Review - S 438 Introduced – Cyber PIVOTT Act

Back in February Sen Rounds (R,SD) introduced S 438, the Providing Individuals Various Opportunities for Technical Training to Build a Skills-Based Cyber Workforce (Cyber PIVOTT) Act of 2025. The bill would require CISA to “establish education and training programs and facilitate internship and post-graduation Federal job opportunities at participating institutions”. No new funding would be authorized by this legislation.

This bill is very similar to HR 9770 that was introduced by Rep Green (R,TN) in September of 2024. On September 25^th, 2025. The House Homeland Security Committee held a markup hearing on September 25^th, 2024. The bill was amended and ordered to be reported favorably by a vote of 27 to 0. The report was never filed nor was an amended version of the bill published. No further action was taken.

On the same date that S 438 was introduced, Green introduced HR 1000 which was very similar to HR 9770. On February 26^th, 2025, the House Homeland Security Committee held a business meeting where HR 1000 was considered. The Committee ordered the bill reported favorably without amendment by a near party-line vote of 17 to 8. It is not clear why there was such a radical change in support from Democratic members of the Committee. No further action has been taken on HR 1000 in the 119^th Congress.

The differences between S 438 and HR 1000 are mostly formatting in nature with two exceptions. First, the definition section is expanded from 2 to 12 terms and is moved from subsection §1334(i) to (a). Secondly, a §1334(b)(5)(A)(ii) provides a broad FACA exemption to the advisory committee suggested in clause (i).

This bill would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by adding a new section: §1334, CISA education and training programs and resources.

Moving Forward

While Rounds is not a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration, his sole cosponsor {Sen Peters (D,MI)} is the Ranking Member of that Committee. This means that there could be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. With no spending authorized in the legislation, I see nothing in the bill that would engender any organized opposition. I suspect that there would be some level of bipartisan support for the bill.

As with any bill under primary consideration of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, the main roadblock could be opposition by the Chair, Sen Paul (R,KY). Paul has an almost visceral objection to government programs, so it would not be surprising if he were to object to this PIVOTT program. And since he is the Chair, his objection would mean that the bill would not be considered by the Committee.

 

For more information on the provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-438-introduced-cyber-pivott-act - subscription required.