S 2393 Introduced –

Ag Cyber Clearinghouse

Last month, Sen Rounds (R,SC) introduced S 2393, the Food and Agriculture Industry Cybersecurity Support Act. The bill would require National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to establish a food and agriculture cybersecurity clearinghouse which would include direct support by NTIA to the food and agriculture industry. No funding is authorized by this bill.

 This bill is very similar to HR 1219 [removed from paywall], which was introduced in March. No action has been taken on that bill.

Differences from HR 1219

The differences between these two bills are mainly stylistic. For example, the definitions in the Senate bill are found in §2(a) instead of in §2(c) found in the House bill. An example of the language differences that reflect stylistic rather than programmatic changes can be found in §2(b)(1)(B)(ii) {§2(a)(b)(1)(B)(ii) in the House bill}. Here the Senate bill uses the opening phrase: “contain current, relevant, and publicly available cybersecurity resources focused on the food and agriculture industry”; instead of the House language: “contain current, relevant, and publicly available food and agriculture industry focused cybersecurity resources”.

One area where there is a more substantial difference can be found in the discussion about the Food and Agriculture-Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Food and Ag-ISAC) in the section dealing with a required report by the Government Accountability Office. This difference reflects the formation of the ISAC in May. The House bill was looking for GAO support for the formation of a food and agriculture ISAC while this version requires the GAO to look at the benefits of the new organization. This also includes a required look at the “identification of industry and civil society partners that could assist the Food and Ag-ISAC.”

Moving Forward

Neither Rounds, or his sole cosponsor {Sen Cortez-Maso (D,NV)} are members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there will probably not be sufficient influence to see this bill considered in Committee. I see nothing in this bill that would engender any significant opposition to the legislation. I suspect that there would be some level of bipartisan support for the bill if it were taken up by the Committee.

This bill is not ‘important’ enough for the Senate to take this bill up under regular order. There is a possibility that the bill could be considered under the unanimous consent process, but we have seen how fraught that process is, subject to unrelated objections. I would not be surprised to see the bill added to an authorization or spending bill.

Commentary

The seemingly odd thing about the committee assignment (Commerce not Agriculture) reflects the oversight responsibilities of Congress and the perquisites that come with that responsibility. Since this bill primarily deals with a new program in the NTIA, the Commerce, Science and Technology Committee (which has primary oversight responsibility for that organization) was assigned responsibility for the bill. The agriculture community would be the primary beneficiary of the new program, but the Senate Agriculture Committee has no input on the bill. In the House, the Agriculture Committee was assigned secondary consideration for the HR 1219 to reflect their inherent interest in cybersecurity for the food and agriculture sector.