PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 7, 2017
Securing Communications of Utilities from Terrorist Threats or the SCOUTS Act
This bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to work with critical infrastructure owners and operators and state, local, tribal, and territorial entities to seek voluntary participation of sector-specific agencies to determine how DHS can best serve cybersecurity needs to manage risk and strengthen the security and resilience of the nation's critical infrastructure against terrorist attacks. A "sector-specific agency" is a federal agency designated as such by Presidential Policy Directive 21 relating to critical infrastructure security and resilience.
DHS: (1) shall seek to reduce vulnerabilities, minimize consequences, identify and disrupt terrorism threats, and hasten response and recovery efforts related to impacted critical infrastructures; (2) may investigate the best means for engaging sector-specific agencies in a voluntary cybersecurity information sharing, emergency support, and emerging threat awareness program; and (3) shall establish voluntary opportunities for such agencies and critical infrastructure owners and operators to inform DHS of sector-specific challenges to cybersecurity.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
DHS shall: (1) establish terrorism prevention policy to engage with international partners to strengthen the security and resilience of domestic critical infrastructure and critical infrastructure located outside of the United States or in its territorial waters, and (2) facilitate the timely exchange of terrorism threat and vulnerability information as well as information that allows for the development of a situational awareness capability for federal civilian agencies during terrorist incidents.
DHS shall implement an integration and analysis function for critical infrastructure that includes: (1) operational and strategic analysis on terrorism incidents, threats, and emerging risks; and (2) integration of data sharing capabilities with Fusion Centers.
People & committees
Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection.
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 9, 2026. 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.940 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.940 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.940 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.940 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.