McConnell Wants Vote on Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act Before Recess
The Senate will vote on the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act before the start of Congress’ August recess, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Sunday on Fox News Sunday. A Senate vote on S-754 would be a “step in the direction of dealing” with the “complete and total incompetence” of federal agencies’ cybersecurity highlighted in the recent Office of Personnel Management data breach, McConnell said. OPM revealed Friday that an additional 21.5 million individuals’ personal information was exposed during the data breach than was initially reported. OPM Director Katherine Archuleta resigned following that announcement (see 1507100037). McConnell said that he believes S-754 “will be broadly supported” in the Senate given the recent OPM data breach, which is “an administrative disaster that [President Barack Obama] needs to get a hold of and get straightened out soon.” McConnell hasn’t announced a timeline yet on an S-754 Senate floor vote, a spokesman said Monday.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Lawyers and lobbyists on both sides of the debate over the controversial S-754 said in interviews that they remain skeptical that the Senate will get to the bill before the August recess. They said that is particularly true given McConnell’s failure in June to successfully attach S-754’s language as an amendment to the FY 2016 reauthorization of the National Defense Authorization Act (S-1376). McConnell withdrew the proposed amendment after only 56 senators voted in favor of limiting debate on it (see 1506110050). Members interested in S-754 “have been talking to each other” on several sticking points that have slowed progress on the bill this year, but it’s unclear that those discussions have led to any progress on a compromise, said Norma Krayem, a Holland & Knight senior cybersecurity policy advisor. McConnell “certainly controls the calendar” on advancing S-754, but “the key is going to be whether these discussions have addressed some of the privacy issues and some of the suggestions about fine-tuning the role of the Department of Homeland Security,” Krayem said. “If those haven’t been addressed, they’ll need to happen very quickly.”
S-754’s chances of advancement now also depend on whether a perceived need to address cybersecurity in the wake of the OPM breach outweighs other Senate priorities like simmering fights on several FY 2016 budgets, said former FCC Public Safety Bureau Chief Jamie Barnett, a cybersecurity and telecom lawyer at Venable. McConnell and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., have appeared to be pushing to address cybersecurity since there’s “been a lot of pressure to do something” following the OPM breach, but “the clock is kind of against them” given the limited number of days left before the start of the recess, Barnett said. Krayem said she believes the OPM breach fallout gives the Senate definite impetus to “expedite discussions” on S-754.
The structure of the amendment process on S-754 may ultimately determine whether the bill moves toward a full Senate vote, said Monument Policy Group lobbyist Andrew Howell. McConnell and other Senate leaders may need to support “a pretty open amendment process” across a wide range of cybersecurity-related issues -- particularly those related directly to data breaches and privacy protections -- to overcome procedural hurdles, Howell said. Privacy advocates are still likely to pursue enhanced privacy protections in S-754 via a manager’s amendment, and that could be beneficial for the bill’s supporters if it results in fewer amendments attached on the Senate floor, he said. “If folks feel they’re getting a fair process, they’ll support” moving forward on a floor vote, Howell said: If that doesn’t happen, “the path forward becomes more challenging.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the privacy groups that have opposed S-754, believes McConnell’s proposed timeline on the bill is inherently problematic because “this is the last thing they need to be rushing through,” said Gabe Rottman, legislative counsel for the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. “This legislation isn’t going to do anything to address what caused the OPM hack, and it would actually make things worse by centralizing more personal information.” Rottman said that he’s not aware of any proposed changes to S-754 that would make it more palatable for the ACLU and other privacy groups.