|
|
Mike Pompeo on Technology |
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill will cripple National Public Radio, public radio stations, and programming that is vital to over 27 million Americans. We are now voting to deny the public access to one of our Nation's most credible sources of news coverage. This bill does not save a penny. This legislation does not serve any fiscal purpose, but it does serve an ugly ideological one. This legislation is not about reforming NPR. It is about punishing NPR. It is vindictive, it is mean-spirited, it is going to hit the smallest stations in rural areas particularly hard. Public radio is indispensable for access to news that's hard to get, especially where broadband service is limited.
Congressional Summary:Prohibits the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from proposing, promulgating, or issuing any regulations with regard to the Internet or IP-enabled services. Makes such prohibition non-applicable to regulations that are determined necessary to:
Congressional Findings:
OnTheIssues Explanation: This bill opposes "net neutrality," the principle that all users should have equal access to the Internet. By disallowing FCC regulation, commercial carriers could create "tiered service" (which is the opposite of "net neutrality"). Tiered Internet service would allow, for example, faster access for companies who paid more (such as for ads).
Congressional Summary: Scientific Research in the National Interest Act: This bill directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to award federal funding for basic research and education in the sciences only if the grant promotes the progress of science in the United States, is worthy of federal funding, and is in the national interest.
Support on GovTrack.us: Lead sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21)--chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee--noted the millions of dollars the NSF has doled out for purposes he considers less than worthwhile. In particular, he cited a few examples he considered particularly egregious, including:
Opposition on GovTrack.us: The Science Committee's ranking member, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX-30) called the bill anti-science. She wrote, "Most Members of Congress lack the relevant expertise to fairly evaluate the merits of any particular grant. If we do not trust the Nation's scientific experts to make that judgement, then who are we to trust?" Johnson also noted that the NSF already has a rigorous review process, only funding about 1/5 of grant proposals.
White House Opposition: Contrary to its stated purpose, [HR.3293] would add nothing to accountability in Federal funding for scientific research, while needlessly adding to bureaucratic burdens and overhead at the NSF. It would replace the clarity of the [current rules implemented in] 1950, with confusing language that could cast a shadow over the value of basic research.
Legislative outcome: Passed House 236-178-26 (roll call 70, CR H684) on 2/11/16; bill died in Senate committee. The White House had threatened to veto the bill if it passed the Senate.