Overview
Title
To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to periodically assess cybersecurity threats to, and vulnerabilities in, the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector and to provide recommendations to enhance their security and resilience, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct an annual cross-sector simulation exercise relating to a food-related emergency or disruption, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act of 2024 is a plan to keep our farms and food safe from computer problems by checking for risks and practicing how to handle food emergencies every year. It gives some money each year to help with these practice exercises, but people are wondering if it's the right amount.
Summary AI
H.R. 7062, also known as the "Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act of 2024," aims to improve the security of the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector in the United States. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to regularly assess cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities within the sector and report findings to Congress. Additionally, it requires the Secretary to lead annual simulation exercises that test and improve the responses to food-related emergencies, involving federal, state, and private sector participants. The bill authorizes an annual budget of $1 million through 2028 to support these efforts.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act of 2024," seeks to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to periodically review cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities within the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector. The bill aims to improve security through regular studies and the implementation of recommendations that address identified weaknesses. Additionally, the bill mandates annual cross-sector simulation exercises over a five-year period. These exercises are designed to test and improve response capabilities in the event of food-related emergencies or disruptions, involving various stakeholders from federal to private sectors.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise from the current draft of the bill:
Funding and Resource Uncertainties: The bill mandates biennial studies on cybersecurity but does not specify the budget or resources necessary, potentially leading to either inadequate funding or wasteful spending. Similarly, the authorization of $1,000,000 per year for simulation exercises lacks a detailed justification, which could result in misallocated resources.
Lack of Specificity in Participation: The bill does not clearly define which specific governmental and private sector entities will participate in the simulation exercises. Ambiguities in participant selection could complicate the implementation of these initiatives.
Cross-Referencing for Definitions: Some terms in the bill require cross-referencing another legislative document, which may pose a challenge for stakeholders unfamiliar with legal texts, affecting the overall understandability of the bill.
Implementation and Monitoring of Findings: The bill lacks clear guidance on how the findings and recommendations from the cybersecurity study will be implemented and monitored, raising concerns about strategic follow-ups and accountability.
Public Impact
Broadly, the bill aims to enhance the resilience and security of the agriculture and food sectors against cybersecurity threats. If successfully implemented, the legislation could bolster food security and protect these vital sectors from potential disruptions, thereby safeguarding public health and the economy. However, issues related to funding and clarity in participation could hamper these benefits if not addressed.
Impact on Stakeholders
Agricultural and Food Industry Stakeholders: The bill has the potential to significantly benefit entities involved in the agricultural and food sectors by enhancing security protocols and preparedness for cyber threats. However, without clear guidelines and sufficient funding, these stakeholders might face challenges in effectively upgrading their security measures.
Federal and State Authorities: Governmental bodies could see an improvement in inter-agency coordination and crisis response capabilities. However, the lack of clear participatory roles might create implementation hurdles, potentially causing disarray or overlap in responsibilities.
Cybersecurity Experts and Researchers: There is an opportunity for experts in cybersecurity to contribute valuably to the design and execution of exercises aimed at safeguarding national food security. However, the bill's vague criteria for expert involvement may limit the robustness and relevance of these exercises.
General Public: While the legislation targets a critical area affecting public interest, its ambiguous sections, if unaddressed, run the risk of limiting its effectiveness. A well-executed implementation could enhance food safety and security, while missteps might lead to limited impact despite the potential for substantial public benefits.
In summary, the "Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act of 2024" is a proactive step towards securing the agricultural and food sectors against cyber threats. However, addressing its current issues is crucial to fully realize its intended objectives and maximize its positive impact on the public and stakeholders involved.
Financial Assessment
The "Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act of 2024" focuses on enhancing the security and resilience of the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector in the United States. A significant emphasis of the bill is on financial allocations aimed at supporting its objectives.
Financial Allocations
One key provision in the bill is the authorization of $1,000,000 per fiscal year from 2024 through 2028. This funding is earmarked for conducting annual simulation exercises related to food security and cyber resilience (Section 4(e)). These exercises are intended to assess and improve the preparedness and response capabilities of various levels of government and private sector entities when responding to food-related emergencies or disruptions.
Related Issues
Adequacy of Funding: While the bill clearly specifies the amount of $1,000,000 per year, there is concern regarding whether this funding is sufficient or excessive for the intended simulation exercises. Without detailed justification for this financial allocation, there is a risk of either underfunding essential activities or misallocation of federal resources. This issue raises questions about the effective use of taxpayer dollars and whether these funds will fully address the needs of such complex exercises (Section 4).
Lack of Financial Allocation for Biennial Study: Another issue highlighted is the bill’s requirement for a biennial study on cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities in the agricultural sector (Section 3). However, the bill does not specify any financial resources or budget allocated for conducting this study. This omission could lead either to wasteful spending if resources are not carefully managed or to insufficient funding, which would limit the study's effectiveness. Clear financial planning and resource allocation are critical to ensure that the study can achieve its goals effectively.
In summary, while the bill does address the need for funding specific activities, particularly the simulation exercises, it falls short by not providing a financial blueprint for conducting essential studies on cybersecurity threats. Furthermore, the appropriateness of the allocated funds for simulation exercises requires clarification to ensure that they align with the program's goals and do not result in inefficiencies.
Issues
The bill mandates a biennial study on cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities without specifying the budget or resources required. This omission can lead to either wasteful spending or insufficient funding, potentially limiting the study's effectiveness. (Section 3)
The authorization of $1,000,000 per fiscal year for conducting annual simulation exercises related to food security and cyber resilience may be seen as inadequate or excessive. Without detailed justification for this amount, there is a risk of misallocation of federal resources. (Section 4)
There is a lack of specificity regarding which Federal, State, Tribal, local, and territorial governments and private sector entities will participate in the annual simulation exercises. This gap could lead to implementation challenges due to ambiguity. (Section 4)
The definitions section requires readers to reference section 2200 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 for several key terms. This cross-referencing could complicate comprehension and decrease accessibility for some stakeholders. (Section 2)
The bill does not provide clear guidelines on how the findings and recommendations from the cybersecurity study will be implemented or monitored, leaving a gap in strategic follow-up and accountability. (Section 3)
The bill lacks specificity on the criteria for selecting stakeholders or experts for the simulation exercises and on how their input will influence the design and execution of these exercises, which might limit the exercises' comprehensiveness and relevance. (Section 4)
The scope of the cybersecurity threats and security vulnerabilities study is broad, lacking prioritized focus areas, potentially leading to unfocused efforts that do not efficiently address critical security issues in the agriculture and food sector. (Section 3)
Mechanisms for integrating feedback from the simulation exercises into future policies and practices are not clearly outlined, creating a risk that lessons learned may not translate into actionable changes. (Section 4)
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 section states that this law will be known as the “Farm and Food Cybersecurity Act of 2024.”
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section provides definitions for key terms used in the act. It explains that the "agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector" includes all activities and entities involved in producing and managing food, from farming to regulation. It also notes that the terms related to cybersecurity are defined by another law, and identifies the "Secretary" as the Secretary of Agriculture.
3. Assessment of cybersecurity threats and security vulnerabilities in the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a requirement for the Secretary to conduct a study every two years that looks at cybersecurity threats and weaknesses affecting the agriculture and food infrastructure sector. The study will cover the nature of cyberattacks, their potential impacts, current defenses, and provide recommendations, with a report due to specified congressional committees every two years.
4. Food security and cyber resilience simulation exercise Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed section of the bill directs the Secretary, along with other federal agencies, to organize yearly simulations over five years to test and improve the nation's response to food-related emergencies. These exercises aim to identify weaknesses, improve coordination, evaluate policies, and develop best practices, with $1 million set aside for each year from 2024 to 2028.
Money References
- (e) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2028.