HR 4502 Introduced
Cybersecurity Hiring
Earlier this month, Rep Mace (R,SC) introduced HR 4502, the Modernizing the Acquisition of Cybersecurity Experts Act. The bill would limit the ability of federal agencies to require minimum educational requirements in the hiring of personnel to fill cybersecurity positions in the competitive service. No funding is authorized in this legislation.
The House Oversight Committee held a business meeting on July 12th, 2023, which included consideration of HR 4502. The Committee adopted substitute language and ordered the bill reported favorably by a vote of 40 to 0.
Definitions
The bill amends 5 USC 3308, adding a new subsection (b) Education Requirements For Cybersecurity Positions. Paragraph (3) of that new subsection provides a definition of the term ‘covered position’ as it is used in the (b).
Education Requirement Limits
The new (b) allows a covered agency to “prescribe a minimum educational requirement for employment in such a position only if [emphasis added] a minimum education qualification is required by law to perform the duties of the position in the State or locality where the duties of the position are to be performed”. The language then goes on to limit the ability of an agency to “consider education in determining a candidate’s satisfaction of any other minimum qualification” only if that education “reflects competencies necessary to satisfy that qualification and perform the duties of the position”.
Moving Forward
Once the Committee report (along with the revised language) is printed, the House will be cleared to take up the bill. With the Committee voting unanimously to adopt the amended bill points to strong bipartisan support for the bill. This means that it would likely be considered under the House suspension of the rules process. This would limit debate, prohibit floor amendments, and require a super majority for passage.
Commentary
The current language of 5 USC 3308 {which will become subsection (a)} specifically refers to the ‘Office of Personnel Management or other examining agency’ as the ones trying to prescribe minimum educational requirements. Forgoing that language in (b) makes it looks like the intent of the bill it to cover only direct hire situations. Unfortunately, we do not know what the substitute language looks like (it is not available on the Committee hearing page or the Congress.gov hearing page) so we will have to wait until the Report is published to see if that intent is clarified.