|
|
Steve Stivers 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:The Promoting and Enhancing Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Effectiveness Act (or PRECISE Act): NATIONAL CYBERSECURITY AUTHORITY: To protect Federal systems and critical infrastructure information systems and to prepare the Nation to respond to acts of cyberterrorism, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
Committee Discussion (Josh Smith in National Journal, & BankInfoSecurity.com, Feb. 1, 2012):Sponsor Dan Lundgren says the bill addresses cyber-risks "in the least disruptive manner." Some proposals in the Senate, for example, would give the DHS authority to regulate, rather than simply designate critical infrastructure. Lungren adds, "Preserving the status quo of voluntary action, are no longer acceptable."
The legislation would establish the National Information Sharing Organization, or NISO, that would facilitate the exchange of vital cyber-threat information. Karen Evans, Pres. Bush's CIO, questions the need for NISO: "Creating another organization seems like it will slow down process not necessarily enhance it."
Opponent's Comments (bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com, Feb. 2, 2012):[NISO is a] "public-private organization". America has plenty of them, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why would the government need to get involved with corporations' cyber-protection? Sharing info is well and good, but this new cyber-security organization will begin to take control of cyber-security, after appropriating billions for research. What will this research comprise of? Bringing in experts and companies; then carbon-copying their tactics and making them mandatory; instead of letting the market pick the best tactics.
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.
Summary by Vox.com: The US House of Representatives just passed a bill to bring Obama-era net neutrality rules back to the internet. This time, they want to make these regulations law so the Federal Communications Commission can’t overturn them easily. President Trump has said he will veto the bill should it make it to his desk. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the bill "dead on arrival in the Senate".
Statement in support by Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA-16): "The internet has a profound impact on America's economy and the social fabric of our nation. It is an important tool to connect individuals to each other and businesses with consumers, said Costa. "Ensuring a free and open internet, with equal access to all, is essential if we are to preserve the American dream."
Statement in opposition by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC-8): "If this legislation became law, the Internet would be slower, more expensive, less free and controlled by Washington," said Rep. Hudson. "This would hurt our rural communities the most. I'll continue to work to keep the Internet free from government intervention and open."
Statement in opposition by Rep. Don Bacon (R-NC-8): "Previous regulations led to additional expenses for 80% of providers in rural areas leading to delayed or reduced network expansion and services," said Rep. Bacon. "This bill would also lay the groundwork for the government for eventually taxing the internet." The internet is now operating under the same regulations that governed, and facilitated its expansive growth, from the mid 1990's until 2015. Some Democrats predicted that the return of those regulations would lead to limited access of the internet. None of those scenarios came true.
Legislative outcome: Bill passed House 232-190-10 on April 10, 2019, rollcall #167. [The 116th Congress terminated with no Senate action on this bill].