Senate Passes Burr-Feinstein Cybersecurity Bill

Oct 28, 2015

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Natasha G. Kohne, Ed Pagano, Francine E. Friedman, Jo-Ellyn Sakowitz Klein, Matthew Thomas (Senior Public Policy Specialist)

Background

CISA is intended to foster voluntary cybersecurity information-sharing on a real-time or near-real-time basis, both among companies and between companies and the government. Such legislation has been called for by the president and some relevant leaders of both parties in recent years as the frequency and severity of cybersecurity incidents and attacks has increased. To accomplish that, the bill seeks to give liability protection and certain confidentiality protections to businesses for sharing cybersecurity threat information, generally stripped of sensitive privacy information. The idea behind the bill is that businesses own much of the infrastructure and data being attacked; the government also has relevant information and insights; and voluntary sharing, incentivized through liability protection, can help identify and defend against threats and limit the period of time and number of instances for which a particular attack can be repeated and work effectively.

Conference Committee Ahead

With passage in the Senate, CISA now moves to the final legislative phase–it will be conferenced with two previously passed House cybersecurity bills. On April 22, 2015, the House passed H.R. 1560, the Protecting Cyber Networks Act, sponsored by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), with Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-CA) as lead co-sponsor. The bill passed by a wide margin of 307-116 and was followed a day later by passage of H.R. 1731, the National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015, by a vote of 355-63. That bill is sponsored by Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX).

Chairman Nunes’ bill amends the National Security Act of 1947 to require the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to develop and promulgate procedures to facilitate the sharing of classified and declassified cyber threat indicators in possession of the federal government with private entities. It also authorizes private entities to conduct information system monitoring activities and operate defensive measures for cybersecurity purposes, and to share or receive any cyber threat indicators with/from other private entities or an “appropriate federal entity” (defined as Commerce, DOE, DHS, DOJ, DNI or Treasury). H.R. 1731 amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide liability protections for private companies sharing cyber threat information within the private sector and with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center. As with H.R. 1560, personally identifiable information would be required to be scrubbed before a threat indicator is shared.

One major difference between the House and Senate bills that must be resolved is the question of whether to funnel all shared data through a single agency (DHS) or permit sharing with multiple agencies. The White House threw its support behind CISA last week, issuing a Statement of Administration Policy in favor of the bill, so long as it included the changes made by Sens. Burr and Feinstein during committee markup and in the manager’s amendment. In the statement, the White House noted that it would prefer all private-sector data to be shared through DHS before being shared with other federal agencies, and it expressed concern over several limited exceptions, despite being generally supportive of the bill. The White House stated that DHS was best suited to preserve privacy and civil liberties protections before sharing threat information with other agencies.

A conference committee schedule and conferees have yet to be agreed upon, and it is unclear at this time what path and timing may ultimately lead to the president’s desk and passage into law. Despite the challenges facing the conferees, all three bills passed with strong support from both sides of the aisle, as well as from the White House; thus, partisan issues are not likely to derail negotiations at this stage.

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.