Earlier this month Sen. Klobuchar (D,MN) introduced S 1544,
the No Funds for Cyber Coordination with Russia Act of 2017. This is one of
three bills (others: HR
3191 and HR
3259) written by Democrats in response to President Trump’s brief statement
of support (and quickly
withdrawn support) for a joint US-Russian cybersecurity unit.
Background Information
The bill includes a great deal of background information
before it gets to the meat of the matter. It includes broadly written
definitions of ‘cybersecurity’ and ‘cybersecurity unit’ that are, in turn based
upon the following definition of ‘cyberspace’ {§2(4)}:
“The term ‘‘cyberspace’’ means the
global domain within the information environment consisting of the
interdependent network of information systems infrastructures (including the
Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and embedded
processors and controllers).”
Section 3 of the bill sets forth the purpose of the bill:
“The purpose of this Act is to
protect United States cybersecurity and critical infrastructure by preventing
the President from establishing a cybersecurity unit in coordination with the
Government of the Russian Federation, a known foreign adversary.”
Section 4 of the bill outlines a series of ‘findings of
Congress’ that deal with the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian
governmental involvement in a wide variety of cyber-attacks against the US,
including their meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.
The Prohibition
Section 5 of the bill provides a very succinct statement of
prohibition of funding, very similar to that found in the other two bills:
“No Federal funds may be used to
establish a cybersecurity unit, or any variation thereof, in cooperation or connection
with the Government of the Russian Federation.”
Section 7 of the bill even sets forth the conditions under
which the provisions of this bill will no longer apply; the President certifies
to Congress that the government of the Russian Federation has:
• Ceased ordering, controlling, or
otherwise directing, supporting, or financing acts intended to undermine
democracies around the world; and
• Submitted a written statement acknowledging
interference in the 2016 United States Presidential election.
Moving Forward
While Klobuchar is not a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs
Committee (to which this bill has been assigned for consideration), four of her
14 co-sponsors {Sen. Cardin (D,MD), Sen. Markey (D,MA), Sen. Shaheen (D,NH),
and Sen. Merkley (D,OR)} are. This means that would normally be possible for
the four to ensure that the bill was considered in Committee. With a bill as
politically pointed as this one, however, there is little or no chance that the
Republican leadership will allow the bill to be considered in Committee, and
certainly not on the floor of the Senate.
Commentary
Of the three bills submitted to date on this topic, this one
was the most professionally written. This one shows the type of legislative
crafting one expects to see in a bill worthy of consideration (if not
necessarily passage). While the prohibition in paragraph 5 is as broadly worded
as the similar statements in the other two bills, the remainder of the bill
would provide enough evidence of specific congressional intent that most
judicial reviews of the provisions would have no difficulty in separating out
purely police activities of a cyber nature that might involve Russian police
cooperation from the more politically charged cybersecurity joint venture
proposed by Trump.