Ben Ray Lujan on Technology

Hailed $165 million for rural broadband in New Mexico

LIFT America Act: $17 billion for energy infrastructure

Withdrew support for policing websites for copyright.

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

• 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.

Member of House Committee on Science, Space & Technology.

The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology has jurisdiction over non-defense federal scientific research and development. Specifically, the committee has partial or complete jurisdiction over the following federal agencies: NASA, the Department of Energy, EPA, NSF, FAA, NOAA, National Institute of Standards and Technology, FEMA, and United States Geological Survey.

Subcommittee	Chair	Ranking Member
Technology and Innovation	David Wu (D-OR)	Adrian Smith (R-NE)
Energy and Environment	Brian Baird (D-WA)	Bob Inglis (R-SC)
Investigations and Oversight	Brad Miller (D-NC)	Paul Broun (R-GA)
Research and Science Education	Dan Lipinski (D-IL)	Vern Ehlers (R-MI)
Space and Aeronautics	Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)	Pete Olson (R-TX)

Let NSF decide research grants, not Congress.

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:

• $700,000 to support a climate change-themed musical
• $487,000 to study the Icelandic textile industry during the Viking era
• $516,000 to help amateurs create a video game to `Relive Prom Night`

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.

Sponsored bill for net neutrality for open internet.

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].

No performance royalties for radio music.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act
• Whereas the US enjoys broadcasting and sound recording industries that are the envy of the world, due to the symbiotic relationship that has existed among these industries for many decades;
• Whereas for more than 80 years, Congress has rejected repeated calls by the recording industry to impose a performance fee on local radio stations for simply playing music on the radio;
• Whereas local radio stations provide free publicity and promotion to the recording industry and performers of music in the form of radio air play, interviews with performers, introduction of new performers, and concert promotions;
• Whereas Congress found that `the sale of many sound recordings and the careers of many performers benefited considerably from airplay and other over-the-air broadcasting;
• Whereas there are many thousands of local radio stations that will suffer severe economic hardship if any new performance fee is imposed, as will many other small businesses that play music including bars, restaurants, shopping centers and transportation facilities;
• Resolved: That Congress should not impose any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge relating to the public performance of sound recordings on a local radio station for broadcasting sound recordings over-the-air, or on any business for such public performance of sound recordings.

Secure the grid, according to CC survey.

The Christian Coalition inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Take Federal Action to Secure the Grid Against Foreign/Terrorist Interference ?' Self-description by Christian Coalition of America: "These guides help give voters a clear understanding of where candidates stand on important pro-family issues" for all Senate and Presidential candidates.