Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     113-324

======================================================================



 
  CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 
                                  2013

                                _______
                                

January 9, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. McCaul, from the Committee on Homeland Security, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2952]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Homeland Security, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 2952) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
to make certain improvements in the laws relating to the 
advancement of security technologies for critical 
infrastructure protection, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     4
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     4
Hearings.........................................................     5
Committee Consideration..........................................     7
Committee Votes..................................................     8
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     8
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures     8
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     8
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     9
Duplicative Federal Programs.....................................    10
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
  Benefits.......................................................    10
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    10
Preemption Clarification.........................................    10
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................    10
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    10
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    11
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................    11
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    19

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Critical Infrastructure Research and 
Development Advancement Act of 2013'' or the ``CIRDA Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  Section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101) is 
amended by redesignating paragraphs (15) through (18) as paragraphs 
(16) through (19), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (14) 
the following:
          ``(15) The term `Sector Coordinating Council' means a private 
        sector coordinating council that is--
                  ``(A) recognized by the Secretary as such a Council 
                for purposes of this Act; and
                  ``(B) comprised of representatives of owners and 
                operators of critical infrastructure within a 
                particular sector of critical infrastructure.''.

SEC. 3. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

  (a) Strategic Plan; Public-Private Consortiums.--
          (1) In general.--Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 
        2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
        following:

``SEC. 318. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR CRITICAL 
                    INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION.

  ``(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of the Critical Infrastructure Research and Development 
Advancement Act of 2013, the Secretary, acting through the Under 
Secretary for Science and Technology, shall transmit to Congress a 
strategic plan to guide the overall direction of Federal physical 
security and cybersecurity technology research and development efforts 
for protecting critical infrastructure, including against all threats. 
Once every 2 years after the initial strategic plan is transmitted to 
Congress under this section, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress 
an update of the plan.
  ``(b) Contents of Plan.--The strategic plan shall include the 
following:
          ``(1) An identification of critical infrastructure security 
        risks and any associated security technology gaps, that are 
        developed following--
                  ``(A) consultation with stakeholders, including the 
                Sector Coordinating Councils; and
                  ``(B) performance by the Department of a risk/gap 
                analysis that considers information received in such 
                consultations.
          ``(2) A set of critical infrastructure security technology 
        needs that--
                  ``(A) is prioritized based on risk and gaps 
                identified under paragraph (1);
                  ``(B) emphasizes research and development of those 
                technologies that need to be accelerated due to rapidly 
                evolving threats or rapidly advancing infrastructure 
                technology; and
                  ``(C) includes research, development, and acquisition 
                roadmaps with clearly defined objectives, goals, and 
                measures.
          ``(3) An identification of laboratories, facilities, 
        modeling, and simulation capabilities that will be required to 
        support the research, development, demonstration, testing, 
        evaluation, and acquisition of the security technologies 
        described in paragraph (2).
          ``(4) An identification of current and planned programmatic 
        initiatives for fostering the rapid advancement and deployment 
        of security technologies for critical infrastructure 
        protection. The initiatives shall consider opportunities for 
        public-private partnerships, intragovernment collaboration, 
        university centers of excellence, and national laboratory 
        technology transfer.
          ``(5) A description of progress made with respect to each 
        critical infrastructure security risk, associated security 
        technology gap, and critical infrastructure technology need 
        identified in the preceding strategic plan transmitted under 
        this section.
  ``(c) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the Under 
Secretary for Science and Technology shall coordinate with the Under 
Secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate.
  ``(d) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the Under 
Secretary for Science and Technology shall consult with--
          ``(1) the critical infrastructure Sector Coordinating 
        Councils;
          ``(2) to the extent practicable, subject matter experts on 
        critical infrastructure protection from universities, colleges, 
        including historically black colleges and universities, 
        Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and 
        universities, national laboratories, and private industry;
          ``(3) the heads of other relevant Federal departments and 
        agencies that conduct research and development for critical 
        infrastructure protection; and
          ``(4) State, local, and tribal governments as appropriate.

``SEC. 319. REPORT ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                    CONSORTIUMS.

  ``(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the enactment of the 
Critical Infrastructure Research and Development Advancement Act of 
2013, the Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Science and 
Technology, shall transmit to Congress a report on the Department's 
utilization of public-private research and development consortiums for 
accelerating technology development for critical infrastructure 
protection. Once every 2 years after the initial report is transmitted 
to Congress under this section, the Secretary shall transmit to 
Congress an update of the report. The report shall focus on those 
aspects of critical infrastructure protection that are predominately 
operated by the private sector and that would most benefit from rapid 
security technology advancement.
  ``(b) Contents of Report.--The report shall include--
          ``(1) a summary of the progress and accomplishments of on-
        going consortiums for critical infrastructure security 
        technologies;
          ``(2) in consultation with the Sector Coordinating Councils 
        and, to the extent practicable, in consultation with subject-
        matter experts on critical infrastructure protection from 
        universities, colleges, including historically black colleges 
        and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal 
        colleges and universities, national laboratories, and private 
        industry, a prioritized list of technology development focus 
        areas that would most benefit from a public-private research 
        and development consortium; and
          ``(3) based on the prioritized list developed under paragraph 
        (2), a proposal for implementing an expanded research and 
        development consortium program, including an assessment of 
        feasibility and an estimate of cost, schedule, and 
        milestones.''.
          (2) Limitation on progress report requirement.--Subsection 
        (b)(5) of section 318 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as 
        amended by paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall not apply 
        with respect to the first strategic plan transmitted under that 
        section.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1(b) of 
such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to such 
title the following:

``Sec. 318. Research and development strategy for critical 
infrastructure protection.
``Sec. 319. Report on public-private research and development 
consortiums.''.

  (c) Critical Infrastructure Protection Technology Clearinghouse.--
Section 313 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 193) is 
amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d), and by 
inserting after subsection (b) the following:
  ``(c) Critical Infrastructure Protection Technology Clearinghouse.--
          ``(1) Designation.--Under the program required by this 
        section, the Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for 
        Science and Technology, and in coordination with the Under 
        Secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate, 
        shall designate a technology clearinghouse for rapidly sharing 
        proven technology solutions for protecting critical 
        infrastructure.
          ``(2) Sharing of technology solutions.--Technology solutions 
        shared through the clearinghouse shall draw from Government-
        furnished, commercially furnished, and publically available 
        trusted sources.
          ``(3) Technology metrics.--All technologies shared through 
        the clearinghouse shall include a set of performance and 
        readiness metrics to assist end-users in deploying effective 
        and timely solutions relevant for their critical 
        infrastructures.
          ``(4) Review by privacy officer.--The Privacy Officer of the 
        Department appointed under section 222 shall annually review 
        the clearinghouse process to evaluate its consistency with fair 
        information practice principles issued by the Privacy 
        Officer.''.
  (d) Evaluation of Technology Clearinghouse by Government 
Accountability Office.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 
shall conduct an independent evaluation of, and submit to the Committee 
on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report 
on, the effectiveness of the clearinghouses established and designated, 
respectively, under section 313 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
as amended by this section.

SEC. 4. NO ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and this Act and such 
amendments shall be carried out using amounts otherwise available for 
such purpose.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 2952 is to amend the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 to make certain improvements in the laws relating 
to the advancement of security technologies for critical 
infrastructure protection, and for other purposes.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible 
for the prevention of, and defense against threats to United 
States critical infrastructure. Such threats come in many forms 
and include threats to people, property, and information. The 
events of September 11, 2001, demonstrated that terrorist 
attacks on the homeland can occur in unconventional ways and 
can result in unanticipated consequences to National security 
posture and economic vitality. The U.S. is fortunate to have a 
thriving infrastructure that keeps Americans safe, secure, 
free, and prosperous. But this infrastructure is 
technologically complex, interdependent, and potentially 
vulnerable to physical and cyber attack. New security 
technologies will need to keep pace with rapidly evolving 
threats and the rapid advancement of the infrastructure itself. 
Since U.S. infrastructure is primarily owned and operated by 
the private sector, improved mechanisms are needed to advance 
government-sponsored research and development (R&D;) of critical 
infrastructure security-related technologies. It is therefore 
necessary that DHS develop a comprehensive R&D; strategy and a 
set of improved R&D; mechanisms to address a broad spectrum of 
evolving threats to critical infrastructure. The Committee 
believes that this strategy requires coordination across the 
Federal Government and must be developed in collaboration with 
the private sector. Legislation is required for DHS to develop 
such a strategy, improve R&D; mechanisms, and establish and 
encourage the necessary coordination and collaboration.
    H.R. 2952, the Critical Infrastructure Research and 
Development Advancement Act of 2013, is bipartisan legislation 
developed from valuable input from stakeholders and subject 
matter experts across government and industry. This bill 
provides three major provisions that will help address R&D; gaps 
in critical infrastructure protection. First, the bill directs 
the Department of Homeland Security to facilitate the 
development of an R&D; strategy for critical infrastructure 
security technologies. This strategy will help the Federal 
Government and stakeholders prioritize their investments in 
those aspects of the infrastructure that are most at risk. 
Second, the bill requires that DHS study and report on the 
feasibility of expanding the use of public-private R&D; 
consortiums to accelerate new security technologies and 
potentially spur innovation and economic competitiveness. 
Lastly, the bill designates a ``technology clearinghouse'' 
where proven security tools for protecting infrastructure can 
be rapidly shared amongst government and private partners.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held on H.R. 2952. However, the Committee 
held oversight hearings on programs and threats relevant to 
H.R. 2952, these hearings are listed below.

112th Congress.
    The Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and 
Communications held a hearing on April 15, 2011, entitled ``The 
DHS Cybersecurity Mission: Promoting Innovation and Securing 
Critical Infrastructure.'' The Subcommittee received testimony 
from Mr. Sean McGurk, Director, National Cybersecurity and 
Communications Integration Center, Department of Homeland 
Security; Mr. Gerry Cauley, President and CEO, North American 
Electric Reliability Corporation; Ms. Jane Carlin, Chair, 
Financial Services Sector Coordinating Council; and Mr. Edward 
Amoroso, Senior Vice President and Chief Security Officer, 
AT&T.;
    On July 15, 2011, the Subcommittee on Oversight, 
Investigations, and Management held a hearing entitled 
``Homeland Security Contracting: Does the Department 
Effectively Leverage Emerging Technologies?'' The Subcommittee 
received testimony from Mr. Charles K. Edwards, Acting 
Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. David 
Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Team, 
Government Accountability Office; Mr. Rafael Borras, Under 
Secretary for Management and Chief Acquisition Officer, 
Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Tara O'Toole, Under 
Secretary, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of 
Homeland Security; Mr. Jim Williams, Vice Chair, Homeland 
Security Committee, TechAmerica; Mr. Marc Pearl, President and 
CEO, Homeland Security and Defense Business Council; and Mr. 
Scott Amey, General Counsel, Project On Government Oversight.
    On November 17, 2011 the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, 
Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies held a 
hearing entitled ``S&T; on a Budget: Finding Smarter Approaches 
to Spur Innovation, Impose Discipline, Drive Job Creation, and 
Strengthen Homeland Security.'' The Subcommittee received 
testimony from Hon. Tara O'Toole, Under Secretary, Science and 
Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security; and 
Mr. David C. Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice 
Issues, Government Accountability Office.
    On February 3, 2012, the Subcommittee on Oversight, 
Investigations, and Management held a hearing entitled ``Is DHS 
Effectively Implementing a Strategy to Counter Emerging 
Threats?'' The Subcommittee received testimony from Hon. Paul 
Schneider, Principal, The Chertoff Group; Ms. Sharon L. Caudle, 
PhD, The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas 
A&M; University; Mr. Shawn Reese, Analyst, Emergency Management 
and Homeland Security Policy, Congressional Research Service; 
Mr. David Maurer, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Team, 
Government Accountability Office; and Mr. Alan Cohn, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy, Department of Homeland 
Security.
    On April 19, 2012, the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, 
Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies held a 
hearing entitled ``The DHS and DOE National Labs: Finding 
Efficiencies and Optimizing Outputs in Homeland Security 
Research and Development.'' The Subcommittee received testimony 
from Dr. Daniel M. Gerstein, Deputy Under Secretary for Science 
and Technology, Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Huban 
Gowadia, Deputy Director, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, 
Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Daniel Morgan, Specialist 
in Science and Technology Policy, Resources, Sciences, and 
Industry Division, Congressional Research Service; Ms. Jill 
Hruby, Vice President, International, Homeland and Nuclear 
Security, Sandia National Laboratories; and Dr. Michael Robert 
Carter, Senior Scientist, National Ignition Facility and Photon 
Science Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
    On April 26, 2012, the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and 
Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, 
Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies held a 
joint hearing entitled ``Iranian Cyber Threat to the U.S. 
Homeland.'' The Subcommittees received testimony from Mr. Frank 
J. Cilluffo, Associate Vice President and Director, Homeland 
Security Policy Institute, The George Washington University; 
Mr. Ilan Berman, Vice President, American Foreign Policy 
Council; and Mr. Roger Caslow, Executive Cyberconsultant, Suss 
Consulting.
    On September 20, 2012, the Full Committee held a hearing 
entitled ``The Department of Homeland Security: An Assessment 
of the Department and a Roadmap for its Future.'' The Committee 
received testimony from Hon. Richard L. Skinner, Former 
Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security; Hon. 
Stewart A. Baker, Former Assistant Secretary for Policy, 
Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Frank J. Cilluffo, Former 
Principal Advisor to Governor Tom Ridge, White House Office of 
Homeland Security; Mr. David C. Maurer, Director, Homeland 
Security and Justice, Government Accountability Office.

113th Congress.
    On March 13, 2013, the Full Committee held a hearing 
entitled ``DHS Cybersecurity: Roles and Responsibilities to 
Protect the Nation's Critical Infrastructure.'' The Committee 
received testimony from Hon. Jane Holl Lute, Deputy Secretary, 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Anish B. Bhimani, 
Chairman, Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis 
Center; Mr. Gary W. Hayes, Chief Information Officer, 
Centerpoint Energy; and Ms. Michelle Richardson, Legislative 
Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union.
    On March 20, 2013, the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, 
Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies held a 
hearing entitled ``Cyber Threats from China, Russia and Iran: 
Protecting American Critical Infrastructure.'' The Subcommittee 
received testimony from Mr. Frank J. Cilluffo, Director, 
Homeland Security Policy Institute and Co-Director, Cyber 
Center for National and Economic Security, The George 
Washington University; Mr. Richard Bejtlich, Chief Security 
Officer and Security Services Architect, Mandiant; Mr. Ilan 
Berman, Vice President, American Foreign Policy Council; and 
Mr. Martin C. Libicki, Senior Management Scientist, RAND 
Corporation.
    On April 25, 2013, the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, 
Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies held a 
hearing entitled ``Striking the Right Balance: Protecting Our 
Nation's Critical Infrastructure from Cyber Attack and Ensuring 
Privacy and Civil Liberties.'' The Subcommittee received 
testimony from Ms. Mary Ellen Callahan, Partner, Jenner & Block 
and Former Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security; Ms. Cheri F. McGuire, Vice President, Global 
Government Affairs & Cybersecurity Policy, Symantec; and Ms. 
Harriet Pearson, Partner, Hogan Lovells.
    On May 16, 2013, the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, 
Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies held a 
hearing entitled ``Facilitating Cyber Threat Information 
Sharing and Partnering with the Private Sector to Protect 
Critical Infrastructure: An Assessment of DHS Capabilities.'' 
The Subcommittee received testimony from Ms. Roberta Stempfley, 
Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Cybersecurity and 
Communications, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Larry 
Zelvin, Director, National Cybersecurity and Communications 
Integration Center, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and 
Mr. Charles K. Edwards, Acting Inspector General, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security.
    On July 18, 2013, the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, 
Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies held a 
hearing entitled ``Oversight of Executive Order 13636 and 
Development of the Cybersecurity Framework.'' The Subcommittee 
received testimony from Mr. Robert Kolasky, Director, 
Implementation Task Force, National Protection and Programs 
Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Charles H. 
Romine, PhD, Director, Information Technology Laboratory, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department 
of Commerce; and Eric A. Fischer, PhD, Senior Specialist, 
Science and Technology, Congressional Research Service, Library 
of Congress.

                        Committee Consideration

    The Committee on Homeland Security met on October 29, 2013, 
to consider H.R. 2952, and ordered the measure to be reported 
to the House with a favorable recommendation by voice vote. The 
Committee took the following actions:
    The Committee agreed to H.R. 2952, as amended, by voice 
vote.
    The following amendments were offered:

An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2952 offered 
by Mrs. Brooks on behalf of Mr. Meehan (#1); was AGREED TO, as 
amended, by voice vote.

A unanimous consent request by Mr. McCaul to consider the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute as base text for 
purposes of amendment was not objected to.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to 
H.R. 2952 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee (#1A); was AGREED TO by 
voice vote.

         Page 2, line 17, after `` protecting critical infrastructure'' 
insert ``, including against all threats''.

An amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to 
H.R. 2952 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee (#1B); was WITHDRAWN by 
unanimous consent.

         Add at the end a new section entitled ``Sec. _. Assessment and 
Report on Vulnerabilities and Threats on Computer Systems.''

    The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure 
Protection, and Security Technologies met on September 18, 
2013, to consider H.R. 2952, and ordered the measure reported 
to the Full Committee with a favorable recommendation, as 
amended, by voice vote. The Subcommittee took the following 
actions:
    The following amendments were offered:

An amendment by Mr. Meehan (#1); was AGREED TO by voice vote.

         Page 3, line 9, strike ``the'' and insert ``any''.
         Page 5, beginning at line 16, strike ``study on the use by the 
Department'' and insert ``report on the Department's utilization''.
         Page 5, line 20, strike ``study'' and insert ``report''.
         Page 5 line 22, strike ``study. The study'' and insert 
``report. The Report''.
         Page 6, line 1, strike ``Study.--The study'' and insert 
``Report.--The report''.
         Page 7, beginning at line 18, strike ``metrics to assist end-
users in deploying timely and effective'' and insert ``performance and 
readiness metrics to assist end-users in deploying effective and 
timely''

An amendment by Ms. Clarke (#2); was AGREED TO by voice vote.

         Page 2, line 16, strike ``(a) In General.--'' and insert the 
following: ``(a) Strategic Plan; Public-private Consortiums.--
             (1) In general.--
         Page 4, after line 16, insert a new paragraph (5).
         Page 6, after line 15, insert a new section ``(2) Limitation 
on progress report requirement.--''

An amendment by Mr. Keating (#1); was WITHDRAWN by unanimous 
consent.

         Page 6, strike the closing quotation marks and the second 
period at line 15, and after line 15 insert a new section entitled 
``Sec. 320. Identification of Cybersecurity Risks to the Nuclear 
Reactors, Materials, and Waste Sector.''
         Page 6, in the matter following line 18, in the item relating 
to section 319 strike the closing quotation marks and the section 
period, and after such item insert the following: ``Sec. 320. 
Identification of Cybersecurity Risks to the Nuclear Reactors, 
Materials, and Waste Sector.''

                            Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded 
votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments 
thereto.
    No recorded votes were requested during consideration of 
H.R. 2952.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee has held oversight 
hearings and made findings that are reflected in this report.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 
2952, the Critical Infrastructure Research and Development 
Advancement Act of 2013, would result in no new or increased 
budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or 
revenues.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, November 6, 2013.
Hon. Michael McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2952, the Critical 
Infrastructure Research and Development Advancement Act of 
2013.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2952--Critical Infrastructure Research and Development Advancement 
        Act of 2013

    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2952 would have 
discretionary costs totaling less than $500,000 in each of 
fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Enacting the legislation would not 
affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures do not apply.
    The bill would require the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS), within 180 days of the bill's enactment, to transmit to 
the Congress a strategic plan for research and development 
efforts addressing the protection of critical infrastructure 
and a report on departmental use of public-private consortiums 
to develop technology to protect such infrastructure. The bill 
also would direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 
within two years of enactment, to evaluate the effectiveness of 
clearinghouses established by DHS to share technological 
innovation. Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO 
estimates the DHS and GAO reports required by H.R. 2952 would 
cost less than $500,000 annually in 2014 and 2015, assuming 
availability of appropriated funds.
    H.R. 2952 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. 
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 2952 contains the following 
general performance goals, and objectives, including outcome 
related goals and objectives authorized.
    The performance goals and objectives of H.R. 2952 are based 
on the development of a critical infrastructure research and 
development (R&D;) plan and the identification of improvements 
to DHS R&D; mechanisms. The goal of the R&D; strategic plan 
required under H.R. 2952 is to help guide the overall direction 
of Federal physical security and cybersecurity technology R&D; 
for protecting critical infrastructure. The performance 
objective of the R&D; plan is to establish and communicate 
critical infrastructure security risks, gaps, and associated 
technology solutions, and measure progress towards that end. 
The goal of the report on public-private R&D; consortiums 
required under H.R. 2952 is to aid in the acceleration of 
critical infrastructure security technologies through public-
private collaboration. The objective of this consortium report 
is to measure progress on current consortiums and to establish 
the merits of expanding the consortium mechanism to improve 
DHS's R&D; performance. Finally, the goal of designating a 
technology clearinghouse for critical infrastructure protection 
is to establish a focused mechanism for sharing information on 
proven security technologies between public and private 
entities. The performance objective of this clearinghouse is to 
assist end-users in deploying effective and timely solutions 
for their relevant critical infrastructures. The Congressional 
reports from DHS and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
that are required by this Act will allow the Congress to hold 
the Department accountable for the success or failure of its 
critical infrastructure protection R&D; programs.

                      Duplicative Federal Programs

    The Committee finds that H.R. 2952 does not contain any 
provision that establishes or reauthorizes a program known to 
be duplicative of another Federal program.

   Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
                                Benefits

    In compliance with rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the rule 
XXI.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                        Preemption Clarification

    In compliance with section 423 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, requiring the report of any Committee on a bill or 
joint resolution to include a statement on the extent to which 
the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt State, 
local, or Tribal law, the Committee finds that H.R. 2952 does 
not preempt any State, local, or Tribal law.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee estimates that H.R. 2952 would require no 
directed rule makings.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation


Section 1.  Short Title.
    This section provides that the bill may be cited as the 
``Critical Infrastructure Research and Development Advancement 
Act of 2013'' or ``the CIRDA Act of 2013.''

Section 2.  Definitions.
    In this section, Section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 
2002 (6 U.S.C. 101) is amended to include a definition for 
``Sector Coordinating Council.'' The term ``Sector Coordinating 
Council'', or ``SCC'', is defined as a private sector 
coordinating council, comprised of representatives of owners 
and operators of critical infrastructure within a particular 
sector of critical infrastructure, which is recognized by the 
Secretary for purposes of this Act. The Sector Coordinating 
Councils are an existing construct established under 
presidential directives to develop and implement a National 
Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP). As of the writing of 
this report, there are 16 critical infrastructure sectors and 
16 corresponding SCC's defined under the NIPP. The purpose of 
defining Sector Coordinating Councils in this bill is to codify 
into statute the role of such councils in informing the Federal 
government on critical infrastructure protection issues 
relevant to the research and development (R&D;) of security-
related technologies.
    The Committee believes that the Federal government needs to 
closely partner with the private sector during the 
establishment and implementation of a risk-informed R&D; 
strategy. The Committee also believes that the SCC's should 
serve as the private-sector body that enables small, medium, 
and large businesses within each sector to inform the R&D; 
strategy and to communicate progress on emerging critical 
infrastructure protection technologies.
    Since this bill only addresses the R&D; aspects of critical 
infrastructure protection, it is the Committee's intent that 
the basic definition described in this section will suffice for 
such purposes. However, the Committee recognizes that SCC's 
have a significantly broader role in critical infrastructure 
protection and that the definition herein may not suffice for 
those broader purposes. Therefore, the Committee strongly 
encourages the Secretary to develop a set of effective and 
efficient Departmental processes for defining, designating, and 
interfacing with Sector Coordinating Councils to support the 
broad critical infrastructure protection mission.

Section 3.  Critical Infrastructure Protection Research and 
Development.
    This section amends Title III of the Homeland Security Act 
of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) by adding a new Section 318 and 
a new Section 319.

Sec. 318.  Research and Development Strategy for Critical 
        Infrastructure Protection.

  (a) In General.

    This subsection requires the Secretary, acting through the 
Undersecretary for Science and Technology (S&T;), to develop and 
submit to Congress a strategic plan for guiding the direction 
of Federal physical security and cyber technology R&D; efforts 
to protect critical infrastructure against all threats. The 
plan is due to Congress 180 days after enactment and every 2 
years thereafter.
    Based on extensive oversight, the Committee has found that 
there currently is no comprehensive National strategy for the 
R&D; of security technologies for protecting critical 
infrastructure. While recent efforts by the Executive branch 
have attempted to include R&D; in the National Infrastructure 
Protection Plan, the Committee believes that roles, 
responsibilities, and accountabilities are currently ill-
defined. It is the intent of the Committee that DHS, because of 
its statutory authorities for critical infrastructure 
protection, needs to provide the necessary leadership and 
facilitation of such a National R&D; strategy. Similarly, the 
Committee believes that DHS S&T;, because of its statutory 
authorities established under Title III, needs to be the 
primary facilitator within the Department for such a National 
R&D; strategy.

  (b) Contents of Plan.

    In this subsection, the contents of the R&D; strategic plan 
are prescribed. The contents prescribed are the minimum 
contents required, however, the Committee strongly encourages 
DHS to include other aspects necessary for effective multi-year 
planning. The Committee expects that each of the prescribed 
elements in the plan be developed and published in sufficient 
detail to enable DHS and the public/private stakeholders to 
adequately plan for future technology investments. While the 
timeline of the plan is not specified in the bill, the 
Committee strongly encourages DHS to address near-term (e.g. 1-
3 years), mid-term (e.g. 3-7 years), and long-term (e.g. 8 
years and beyond) aspects in the plan. The Committee 
furthermore expects DHS to write the plan in an organized 
hierarchal manner structured around risk-based objectives, 
goals, and measures.
    The plan is to include an identification of critical 
infrastructure risks and an identification of any associated 
security technology gaps. DHS is to identify these risks and 
gaps by first consulting with stakeholders, including the 
Sector Coordinating Councils. Since the critical infrastructure 
is largely owned and operated by the private sector, the 
Committee believes that it is absolutely necessary for DHS to 
proactively engage with these owners/operators, through the 
SCC's and other mechanisms, in order to effectively identify 
risks and gaps. The Committee also believes that the risk 
identification needs to consider all threats to critical 
infrastructure, whether they be from terrorist attack or 
natural disaster. Furthermore, the Committee believes that the 
risk identification needs to consider both physical and cyber 
aspects, including potential vulnerabilities to control 
systems, computer systems, firewalls, and software.
    The plan is to include a set of critical infrastructure 
technology needs that are prioritized based on the risks and 
gaps identified in the plan. The Committee expects DHS to 
develop this plan in a manner that is not constrained by fiscal 
resources, and therefore needs to identify all potential 
technology solutions. Once these set of solutions are 
identified, however, the Committee notes that it is important 
for DHS to prioritize these so that they can be included in the 
OMB multi-year budget planning process. When identifying the 
set of prioritized technology needs, the bill requires DHS to 
emphasize the R&D; of those technologies that need to be 
accelerated due to rapidly evolving threats or rapidly 
advancing infrastructure itself. Since the bill covers both 
physical security and cybersecurity aspects for critical 
infrastructure, the Committee strongly encourages DHS to 
consider the appropriate balance between physical and 
cybersecurity priorities. At the time of writing this report, 
the Committee believes that cyber threats are rapidly evolving 
and cyber infrastructure is rapidly advancing, thereby 
necessitating a greater emphasis in such a plan at this time. 
When identifying the set of prioritized technologies, the bill 
also requires DHS to include research, development, and 
acquisition roadmaps with clearly defined objectives, goals and 
measures. The Committee strongly encourages DHS to establish 
roadmaps in a manner that is consistent with industry and 
government best practices for technology management. 
Specifically, the Committee expects that the roadmaps will 
provide sufficient detail to enable potential technology 
developers to plan for the basic research, engineering 
development, and acquisition phases of the prioritized security 
technologies. The Committee also strongly encourages DHS to 
utilize standardized terminology and metrics when publishing 
these roadmaps. Specifically, the Committee strongly encourages 
DHS to adopt the 9-level technology readiness level (TRL) scale 
that has been recognized as a best practice by the GAO, NASA, 
DoD, and DOE.
    The plan is to include an identification of laboratories, 
facilities, modeling, and simulation capabilities required to 
support the maturation of the security technologies identified 
in the plan. The Committee believes that it is very important 
that DHS identify the laboratories, facilities and capabilities 
in order to ensure that these assets are available when needed. 
The Committee also believes that it is necessary for DHS to 
identify potential gaps in these assets to aid in the planning 
of new facility construction, laboratory retrofitting, or 
design and development of new modeling/simulation capabilities. 
The Committee encourages DHS to consider government assets in 
the plan and also include third-party assets that could be 
leveraged from private industry, National Laboratories, or 
academia. The Committee strongly recommends that DHS S&T; 
include laboratories, facilities, modeling, and simulation 
aspects in all of its strategic plans that it develops in 
support of the DHS mission.
    The plan is to include an identification of current and 
planned initiatives for fostering the rapid advancement and 
deployment of security technologies for critical infrastructure 
protection. These initiatives include opportunities for public-
private partnerships, intra-government collaboration, 
university centers of excellence, and National Laboratory 
technology transfer. The Committee believes that new technology 
R&D; models are needed for critical infrastructure due to the 
highly interdisciplinary and interdependent nature of the 
problem. For example, under the category of public-
partnerships, the Committee believes that R&D; consortiums are a 
potential candidate for accelerating innovation, and is a topic 
that is expanded upon in Section 319. As another example, the 
Committee believes that a potential candidate for intra-
government collaboration would involve an R&D; partnership 
between DHS and the Department of Energy, through their 
National Laboratories, to accelerate the R&D; of energy-related 
critical infrastructure security technologies. The Committee 
strongly encourages DHS S&T; to seriously consider alternative 
R&D; models for critical infrastructure protection and to 
implement new programs to support these initiatives.
    The plan is to include a description of progress made 
towards the elements described in the preceding version of the 
strategic plan. The Committee believes that it is critically 
important that DHS implement the strategic plan that it 
develops. The Committee also recognizes that plans can change 
due to unforeseen circumstances, and encourages DHS to actively 
update and republish the plan regularly as needed.
    The Committee recognizes that DHS S&T;, as of the writing of 
this report, is actively engaging with several DHS components 
to develop strategic R&D; plans. The Committee fully supports 
the Department's coordination efforts and strongly encourages 
the continuation of these strategic planning activities. It is 
the Committee's intent that the Congressional report required 
under this section leverages, and not duplicate, the strategic 
R&D; planning activities already being implemented at DHS.

  (c) Coordination.

    This subsection requires DHS S&T; to coordinate with the 
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) in 
implementing this section of the bill. Since NPPD serves as the 
Department's operational component for critical infrastructure 
protection, the Committee believes that it is absolutely 
necessary that S&T; and NPPD coordinate to the greatest extent 
possible to plan and implement the R&D; strategy. Based on 
extensive oversight conducted by the Committee, the Committee 
believes that S&T; and NPPD have not been effectively 
coordinating their R&D-related; activities and need to 
significantly improve in this regard. The Committee notes that 
this lack of coordination is particularly acute in the 
research, development, testing, evaluation, and acquisition of 
cyber-security technologies. The intent of the Committee is to 
require such coordination under statute in order to ensure that 
such coordination occurs.

  (d) Consultation.

    This subsection requires that DHS S&T; consult with multiple 
entities in implementing this section of the bill. The 
Committee strongly encourages that DHS consult and collaborate 
with the owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as 
represented through the Sector Coordinating Councils. 
Furthermore, the Committee strongly encourages that DHS consult 
with a broad cross-section of subject matter experts on 
critical infrastructure protection from the private sector, 
National Laboratories, and academia. The Committee recognizes 
that such broad subject matter expert engagement has certain 
logistical challenges, but encourages DHS to use innovative 
means such as workshops, social media, and webinars to carry 
out such consultation. The bill also requires consultation with 
other Federal Departments and agencies that conduct R&D; for 
critical infrastructure. The Committee expects DHS S&T; to 
provide the Federal leadership role in facilitating a National 
R&D; strategy, and the Committee believes that such intra-
government consultation is absolutely necessary. The Committee 
notes that other branches of the Federal government that 
conduct critical infrastructure protection R&D; include: DOE, 
DoD, NIST, and NSF. Finally, this subsection requires 
appropriate consultation with State, local, and Tribal 
governments. The Committee believes that State, local, and 
Tribal entities have an important role in preparedness and 
emergency response to critical infrastructure incidents and 
that their perspectives and needs are an important 
consideration in the development of the R&D; strategy. The 
Committee notes that State and local entities include port 
authroities.

Sec. 319.  Report on Public-Private Research and Development 
        Consortiums.

  (a) In General.

    This subsection requires the Secretary, acting through the 
Undersecretary for S&T;, to develop and transmit to Congress a 
report on the Department's utilization of public-private 
research and development consortiums for accelerating 
technology development for critical infrastructure protection. 
The report is due 180 days after enactment of the bill and 
updated every 2 years thereafter. The bill requires that the 
report focus on those aspects of critical protection that are 
predominately operated by the private sector and would benefit 
from rapid security technology development.
    The Committee believes that DHS has underutilized public-
private R&D; partnerships in its overall science and technology 
strategy. The Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 
(Pub. L. 106-404) and other related legislation, provides the 
Federal government the necessary mechanisms to conduct public-
private shared R&D.; While DHS has implemented some public-
private R&D; consortiums, they have tended to be small (several 
million dollars or less), and managed through non-private 
third-party entities. The Committee believes that DHS needs to 
expand its consideration of public-private R&D; consortiums, 
especially in areas that are mutually beneficial between the 
two sectors. The Committee notes that critical infrastructure 
protection, because of significant private-sector stakeholder 
interest, would greatly benefit from increased use of improved 
R&D; consortiums. When implementing Section 319, the Committee 
strongly encourages DHS to develop an implementation plan for 
expanding the use of public-private R&D; consortiums for 
critical infrastructure protection.

  (b) Contents of Report.

    In this subsection, the contents of the public-private R&D; 
consortium report are prescribed. The contents prescribed 
therein are the minimum contents and it is the Committee's 
expectation that DHS will include additional content as 
necessary to enable effective consortium planning. It is the 
Committee's intent that this report is to complement the R&D; 
strategy report prescribed under Section 318. The Committee 
strongly encourages DHS to develop and transmit these two 
reports in tandem and avoid any unnecessary duplication within 
the two reports.
    The consortium report is to include a summary of the 
progress and accomplishments of on-going R&D; consortiums for 
critical infrastructure security technologies. The Committee 
encourages DHS to establish objectives, goals, and measures for 
each of its R&D; consortium projects in the context of the 
strategic plan prescribed under Section 318.
    The consortium report is to include, in consultation with 
stakeholders and subject matter experts, a prioritized list of 
technology development focus areas that would benefit from a 
public-private R&D; consortium. In developing this prioritized 
list, the Committee strongly encourages DHS to utilize the 
risk-based analyses and the stakeholder consultations conducted 
under Section 318. The Committee also encourages DHS to look 
holistically at R&D; consortium focus opportunities and consider 
both physical security technologies and cybersecurity 
technologies. As of the writing of this report, the Committee 
believes that cybersecurity R&D; may be particularly appropriate 
for expanded R&D; partnership opportunities. Specifically, the 
Committee believes that a cybersecurity protection and 
prevention R&D; consortium would generate substantial interest 
from both the public and the private sectors.
    The consortium report is to include a prioritized proposal 
for implementing an expanded R&D; consortium program. This 
proposal is to include an assessment of feasibility and an 
estimate of cost, schedule and milestones. It is the 
Committee's intent that DHS establish such a proposal and then 
seek Congressional authorization and appropriation to implement 
such a proposed expanded program. Although the bill does not 
prescribe how such a consortium should be constructed, the 
Committee strongly encourages DHS to include a working 
partnership model in its R&D; consortium proposal. The Committee 
believes that the consortium model should include the following 
key attributes: (1) The model draws upon industry, academic, 
and government best-practices for successful R&D; consortiums; 
(2) the model encourages active participation and leadership by 
the private sector, while streamlining government 
administrative overhead; (3) the model provides matching 
funding for R&D; projects, with the U.S. Government's funding 
contributions not exceeding 50 percent; (4) the model leverages 
security technology investments made by other departments and 
agencies of the Federal government; (5) the model leverages and 
encourages technology transfer from National Laboratories and 
academia; and (6) the model provides a mechanism for 
accelerating technology certification under subtitle G of title 
VII (known as the ``SAFETY Act'').

  (c) Critical Infrastructure Protection Technology Clearinghouse.

    (1) Designation.

    This subsection amends Section 313 of the Homeland Security 
Act 2002 and requires requires the Secretary, acting through 
the Undersecretary for S&T;, and in coordination with the 
Undersecretary for NPPD, to designate a focused technology 
clearinghouse within the clearinghouse program required under 
Section 313. The designated technology clearinghouse is to 
focus on the rapid sharing of proven technology solutions for 
protecting critical infrastructure. The Congressional intent of 
this subsection is twofold: Firstly, to authorize the DHS, 
through a designated clearinghouse, to focus on the 
Department's mission in critical infrastructure protection; and 
secondly, to ensure that the designated technology 
clearinghouse is well coordinated between the Science and 
Technology Directorate and the operational mission of the 
National Protection and Program Directorate.
    The Committee believes that DHS has underutilized the 
clearinghouse mechanism established under Section 313. 
Specifically, Section 313 requires ``The establishment of a 
centralized Federal clearinghouse for information relating to 
technologies that would further the mission of the Department 
for dissemination, as appropriate, to Federal, State, and local 
government and private sector entities for additional review, 
purchase, or use.'' Based on Committee oversight, the Committee 
has found that DHS has not established such a Federal-wide 
clearinghouse, and that the current clearinghouse is only used 
to gather first responder requirements. The clearinghouse does 
not currently disseminate information on mission-relevant 
technologies, and does not provide a technology information 
sharing mechanism for the private sector, as statutorily 
required. The Committee further believes that DHS has under-
resourced the clearinghouse program and that its information 
sharing mechanism, which is a simple website, has been largely 
ineffective. Therefore, the Committee strongly encourages DHS 
to increase and improve its utilization of the clearinghouse 
mechanism to meet the statutory requirements. The Committee 
believes that focused clearinghouses, such as the critical 
infrastructure clearinghouse designated in this section, will 
serve as a driver for DHS to improve its technology information 
sharing and better coordinate amongst private and public 
stakeholders.

    (2) Sharing of Technology Solutions.

    This subsection requires that technology solutions shared 
through the clearinghouse be drawn from government-furnished, 
commercially-furnished, and publicly available trusted sources. 
The Committee believes that DHS does not effectively use the 
clearinghouse as a technology information sharing mechanism, 
and this subsection clarifies the Congressional intent that DHS 
share such information from various sources. When sharing 
technology solutions through the clearinghouse, the Committee 
notes that it will be important for DHS to exercise due 
diligence to ensure that the sources of that information are 
trustworthy and reputable from a National security perspective.

    (3) Technology Metrics.

    This subsection requires that all technologies shared (or 
information about technologies thereof), include a set of 
performance and readiness metrics. These metrics are required 
to assist end-users in deploying effective and timely solutions 
relevant for their critical infrastructures. The Committee 
believes that metrics are an important aspect in technology 
information sharing and help security professionals make 
objective decisions about which technologies best meet their 
mission needs. The bill does not specify which specific metrics 
are required, and allows DHS flexibility in establishing an 
effective metrics set. However, the Committee believes that 
these metrics need to be based on industry and government 
technology management best practices. The Committee also 
believes that test and evaluation activities should be tied to 
these metrics. The Committee strongly encourages DHS to improve 
its implementation of the clearinghouse mechanism, share 
relevant technology information to the broad stakeholder 
community, and do so in an objective manner through 
standardized metrics.

    (4) Review by Privacy Officer.

    This subsection requires the Privacy Officer of the 
Department to annually review the clearinghouse process to 
evaluate its consistency with Fair Information Practice 
Principles and the Privacy Act of 1974. The Committee believes 
that security-related technologies need to be developed and 
deployed in a manner that fully considers privacy and civil 
liberty implications, including protection of personally 
identifiable information. The Committee notes that 
consideration of privacy and civil liberty implications is 
critically important for cybersecurity and information-based 
technologies. While the bill does not require that each 
technology within the clearinghouse be assessed, the Committee 
expects DHS to establish a process for conducting privacy 
impact assessments when appropriate.

  (d) Evaluation of Technology Clearinghouse by Government 
        Accountability Office.

    This subsection requires the GAO to evaluate and report on 
the effectiveness of the clearinghouses established and 
designated under Section 313 as amended. The GAO report is to 
be transmitted to the relevant Congressional committees within 
2 years after enactment of the bill. The Committee's intent of 
this subsection is to direct GAO to gather data, assess DHS's 
implementation of Section 313, and evaluate the effectiveness 
and efficiency of the implemented clearinghouses. As stated in 
a prior section of this report, the Committee believes that DHS 
does not currently implement technology clearinghouses in a 
manner consistent with statute, and this independent assessment 
will inform the Committee on this issue. It is the Committee's 
belief that the GAO report will provide important inputs for 
continuing Congressional oversight and provide additional 
transparency for the American public.

Sec. 4.  No Additional Authorization of Appropriations.

    This section requires the provisions of this bill to be 
carried out using amounts otherwise available. The Committee 
believes that the strategic planning and R&D; consortium 
planning required under this bill represents work that is 
largely already conducted at DHS. As such, the Committee 
believes that DHS should appropriately absorb the minimal costs 
required to improve its R&D; strategies, report to Congress, and 
increase its transparency. The Committee believes that DHS has 
underutilized technology clearinghouses and has not implemented 
them in a manner consistent with Congressional intent of the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002. It is the Committee's belief 
that DHS will need to strengthen the clearinghouses in order to 
comply with existing law, and that costs incurred to do so 
should be absorbed from lower priority DHS programs. The 
Committee strongly encourages DHS to implement these provisions 
in a manner that leads to more effective and efficient R&D; 
programs, thereby resulting in long-term Federal Government 
savings.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                     HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland 
Security Act of 2002''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is 
as follows:

     * * * * * * *

    TITLE III--SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

     * * * * * * *
Sec. 318. Research and development strategy for critical infrastructure 
          protection.
Sec. 319. Report on public-private research and development consortiums.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act, the following definitions apply:
          (1) Each of the terms ``American homeland'' and 
        ``homeland'' means the United States.
          (2) The term ``appropriate congressional committee'' 
        means any committee of the House of Representatives or 
        the Senate having legislative or oversight jurisdiction 
        under the Rules of the House of Representatives or the 
        Senate, respectively, over the matter concerned.
          (3) The term ``assets'' includes contracts, 
        facilities, property, records, unobligated or 
        unexpended balances of appropriations, and other funds 
        or resources (other than personnel).
          (4) The term ``critical infrastructure'' has the 
        meaning given that term in section 1016(e) of Public 
        Law 107-56 (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)).
          (5) The term ``Department'' means the Department of 
        Homeland Security.
          (6) The term ``emergency response providers'' 
        includes Federal, State, and local governmental and 
        nongovernmental emergency public safety, fire, law 
        enforcement, emergency response, emergency medical 
        (including hospital emergency facilities), and related 
        personnel, agencies, and authorities.
          (7) The term ``executive agency'' means an executive 
        agency and a military department, as defined, 
        respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 5, 
        United States Code.
          (8) The term ``functions'' includes authorities, 
        powers, rights, privileges, immunities, programs, 
        projects, activities, duties, and responsibilities.
          (9) The term ``intelligence component of the 
        Department'' means any element or entity of the 
        Department that collects, gathers, processes, analyzes, 
        produces, or disseminates intelligence information 
        within the scope of the information sharing 
        environment, including homeland security information, 
        terrorism information, and weapons of mass destruction 
        information, or national intelligence, as defined under 
        section 3(5) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
        U.S.C. 401a(5)), except--
                  (A) the United States Secret Service; and
                  (B) the Coast Guard, when operating under the 
                direct authority of the Secretary of Defense or 
                Secretary of the Navy pursuant to section 3 of 
                title 14, United States Code, except that 
                nothing in this paragraph shall affect or 
                diminish the authority and responsibilities of 
                the Commandant of the Coast Guard to command or 
                control the Coast Guard as an armed force or 
                the authority of the Director of National 
                Intelligence with respect to the Coast Guard as 
                an element of the intelligence community (as 
                defined under section 3(4) of the National 
                Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
          (10) The term ``key resources'' means publicly or 
        privately controlled resources essential to the minimal 
        operations of the economy and government.
          (11) The term ``local government'' means--
                  (A) a county, municipality, city, town, 
                township, local public authority, school 
                district, special district, intrastate 
                district, council of governments (regardless of 
                whether the council of governments is 
                incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under 
                State law), regional or interstate government 
                entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local 
                government;
                  (B) an Indian tribe or authorized tribal 
                organization, or in Alaska a Native village or 
                Alaska Regional Native Corporation; and
                  (C) a rural community, unincorporated town or 
                village, or other public entity.
          (12) The term ``major disaster'' has the meaning 
        given in section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford 
        Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
        5122).
          (13) The term ``personnel'' means officers and 
        employees.
          (14) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        Homeland Security.
          (15) The term ``Sector Coordinating Council'' means a 
        private sector coordinating council that is--
                  (A) recognized by the Secretary as such a 
                Council for purposes of this Act; and
                  (B) comprised of representatives of owners 
                and operators of critical infrastructure within 
                a particular sector of critical infrastructure.
          [(15)] (16) The term ``State'' means any State of the 
        United States, the District of Columbia, the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
        American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
        Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United 
        States.
          [(16)] (17) The term ``terrorism'' means any activity 
        that--
                  (A) involves an act that--
                          (i) is dangerous to human life or 
                        potentially destructive of critical 
                        infrastructure or key resources; and
                          (ii) is a violation of the criminal 
                        laws of the United States or of any 
                        State or other subdivision of the 
                        United States; and
                  (B) appears to be intended--
                          (i) to intimidate or coerce a 
                        civilian population;
                          (ii) to influence the policy of a 
                        government by intimidation or coercion; 
                        or
                          (iii) to affect the conduct of a 
                        government by mass destruction, 
                        assassination, or kidnapping.
          [(17)] (18)(A) The term ``United States'', when used 
        in a geographic sense, means any State of the United 
        States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
        Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
        the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any 
        possession of the United States, and any waters within 
        the jurisdiction of the United States.
          (B) Nothing in this paragraph or any other provision 
        of this Act shall be construed to modify the definition 
        of ``United States'' for the purposes of the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act or any other 
        immigration or nationality law.
          [(18)] (19) The term ``voluntary preparedness 
        standards'' means a common set of criteria for 
        preparedness, disaster management, emergency 
        management, and business continuity programs, such as 
        the American National Standards Institute's National 
        Fire Protection Association Standard on Disaster/
        Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs 
        (ANSI/NFPA 1600).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE III--SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 313. TECHNOLOGY CLEARINGHOUSE TO ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT INNOVATIVE 
                    SOLUTIONS TO ENHANCE HOMELAND SECURITY.

  (a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary, acting through 
the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, shall establish 
and promote a program to encourage technological innovation in 
facilitating the mission of the Department (as described in 
section 101).
  (b) Elements of Program.--The program described in subsection 
(a) shall include the following components:
          (1) The establishment of a centralized Federal 
        clearinghouse for information relating to technologies 
        that would further the mission of the Department for 
        dissemination, as appropriate, to Federal, State, and 
        local government and private sector entities for 
        additional review, purchase, or use.
          (2) The issuance of announcements seeking unique and 
        innovative technologies to advance the mission of the 
        Department.
          (3) The establishment of a technical assistance team 
        to assist in screening, as appropriate, proposals 
        submitted to the Secretary (except as provided in 
        subsection (c)(2)) to assess the feasibility, 
        scientific and technical merits, and estimated cost of 
        such proposals, as appropriate.
          (4) The provision of guidance, recommendations, and 
        technical assistance, as appropriate, to assist 
        Federal, State, and local government and private sector 
        efforts to evaluate and implement the use of 
        technologies described in paragraph (1) or (2).
          (5) The provision of information for persons seeking 
        guidance on how to pursue proposals to develop or 
        deploy technologies that would enhance homeland 
        security, including information relating to Federal 
        funding, regulation, or acquisition.
  (c) Critical Infrastructure Protection Technology 
Clearinghouse.--
          (1) Designation.--Under the program required by this 
        section, the Secretary, acting through the Under 
        Secretary for Science and Technology, and in 
        coordination with the Under Secretary for the National 
        Protection and Programs Directorate, shall designate a 
        technology clearinghouse for rapidly sharing proven 
        technology solutions for protecting critical 
        infrastructure.
          (2) Sharing of technology solutions.--Technology 
        solutions shared through the clearinghouse shall draw 
        from Government-furnished, commercially furnished, and 
        publically available trusted sources.
          (3) Technology metrics.--All technologies shared 
        through the clearinghouse shall include a set of 
        performance and readiness metrics to assist end-users 
        in deploying effective and timely solutions relevant 
        for their critical infrastructures.
          (4) Review by privacy officer.--The Privacy Officer 
        of the Department appointed under section 222 shall 
        annually review the clearinghouse process to evaluate 
        its consistency with fair information practice 
        principles issued by the Privacy Officer.
  [(c)] (d) Miscellaneous Provisions.--
          (1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be 
        construed as authorizing the Secretary or the technical 
        assistance team established under subsection (b)(3) to 
        set standards for technology to be used by the 
        Department, any other executive agency, any State or 
        local government entity, or any private sector entity.
          (2) Certain proposals.--The technical assistance team 
        established under subsection (b)(3) shall not consider 
        or evaluate proposals submitted in response to a 
        solicitation for offers for a pending procurement or 
        for a specific agency requirement.
          (3) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the 
        Secretary shall coordinate with the Technical Support 
        Working Group (organized under the April 1982 National 
        Security Decision Directive Numbered 30).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 318. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 
                    PROTECTION.

  (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of the Critical Infrastructure Research and 
Development Advancement Act of 2013, the Secretary, acting 
through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, shall 
transmit to Congress a strategic plan to guide the overall 
direction of Federal physical security and cybersecurity 
technology research and development efforts for protecting 
critical infrastructure, including against all threats. Once 
every 2 years after the initial strategic plan is transmitted 
to Congress under this section, the Secretary shall transmit to 
Congress an update of the plan.
  (b) Contents of Plan.--The strategic plan shall include the 
following:
          (1) An identification of critical infrastructure 
        security risks and any associated security technology 
        gaps, that are developed following--
                  (A) consultation with stakeholders, including 
                the Sector Coordinating Councils; and
                  (B) performance by the Department of a risk/
                gap analysis that considers information 
                received in such consultations.
          (2) A set of critical infrastructure security 
        technology needs that--
                  (A) is prioritized based on risk and gaps 
                identified under paragraph (1);
                  (B) emphasizes research and development of 
                those technologies that need to be accelerated 
                due to rapidly evolving threats or rapidly 
                advancing infrastructure technology; and
                  (C) includes research, development, and 
                acquisition roadmaps with clearly defined 
                objectives, goals, and measures.
          (3) An identification of laboratories, facilities, 
        modeling, and simulation capabilities that will be 
        required to support the research, development, 
        demonstration, testing, evaluation, and acquisition of 
        the security technologies described in paragraph (2).
          (4) An identification of current and planned 
        programmatic initiatives for fostering the rapid 
        advancement and deployment of security technologies for 
        critical infrastructure protection. The initiatives 
        shall consider opportunities for public-private 
        partnerships, intragovernment collaboration, university 
        centers of excellence, and national laboratory 
        technology transfer.
          (5) A description of progress made with respect to 
        each critical infrastructure security risk, associated 
        security technology gap, and critical infrastructure 
        technology need identified in the preceding strategic 
        plan transmitted under this section.
  (c) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the Under 
Secretary for Science and Technology shall coordinate with the 
Under Secretary for the National Protection and Programs 
Directorate.
  (d) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the Under 
Secretary for Science and Technology shall consult with--
          (1) the critical infrastructure Sector Coordinating 
        Councils;
          (2) to the extent practicable, subject matter experts 
        on critical infrastructure protection from 
        universities, colleges, including historically black 
        colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving 
        institutions, and tribal colleges and universities, 
        national laboratories, and private industry;
          (3) the heads of other relevant Federal departments 
        and agencies that conduct research and development for 
        critical infrastructure protection; and
          (4) State, local, and tribal governments as 
        appropriate.

SEC. 319. REPORT ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                    CONSORTIUMS.

  (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the enactment 
of the Critical Infrastructure Research and Development 
Advancement Act of 2013, the Secretary, acting through the 
Under Secretary for Science and Technology, shall transmit to 
Congress a report on the Department's utilization of public-
private research and development consortiums for accelerating 
technology development for critical infrastructure protection. 
Once every 2 years after the initial report is transmitted to 
Congress under this section, the Secretary shall transmit to 
Congress an update of the report. The report shall focus on 
those aspects of critical infrastructure protection that are 
predominately operated by the private sector and that would 
most benefit from rapid security technology advancement.
  (b) Contents of Report.--The report shall include--
          (1) a summary of the progress and accomplishments of 
        on-going consortiums for critical infrastructure 
        security technologies;
          (2) in consultation with the Sector Coordinating 
        Councils and, to the extent practicable, in 
        consultation with subject-matter experts on critical 
        infrastructure protection from universities, colleges, 
        including historically black colleges and universities, 
        Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and 
        universities, national laboratories, and private 
        industry, a prioritized list of technology development 
        focus areas that would most benefit from a public-
        private research and development consortium; and
          (3) based on the prioritized list developed under 
        paragraph (2), a proposal for implementing an expanded 
        research and development consortium program, including 
        an assessment of feasibility and an estimate of cost, 
        schedule, and milestones.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *