Showing posts with label S 513. Show all posts
Showing posts with label S 513. Show all posts

Thursday, February 6, 2025

S 245 Ordered Reported Favorably in Senate - Insure Cybersecurity Act

Yesterday, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a business meeting to consider 17 pieces of legislation. Among those bills was S 245, the Insure Cybersecurity Act of 2025. According to yesterday’s Congressional Record the bill was ordered reported favorably without any amendments. No word is available in the CR or the meeting record about the type vote held on that order.

Once the Committee report is published (which could be months), the bill would be cleared for consideration before the full Senate. It is unlikely to be considered under regular order (too time consuming with too many nominations to consider). If it is considered it would be under the Senate’s unanimous consent process.

No committee action was taken on a similar bill, S 513, last session. This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue since the sponsor of the bill, Sen Hickenlooper (D,CO), is a Democrat. This seems more likely to be a change in focus of the new Republican Committee Chair, Sen Cruz (R,TX).

Friday, March 10, 2023

Review - S 513 Introduced – Cyber Insurance

Last month, Sen Hickenlooper (D,CO) introduced S 513, the Insure Cybersecurity Act of 2023. The bill would require the Department of Commerce to convene an interagency working grout to look at issues related to cyber insurance. Once a report from the working group is produced, DOC would be required to provide the public with “informative resources for cyber insurance stakeholder”. No funding is authorized by this bill.

Moving Forward

Both Hickenlooper and his sole cosponsor {Sen Capito (R,WV)} are both member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there should be sufficient influence to see the bill considered in Committee. I see nothing in the bill that would engender any significant opposition. I expect that the bill would receive bipartisan support.

The bill is not ‘important’ enough to be considered on the floor of the Senate under regular order. I suspect that the bill could be considered under the Senate’s unanimous consent process, but you never can tell what unrelated opposition could lead to an objection under that process.

Commentary

This bill makes no attempt at establishing any regulatory framework for cybersecurity insurance, which would probably be the death knell of bill currently containing such provisions. The crafters of this bill did do Congress a disservice, however, when they did not take advantage of this working group to outline what future regulation legislation might look like. I would have added the following subparagraph (K) to Section 3(c)(1):

(K) Identify any regulatory frameworks that may have been proposed to govern the issuance of cyber insurance.”


For more details on the requirements of this legislation, including the proposed activities of the working group, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/s-513-introduced - subscription required.

Friday, February 17, 2023

Bills Introduced – 2-16-23

Yesterday, with just the Senate in Washington and preparing to leave for their Presidents Day recess, there were 79 bills introduced. Two of those bills will receive additional attention in this blog:

S 473 A bill to provide for drone security. Scott, Rick [Sen.-R-FL] 

S 513 A bill to require the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to establish a working group on cyber insurance, to require dissemination of informative resources for issuers and customers of cyber insurance, and for other purposes. Hickenlooper, John W. [Sen.-D-CO] 

I would also like to mention one bill in passing:

S 515 A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of establishing a national strategic propane reserve. Stabenow, Debbie [Sen.-D-MI]

Given the political machinations surrounding the operation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, any such study by DOE, should at least take a pro forma look at the political restrictions that should be placed upon the possible propane strategic reserve.

 
/* Use this with templates/template-twocol.html */