PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 18, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 10, 2014. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 180 days and annually thereafter for three years, to conduct an assessment of the cybersecurity workforce of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which shall include information on:
the readiness and capacity of such workforce to meet its cybersecurity mission;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
where cybersecurity workforce positions are located within DHS;
which such positions are performed by permanent full-time equivalent DHS employees, by independent contractors, and by individuals employed by other federal agencies;
which such positions are vacant;
the percentage of individuals within each Cybersecurity Category and Specialty Area who received essential training to perform their jobs; and
in cases in which such training was not received, what challenges were encountered regarding the provision of such training.
Directs the Secretary to develop, maintain, and update a comprehensive workforce strategy to enhance the readiness, capacity, training, recruitment, and retention of DHS's cybersecurity workforce, which shall include a description of:
a multi-phased recruitment plan,
a 5-year implementation plan,
a 10-year projection of the cybersecurity workforce needs of DHS,
any obstacle impeding the hiring and development of such workforce, and
any gap in the existing DHS cybersecurity workforce and a plan to fill such gap.
Requires the Secretary to submit to the appropriate congressional committees: (1) annual updates on such assessment and on the Secretary's progress in carrying out such strategy; and (2) a report on the feasibility, cost, and benefits of establishing a Cybersecurity Fellowship Program to offer a tuition payment plan for individuals pursuing undergraduate and doctoral degrees who agree to work for DHS for an agreed-upon period.
People & committees
Rep. Meehan, Patrick [R-PA-7] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 113-246.
Became Public Law No: 113-246.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by voice vote. (text as House agreed to Senate amendments: CR H9060)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by voice vote.(text as House agreed to Senate amendments: CR H9060)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 40 minutes of debate on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments to H.R. 2952.
Mr. Meehan moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments. (consideration: CR H9060-9062)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Voice Vote.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Voice Vote.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S6486-6487)
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6922-6923)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6922-6923)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2952.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6922-6925)
Mr. Meehan moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 241.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 113-324.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 113-324.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2952 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2952 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2952 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2952 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.