Review - HR 5371 Amended and Passed in Senate – FY 2026 CR

Yesterday the Senate finally completed action on HR 5371, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026. By votes of 60 to 40, the Senate adopted the substitute language from the Senate Appropriations Committee and then passed the amended bill. The revised language would extend the current spending through January 30^th, 2026 and would pass the three spending bills earlier adopted by the Senate when it passed HR 3944, the FY 2026 MilCon spending bill in August. The revised bill gets a new title of the “Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026”.

Moving Forward

Reportedly, the House will be in session tomorrow (still not on the Majority Leader’s calendar) to vote on this bill, violating a whole bunch of promises not to force members to vote on spending bills without adequate time to review the provisions. It appears that the Democratic leadership in the House is trying to convince members to not vote for this bill while their requested ACA subsidies are still not included. This may be important because there could be a number of Republican holdouts that will not want to vote for this bill because of the bipartisan language (and spending allocations) in the three spending bills. It is possible that this Senate deal will not be acceptable to a majority in the House, depending on how well their conference can  hold the Democrats together in opposition.

BTW: The Senate has left town for their Veterans Day Recess. They are scheduled to return to Washington on Tuesday, November 18^th, 2025.

 

For more information on the provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-5371-amended-and-passed-in-senate - subscription required.

HR 3944 Considered in Senate – MilCon Spending – 7-24-25

Yesterday the Senate continued their consideration of HR 3944, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. There were 19 amendments proposed with most being proposed revisions to SA 2976, the substitute language that was proposed on Tuesday. The most interesting amendment is SA 3038, another substitute language amendment proposed by Sen Collins (R,ME). Similar to Wednesday’s SA 2977, it would combine some version of the Senate’s Milcon spending language (SA 2976), the Senate’s AER spending bill (S 2256) and the Senate’s CJS spending bill (S 2354). There is too much detail involved to be able to tell the differences between the various versions proposed to date.

HR 3944 Considered in Senate – MilCon Spending – 7-22-25

Yesterday the Senate began consideration of HR 3944, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act with a vote to begin consideration, with a strongly bipartisan vote of 91 to 7. That vote does not signal support for the partisan spending bill passed in the House, but rather showed support for moving forward on the spending bill process.

Twelve amendments to HR 3944 were proposed yesterday. The most important will probably be SA 2976 introduced by Sen Collins (R,ME). This should be the substitute language from the Senate Appropriations Committee that probably form the basis for the Senate debate on HR 3944. It includes, as Division B, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026 (taken from S 2256), and, as Division C, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2026 (taken from S 2257).

If this bill manages to pass in the Senate, it will do so with at least some bipartisan (60 votes needed for passage) support. That means that there will be spending levels and other provisions (or lack of provisions) that will make it lose significant support from radical Republicans in the House. That would mean the amended bill would require bipartisan support in the House to be sent to the President. That could cause problems for Speaker Johnson, both with the Republican fringe and the President.

Review – S 2256 Introduced – FY 2026 ARD Spending

Last week Sen Hoeven (R,ND) introduced S 2256, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies (ARD) Appropriations Act, 2026. The Senate Appropriations Committee published their Report on the bill. There is one cybersecurity spending mention in the bill and a separate agricultural cybersecurity discussion in the Report. There is also a UAS utilization discussion in the Report

This bill is similar to S 4690, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2025, that was introduced by Sen Heinrich (D,NM) in July, 2024. No action was taken in the Senate on that bill or its House counterpart. The current House version of this legislation is HR 4121, no action has been taken on that bill to date.

Moving Forward

As with any Senate drafted spending bill, this bill will almost certainly not be considered on the floor of the Senate. Instead, if/when HR 4121 is considered in the Senate, the language of the this bill will be offered as substitute language that would subsequently be amended in floor debate and votes. If the revised version of passes in the Senate, a conference committee would be established to work out the differences between the two bills.

 

For more information about the cybersecurity and UAS provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-2256-introduced-fy-2026-ard-spending - subscription required.

Review - Bills Introduced – 7-10-25

Yesterday, with the Senate in Washington and the House meeting in pro forma session, there were 105 bills introduced. Three of those bills may receive additional coverage in this blog:

HR 4344 To direct the Secretary of the Air Force to carry out a capability demonstration project to obtain a resilient positioning, navigation, and timing capability demonstration, and for other purposes. Mullin, Kevin [Rep.-D-CA-15]

S 2257 An original bill making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes. Mullin, Markwayne [Sen.-R-OK]

S 2256 An original bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes. Hoeven, John [Sen.-R-ND]

 

For more information on these bills, including legislative history for similar bills in the 118th, as well as a Space Geek bill and a Chinese vehicle bill mentioned in passing, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/bills-introduced-7-10-25 - subscription required.

Review - HR 6524 Introduced – CISA Cybersecurity Apprenticeship Programs

Last month, Rep Houlahan (D,PA) introduced HR 6524 , the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Expansion Act. The bill would require CISA to establish an apprenticeship program that would lead to cybersecurity related employment with CISA or other Federal entity. The bill would also require the Veterans Administration to establish a pilot program providing cyber-specific training for eligible individuals. There is no funding authorized in the legislation.

This bill is very similar to S 2256 [removed from paywall], introduced in the Senate on July 12^th, 2023, and recently reported in the Senate. While there are many editorial differences between the two bills, the major difference is that the Senate bill is a standalone act, whereas this legislation would add a new section to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (§2220F). Where the Senate bill would have to be codified as a note to an existing USC section, this bill would become a new section in 6 USC. This makes finding the resulting codified language much easier.

Moving Forward

Neither Houlahan, nor any of her four cosponsors, are members of the House Homeland Security Committee to which this bill was assigned for primary consideration. This means that there would probably not be sufficient influence to see this bill considered in Committee. I see nothing in the bill that would engender any organized opposition. I suspect that there may be sufficient bipartisan support that the legislation could move to the floor under the suspension of the rules process.

Commentary

The lack of funding authorization in HR 6524 removes a possible source of opposition to the bill from the fiscal conservatives in the House. Unfortunately, it would also mean that any spending on these apprenticeship programs would have to come out of existing CISA budget authorizations. This effectively limits the size and number of apprenticeship programs that CISA could operate. It would also make it easy for CISA to decide to opt out of any new apprenticeship program.

 

For more details about the provisions of the bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-6524-introduced - subscription required. 

Review - S 2256 Introduced – CISA Cyber Training

Last month Sen Hassan (D,NH) introduced S 2256, the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Expansion Act. It would require CISA to establish an apprenticeship program that would lead to cybersecurity related employment with CISA or other Federal entity. The bill would also require the Veterans Administration to establish a pilot program providing cyber-specific training for eligible individuals. There is no funding authorized in the legislation.

This bill is nearly identical to the reported version of S 2274 from the 117^th Congress. That bill was reported favorably by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, but no further action was taken.

Moving Forward

Hassan is a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. She probably has enough influence to see this bill considered in Committee. I see nothing in the bill that would engender any specific opposition. I suspect that it would receive significant bipartisan support in committee. This bill would not be considered on the floor of the Senate under regular order, but it might make it into the DHS spending bill as an amendment.

Commentary

While this bill does not directly address control system security issues, increasing the cybersecurity qualified staffing of CISA is certainly of interest to the ICS security community. While the training programs established under this bill would be targeted at future CISA employment, they should result in a net increase to the nation’s cybersecurity workforce.

 

For more information about the two programs outlined in this legislation, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-2256-introduced - subscription required.

 

Committee Hearings – Week of 7-16-23

This week with both the House and Senate in Washington and the summer recess looming we see a typical load of hearings scheduled for both bodies. Spending bills are being marked up by both Appropriations Committees. We have an rule hearing (FAA authorization) of interest and an energy threats hearing in the House. And there are two markup hearings of interest here in the Senate.

Spending Bills

	House	Senate
THUD	Full Committee	Full Committee
IER	Full Committee
EWD		Full Committee

FAA Authorization Rule

This afternoon the House Rules Committee will meet to formulate the rule for the consideration of HR 3935, the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act. This annual ‘must-pass’ bill includes cybersecurity and UAS provisions that may be of interest here (I am working on my analysis). There have been 356 amendments proposed to the Rules Committee as of this morning.

Note: The version of the bill being considered by the Committee actually includes two additional, related bills: HR 3559 - FAA Research and Development Act of 2023, and HR 3796 - To provide for the extension of taxes funding the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to require the designation of certain airports as ports of entry.

Energy Threats

Tomorrow the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on “Examining Emerging Threats to Electric Energy Infrastructure”. No witness list is available. This will probably include cybersecurity threats, but could also address supply chain issues and physical security threats.

Senate Markups

On Wednesday, the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee will hold a business meeting to consider 25 bills, including S 1458, the SECURE Small Business Act.

Also on Wednesday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a business meeting to consider 21 bills, including S 2256, the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Expansion Act. The language for that bill has not yet been printed by the GPO, so I am not sure what the provisions are.

On the Floor

As I noted above, the House will consider the FAA reauthorization bill, starting on Wednesday.

The House will take up only four bills this week under their suspension of the rules process. Again, this is a much lighter schedule of consideration of these consensus bills than we have seen in recent years.

It looks like next week will see the first spending bills coming to the floor of the House. The House Rules committee has set amendment deadlines for HR 4368 (ARD spending) and HR 4366 (Military Construction). These will be somewhat contentious debates, but both will probably pass with narrow majorities.

Bill Introduced – 7-13-23

Yesterday, with both the House and Senate in session, there were 67 bills introduced. One of those bills will receive additional coverage on this blog:

S 2256 A bill to authorize the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to establish an apprenticeship program and to establish a pilot program on cybersecurity training for veterans and members of the Armed Forces transitioning to civilian life, and for other purposes. Hassan, Margaret Wood [Sen.-D-NH]

There is an additional bill that I would like to mention in passing:

S 2264 A bill to allow for civil and criminal actions against certain providers of interactive computer services, and for other purposes. Ossoff, Jon [Sen.-D-GA]

Depending on how limited the definition of ‘certain providers of interactive computer services’ this is certain to be a controversial bill. I do not think that I will be covering this bill, but it is on my watch list.