Richard Durbin on Technology Democratic Sr Senator (IL)

Fund science to protect food supply, cure disease, and more

Supports "Fairness Doctrine" requiring balance in talk radio

By mandating that any political views disseminated over the radio be counterbalanced by the opposing view, the "Fairness Doctrine" not only requires radio stations to give boring crackpots airtime, it also creates an administrative nightmare. What is fair? There are conservative and liberal views--but there are also libertarian, Green party, and Marxist views. Reimplementation of the "Fairness Doctrine" spells the end of talk radio.

So naturally Democrats are itching to bring it back! Senators Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, and Chuck Schumer--all Democrats--have said they want to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine."

Promote internet via Congressional Internet Caucus.

Founded in the spring of 1996, the Congressional Internet Caucus is a bipartisan group of over 150 members of the House and Senate working to educate their colleagues about the promise and potential of the Internet. The Caucus also encourages Members to utilize the Internet in communications with constituents and supports efforts to put more government documents online. The Internet Caucus Advisory Committee and the Internet Education Foundation host regular events and forums for policymakers, the press, and the public to discuss important Internet-related policy issues.

Membership in the Congressional Internet Caucus is open to any Member of Congress who pledges support for the following goals:
• Promoting growth and advancement of the Internet
• Providing a bicameral, bipartisan forum for Internet concerns to be raised
• Promoting the education of Members of Congress and their staffs about the Internet
• Promoting commerce and free flow of information on the Internet
• Advancing the United States` world leadership in the digital world
• Maximizing the openness of and participation in government by the people.

Require websites to police for copyrighted materials.

Congressional Summary:Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, or the PROTECT IP Act, or PIPA (in the House, Stop Online Piracy Act or SOPA) :

• Authorizes the Attorney General to seek a court order against an Internet site facilitating online piracy to require the operator to cease and desist further activities constituting copyright infringement, unauthorized trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, or trafficking in counterfeit labels.
• Allows an intellectual property right holder harmed by a US-directed website used for infringement, to first provide a written notification identifying the site to related payment network providers and Internet advertising services requiring such entities to suspend their services.
• Requires online service providers, Internet search engines, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a court order relating to an AG action, to carry out preventative measures including withholding services from an infringing website or preventing users located in the US from accessing the infringing website.

OnTheIssues Notes: SOPA and PIPA, proponents claim, would better protect electronic copyright (`IP`, or Intellectual Property). Opponents argue that SOPA and PIPA would censor the Internet. Internet users and entrepreneurs oppose the two bills; google.com and wikipedia.com held a `blackout` on Jan. 18, 2012 in protest. An alternative bill, the OPEN Act was proposed on Jan. 18 to protect intellectual property without censorship; internet businesses prefer the OPEN Act while the music and movie industries prefer SOPA and PIPA.

Strengthen infrastructure, including rail, dams, & Internet.

Expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should:
• create jobs and support businesses while improving the nation`s global competitiveness by modernizing and strengthening our national infrastructure;
• invest resources in transportation corridors that promote commerce and reduce congestion;
• update and enhance the U.S. network of rail, dams, and ports;
• develop innovative financing mechanisms for infrastructure to leverage federal funds with private sector partners;
• invest in critical infrastructure to reduce energy waste and bolster investment in clean energy jobs and industries;
• invest in clean energy technologies that help free the United States from its dependence on oil;
• eliminate wasteful tax subsidies that promote pollution and fail to reduce our reliance on foreign oil;
• spur innovation by facilitating the development of new cutting-edge broadband internet technology and improving internet access for all Americans;
• modernize, renovate, and repair elementary and secondary school buildings in order to support improved educational outcomes;
• invest in the nation`s crumbling water infrastructure to protect public health and reduce pollution;
• upgrade and repair the nation`s system of flood protection infrastructure to protect public safety; and
• invest in U.S. infrastructure to address vulnerabilities to natural disasters and the impacts of extreme weather.

Apply copyright inheritance to same-sex couples.

Congressional Summary: Revises the definition of `widow` concerning the transfer of a copyright to an author`s spouse following the author`s death. Declares that an individual is the widow of an author if they were legally married at the time of the author`s death, even if they could not marry in their home state. (Currently, only the author`s surviving spouse under the law of the author`s domicile at the time of death is considered a widow.)

Supporters reasons for voting YEA: (by Human Rights Campaign, hrc.org): This bill would fix wording in the Copyright Act that currently prevents some same-sex couples from receiving inheritance rights. Because of restrictions in current law, some agencies--including the Copyright Office and the Social Security Administration--do not recognize same-sex couples living in states without same-sex marriage equality.

Background: (Wikipedia.com on `U.S. v. Windsor`): Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple residing in New York, were lawfully married in Canada, in 2007. Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so because the IRS said the exemption only applies to heterosexual couples under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes. The Supreme Court rules 5-4 to overturn DOMA as unconstitutional. [This bill applies that Supreme Court ruling to copyright law].

Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (PopVox blog postings on H.R.238 & S.23):

• OK-3: My concern is that our government believes that just a few more laws and a few more bills and freedom will be perfected. Stop shoving immoral activity down our throats and telling us it`s normal and lawful.
• WV-1: I oppose H.R. 238 because it`s not necessary.
• KY-3: I oppose S.23 because if the spouse remarried, they aren`t a widow/widower anymore.

Create online database of science & math scholarships.

Directs the Secretary of Education to establish and maintain, on the public website of the Department of Education, a database of information on public and private programs of financial assistance for the study of postsecondary and graduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Requires that such database:
1. provide separate information for each field of study;
2. be searchable by category and combinations of categories;
3. indicate programs targeted toward specific demographic groups;
4. provide searchers with program sponsor contact information and hyperlinks; and
5. include a recommendation that students and families carefully review application requirements and a disclaimer that scholarships presented in the database are not provided or endorsed by the Department or the federal government.

Overturn FCC approval of media consolidation.

Congressional Summary:Disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on February 22, 2008, relating to broadcast media ownership. Declares that the rule shall have no force or effect.

Proponents` Argument in Favor:Sen. DORGAN: The FCC loosened the ban on cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations. We seek with this resolution of disapproval to reverse the FCC`s fast march to ease media ownership rules. The FCC has taken a series of destructive actions in the past two decades that I believe have undermined the public interest. [Now they have given] a further green light to media concentration.

The FCC voted to allow cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations in the top 20 markets, with loopholes for mergers outside of the top 20 markets. The newspapers would be allowed to buy stations ranked above fifth and above.

The rule change was framed as a modest compromise. But make no mistake, this is a big deal. As much as 44% of the population lives in the top 20 markets. The last time the FCC tried to do this, in 2003, the Senate voted to block it.

This rule will undercut localism and diversity of ownership around the country. Studies show that removing the ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership results in a net loss in the amount of local news produced in the market as a whole. In addition, while the FCC suggests that cross-ownership is necessary to save failing newspapers, the publicly traded newspapers earn annual rates of return between 16% and 18%.

This Resolution of Disapproval will ensure this rule change has no effect. This is again a bipartisan effort to stop the FCC from destroying the local interests that we have always felt must be a part of broadcasting.

Televise proceedings of the Supreme Court.

A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that Chapter 45 of title 28, US Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

`The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties before the Court.`