Review - Bills Introduced – 5-7-25

Yesterday, with both the House and Senate in session, there were 82 bills introduced. Of those, one bill may receive additional attention in this blog:

HR 3259 To amend the National Quantum Initiative Act and the Cyber Security Research and Development Act to advance the rapid deployment of post quantum cybersecurity standards across the United States economy, support United States cryptography research, and for other purposes. Stevens, Haley M. [Rep.-D-MI-11] 

 

For more information on these bills, including legislative history for similar bills in the 118th, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/bills-introduced-5-7-25 - subscription required.

S 1544 Introduced – Cyber Coordination with Russia

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HR 3191 and HR 3259) written by Democrats in response to President Trump’s brief statement of support (and quickly withdrawn support) for a joint US-Russian cybersecurity unit.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.

Note that Klobuchar has submitted a proposed amendment to HR 2810 (SA 655) that would attempt to accomplish the same purpose, but it is missing the background information portions of this bill. That would bring it more in line with more crassly political standards set in the two bills that were introduced in the House.

HR 3259 Introduced – Russia Cybersecurity

Earlier this month Rep. Speier (D,CA) introduced HR 3259, the Preventing Usurpation Through International Networks (PUTIN) Act. The bill would prevent participation in a US-Russian cybersecurity unit. This bill is very similar to HR 3191.

Section 2 of the bill is slightly less expansive in its exclusion as the one found in HR 3191, stating:

“No Federal funds may be used to establish or support a cybersecurity unit in which the Government of the Russian Federation, or any individual acting on behalf of such Government, is a participant.”

Moving Forward

Neither Speier nor any of her 12 cosponsors are members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the committee to which this bill was referred for consideration. This makes this bill even less likely than HR 3191 to be considered by the Committee.

Commentary

The language of this bill is slightly less inclusive in the programs that might be expected to be prohibited, but it is still potentially restrictive of politically inoffensive law enforcement activities.

I do, however, have to give grudging kudos to Ms Speier’s staff for coming up with a bill name that results in a cutely offensive acronym.

HR 3191 Introduced – Russia Cybersecurity

Last week Rep. Boyle (D,PA) introduced HR 3191, the No Cyber Cooperation with Russia Act. The bill would disallow the expenditure of any federal funds for any joint US – Russian cybersecurity initiative. This is a response to the announcement by President Trump after he returned from the G20 Summit that he and Putin had discussed forming a joint cyber-security unit to protect against election hacking.

Section 2 of the bill says simply:

“No Federal funds may be used to establish, support, or otherwise promote, directly or indirectly, the formation of[,] or any United States participation in[,] a joint cybersecurity initiative involving the Government of Russia or any entity operating under the direction of the Government of Russia.”

There are no qualifying definitions or explanations.

Moving Forward

Boyle is a rather junior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. Three of his 13 Democratic cosponsors are also members of that Committee. In normal circumstances, this could provide for the possibility of the bill being considered in Committee. In this case, party membership probably trumps committee membership, so there is very little possibility of this bill being considered in Committee.

Commentary

Even assuming that this is not a completely knee-jerk reaction to a “policy” announcement by Trump (as we frequently saw from Republicans during the Obama Administration) and that there are legitimate reasons to object to the specific policy proposal, the blunt wording of this proposal contains the seeds of many potential unintended consequences.

For example, if Interpol formed a task-force to take down criminal gangs operating botnets, and that unit included police from Russia (where at least some of these botnet operations are headquartered) then this bill would prohibit US participation in the effort. I highly doubt that that is what the crafters intended.

I suspect, however, that this bill (and the two others, HR 3259 and S 1544, that have not yet been printed by the GPO) was written to provide Democrats the opportunity to proclaim that they have introduced legislation opposing Trumps inopportune proposal. Even if the bill were to somehow be considered and approved by the House and Senate, it would certainly be vetoed by the President, if the unit had been a serious policy proposal in the first place (and that is an open question since the unit was proposed in a TWEET®).

Bills Introduced – 07-15-17

Yesterday with only the House in Washington there were 26 bills introduced. Of those only one may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

HR 3259 To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the establishment or support of a cybersecurity unit with the Russian Federation, and for other purposes. Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-14]

As with HR 3191 and S 1544 this is almost certainly more of a political statement than a viable attempt at legislation, but it will be followed here due to its potential effects on cybersecurity activities in the federal government.