Last week Rep. Lesko (R,AZ) introduced
HR 4402,
the Inland Waters Security Review Act. The bill would require DHS to report to
Congress on the current and potential threats to the United States posed by
individuals and groups seeking to enter the US via inland waterways.
Threat Analysis
In preparing for the report to Congress, DHS would be
required to conduct a threat analysis that includes {§3(a)}:
• Current and potential terrorism and criminal
threats posed by individuals and groups;
• Security challenges at United States inland waters
ports;
• Security mitigation efforts with respect to the
inland waters; and
• Vulnerabilities related to cooperation be13 tween
State, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement, or international
agreements, that hinder effective security, counterterrorism, anti-trafficking
efforts, and the flow of legitimate trade with respect to inland waters.
Moving Forward
Lesko is the Ranking Member of the Transportation and
Maritime Security Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee to
which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that she is likely
influential enough to have this bill considered in Committee. Since this is a ‘report
to Congress’ bill, there is nothing in the bill that should engender any
significant opposition. If the bill were considered in Committee or moved to
the floor of the House, I suspect that it would receive significant bipartisan
support.
Commentary
It is clear from the language that Lesko is looking for
information concerning persons and material entering the US via the inland
waterways. For instance, in the paragraph referencing security challenges, the
bill specifies {§3(a)(2)} that the analysis look at:
• Terrorism and instruments of terror entering the
United States; and
• Criminal activity, as measured by the total flow of
illegal goods and illicit drugs, related to the inland waters.
These concerns are certainly important and worthy of
analysis and reporting. The bill, however, appears to ignore completely the
need for analysis of the potential for attacks against inland waterway
infrastructure or critical facilities existing along the shoreline of inland
waterways. To be fair, there is one brief mention {§3(a)(1)(B)} of the need to
look at people or groups seeking to “exploit security vulnerabilities on inland
waters.” But, given all of the other references to ‘entering’ and ‘total flow’
the impression is clear that Lesko is concerned with inland waterways as a
route into the country (a seriously legitimate concern) not waterways as
critical infrastructure.
This could be remedied by inserting a new §3(a)(1)(B)
between the two existing sub-paragraphs that would read:
“(B) attack critical infrastructure
of, and/or along, inland waterways, or”
There is one odd administrative matter in this bill that
provides some insight into the intra-committee conflicts in the House. In the
definition of ‘appropriate Congressional Committees’ {§2(1)} three committees
are listed:
• The Homeland Security Committee of the House of
Representatives;
• The Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee
of the Senate; and
• The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
of the Senate.
Presumably the Senate CS&T Committee was added because
of it’s oversight of the Coast Guard, the agency which would presumably provide
most of the information and analysis required for the report. The Committee
which is responsible for that in the House is the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. Failure to include that Committee in the definition
is part and parcel of the ongoing attempt by the Homeland Security Committee
(under both Republican and Democratic leadership) solidify its place as the
sole arbiter of security oversight in the House. While I agree that there is
just too much splitting of security oversight in both bodies, the inclusion of
the Senate transportation oversight body and not the House committee is just
petty.
Posts
