HR 302 Passes in House - Cybersecurity Research
Yesterday evening, the House took up H 302, the Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Act of 2023. After 11 minutes of debate under the suspension of the rules process, and a demand for a recorded vote, the House voted 357 to 56 (with 20 absences) to pass the bill. The bill would require DOE to establish an “Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Program”. No money is authorized by this bill for the program.
The Debate
The debate lasted just slightly more than eleven minutes. The following Representatives spoke in favor of the bill:
Lucas (R,OK, and Chair of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee),
Ross (D,NC, and sponsor of HR 302),
Carey (R,OH, and co-sponsor of HR 302), and
Jackson-Lee (D,TX)
Carey noted in his comments that: “These graduate students and postdoctoral researchers will have the opportunity to study and train at our national laboratories, giving them the proper experience and tools to be successful in protecting our energy grid as they enter the workforce.”
None of the 56 congress persons who voted against the bill participated in the debate. The way that these debates are managed on the Floor would not really have been expected to bring them into the discussion, since the person that would be assigned to manage the opposition discussion (the ranking member of the Committee) supported the bill. This is one area where there is a need for potential reforms to give the minority a voice in the debate.
The Opposition
All 56 opponents of the bill were Republicans. Many of the names are familiar for their opposition to the election of Rep McCarthy (R,CA) to be Speaker of the House. Six names in particular stand out:
Biggs (R,AZ),
Boebert (R,CO),
Crane (R,AZ),
Gaetz (R,FL),
Good (R,VA), and
Rosendale (R,MT)
These were the six ‘Never-McCarthy’ Republicans that ended up voting present in the final vote that elected McCarthy to Speaker. They have a long history of taking pains to slow, interrupt or stop proceedings in the House, so their opposition is not unexpected.
Moving Forward
This bill had strong bipartisan support in the House. There is little indication that it would face substantial organized opposition to consideration in the Senate. While there should be more than sufficient votes to close debate in that body, this is a relatively minor bill that is unlikely to take up time in the Senate. There is a possibility that the bill could be considered under the unanimous consent process, but I suspect that it would be held up by lone voices of opposition.
Commentary
As I noted Saturday, because no spending is specifically authorized in this bill, the program (if further authorized by the Senate) could run afoul of the spending process when the Department of Energy spending bill comes up for consideration in the House this summer. Under the new house rules, a point of order could be raised against funding for this program as not being authorized by legislation {Rule XXI, Clause 2(a)(1); pg 36}. Technically, the Chair would have to sustain that point of order, but a vote could be demanded on the ruling of the Chair. In the current Republican fervor to reduce spending, it is not clear that such a ruling would be overturned.
This problem is not unique to the Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Program that would be established by this bill. There are a number of existing programs in DHS for example that have never been specifically authorized by Congress, though funding has been provided. Many of those programs are potentially liable to be shut down by this process.
Even if such points of order were not sustained, the radical members would be expected to throw up large numbers of such points of order to slow down the consideration of spending bills. While the House Rules Committee would normally be expected to deal with such matters by waiving the rule, that is less likely to happen in the 118th, since McCarthy was forced to give three seats on that Committee to financial conservatives.