PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 19, 2016
Cybersecurity Responsibility and Accountability Act of 2016
This bill requires the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to incorporate additional cybersecurity requirements in its computer standards for agency information systems and provide the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with a process for agencies to implement those standards.
NIST must also: (1) support development of information security training and certification for agency heads, (2) address agency-identified information security challenges and knowledge gaps, (3) assess information security statutory requirements, and (4) develop security standards for national security systems.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The OMB must require the heads of agencies (currently, agencies generally) to: (1) report on the adequacy of their information security procedures, (2) provide for independent evaluations of information security practices, and (3) notify Congress and affected individuals of data breaches. Intelligence community agencies affected by data breaches must notify NIST.
Chief information officers of agencies must collaborate with their agency head to designate chief information security officers (positions with job responsibilities to be developed by the OMB and NIST) to replace their current senior agency information security officers.
Agencies must develop mandatory annual information security training and certification to ensure that agency heads understand federal cybersecurity policy regarding: (1) agency systems, (2) cyber-attacks and data breaches, and (3) not using private email servers or messaging systems for official communications.
Agency heads must certify that their agencies meet information security standards and provide reasons for not meeting any standards.
Agency heads must also develop annual plans to implement information security recommendations of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and inspectors general. If an agency head fails to implement such a recommendation, the reasons for the failure must be provided to the OMB for approval.
For each OMB-defined "major cybersecurity incident" (e.g., an incident involving classified information) that an agency experiences, the agency head must transmit an inspector general-performed independent evaluation to the OMB, the Department of Homeland Security, NIST, Congress, and the GAO. If the evaluation determines that the incident occurred because the agency head failed to comply sufficiently with NIST certification standards or recommendations of the GAO or agency inspectors general, then the OMB must hold the agency head accountable through an enforcement action, which may include actions under the budgetary or appropriations process, a recommendation for the President to remove or demote the agency head, or actions to ensure that the agency head does not receive cash or pay awards or bonuses for one year.
People & committees
Rep. Abraham, Ralph Lee [R-LA-5] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6066 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6066 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6066 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6066 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.