PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Dec 1, 2014
Critical Infrastructure Protection Act or CIPA - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to: (1) include in national planning scenarios the threat of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) events; and (2) conduct outreach to educate owners and operators of critical infrastructure, emergency planners, and emergency responders at all levels of government of the threat of EMP events.
Directs the Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to conduct research and development to mitigate the consequences of EMP events, including: (1) an objective scientific analysis of the risks to critical infrastructures from a range of EMP events; (2) determination of the critical national security assets and vital civic utilities and infrastructures that are at risk from EMP events; (3) an evaluation of emergency planning and response technologies that would address the findings and recommendations of experts, including those of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack; (4) an analysis of available technology options to improve the resiliency of critical infrastructure to EMP; and (5) the restoration and recovery capabilities of critical infrastructure under differing levels of damage and disruption from various EMP events.
Includes among the responsibilities of the Secretary of Homeland Security relating to intelligence and analysis and infrastructure protection to prepare and submit to specified congressional committees: (1) a recommended strategy to protect and prepare the critical infrastructure of the American homeland against EMP events, including from acts of terrorism; and (2) biennial updates on the status of such strategy. Authorizes the Secretary to incorporate such strategy into a broader recommendation developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to help protect and prepare critical infrastructure from terrorism and other threats.
People & committees
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ-8] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 H8194)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8194)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3410.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8194-8196)
Mr. Meehan moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
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: Apr 7, 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.3410 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.3410 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.3410 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.3410 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.