Existing presidential authority over telecommunications infrastructure is greater than what the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 would permit the executive branch to do in case of a cyber emergency, say proponents of the bill.

The bill, sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Thomas Carper (D-Del.) would allow the President to order private sector operators of critical infrastructure to "immediately comply with any [cyber] emergency measure or action developed" by the Homeland Security Department.

The Obama administration has said it already has sufficient emergency authority, citing Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 and other laws. Section 706 (it shows up currently as Section 606 of US Code Title 47, Chapter 5) allows the federal government to "cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication" and "authorize the use of control of any such facility or station" after having declared that a state of war, or the threat of one, exists.

A "myth vs. reality" release on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (the sponsors are a committee chairman, senior Republican and a subcommittee chairman, respectively) argues that the bill would force the President to be more precise.

The bill will limit cyberspace emergency authority to 120 days without congressional approval and would also allow owners and operators of critical infrastructure to propose alternative cybersecurity, the committee release states.

The President would be able to invoke emergency cyber authority only in case of a cyber attack resulting in mass casualties, sever economic consequences, long-term mass evacuations or severe degradation of national security capabilities, the release adds. The committee plans to markup the bill June 24, likely sending it that same day to the full Senate floor for consideration.

Skeptics, however, have argued that the bill simply places too much power in presidential hands.

"I think we've amply demonstrated over the last decade that even when a president is restricted by law his actions can be...aggressive. It doesn't matter that there are hoops to jump through, the authority and the broad power that this bill allows for is simply unacceptable," wrote Matt Olney, a senior research engineer at Sourcefire, a Columbia, Md.-based cybersecurity company, in a FierceGovernmentIT June 16 guest commentary.

For more:
- see the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs myth v. reality release
- read Matt Olney's guest commentary

Related Articles:
DHS IG wants US CERT enforcement power, doesn't say how
Lieberman says Internet cyber attack response crippled by liability woes
Lieberman wants to give federal government power over Internet cybersecurity