Overview
Title
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish a DHS Cybersecurity On-the-Job Training Program, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 1034 is a plan to help people who work at the Department of Homeland Security learn about protecting computers from online threats by taking special classes or practicing on the job.
Summary AI
H.R. 1034 aims to change the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by creating a Cybersecurity On-the-Job Training Program at the Department of Homeland Security. This program will allow department employees who aren't currently working in cybersecurity to receive training for such roles. The training will be led by a Director and might include different forms of learning, such as online courses or on-the-job practice, and allows for the possibility of extending training to other federal employees. Over a period of seven years, reports on the program's progress and success will be submitted annually to certain congressional committees.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
This proposed legislation aims to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by creating a DHS Cybersecurity On-the-Job Training Program. The objective of this program is to train Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees who are not currently in cybersecurity positions. By implementing a focused training curriculum overseen by a director, the program intends to enhance the cybersecurity skills of existing DHS employees and potentially other federal employees. It also mandates annual reporting on the program's progress over a seven-year period.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the principal issues with the bill is the lack of detailed financial information. There is no mention of a budget or funding sources for the program, which could raise concerns about its financial viability and accountability. Without a clear financial framework, there is a risk of inefficient spending that might not be justifiable to taxpayers.
Another issue is the lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities. The duties between the Director and the Under Secretary for Management are not distinctly defined, which could lead to overlap and inefficiencies in program implementation.
Additionally, the success metrics are vague. The absence of well-defined criteria to measure the program's effectiveness could complicate efforts to determine its success. This lack of specificity might impede improvements and adjustments necessary for ensuring long-term success.
The bill also presents an issue regarding transparency and accessibility. It contains legal jargon that may be difficult for the general public to interpret, potentially hindering broader understanding and engagement with the program.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
For the public, the bill represents a commitment to bolstering the cybersecurity workforce within a crucial federal department. Enhanced cybersecurity capabilities are likely to result in stronger national security, benefiting the nation as a whole. However, the absence of financial transparency could foster public skepticism about government spending.
For DHS employees, especially those not currently in cybersecurity roles, the program offers career development opportunities. By expanding their skills, employees may improve their job security and career prospects. This could also result in a more robust workforce for the department, increasing overall efficacy in managing cybersecurity threats.
Other federal employees and departments may also be impacted, as the program has the potential to offer cybersecurity training beyond the DHS. This could foster collaboration and interdepartmental strength in cybersecurity efforts. However, if resources are spread too thin due to lack of clear directives on participant eligibility, it might dilute the program's focus and effectiveness.
The ambiguity around participation and training methods presents potential risks. Without clear guidelines, resources might not be allocated optimally, leading to inconsistent training results or favoritism in participant selection.
In conclusion, while the bill seeks to address crucial needs in cybersecurity development, its lack of detailed provisions regarding budget, oversight, and structure could compromise its overall efficacy. Thoughtful revisions and more defined stipulations could strengthen the bill's potential to positively impact cybersecurity preparedness across the federal workforce.
Issues
The bill does not detail the budget or specific funding sources for the DHS Cybersecurity On-the-Job Training Program (Sections 2, 2220F). This lack of financial clarity could lead to concerns about potential wasteful spending and accountability to taxpayers.
The responsibilities and authority of the Director and the Under Secretary for Management are not clearly differentiated (Section 2, 2220F). This lack of clarity could lead to duplication of efforts or confusion in the implementation of the program, impacting its effectiveness.
The metrics used to measure the success of the Program are not explicitly defined (Section 2, 2220F). This lack of specificity may result in subjective evaluation and difficulty in assessing the program's effectiveness, which is crucial for ensuring the program's long-term success and improvements.
There is no clear mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of the Program beyond the Director's annual report (Section 2220F). This absence of independent oversight could limit transparency and accountability in assessing the program's impact and outcomes.
The language used throughout the bill includes legal jargon that may be difficult for the general public to understand, hindering transparency and accessibility (Section 2, 2220F).
The text does not specify how cybersecurity roles are to be coded or what criteria will be used to ensure alignment with the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education Framework (Section 2220F), potentially leading to inconsistent training outcomes.
There is no mention of potential conflicts of interest or oversight mechanisms to ensure that the selection of participants for the Program is free from bias or favoritism (Section 2, 2220F). This omission could raise ethical concerns regarding participant selection.
There is ambiguity in the language such as 'may include' regarding the training methods (Section 2220F). This lack of clarity can affect consistency and expectations within the training program.
The reporting requirements in subsections (b)(4) and (c)(1) do not specify a due date each year, which may lead to inconsistencies in reporting timelines (Section 2220F).
There is no specific mention of how the program's curriculum will be updated or revised over the 7-year period (Section 2220F), which may affect its relevance and effectiveness over time as technology and cybersecurity threats evolve.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states its official title, which is the “DHS Cybersecurity On-the-Job Training Program Act.”
2. DHS Cybersecurity On-the-Job Training Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text describes a DHS Cybersecurity On-the-Job Training Program created to help Department of Homeland Security employees learn about cybersecurity work. The program includes a curriculum developed by a director, offers training to both DHS and potentially other federal employees, and reports annually on its progress and success.
2220F. DHS Cybersecurity On-the-Job Training Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The DHS Cybersecurity On-the-Job Training Program is a voluntary initiative within the Department of Homeland Security aimed at training current employees, who are not in cybersecurity roles, for cybersecurity tasks. The Director oversees the Program's curriculum and reporting, while the Under Secretary for Management supports recruitment and implements policies to encourage participation, with both roles being responsible for submitting annual reports on the program's progress and effectiveness over a seven-year period.