-Lee (D,TX). The first dealt with chain-of-custody training. The second dealt reaffirmed the supremacy of the fourth and fifth amendments with respect to the provisions of this bill. Both amendments were adopted by voice vote.

HR 3503

HR 3503 was amended and adopted by a voice vote. Two amendments were introduced by Rep. Loudermilk (R,GA). The first dealt with a requirement for DHS to conduct an assessment for accessibility and interoperability of the information systems used to share homeland security information between the Department and fusion centers. The second required DHS to enter into a memorandum of understanding about what types of information fusion centers would share with DHS. Both amendments were adopted by voice vote.

HR 3510

HR 3510 was amended and adopted by a voice vote. Rep. Clawson (R,FL) introduced one amendment which dealt with privacy concerns. That amendment was adopted by a voice vote.

HR 3578

HR 3578 was amended and adopted by a voice vote. Eight amendments, including alternative language offered by Rep. Ratcliffe, were offered and all were adopted on voice votes. The alternative language made no substantive changes of particular interest to readers of this blog. Of the remaining seven amendments only one of specific.

That amendment by Rep. Langevin (D,RI) that modifies the new §322 the bill adds to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. That section addressed cybersecurity R&D and this amendment adds a new activity to be addressed by DHS S&T; “support, in coordination with the private sector, the review of source code that underpins critical infrastructure information systems” {new §322(b)(4)}.

HR 3583

This bill was amended and adopted by a voice vote. Of the seven amendments offered and adopted only one would be of specific interest to readers of this blog. It was offered by Rep. Payne (D,NJ), the Ranking Member of the Committee.

The amendment modifies 6 USC 321e(c)(1); adding a new duty to job of Department Chief Medical Officer. That new requirement is specifically requiring the provision of advice on “how to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against the medical effects of terrorist attacks or other high consequent events utilizing chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents or explosives”. This wording still limits that advice to ‘chemical agents’ so it would not include advice on response to industrial chemical incidents unless they were used as part of a terrorist attack.

HR 3586

The bill was amended and adopted by a voice vote. Rep. Miller (R,MI) offered an amendment in the form of a substitute. That substitute language softened much of the language in the bill but did not make any substantive changes of particular interest to readers of this blog. None of the other ten amendments that were adopted on this bill were of specific interest to readers of this blog.

HR 3584

This bill was amended and adopted by a voice vote. None of the eight amendments adopted on this bill substantially affected areas of specific interest to readers of this blog.

Moving Forward

All of these bills are apparently on Chairman McCaul’s (R,TX) agenda for moving to the floor of the House. I expect that there is a good chance that they will all make it to the floor prior to the end of the year and there is a chance that they will all arrive on the same day. With the broad bipartisan support seen in Committee I expect that they will all be considered under suspension of the rules with limited debate and not floor amendments. All of these bills should pass with substantial bipartisan support.

I do not see any of these bills as being a high priority for getting consideration in the Senate. Any of these bills could easily pass and none would have significant opposition; it is just a matter of legislative priorities about which of these might make it to the floor of the Senate.

Commentary

Not surprisingly, none of the suggestions that I have made here in this blog for improving any of these bills were included in the amendments that were adopted. Oh well, that is always the problem with being a voice crying in the wilderness; the few people that do hear you are not necessarily ones that can do anything about it.

There was that one odd amendment by Langevin on HR 3578 that kind of interests me. It does not cover control systems since this new section uses the definition of ‘information systems’ from 44 USC 3502 which interestingly only applies to Federal IT systems.

I’m not sure what Langevin was trying to accomplish with this ‘review of source code’. Okay I suppose that I could guess that he wants someone to check these IT programs for bugs, but reviewing the source code is not probably the most effective method of doing that. And the terminology ‘that underpins critical infrastructure information systems’ was obviously not written by a programmer. Now the vendor should already be conducting a source code review prior to publishing the software, so I am not sure what Langevin is expecting this to accomplish.

The real interesting thing about this amendment is not actually what it does or tries to do, but the fact that it is part of a new trend in legislation over the last month or so where there are bits of cybersecurity language being added to bills that are not overtly cybersecurity bills. In many ways this is probably a more practical way to cybersecurity provisions passed. Large, all-encompassing bills are going to always draw somebodies ire and we will see few of them actually become law. Small targeted provisions (even if poorly written like this one) in a bill that is not going to draw substantial opposition are much more likely to get passed.

The problem is, of course, how to you keep the ineffective or even offensive small cybersecurity provisions out of otherwise good legislation? Amendments like Langevin’s are not posted in advance for public review and I doubt anyone on the Committee (members or staff) are tech savvy enough to understand how ineffective this provision actually is. And once an amendment is adopted in full committee it is unlikely to get removed in the remaining portions of the legislative process.

Small cybersecurity provisions that are written into original legislation are likely to be seen by reviewers like me, but will generally be overlooked by most people. This means that only the most objectionable are likely to draw the kind of opposition that will have them removed from the bill or modified to make them more workable.

This new approach of adding small, limited cybersecurity provisions to other types of legislation is going to start to make things interesting in the legislative process.

HR 3586 Introduced – Maritime Security

Last week Rep. Miller (R,MI) introduced HR 3568 the Border and Maritime Coordination Improvement Act. The bill would add a number of new sections to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 dealing with maritime security issues. Only a few of those provisions will be of specific interest to readers of this blog.

Joint Task Forces

The bill adds a new §420A to the Homeland Security Act that establishes a number of new border security joint task forces to “conduct joint operations using Department component and office personnel and capabilities to secure the international borders of the United States” {new §420A(a)}.

It provides for three specific task forces (East, West, and Investigation). The bill also provides authority for the Secretary to establish a number of other task forces, including one specifically to deal with cybersecurity {new §420A(i)(4)}. There are no details provided on what the purpose of a cybersecurity joint task force or how it might be constituted.

New TWIC Requirements

A new §420D is added to address concerns about Transportation Workers Identification Credentials (TWIC) being issued to non-US citizen applicants. The purpose of the new procedures outlined in this section are to ensure that “an individual who is not lawfully present in the United States cannot obtain or continue to use a Transportation Worker Identification Credential” {new §420D(a)}.

The language would require the Secretary to publish a list of documents that would provide acceptable proof that an applicant’s identity and legal presence in the United States. Additionally, a training program would have to be established to ensure that personnel processing TWIC applications from non-US citizens could detect fraudulent documents.

Finally the expiration of TWICs issued to non-US citizens would be changed so that they would expire on “the date of its expiration, or on the date on which the individual to whom such a TWIC is issued is no longer lawfully present in the United States, whichever is earlier” {new §420D(c)}.

Moving Forward

Miller is the Chair of the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee and the Committee Chair, Rep. McCaul (R,TX) is a co-sponsor of this bill. This bill will certainly move through the committee process. In fact, it is one of the bills scheduled to be marked up by the full Committee on Wednesday.

There is supposed to be substitute language for this bill offered by Miller, but that language has not yet been published. I suspect that this will be the only amendment offered to this bill and it will almost certainly be approved by a voice vote. If that is the case this bill will most likely move to the floor of the House by the end of the year under suspension of the rules.

Commentary

The adding of cybersecurity to the list of task forces that could be formed by the Secretary is kind of odd. The only other proposed or suggested task force that is not specifically designed to look at border control issues is suggested to be established in response to a major terrorist incident.

I suppose that since this bill established the bureaucratic guidelines for the establishment of joint agency task forces within the Department, it does make a certain amount of sense, but burying the provision in the US Customs Services portion of the statute still raises more questions then it answers. It will be interesting to see how/if this is specifically addressed in the Committee Report on this bill.

The TWIC provisions in this bill fall under the heading of ‘what has taken so long?’ I can see this providing some problems for people who are working here under renewable immigration documents. It is going to be costly for them to renew their TWIC more frequently than US citizens, but I don’t suspect that that was really part of the consideration for this measure.

I was kind of disappointed that this opportunity wasn’t taken to specifically include authorization for TWICs to be issued to employees of CFATS covered facilities. That would be a significant expansion in the number of TWICs to be issued, but I suspect that we are going to be seeing this happen in any course as the CFATS personnel surety program starts to ramp up. Specifically authorizing this would allow for a coordinated expansion of the program rather than a reactive expansion of capability in response to an ‘unexpected’ increase in the number of applications.

Bills Introduced – 09-22-15

There were 27 bills introduced in the House and Senate yesterday even though the House was only minimally present in a pro forma session. Three of those bills and a Senate Amendment may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

HR 3583 To reform and improve the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Office of Emergency Communications, and the Office of Health Affairs of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. Rep. McSally, Martha [R-AZ-2] 

HR 3584 To authorize, streamline, and identify efficiencies within the Transportation Security Administration, and for other purposes. Rep. Katko, John [R-NY-24]

HR 3586 To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to improve border and maritime security coordination in the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. Rep. Miller, Candice S. [R-MI-10]

S Amdt 2669 Making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes. Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS] To H J Res 61, Hire More Heroes Act of 2015

Very Brief Summaries

I’ll be watching HR 3583 for possible effects on the chemical safety programs under OHA.

HR 3584 will be of potential interest for changes to surface transportation security programs.

HR 3586 will watched for changes to the MTSA program.

This amendment to HJ Res 61 will be the first pass at a continuing resolution to fund the government through December 11^th. This will almost certainly be stalled by the Democrats because this version includes defunding of Planned Parenthood programs. The Republicans did try to defuse that issue by making those funds available to other women’s health programs, but the name ‘Planned Parenthood’ is as much a positive keystone for the Democrats as it is a negative keystone for the Republicans. There will be a cloture vote today on this amendment.

Side Note

Pro forma sessions of the House are typically attended by just three members; the acting speaker and a floor representative from each party and only involve administrative matters like receiving messages and introducing bills and resolutions. Every once in a while, however, there are actual legislative activities that take place and the results are the same as if the whole House was in attendance.

Yesterday was one of these occasions. During the six  minute long session the Foreign Affairs Committee was discharged from responsibility for H Res 50 that was introduced yesterday. The resolution was then brought to the floor for consideration, amended twice, and adopted by unanimous consent.

The resolution was introduced by Rep. Levin (D,MI) in response to concerns of the Ukrainian  community in Michigan about the Russian treatment of Nadiya Savchenko, a Ukranian military pilot, that was captured by pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine.

This is not an earth shattering bill and its passage obviously had the support of the leadership of both sides of the aisle in the House. It does show, however, that pro forma sessions in the House do need to be watched as legislative matters can be dealt with under unanimous consent rules without a quorum being present.