HR-9797-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection.
Sponsored by Lauren Underwood (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would direct the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to create a one-year pilot program training state, local, Tribal, and territorial government officials to conduct security vulnerability and terrorism risk assessments of critical infrastructure facilities. It would also authorize CISA to establish online clearinghouses where infrastructure owners, operators, and nonprofits at risk of terrorist attack could access voluntary security guidance and best practices. CISA would be required to publish annual public reports detailing its outreach efforts across all 16 critical infrastructure sectors, broken down by region and community type.
Who benefits
State, local, Tribal, and territorial government officials who would gain federally funded security training. Owners and operators of critical infrastructure (e.g., power grids, water systems, transportation networks) who would gain easier access to security guidance. Nonprofit organizations determined to be at risk of terrorist attack. Rural, suburban, and urban communities whose local officials would be better equipped to identify and address infrastructure vulnerabilities. Indirectly, the general public that depends on critical infrastructure.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who would bear the cost of the pilot program and clearinghouse operations, though the bill does not specify an appropriation amount. CISA staff who would absorb new training and reporting responsibilities. Private critical infrastructure owners who may face increased scrutiny or interaction with newly trained local officials, even though participation in the clearinghouse is voluntary. Competitors of nonprofits that qualify for the program's security resources but do not meet the terrorist-risk threshold.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that CISA cannot realistically monitor all 16 critical infrastructure sectors nationwide on its own, and that training local officials creates a cost-effective "force multiplier" — extending federal expertise to the community level where threats are most likely to be first observed. They contend that the voluntary, guidance-based clearinghouse model respects private property rights while filling a documented gap: many small and rural infrastructure operators lack access to the security resources available to large urban utilities, leaving them disproportionately vulnerable.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates new federal bureaucratic infrastructure — a pilot program, multiple clearinghouses, and mandatory annual reports — without specifying funding levels or measurable success criteria, making it difficult to evaluate whether taxpayer resources are being used effectively. They contend that training local officials to conduct federal-style security assessments risks duplicating existing state homeland security programs, blurring jurisdictional lines between federal and local authority, and potentially exposing sensitive infrastructure vulnerability data to a wider pool of officials with varying security clearance levels.
Constitutional context
The bill operates within well-established Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as critical infrastructure protection is a recognized area of federal power with a clear nexus to interstate commerce. No significant constitutional tension is present: the clearinghouse is voluntary, the training program is cooperative rather than coercive, and no mandates are imposed on private parties or states that would raise Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering concerns under Murphy v. NCAA (2018).
Checks and balances
The executive branch (CISA/DHS) gains new training and clearinghouse authority; Congress retains oversight through mandatory reporting to the House and Senate Homeland Security committees, and the pilot program's one-year sunset creates a natural review point.
Historical precedent
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 similarly sought to build state and local capacity through federal training programs, establishing a model of cooperative federal-subnational emergency preparedness that this bill extends to infrastructure security assessments.