[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 144 (Monday, December 1, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H8194-H8196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3410) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to secure 
critical infrastructure against electromagnetic pulses, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3410

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Critical Infrastructure 
     Protection Act'' or ``CIPA''.

     SEC. 2. EMP PLANNING, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND 
                   PROTECTION AND PREPAREDNESS.

       (a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 121) is amended--
       (1) in section 2 (6 U.S.C. 101), by inserting after 
     paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(6a) EMP.--The term `EMP' means--
       ``(A) an electromagnetic pulse caused by intentional means, 
     including acts of terrorism; and
       ``(B) a geomagnetic disturbance caused by solar storms or 
     other naturally occurring phenomena.'';
       (2) in title V (6 U.S.C. 311 et seq.), by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 526. NATIONAL PLANNING SCENARIOS AND EDUCATION.

       ``The Secretary shall, to the extent practicable--
       ``(1) include in national planning scenarios the threat of 
     EMP events; and
       ``(2) conduct outreach to educate owners and operators of 
     critical infrastructure, emergency planners, and emergency 
     responders at all levels of government of the threat of EMP 
     events.'';
       (3) in title III (6 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), by adding at the 
     end of the following:

     ``SEC. 318. EMP RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--In furtherance of domestic preparedness 
     and response, the Secretary, acting through the Under 
     Secretary for Science and Technology, and in consultation 
     with other relevant agencies and departments of the Federal 
     Government and relevant owners and operators of critical 
     infrastructure, shall, to the extent practicable, conduct 
     research and development to mitigate the consequences of EMP 
     events.
       ``(b) Scope.--The scope of the research and development 
     under subsection (a) shall include the following:
       ``(1) An objective scientific analysis of the risks to 
     critical infrastructures from a range of EMP events.
       ``(2) Determination of the critical national security 
     assets and vital civic utilities and infrastructures that are 
     at risk from EMP events.
       ``(3) An evaluation of emergency planning and response 
     technologies that would address the findings and 
     recommendations of experts, including those of the Commission 
     to Assess the Threat to the United States from 
     Electromagnetic Pulse Attack.
       ``(4) An analysis of technology options that are available 
     to improve the resiliency of critical infrastructure to EMP.
       ``(5) The restoration and recovery capabilities of critical 
     infrastructure under differing levels of damage and 
     disruption from various EMP events.''; and
       (4) in section 201(d) (6 U.S.C. 121(d)), by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(26)(A) Prepare 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--
       ``(i) a recommended strategy to protect and prepare the 
     critical infrastructure of the American homeland against EMP 
     events, including from acts of terrorism; and
       ``(ii) biennial updates on the status of the recommended 
     strategy.
       ``(B) The recommended strategy shall--
       ``(i) be based on findings of the research and development 
     conducted under section 318;
       ``(ii) be developed in consultation with the relevant 
     Federal sector-specific agencies (as defined under Homeland 
     Security Presidential Directive-7) for critical 
     infrastructures;
       ``(iii) be developed in consultation with the relevant 
     sector coordinating councils for critical infrastructures; 
     and
       ``(iv) include a classified annex as needed.
       ``(C) The Secretary may, if appropriate, incorporate the 
     recommended strategy into a broader recommendation developed 
     by the Department to help protect and prepare critical 
     infrastructure from terrorism and other threats if, as 
     incorporated, the strategy complies with subparagraph (B).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of the items relating to title V 
     the following:

``Sec. 526. National planning scenarios and education.'';
     and
       (2) by adding at the end of the items relating to title III 
     the following:

``Sec. 318. EMP research and development.''.
       (c) Deadline for Recommended Strategy.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall submit the recommended strategy 
     required under the amendment made by subsection (a)(4) by not 
     later than one year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (d) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report to 
     Congress by not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act describing the progress made in, and an 
     estimated date by which the Department of Homeland Security 
     will have completed--
       (1) including EMP (as defined in the amendment made by 
     subsection (a)(1)) threats in national planning scenarios;
       (2) research and development described in the amendment 
     made by subsection (a)(3);
       (3) development of the comprehensive plan required under 
     the amendment made by subsection (a)(4); and
       (4) outreach to educate owners and operators of critical 
     infrastructure, emergency planners and emergency responders 
     at all levels of government regarding the threat of EMP 
     events.

     SEC. 3. NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

       Nothing in this Act, including the amendments made by this 
     Act, shall be construed to grant any regulatory authority.

     SEC. 4. NO NEW AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       This Act, including the amendments made by this Act, may be 
     carried out only by using funds appropriated under the 
     authority of other laws.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Clarke) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3410, the Critical 
Infrastructure Protection Act, or CIPA.
  In 1962, the United States conducted a test named Starfish Prime, 
where the military detonated a 1.4-megaton thermonuclear bomb about 25 
miles above Johnston Atoll in the Pacific. In space, six American, 
British, and Soviet satellites suffered damage, and 800 miles away in 
Hawaii, burglar alarms sounded, streetlights blinked out, and phones, 
radios, and televisions went dead. While only 1 percent of the existing 
streetlights were affected, it became clear that electromagnetic pulse, 
or EMP, could cause significant damage.
  EMP is simply a burst of electromagnetic radiation that results from 
certain types of high-energy explosions or from a suddenly fluctuating 
magnetic field. An EMP can be generated by nuclear weapons from 
naturally occurring sources such as solar storms or specialized 
nonnuclear EMP weapons. An EMP event could range from a small-scale 
incident, with little or no permanent damage, to a large-scale event, 
with dire consequences. In fact, a successful large-scale EMP event 
could damage electrical power systems, electronics, and information 
systems, and these effects could cascade into other interdependent 
infrastructures, such as telecommunications, gas, and water.
  Repeated studies, including by the Congressional EMP Commission and 
Lloyd's of London, have warned that the U.S. electric grid is 
vulnerable to damage from EMP events, that there is a significant risk, 
and that we need to be better prepared. H.R. 3410 takes commonsense 
steps to address the EMP threat. Specifically, this legislation compels 
the Department of Homeland Security to include EMP events in their 
national planning scenarios, conduct research to mitigate the 
consequences of an EMP event, develop a recommended strategy to protect 
critical infrastructure, and perform outreach to raise awareness of the 
threat.

[[Page H8195]]

  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3410, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3410, the Critical 
Infrastructure Protection Act, of which I am a cosponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, recently, there has been increased interest in 
bolstering the resilience of our Nation's electrical power distribution 
and delivery system. In particular, there is growing interest in 
looking at the damage that could naturally occur to that system through 
powerful weather storms and geomagnetic disturbances, as well as 
through intentional and malicious physical and cyber attacks.
  Earlier this Congress, the House approved legislation authored by my 
committee colleague and neighbor, Mr. Payne, to broadly research the 
threats to our electric grid. Today, we have an opportunity to foster 
progress on low-probability but high-consequence threats to the grid: 
electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, and geomagnetic disturbances, or GMD.
  Today, our Nation's power system operates at such a high level of 
reliability that any major outage, either caused by heavy weather 
storms, operational errors, or sabotage, makes headlines. Our 
transmission system is the most complex and extensive of any system on 
the globe, consisting mainly of transformers, switches, transmission 
towers and lines, control centers, and computer controls.
  The main risk for weather-related damage or a terrorist attack is a 
widespread power outage that lasts for an extended period of time. The 
damage that such an outage could have to the welfare of our citizens 
and economy is hard to measure, but it would certainly be very 
significant.
  With that in mind, H.R. 3410 seeks to gain ground against this 
homeland security challenge. It does so by directing the Department of 
Homeland Security to include EMP and GMD in national planning 
scenarios; conduct outreach to critical infrastructure owners and 
operators, emergency planners, and emergency responders on the threats 
posed; conduct targeted research; and develop a strategy for addressing 
the threats.
  I am disappointed that the bill provides no new resources to the 
Department to carry out these activities, but I am appreciative of the 
majority's willingness to work with me to refine the language to 
provide needed flexibility to the Department in how it carries out 
these activities.
  That said, since H.R. 3410 had to bypass regular order to be 
considered here today, we did not have the time to include some small 
but key refinements. Specifically, the definitions in this bill for 
electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, and geomagnetic, or GMD, would benefit 
from further fine-tuning down the line so risk of these two distinct 
events being conflated is avoided.
  An EMP is an electromagnetic pulse caused by intentional means, such 
as an act of war or terrorism. A GMD is a geomagnetic disturbance 
caused by solar storms or other naturally occurring phenomena. While 
some have gotten in the habit of calling them both EMPs, they are not 
the same, thus requiring differing mitigation and resiliency responses.
  Like my colleagues Mr. Meehan and Mr. Franks, I am very concerned 
about the potential impact and the types of threats posed by EMPs and 
GMDs. However, I think we should take care to make clear the distinct 
differences between the two.
  We also know that public-private partnerships are essential to 
addressing the challenge of fully understanding the threats caused by 
EMPs and GMDs, especially because the overwhelming majority of our 
electric grid is privately held by large investor-owned utilities, or 
is part of the rural electric cooperatives systems or members of the 
American Public Power network that represents not-for-profit, 
community-owned electric utilities.
  I would note that the Department currently has a variety of planning 
efforts for solar weather geomagnetic disturbance events and other 
electromagnetic pulse damage under its all-hazards risk planning, 
including research on technologies to improve resiliency in the 
electric grid sector.
  Additionally, the Department's science and technology directorate has 
cosponsored with private utilities an exercise in a fast-turnaround 
transformer replacement project. This effort is known as the Recovery 
Transformer Project, and it hopes to increase the resiliency of the 
transmission power grid through the use of more mobile and modular 
transformers.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman McCaul and Chairman Meehan for 
working with me. I also thank Representative Franks, who has been a 
tireless and relentless proponent of this legislative measure to 
protect our Nation's electrical infrastructure. He is internationally 
known for his unwavering pursuit of this critical concern, and over the 
past few years has been viewed as a go-to legislator on protecting our 
Nation's infrastructure. It has been a real pleasure to engage in a 
moment of bipartisan interaction, particularly on a matter of such 
great import nationally and internationally, and I thank the gentleman.
  As we enter the waning days of the 113th Congress, I sincerely hope 
this measure gets enacted into law. But in the event that it does not, 
I look forward to working with the majority on advancing this bill 
through regular order next Congress to ensure a more robust examination 
of the bill's impact on the Department and on industry.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Mike 
McCaul, Subcommittee Chairman Pat Meehan, and, of course, Ranking 
Member Yvette Clarke for their principled and unwavering leadership in 
bringing this legislation to the floor. I was touched by the 
gentlelady's words as well. I would also especially like to personally 
thank Chairman Pete Sessions, the sole original cosponsor of this bill, 
for being a tireless champion of protecting our Nation's critical 
infrastructure against EMP.
  Mr. Speaker, back in August of 2003, a large section of our electric 
grid was knocked out across the Eastern United States. Fifty million 
people were affected after 21 power plants shut down in just 3 minutes. 
Office workers streamed into parking lots, and many commuters were 
stranded inside their trains. In a matter of moments, those things that 
make up our critical infrastructure, from the electric grid to water 
pumps to cell phone service to computer systems, were disrupted. Life 
suddenly changed that day in New York, Mr. Speaker, as well as in 
Cleveland, Detroit, and all the way into Canada. In New York City 
alone, this short blackout was estimated to cost more than a half-
billion dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, a worst-case natural or manmade electromagnetic pulse--
EMP--event represents a dangerous threat that could have a prolonged 
catastrophic impact on our electric grid--our most critical and our 
most interdependent infrastructure.
  There are at least 11 major government reports and studies describing 
our vulnerabilities to electromagnetic pulses. Our Defense Department 
has wisely hardened many of our most critical defense assets like our 
strategic nuclear triad and our missile defense systems. However, our 
civilian grid remains fundamentally unprotected against severe EMP.

  Whether catalyzed by non-nuclear intentional electromagnetic 
interference, a major solar storm, or a high-altitude nuclear blast, 
EMP is an invisible force of ionized particles with the potential to 
overwhelm and destroy our present electrical power grids, which would 
profoundly impact our civilization.
  The National Intelligence University of the United States recently 
translated an Iranian military doctrine called ``Passive Defense'' 
which referenced the use of nuclear EMP as a weapon more than 20 times. 
This doctrine stresses that electrical grids are vital to national 
existence. It includes a formula for calculating the value of electric 
power plants and for prioritizing the targeting of electric grid 
components and other infrastructures.
  Mr. Speaker, we know all too well the Obama administration has just 
extended talks with the world's leading

[[Page H8196]]

state sponsor of terrorism, allowing them even more time in their 
inexorable march toward a nuclear weapons capability.
  After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the Department of Homeland 
Security was founded. It created a Presidentially-appointed position 
for an Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection. Among the 
Assistant Secretary's main duties is the responsibility to ``develop a 
comprehensive national plan for securing the key resources and critical 
infrastructure of the United States, including power production, 
generation, and distribution systems.''
  Yet 12 years later, Mr. Speaker, no such plan is in place, and our 
Nation's critical infrastructure, including those key resources like 
power production, generation, and distribution systems, are still 
vulnerable to large-scale blackouts from severe electromagnetic pulse 
and geomagnetic disturbances.
  For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we are here this night to pass 
the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act, which, if signed into law, 
will represent the first time in history that Congress will be 
specifically addressing this dangerous threat of electromagnetic pulse. 
This legislation will enhance the DHS threat assessments for EMP 
through research and reporting requirements. It will also help the 
United States prevent and prepare for such an event by including large-
scale blackouts into existing national planning scenarios, including 
educational awareness for the first responders, all to protect the 
critical infrastructure. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it will require 
specific plans for protecting and recovering the electric grid and 
other critical infrastructure from a dangerous electromagnetic pulse 
event.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a moment in the life of nearly every problem 
when it is big enough to be seen by reasonable people and still small 
enough to be addressed. Those of us in this Chamber, and across 
America, live in a time where there still may be opportunity for the 
free world to address and mitigate the vulnerability that naturally 
occurring or weaponized EMP represents to the mechanisms of our 
civilization. This is our moment.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while the threat of an EMP or GMD event is real, I 
believe we need to use fully informed risk-based, scientific, and, 
frankly, commonsense plans and exercises to give us a clearer picture 
of how to prevent and respond in the event of an EMP or GMD incident.
  This bill will give Congress a more complete understanding of 
preparedness, response, and recovery activities related to any type of 
EMP or geomagnetic disturbance incident, and could provide a thoughtful 
background that can assist the Nation's response and resiliency if 
high-impact, grid-related events do occur.
  With that, I urge Members to support H.R. 3410, the Critical 
Infrastructure Protection Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record a letter 
exchange between the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee 
on Science, Space, and Technology.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks by once again thanking the 
gentlewoman from New York for all of her bipartisan work on the 
important matters before this committee, and I urge all Members to join 
me in supporting this bipartisan bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, 
           and Technology,
                                 Washington, DC, December 1, 2014.
     Hon. Michael McCaul,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McCaul: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space, 
     and Technology in H.R. 3410, the ``Critical Infrastructure 
     Protection Act''. The bill contains provisions that fall 
     within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, 
     and Technology.
       I recognize and appreciate the desire to bring this 
     legislation before the House of Representatives in an 
     expeditious manner, and accordingly, I will waive further 
     consideration of this bill in Committee, notwithstanding any 
     provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
     on Science, Space, and Technology. This waiver, of course, is 
     conditional on our mutual understanding that agreeing to 
     waive consideration of this bill should not be construed as 
     waiving, reducing, or affecting the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
       This waiver is also given with the understanding that the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology expressly 
     reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provision 
     within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference 
     that may be convened on this, or any similar legislation. I 
     ask for your commitment to support any request by the 
     Committee for conferees on H.R. 3410 as well as any similar 
     or related legislation.
       I ask that a copy of this letter and your response be 
     placed in the Congressional Record during consideration of 
     this bill on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lamar Smith,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                 Washington, DC, December 1, 2014.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 3410, the ``Critical Infrastructure Protection Act.'' I 
     acknowledge that by forgoing a sequential referral on this 
     legislation, your Committee is not diminishing or altering 
     its jurisdiction.
       I also concur with you that forgoing action on this bill 
     does not in any way prejudice the Committee on Science, 
     Space, and Technology with respect to its jurisdictional 
     prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation in the 
     future, and I would support your effort to seek appointment 
     of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this legislation.
       Finally, I will include your letter and this response in 
     the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on 
     the House floor. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this 
     legislation, and I look forward to working with the Committee 
     on Science, Space, and Technology and the bill moves through 
     the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael T. McCaul,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Critical 
Infrastructure Protection Act. Over the past 10 years, the United 
States has seen an unprecedented expansion of electronic communication 
and commerce that boosts our economy and facilitates entrepreneurship. 
However, this technology is also susceptible to new types of potential 
threats, such as Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), that could dramatically 
disrupt electronic activity or severely damage our electrical grids.
  Due to the potential of an EMP threat, I joined Congressman Trent 
Franks in introducing H.R. 3410--the Critical Infrastructure Protection 
Act. This legislation directs the Department of Homeland Security to 
enhance our nation's threat assessments of EMPs and to plan how to best 
protect and recover after an EMP occurs. The Critical Infrastructure 
Protection Act is the first step towards getting the U.S. closer to 
protecting ourselves from a potentially catastrophic nationwide 
blackout. It is my hope that this legislation will promote a national 
dialogue about the threat of EMPs and ensure that we are adequately 
prepared to protect our nation's critical infrastructure.
  I want to thank Chairman McCaul for his important work on this 
legislation, as well as my dear friend, Congressman Trent Franks for 
his leadership. Additionally, I want to thank Frank Gaffney, the 
Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy, for his policy 
expertise and much needed efforts to educate and spread awareness 
regarding the potential threats posed by an Electromagnetic Pulse. I 
strongly support the passage of this important legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3410, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________