(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
2d Session SENATE Report
Calendar No. 707
CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2010
R E P O R T
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
December 22, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred eleventh congress
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
BARBARA BOXER, California JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK WARNER, Virginia
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
Ellen Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
Bruce Andrews, General Counsel
Ann Begeman, Republican Staff Director
Brian Hendricks, Republican General Counsel
Todd Bertoson, Republican Senior Counsel
Calendar No. 707
111th Congress Report
2d Session 111-384
CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2010
December 22, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
Mr. Rockefeller, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
[To accompany S. 773]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 773) to enhance the security of
the information infrastructure of the United States, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that
the bill (as amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of S. 773, The Cybersecurity Act of 2010, is to
strengthen the security of American information infrastructure
by expanding the information security workforce, establishing
authorities for the Federal government, and enhancing public-
Background and Needs
Information and communications technology (ICT) is essential
for the day-to-day operations of companies, organizations, and
government. Companies large and small increasingly rely on ICT
to support diverse business processes, ranging from payroll and
accounting to inventory tracking and management. Critical
national infrastructure--such as energy, banking and finance,
defense, law enforcement, water systems, and transportation
systems--all depend on ICT to maintain daily operations. To
allow for near real-time exchanges of information, money,
goods, and services all across the globe, ICT systems are
increasingly linked to each other through the Internet.
While open systems connected to the Internet provide great
societal benefits, owners and operators place the
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of their
information and information systems at risk by connecting to
the Internet. Every day, millions of attacks are launched
against public and private sector computers. Attackers seek a
variety of things, from money, to information, to destruction.
The success of the attack depends on both the skill level of
the attacker and the sophistication of the defender.
Unfortunately for defenders, automated tools available online
provide an added boost for lesser-skilled attackers.
As the most connected nation in the world, the United States
is also the most vulnerable. Former Director of National
Intelligence Michael McConnell testified at a Committee hearing
in 2009 that, ``If we [the U.S.] went to war today in a
cyberwar, we would lose. We're the most vulnerable, we're the
most connected, we have the most to lose.''\1\ Public and
private sector computer networks within the U.S. are
increasingly subject to attack. According to the U.S. Computer
Emergency Readiness Team, Federal civilian agencies reported a
total of 18,050 cyber incidents in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008,
compared with 12,986 in FY 2007, and 5,144 in FY 2006.\2\
During 2008, there were 54,640 identified attacks against the
Department of Defense; in 2009, there were 71,661 incidents
reported; and through June 30 of 2010, there were 60,026
\1\ McConnell, Michael (former Director of National Intelligence).
Quote from Hearing of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. ``Cybersecurity: Next Steps to Protect Our Critical
Infrastructure.'' 23 Feb. 2010.
\2\ Bain, Ben. ``Number of Reported Cyber Incidents Jumps.''
Federal Computer Week. 17 Feb. 2009. Web. http://fcw.com/Articles/2009/
\3\ Report to Congress. U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission. 29 Oct. 2010. Web. http://www.uscc.gov/annual--report/2010/
Data theft and breaches from cyber crime may have cost
businesses as much as $1 trillion globally in lost intellectual
property and expenditures for repairing damage in 2008.\4\
According to a group of 500 global information technology
corporations, companies spend an average of $600,000 responding
to each security breach leading to the loss of vital
information.\5\ Because of sophisticated tradecraft and
inconsistent reporting, however, the total number of attacks is
\4\ Study: Cybercrime cost firms $1 trillion globally, Elinor
Mills, 28 Jan. 2009. Web. http://news.csnet.com. While S. 773 is
focused on the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure information
systems, rather than cybercrime, these statistics underscore the
vulnerability of ICT systems to cyber attacks.
\5\ Unsecured Economies: Protecting Vital Information, McAfee,
Inc., Jan. 2009, page 3.
The private sector owns a large percentage of the nation's
critical infrastructure, including electricity generation and
transmission, water and sewer treatment facilities, and
financial markets and clearinghouses. The computers that run
these systems are often interconnected and subject to the same
potential attacks as other networks. Experts suggest that cyber
attacks against critical infrastructure potentially could
physically destroy infrastructure, depriving large populations
of essential goods and services for extended periods of time
and threatening lives.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for
securing cyberspace and critical infrastructure under Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 7. Specifically, DHS is
responsible for: developing a comprehensive national plan for
critical infrastructure protection; developing and enhancing
national cyber analysis and warning capabilities; providing and
coordinating incident response and recovery planning, including
conducting incident response exercises; identifying, assessing,
and supporting efforts to reduce cyber threats and
vulnerabilities, including those associated with infrastructure
control systems; and strengthening international cyberspace
security. However, a number of reports demonstrate that DHS has
not been fully effective in improving cybersecurity throughout
the private sector. For example, in 2006, DHS issued guidance
for agencies to develop sector-specific plans for protecting
cyber and physical critical infrastructure. Agencies issued
plans in 2007, but the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
found that none fully addressed all cyber-related criteria. DHS
asked for the plans to be updated in 2008, but a September 2009
GAO report found limited progress.\6\
\6\ GAO-09-969, Critical Infrastructure Protection: Current Cyber
Sector-Specific Planning Approach Needs Reassessment. Sept. 2009.
The U.S. cybersecurity workforce--comprised significantly of
students who excel at science and engineering--is insufficient
to meet the cyber threat. For nearly five decades, the domestic
science and engineering workforce has grown faster than the
total civilian workforce, reaching about 5.5 million in 2007.
However, undergraduate and graduate degrees in computer
sciences have declined since 2004, back to the levels observed
in 2000.\7\ In addition, an increasing proportion of computer
science degrees granted in this country are awarded to foreign
nationals, often from China and India. Competitiveness aside,
many are concerned with the limited pool of properly educated
U.S. citizens who maintain an ability to obtain security
clearances at the highest levels.
\7\ Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. National Science
When it comes to specializations in cybersecurity, the
situation worsens. According to the President's Information
Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), there currently are
fewer than 250 active cybersecurity specialists at U.S.
academic institutions, and the nation's cybersecurity research
community is too small to adequately support the cybersecurity
research and education programs necessary to protect the
country. The PITAC thus recommended an intense effort to
promote the recruitment and retention of cybersecurity
researchers and students at research universities with a goal
of at least doubling the size of the civilian cybersecurity
fundamental research community by the end of the decade.\8\
\8\ Report to President. President's Information Technology
Advisory Committee. Cyber Security: A Crisis of Prioritization.
Virginia: The Commission. Web. 7 December 2010. http://www.nitrd.gov/
Though technology has changed significantly in the last
decade, America's fundamental policies and strategies for
addressing the cyber threat have not. The ``National Strategy
to Secure Cyberspace'' was drafted in 2002, and has not been
updated or revised since. Many people, including independent
commissions, independent oversight bodies, and knowledgeable
observers, have suggested that the time for a new strategy,
vision, and plan for national cybersecurity is past due. This
legislation seeks to address these and other information
security issues in a comprehensive format.
Summary of Provisions
The primary goal of the Cybersecurity Act of 2010 is to
modernize the public-private sector relationship on
cybersecurity. As vast majority of our Nation's networks are
owned and operated by the private sector, securing cyberspace
must be a collaborative
effort between our Government and the private sector. Reactive,
ad hoc responses to the cyber threat leave our country, our
businesses, and our civil liberties at risk. The Cybersecurity
Act of 2010 would provide a framework for proactive engagement,
collaboration, and teamwork between the government and the
private sector on cybersecurity.
The bill would raise the priority of cybersecurity throughout
the Federal government and streamline cybersecurity-related
government functions, authorities, and laws. The bill would
protect civil liberties, intellectual property, and businesses'
proprietary information, while promoting cybersecurity public
awareness, education, and research and development. The bill
would foster market-driven cybersecurity innovation and
creativity to develop long-term technology solutions and train
the next generation of cybersecurity professionals.
Sections 101 and 204 would bolster market incentives for
innovation and excellence in cybersecurity professional
training and cybersecurity products and services by
encouraging, coordinating, and building on private sector
initiatives. They are intended to create a dynamic, ever-
improving cycle of market-driven innovation--not a static
checklist administered by a slow-moving bureaucracy. Section
208 would place the purchasing power of the Federal government
behind these innovations by requiring them to be part of every
Federal contract for information technology (IT) products and
services. These sections would require the President to
collaborate with private sector critical infrastructure
companies to identify the world's best private sector training
programs and industry best practices for IT products and
services. Then, they would require those same companies to
report the results of independent audits of their compliance
with these standards--their own standards. These sections also
call for collaborative remediation of persistent
vulnerabilities. In practice, this would effectively be a
government-coordinated, private sector intervention to prevent
a company that has failed consecutive audits from damaging the
entire industry sector--and the country's security along with
Sections 201 and 403 would require a collaborative effort to
promote effective, well-coordinated, government-private sector
teamwork--and protect civil liberties, proprietary rights, and
confidential and classified information--before, during, and
after a cybersecurity emergency. Section 201 would require the
President to collaborate with owners and operators of critical
infrastructure information systems, through existing
partnerships, to develop and rehearse detailed cybersecurity
emergency response and restoration plans. The explicit purpose
of this section is to clarify roles, responsibilities, and
authorities of government and private sector actors in the
event of a cybersecurity emergency that threatens strategic
national interests. The President's declaration of a
cybersecurity emergency would trigger the implementation of the
collaborative emergency response and restoration plans. Section
201 states explicitly that nothing in the section authorizes
new or expanded Presidential authorities--it simply seeks to
avoid the type of dangerous bureaucratic confusion witnessed in
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. To establish greater
accountability for the President's actions during a declared
emergency, the section would also require the President to
report to Congress in writing, within 48 hours of the
declaration, regarding the circumstances necessitating the
declaration, and the estimated scope and duration of the
Section 403 would complement this emergency response
provision by creating a public-private information sharing
clearinghouse in which government and private officials would
share classified and/or confidential cybersecurity threat and
vulnerability information. This would allow incidents to be
handled in real-time, or prevent them from occurring
Senators Rockefeller and Snowe introduced S. 773 on April 1,
2009. The legislation was referred to the Committee, and
included Senator Nelson (of Florida) as an original cosponsor.
The bill is also cosponsored by Senators Bayh and Mikulski.
Chairman Rockefeller held two hearings on cybersecurity at
the full committee level. The first, held on March 19, 2009,
was titled ``Cybersecurity: Assessing Our Vulnerabilities and
Developing an Effective Response,'' and the Committee heard
from: Dr. James A. Lewis, Director and Senior Fellow, Center
for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); Dr. Joseph
Weiss, Managing Partner, Applied Control Solutions, LLC; Dr.
Edward G. Amoroso, Chief Security Officer, AT&T; and Dr. Eugene
H. Spafford, Professor and Executive Director of the Center for
Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security,
The second hearing was held on February 23, 2010, and was
titled ``Cybersecurity: Next Steps to Protect Our Critical
Infrastructure.'' At this hearing, witnesses included: Vice
Admiral Michael McConnell (USN, Ret.), Executive Vice
President, Booz Allen Hamilton and former Director of National
Intelligence; Dr. James A. Lewis, Director and Senior Fellow,
CSIS; Dr. Scott Borg, Director and Chief Economist, U.S. Cyber
Consequences Unit; Rear Admiral James Arden Barnett Jr. (USN,
Ret.), Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission (FCC); and Ms. Mary Ann
Davidson, Chief Security Officer, Oracle Corporation.
On March 24, 2010, the Committee met in Executive Session,
during which S. 773 was considered with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The committee adopted amendments
offered by Senators Hutchison, Cantwell, Klobuchar, Udall, and
Warner. The bill, as amended, was ordered reported by voice
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
S. 773--Cybersecurity Act of 2010
Summary: S. 773 would authorize several National Science
Foundation (NSF) grant and scholarship programs aimed at
enhancing cybersecurity (the protection of computers and
computer networks from unauthorized access) through expanded
research and workforce development. The bill also would
authorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) to carry out certain activities to promote the
development of new cybersecurity technologies and to enhance
public awareness of cybersecurity issues. In addition, the bill
would direct the President to develop and implement a
comprehensive cybersecurity strategy for the federal
government. Finally, the legislation would codify certain
ongoing activities related to cybersecurity.
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 773 would cost $1.4 billion over
the 2011-2015 period. Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to
this legislation because it would not affect direct spending or
S. 773 would impose intergovernmental and private-sector
mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA), on owners and operators of information systems
designated as critical infrastructure by the President. Owners
and operators of such systems would have to comply with new
security standards and procedures. Because the number of
entities subject to the mandates would be large, and the costs
of complying with some of the mandates in the bill would be
substantial, CBO estimates that the costs to comply would well
exceed the annual thresholds established in UMRA for
intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($70 million and
$141 million in 2010, respectively, adjusted annually for
CBO has not reviewed section 201(b) of the bill for
mandates. Section 4 of UMRA excludes from the application of
that act any legislative provisions that are necessary for
national security. CBO has determined that the provisions of
section 201(b) fall within that exclusion because they would
allow the President to declare a cybersecurity emergency and
implement emergency-response and restoration plans.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 773 is shown in the following table. The
costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 250
(general science, space, and technology), 370 (commerce and
housing credit), and 800 (general government).
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011-2015
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
National Science Foundation Activities:
Authorization Level..................................... 339 356 371 388 0 1,454
Estimated Outlays....................................... 61 210 295 338 297 1,201
Department of Commerce Activities:
Estimated Authorization Level........................... 38 48 58 68 8 220
Estimated Outlays....................................... 20 34 44 55 45 198
Estimated Authorization Level........................... 7 6 6 6 6 31
Estimated Outlays....................................... 6 6 6 6 6 30
Total Spending Under S. 773:
Estimated Authorization Level....................... 384 410 435 462 14 1,705
Estimated Outlays................................... 87 250 345 399 348 1,429
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
legislation will be enacted in 2010 and that the necessary
amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimated
outlays are based on historical spending patterns for similar
National Science Foundation activities
S. 773 would authorize appropriations totaling about $1.2
billion over the 2011-2014 period for several existing NSF
programs related to cybersecurity research. The bill also would
authorize the appropriation of $250 million over that period
for the agency to provide scholarships to students who pursue
higher education in fields related to cybersecurity. Finally,
the bill would authorize the appropriation of $2 million a year
over the 2011-2012 period to provide grants for higher
education institutions to develop cybersecurity curricula.
Based on information from NSF and assuming appropriation of the
authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the NSF
programs authorized under the bill would cost $1.2 billion over
the 2011-2015 period.
Department of Commerce activities
S. 773 would authorize the appropriation of $15 million a
year over the 2011-2014 period for NIST to award cash prizes to
individuals who develop innovative cybersecurity technologies.
The bill also would require the agency to establish regional
cybersecurity centers that would assist businesses in
implementing cybersecurity best practices. In addition, the
legislation would require NIST to establish a program to
promote cybersecurity awareness and education. Finally, the
bill would require the Secretary of Commerce to develop a
tracking system to provide the real-time cybersecurity status
of all federal agencies within the Department of Commerce.
Based on information regarding the cost of implementing similar
programs, CBO estimates that carrying out the provisions
affecting the Department of Commerce would cost $198 million
over the 2011-2015 period, assuming appropriation of the
authorized and necessary amounts.
S. 773 would direct the President to establish a national
cybersecurity strategy and to conduct biennial reviews to
assess the nation's cybersecurity posture. The legislation also
would require the President to appoint a panel of academic and
industry experts to advise the Office of Science and Technology
Policy on issues related to cybersecurity. Finally, the bill
would require a study by the National Academies to assess
workforce development efforts related to cybersecurity. Based
on information regarding the cost of similar activities, CBO
estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $30
million over the 2011-2015 period.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Mandates that apply to both intergovernmental and private-sector
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 773 would
impose intergovernmental and private-sector mandates, as
defined in UMRA, on owners and operators of information systems
designated as critical infrastructure by the President.
Critical infrastructure could include information systems for
public and private transportation systems, police and fire
departments, airports, hospitals, electric utilities, health
departments, water systems, and financial companies.
The bill would require those entities to:
Train employees working in cybersecurity to
meet new certification requirements;
Comply with risk-management techniques and
best practices to be established for cybersecurity; and
Audit their compliance with those
requirements on a semi-annual basis and report the
results of those audits to the federal government.
The costs of complying with the mandates would depend on
future regulations, the extent to which the regulations would
impose requirements that differ from current practice, and
which entities would be subject to those requirements. Based on
information from industry sources, the cost of conducting a
cybersecurity audit could range from $30,000 to millions of
dollars per entity, depending on the size of the entity and the
nature and scope of the audit. For example, such an audit could
involve ensuring compliance with firewall, encryption, and data
storage and transfer requirements, among other risk-management
techniques. Based on information from government and industry
sources, more than 50,000 public entities could be subject to
the mandates. Further, according to a study by the Government
Accountability Office, the private sector owns more than 85
percent of the nation's critical infrastructure. Because the
number of entities subject to the mandates could be large and
the costs of complying with some of the mandates in the bill
would be substantial, CBO estimates that the aggregate costs to
comply would well exceed the annual thresholds established in
UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($70
million and $141 million in 2010, respectively, adjusted
annually for inflation).
Provisions excluded under UMRA
CBO has not reviewed section 201(b) of the bill for
mandates. Section 4 of UMRA excludes from the application of
that act any legislative provisions that are necessary for
national security. CBO has determined the provisions of section
201(b) fall within that exclusion because they would allow the
President to declare a cybersecurity emergency and implement
emergency-response and restoration plans.
Other impacts on State and local governments
The bill would benefit public institutions of higher
education by authorizing grants for cybersecurity programs. Any
costs that those entities incur would result from complying
with conditions of federal assistance.
Previous CBO estimate: On December 10, 2009, CBO
transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity
Enhancement Act of 2009, as ordered reported by the House
Committee on Science and Technology on November 18, 2009. S.
773 contains several provisions that were included in H.R.
4061; however, the authorization levels for those provisions
are different. In addition, S. 773 contains additional
provisions that were not included in H.R. 4061. The CBO cost
estimates reflect those differences.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jeff LaFave; Impact on
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove Delisle;
Impact on the Private Sector: Samuel Wice.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED
Private entities designated as CIIS under section 4 of the
bill would be covered by the requirements of sections 101, 201,
and 204. CBO has estimated that the number of covered entities
could be large, but the number is difficult to calculate in
advance of the rulemaking required by section 4.
S.773 would authorize $384 million in FY 2011, $410 million
in FY 2012, $435 million in FY 2013, $462 million in FY 2014,
and $14 million for FY 2015 in appropriations to the National
Science Foundation, Department of Commerce, and the President.
These funding levels are not expected to have a significant
impact on the nation's economy. Owners and operators of CIIS
would face compliance costs with new cyber security standards
and related audits; however, the impact of these costs could
vary, as some entities may already be acting consistently with
the standards. Moreover, compliance with the new standards
should help to prevent or mitigate economic losses from cyber
attacks. The bill's investments in research and education
should also have a positive impact on the nation's
The bill would have little, if any, impact on the personal
privacy of individuals.
The bill would create paperwork requirements for owners and
operators of CIIS through the semi-annual audits established in
sections 101 and 204. The owners and operators of CIIS would
also be required to develop and annually update guidance for
the identification of cybersecurity personnel and requirements
for their certification. The bill would also require several
plans, strategies, and reports from the Federal government.
Section 104 would require the head of each Federal agency to
complete an annual cybersecurity workforce plan, with hiring
projections available on the agency's website. Section 105
would require each Federal agency to measure the effectiveness
of its cybersecurity hiring efforts, with the results reported
annually to Congress and the public. Section 201 would require
the President to develop and implement a national cybersecurity
strategy in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. Should
the President declare a cybersecurity emergency as defined in
the national strategy, the President would then be required to
report to Congress in writing, within 48 hours of the
declaration, regarding the circumstances necessitating the
declaration and its estimated scope and duration. Section 202
would require a biennial review of the U.S. cyber program,
modeled after the DoD's Quadrennial Defense Review. Section 204
would require NIST to review and update cyber audit plans on at
least a semi-annual basis. The section would also require the
FCC to report to Congress on effective and efficient means to
ensure the cybersecurity of commercial broadband networks with
an additional supplement to its National Broadband Plan.
Section 205 would require the GAO to complete a comprehensive
review of the Federal statutory and legal framework applicable
to cybersecurity, with recommendations regarding changes needed
to advance cybersecurity and protect civil liberties. Section
210 would require the President to report to Congress on the
feasibility of an identity management and authentication
program with appropriate civil liberties and privacy
protections. Section 211 would require NIST to issue a public
report assessing the strategies and best practices for identity
authentication, with specific attention paid to health
information applications. Section 401 would require the
President to establish or designate a Cybersecurity Advisory
Panel, which would then provide a report to the President every
two years with recommendations on how the Federal cybersecurity
effort should be improved. Section 404 would require the
President to report to Congress on the feasibility of a
cybersecurity risk management market, including the potential
role of civil liability and insurance. The bill would also
establish or enhance several grant programs, for which
applicants would have to file documents to apply. Key owners
and operators of CIIS, as identified in section 209, could be
required to file documents in the security clearance process.
Congressionally Directed Spending
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, met the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
Section 1. Short title; table of contents.
This section would cite the short title as the
``Cybersecurity Act of 2010'' and provide a table of contents.
Section 2. Findings.
This section includes findings guiding the development of
Section 3. Definitions.
This section would provide definitions for the terms Advisory
Panel, cybersecurity, cybersecurity professional, information
system, internet, and United States critical infrastructure
Section 4. Procedure for designation of critical infrastructure
This section would initiate a rulemaking in which the
President, in consultation with sector coordinating councils,
relevant government agencies, and regulatory entities, would
establish a procedure for the designation of critical
infrastructure information systems (CIIS). The infiltration,
incapacitation, or disruption of these systems would have a
debilitating impact on national security, including national
economic security and national public health or safety. The
process would be governed by the Administrative Procedure Act
and would, at a minimum, set forth objective criteria for
designation, provide for emergency and temporary designations,
ensure protection of privacy and proprietary information, and
establish an appeal process.
Section 101. Certification and training of cybersecurity professionals.
This section would direct the President to request a National
Academies report on cybersecurity accreditation, training, and
certification programs. This section would direct the President
to develop and annually update guidance for the identification
of cybersecurity personnel within the Federal Government and
requirements for their certification. Department of Defense
(DoD) Directive 8570, which specifies guidance and procedures
for the training, certification, and management of all people
performing security functions on DoD information systems, may
provide a valuable reference for understanding the challenges
and potential solutions to cybersecurity certification and
This section would also direct the President to require
owners and operators of Unites States CIIS to develop and
annually update guidance for the identification of relevant
cybersecurity personnel and requirements for their
certification. The Committee believes that this guidance should
take into account whether the owners or operators are small
businesses, as small businesses have unique operational
requirements and constraints.
This section would require the President to convene sector-
specific working groups to establish auditable, private sector
developed, accreditation, training, and certification programs
for critical infrastructure cybersecurity personnel. The
President would recognize and promote these programs. The
President would require owners and operators of CIIS to conduct
semiannual audits of compliance with the accreditation,
training, and certification programs. Companies demonstrating
compliance may receive positive recognition. Companies who fail
to demonstrate substantial compliance through two semiannual
independent audits would be required to collaborate with sector
coordinating councils, relevant government agencies, and
regulatory entities to develop and implement a remediation
plan. This provision would leverage the existing structure of
the sector coordinating councils, but would not imbue them with
any Federal authority.
This section would require the President to publish a
reference list of cybersecurity accreditation, training, and
certification programs whose rigor and effectiveness are
beneficial to cybersecurity. The Committee believes that the
general public would benefit from this list.
Section 102. Federal Cyber Scholarship-for-Service Program.
This section would authorize the Scholarship-For-Service
program at the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is
focused on recruiting students into a cybersecurity curriculum
program. Upon graduation, these students would enter public
service, joining an agency or department and leveraging the
skills they have learned. This section would increase the
number of students from 300 to 1000 annually. The Committee
supports the Scholarship-For-Service program and believes that
the program can help to close the talent gap to meet the
nation's demand for cybersecurity experts.
Section 103. Cybersecurity competition and challenge.
This section would authorize the Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish
cybersecurity competitions and challenges to attract, identify,
and recruit talented individuals to the cybersecurity field.
Section 104. Cybersecurity workforce plan.
This section would require the head of each Federal agency to
annually complete a cybersecurity workforce plan that details
recruitment, hiring, and training of cybersecurity employees
and contractors. Each agency would make its hiring projections
publicly available on the agency's website.
Section 105. Measures of cybersecurity hiring effectiveness.
This section would require each Federal agency to measure the
effectiveness of its cybersecurity recruiting and hiring
efforts, from the perspective of hiring managers, applicants,
and new hires. This information would be reported annually to
Congress and the public.
Section 201. Cybersecurity responsibilities and authorities.
This section would require the President to develop and
implement a national cybersecurity strategy. This section would
also require the President to collaborate with stakeholders to
develop and rehearse detailed response and restoration plans
for cybersecurity emergencies, and to define the types of
events and incidents that would constitute a cybersecurity
emergency. The section would authorize the President to declare
a cybersecurity emergency and implement the plans. The
Committee recognizes that this does not expand any existing
Presidential authorities, and does not provide an exception to
the procedures of Title 18, United States Code, sections 119,
121, and 206, or of Title 50, United States Code, sections 1801
et seq. The President would be required to report to Congress
in writing, within 48 hours of declaring an emergency,
regarding the circumstances necessitating the declaration and
the estimated scope and duration of the emergency.
The Committee recognizes that it is virtually impossible to
prevent each and every cybersecurity incident. Accordingly,
this section would require the development of strategies and
plans to quickly and effectively respond and restore all
capabilities after an incident. The Committee believes it is
vital that these plans and activities be rehearsed on a regular
basis to ensure that, in the case of an emergency, the public
and private sector participants will already be familiar with
their roles and responsibilities and prepared to act
Section 202. Biennial cyber review.
This section would direct the President to conduct a biennial
review of the U.S. cyber program. The review would examine
cyber strategy, budget, plans, and policies, and is modeled
after the DoD's Quadrennial Defense Review. Although the
Defense Review occurs every four years, the Internet and
cyberspace are evolving so rapidly that a biennial review is
Section 203. Cybersecurity dashboard pilot project.
This section would require the Secretary of Commerce to plan
and implement a system to provide the real-time cybersecurity
status of all Federal information systems and networks within
the Department of Commerce.
Section 204. NIST cybersecurity guidance.
This section requires NIST to recognize and promote
auditable, private sector developed, cybersecurity risk
management techniques, risk management measures, and best
practices, and to review and update these recognitions not less
frequently than semiannually. The Committee believes that NIST
should act transparently and provide relevant stakeholders with
a meaningful opportunity to participate as it implements this
The President would require all Federal departments,
agencies, and United States CIIS to meet or exceed these
standards. Critical infrastructure owners and operators who
meet these standards may be positively recognized by the
President, and those who fail to demonstrate substantial
compliance through two semiannual independent audits would be
required to collaborate with sector coordinating councils,
relevant government agencies, and regulatory entities to
develop and implement a remediation plan. This section would
leverage the existing structure of the sector coordinating
councils, but would not imbue them with any Federal authority.
This section directs NIST to engage with international
standards bodies regarding cybersecurity and to adopt a risk-
based approach to cybersecurity. The Committee believes that it
is vitally important that NIST adopt a risk-based approach to
Federal cybersecurity guidance that recognizes techniques and
best practices without prescribing specific hardware or
This section also requires the FCC to report to Congress on
effective and efficient means to ensure the cybersecurity of
commercial broadband networks. The Committee recognizes that
the FCC has introduced the National Broadband Plan which
largely meets this requirement, and the FCC may provide an
additional supplement on cybersecurity.
Section 205. Legal framework review and report.
This section would require GAO to complete a comprehensive
review of the Federal statutory and legal framework applicable
to cybersecurity and to make recommendations regarding changes
needed to advance cybersecurity and protect civil liberties.
Section 206. Joint intelligence threat and vulnerability assessment.
This section would require the Director of National
Intelligence, the Attorney General, and the Secretaries of
Commerce, Homeland Security, Defense, and State to provide
assessments on threats to and vulnerabilities of Federal
information systems and CIIS.
Section 207. International norms and cybersecurity deterrence measures.
This section would require the President to promote the
development of international norms, standards and techniques
for improving cybersecurity.
Section 208. Federal secure products and services acquisitions.
This section would require that information systems,
products, and services purchased by the Federal government
comply with the cybersecurity standards recognized under
section 204 and the cybersecurity professional certifications
recognized under section 101.
Section 209. Private sector access to classified information.
This section would require the President to provide security
clearances to key private sector operators of CIIS to
facilitate the sharing of classified threat information with
these officials. The Committee believes that this provision
addresses the lack of coordination between civilian and
national security information system protection efforts
described in recommendation 23 of the CSIS report titled,
Securing Cyberspace for the 44th Presidency.
Section 210. Authentication and civil liberties report.
This section would require the President to report to
Congress on the feasibility of an identity management and
authentication program with appropriate civil liberties and
Section 211. Report on evaluation of certain identity authentication
This section would require NIST to issue a public report
assessing the strategies and best practices for identity
authentication, and to specifically address the application of
this technology to health information.
Section 301. Promoting cybersecurity awareness and education.
This section would authorize a cybersecurity awareness
campaign to educate the general public about cybersecurity
risks and countermeasures people can implement to better
protect themselves. It would also direct the Secretary of
Education to consult with State authorities, private sector
companies, and nongovernmental organizations to identify and
promote age appropriate information and programs for grades K-
12 regarding cyber safety, security, and ethics.
Section 302. Federal cybersecurity research and development.
This section would increase Federal support for cybersecurity
research and development at the NSF. This section would also
highlight important areas of research that need to be
conducted, including secure coding and design.
Section 303. Development of curricula for incorporating cybersecurity
into educational programs for future industrial control system
This section would establish a grant program through the NSF
to fund the development of undergraduate and graduate level
curricula that address cybersecurity in modern industrial
Section 401. Cybersecurity Advisory Panel.
This section would require the President to establish or
designate a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel consisting of outside
experts in cybersecurity from industry, academia, and nonprofit
advocacy organizations who will advise the President on
cybersecurity related matters. This Panel would review Federal
cybersecurity efforts and provide advice and direction. The
Panel would provide a report to the President every two years
with recommendations on how the Federal cybersecurity effort
should be improved. The Committee believes that, while there is
no shortage of advisory panels throughout the Federal
government, none is specifically focused on cybersecurity.
Furthermore, the Committee recognizes that the CSIS Securing
Cyberspace report specifically recommends the creation of a
Federal Advisory Committee with membership from key cyber
Section 402. State and regional cybersecurity enhancement program.
This section would create State and regional cybersecurity
centers to assist small- and medium-sized companies in
addressing cybersecurity issues. This program is modeled on the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). Large companies
generally have the resources and access to expertise that would
allow them to properly defend themselves against potential
cyber intrusions. However, the Committee is particularly
concerned about the small- and medium-sized businesses that
often do not have the understanding or expertise to recognize
that they are at risk, much less the resources to deal with
this problem. The Committee believes that this program would
help address such a knowledge gap. At the same time, the
Committee believes these centers must operate in a manner that
supplements or coordinates with, and does not compete with or
duplicate, private sector activities.
Section 403. Public-private clearinghouse.
This section would create a public-private information
sharing clearinghouse in which government and private officials
would share classified and/or confidential cybersecurity threat
and vulnerability information.
Section 404. Cybersecurity risk management report.
This section would require the President to report on how to
create a market for cybersecurity risk management, including
the potential role of civil liability and insurance.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as
reported would make no change to existing law.