Cybersecurity Activity During Last Gasp of Lame-Duck Congress

Dec 12, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Francine E. Friedman, Matthew Thomas (Senior Public Policy Specialist), David S. Turetsky, Visiting Professor, College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity at the University of Albany

On Wednesday, the Senate passed the National Cybersecurity Protection Act (S. 2519, also sponsored by Sen. Carper), which is the Senate’s version of a House-passed bill, the National Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (NCCIP). The bill officially authorizes the already-existing cybersecurity information-sharing hub at DHS. Known as the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, the hub receives cyber information from multiple government and industry sources, then disseminates information on specific cyber threats back to those partners. The Senate’s measure is a slimmed-down version of the House bill, leaving out many of the specifics on the information exchange between the public and private sector. The House passed the bill on Thursday, and it now also heads to the president’s desk for signature.

Further, the Senate also passed H.R. 2952 on December 10, 2014. Originally titled and passed by the House as the Critical Infrastructure Research and Development Advancement Act of 2014, the Senate approved an amendment by Sen. Carper to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to assess the cybersecurity workforce of DHS and develop a comprehensive workforce strategy. The bill was also passed by the House on Thursday and now heads to the president’s desk, along with the other two previously mentioned above.

Additionally, the Homeland Security Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act, which was included in the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014 (S. 1691), was passed by the House on Wednesday. Though the bill is primarily about compensating border patrol agents, when it passed the Senate in September, lawmakers added provisions to the bill incorporating Sen. Carper’s DHS Cybersecurity Workforce Recruitment and Retention Act of 2014. The provisions would give DHS special flexibility to recruit and pay cyberprofessionals. That bill also now awaits President Obama’s signature.

On Thursday evening, the House and Senate passed S. 1353, the Cybersecurity Act of 2013. The bill, sponsored by outgoing Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Rockefeller Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to permit the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to facilitate and support the development of a voluntary, industry-led set of standards and procedures to reduce cyberrisks to critical infrastructure. Under the standards, NIST would be directed to “include methodologies to mitigate impacts on business confidentiality, protect individual privacy and civil liberties” when coordinating and sharing information with private owners and operators of critical infrastructure. It should be noted that the term “critical infrastructure” is not defined within the context of the bill. Further, the bill would require the development of a national cybersecurity research and development plan, direct the departments of Commerce and Homeland Security to sponsor competitions and other challenges to recruit cybersecurity workers, and direct NIST to continue efforts to improve public awareness of cybersecurity risks.

Finally, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing Wednesday about how to prevent cyber-attacks and handle data breaches facing the financial-services industry. In submitted testimony, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association urged lawmakers to pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014 (knowas CISA, or CISPA in the House), since the bill would be the best way “for Congress to engage more productively in this effort to improve our cybersecurity.” The hearing featured testimony from representatives of the Treasury, DHS, Office of the Comptroller of Currency, the Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Senate is not expected to pass CISA before the end of the lame-duck session.

In sum, it is likely that five bills pertaining to federal information security (S. 2521), limited cyber information sharing (S. 2519), critical infrastructure cybersecurity, R&D and workforce development, and the hiring of federal cybersecurity professionals will all become law before the end of the year. However, Congress has yet to reach an agreement on how to create a framework for comprehensive cooperation and collaboration on cybersecurity information sharing with the private sector, and such legislation is unlikely to pass in the waning days of the 113th Congress.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.