Overview
Title
An Act To require the Under Secretary of the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security to develop a Department-wide policy and process to safeguard research and development from unauthorized access to or disclosure of sensitive information in research and development acquisitions, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants a special team to make sure secret science projects are kept safe from people who shouldn't see them, and the team will tell the grown-ups in charge how they’re doing after 90 days.
Summary AI
The bill, H. R. 901, aims to create a policy within the Department of Homeland Security to protect sensitive research and development information from being accessed or exposed without authorization. It directs the Under Secretary of the Science and Technology Directorate to coordinate this effort, ensuring it aligns with national guidelines for research security. A report by the Comptroller General is also required to evaluate compliance with related presidential and executive agency directives. Additionally, a briefing will be provided to Congress on the progress of these security measures within 90 days.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The "Research Security and Accountability in DHS Act," designated as H. R. 901, is a legislative proposal aimed at enhancing the security of research and development (R&D) activities within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The bill mandates the Under Secretary of the Science and Technology Directorate to devise a comprehensive policy and process to safeguard sensitive information from unauthorized access and disclosure during R&D acquisitions. Additionally, the bill stipulates requirements for reporting compliance with national security guidelines and mandates a congressional briefing to ensure transparency and accountability in the policy's implementation.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill raises several important issues that could influence its effective implementation:
Resource Allocation for Policy Development: The bill provides directives for policy development but does not specify the resources required, potentially leading to budgetary concerns or misallocation of funds. This lack of specificity may complicate the efficient creation and execution of the intended security measures.
Accountability in Compliance Reporting: The requirement for a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on DHS's compliance with National Security Presidential Memorandum–33 (NSPM–33) lacks a mechanism to enforce consequences if non-compliance is found, potentially undermining the effectiveness of oversight.
Timeline for Congressional Briefing: The bill requires a Congressional briefing within 90 days of its enactment, which may not allow sufficient time for the thorough development and evaluation of the necessary policies, thereby risking incomplete or hasty implementations.
Vagueness in Defining Unauthorized Access: The term "unauthorized access" remains undefined, leading to potential ambiguities and varied interpretations that could affect the consistency and effectiveness of enforcement.
Coordination with Other Bodies: While the bill encourages coordination with various national bodies concerning research security, it does not clarify roles and expectations, possibly leading to overlapping responsibilities or miscommunication among stakeholders.
Impacts on the Public
Broadly, the bill aims to enhance the security of sensitive information within DHS-related R&D, which could potentially safeguard public safety by ensuring that critical research does not fall into unintended hands. This increased security could enhance public confidence in the government’s ability to protect sensitive information, especially in areas impacting national security.
However, the potential for funding and resource allocation issues could hinder or delay the development of effective protections, indirectly affecting public trust in the agency's capabilities. Furthermore, vague definitions and rapid timelines could lead to implementation challenges, possibly diminishing the intended security enhancements.
Impacts on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, such as DHS personnel and external research partners, could experience both positive and negative impacts:
DHS Personnel: The directive for policy creation might demand additional training or resources, increasing the workload in the short term. Conversely, successful implementation could improve operational efficiencies and security protocols, enhancing job performance and satisfaction.
External Research Partners: Entities collaborating with DHS could face increased scrutiny and compliance demands, which may necessitate additional administrative efforts. However, greater security assurances might foster more robust partnerships and trust in collaborative endeavors.
Government Accountability Office (GAO): Tasked with reporting compliance, GAO will need to allocate resources appropriately to ensure thorough and effective oversight, which may strain existing capacities or delay other projects.
Overall, while the bill aims to enhance security and accountability in DHS’s R&D processes, its success hinges on addressing the identified issues and ensuring clear communication and resource allocation among all stakeholders involved.
Issues
The amendment of Section 302 lacks specificity about the resources required for developing the Department-wide policy and process to safeguard research and development, which could lead to potential budgetary concerns or misallocation of funds. This relates to Section 2.
The GAO report requirement does not specify any consequences or actions to be taken if the Department of Homeland Security fails to comply with NSPM-33, which could weaken the accountability of the intended oversight. This relates to Section 2(b).
The requirement for a Congressional briefing within 90 days may not provide enough time for thorough development and review of the necessary policies and processes, potentially resulting in incomplete or rushed preparation. This relates to Section 2(c).
The language in paragraph (15) regarding 'unauthorized access to or disclosure of sensitive information' is somewhat vague and does not define what constitutes 'unauthorized', potentially leading to varying interpretations. This relates to Section 2(a).
The provision for coordination with various bodies (National Science Foundation, National Science Technology Council, etc.) might result in overlapping responsibilities and confusion without clear guidelines on roles and expectations. This relates to Section 2(b)(2).
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 that the short title of the Act is the “Research Security and Accountability in DHS Act.”
2. Safeguarding sensitive research in the Department of Homeland Security Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill amends the Homeland Security Act to ensure that sensitive research and development information is protected from unauthorized access. It also requires the Department of Homeland Security to report on its compliance with certain guidelines related to research security and to brief Congress on the development of new policies to safeguard this information.