HR 3116 Introduced – DHS Authorization

As I noted in my congressional hearing blog post on Monday, Rep. King (R,NY) introduced HR 3116, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, last week. On Monday he also published an amendment in the nature of a substitute on his Committee’s web site for today’s markup of that bill. Since it is that substitute language that will actually get marked up today, I’ll use that for this review of the chemical security provisions of the bill.

No CFATS Language

As would be expected there is no language in this bill that would authorize or modify the CFATS program. While nearly everyone is firmly in favor of keeping this program in operation the wording of program extension would be very controversial. That controversy might actually prevent the consideration of the bill.

A clean, one-year extension like we see in the spending bills would not be a problem, but switching that extension to the authorization bill, might not allow the program to continue. Congress must pass spending bills each year (in some form or another), but an authorization bill is not really required. Note: there has not been a DHS authorization bill passed since the Homeland Security Act of 2002 brought the Department into being.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Sections 501 through 510 are pretty much a ‘lite’ version of the bioweapons provisions of HR 2356. As I noted in my blog on the introduction of that bill, there is nothing in this lite version that would directly address the use of chemical facilities or transports as defacto chemical weapons. As in HR 2356 there are provisions here that might have effects on chemical security and emergency response planning and execution. Those provision include:

• Sec. 502. Weapons of mass destruction intelligence and information sharing;

• Sec. 503. Risk assessments;

• Sec. 504. Individual and community preparedness;

• Sec. 507. Communications planning;

• Sec. 508. Response guidelines concerning weapons of mass destruction;

• Sec. 509. Plume modeling; and

• Sec. 510. Disaster recovery.

None of these provisions specifically address chemical security, rather they include the generic terminology ‘chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack’ (CBRN). One would hope that any supporting regulations would emphasize the fact that attacks on chemical facilities or transport would be the easiest way to effect a CBRN attack, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

I addressed most of these provisions in some depth in my posting on HR 2356 and see nothing here that would require a change in those comments.

SARS Immunity

Title VIII provides for immunity for reports of suspected terrorist activity or suspicious behavior and response. This is essentially the same wording as found in King’s HR 495 that I addressed in an earlier blog posting on that bill. Nothing new to see here, keep moving.

Moving Forward

Actually, that’s all there is; for chemical security issues at least. Completely overlooked is any mention of cyber security issues or programs within DHS. Since both Rep. King and Sen. Lieberman (I,CT), chairs of their respective homeland security committees, want to see a DHS authorization bill passed, I don’t see any reason why some version of this bill or S 1546 (see my posting on that bill) could not pass in this session; besides consideration of appropriations, jobs and other politically important legislation, of course.

Congressional Hearings – Week of 9-19-11

Just two hearings this week in Congress that might be of interest to the chemical security community; a pipeline safety bill markup and a DHS authorization markup. Additionally the FY 2012 continuing resolution is scheduled to come to the House floor this week.

HR 2937 Markup

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has scheduled a markup of HR 2937, Pipeline Infrastructure and Community Protection Act of 2011, on Tuesday and Wednesday. This bill is not yet available on the GPO website, but it should be the bill that was discussed in draft form in an earlier meeting before this committee. There are similar bills being considered by other committees in the House (HR 2845) and the Senate (S 275).

There are two other bills that are scheduled to be marked up in the same hearing and both are controversial bills designed to limit EPA actions. The discussion on these, if they go first, could certainly consume all of the available time and might cause a postponement of the consideration of HR 2937. The two day format described on the Committee web site does not really alleviate this potential problem since the first day of the hearing is only for the presentation of opening statements by committee members.

S 1546 Markup

As I mentioned in my blog post on the introduction of S 1546 the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will be holding their second day of markup hearings on the DHS authorization bill on Wednesday.

Continuing Resolution Status

Rather than doing a separate very short blog post on the status of HJ Res 79, the FY 2012 CR, I’ll just report here that the Majority Leader’s web site notes that the bill will be brought to the floor for consideration on Wednesday.

S 1546 Introduced – DHS Authorization Bill

Earlier this week Senators Lieberman (I,CT) and Collins (R,ME) introduced S 1546, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2011. A copy of the bill is not yet available from the Government Printing Office, but it is hardly necessary as the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee printed a copy of substitute language for the bill that is being considered by that Committee in markup hearings conducted this last week and next week. Since that substitute version will be the basis for any other Committee actions, a review of that will be more important than a review of the introduced version.

There is no mention of chemical, transportation, or cyber security in the bill, in fact there is relatively little mention of security in this bill reflecting the current DHS emphasis on recovery. There are still some provisions in this bill that will be of interest to the chemical, transportation and cyber security communities. They include:

• Catastrophic incident planning;

• Guidelines concerning weapons of mass destruction;

• Plume modeling;

• Metropolitan medical response system; and

• Classified national security information program.

Catastrophic Incident Planning

Section 401 sets out requirements for the Department’s responsibilities for “leading, promoting, and coordinating efforts of Federal agencies to conduct catastrophic incident planning” and reviewing plans for “private sector entities for catastrophic incidents submitted to the Federal agencies” {§526(b)(3)}. The Department is specifically tasked with “promoting and supporting appropriate catastrophic incident planning by private sector entities, including private sector entities that own or manage critical infrastructure” {§526(b)(6)}. This should include high-risk chemical facilities.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Section 413 requires the Department to establish guidelines “for responding to an explosion or release of nuclear, biological, radiological, or chemical material” {§531(a)(1)}. Those guidelines would include:

• Protective action guidelines for emergency response personnel;

• Exposure effects of the biological, chemical or radiological agents; and

• Information about effective treatments for WMD victims for emergency response personnel and mass care facilities.

Plume Modeling

Section 414 requires the Secretary to develop an ‘integrated plume model’ (similar to what we used to call a downwind message in the Army) that would serve as a tool for emergency responders for “the assessment of the location and prediction of the spread of nuclear, radioactive, or chemical fallout and biological pathogens resulting from an explosion or release of nuclear, radioactive, chemical, or biological substances” {§318(a)(2)}. Provisions would be required to be made for the release of the model to “nongovernmental organizations and the public to enable appropriate response activities by individuals” {§318(b)(2)(B)}.

Metropolitan Medical Response System

Section 418 reauthorizes the Metropolitan Medical Response System to continue to assist State and local governments “in preparing for, protecting against, and responding to mass casualty incidents by systematically enhancing cooperation and integration of emergency response providers and public health and medical personnel” {§2042(b)}. Last session similar legislation was introduced as HR 4580 and I made some suggestions then as to how CFATS emergency response planning could be incorporated into MMRS preparations.

Classified National Security Information Program

Section 602 would establish a Classified National Security Information Program which will be designed “to safeguard and govern access to classified information shared by the Federal Government with States, local governments, Indian tribes, and private sector entities” {§210G(b)}. This program would implement the provisions of EO 13526 for classified information (presumably intelligence information).

The program would include responsibility for:

• Tracking the status and final disposition of security clearance requests;

• Developing and maintaining a security profile of facilities that have access to classified information;

• Developing appropriate training for personnel with access to classified information; and

• Preparing an annual report on the status of the Program to Congress.

Moving Forward

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held the first of two markup hearings on the bill earlier this week, but there are no real details beyond a link to the web cast currently available. The second of the two hearings will be held this Wednesday, after which we should find more details on the Committee web site.