|
|
Tim Walberg on TechnologyRepublican |
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.
Rep. LANGEVIN. One issue that has been repeatedly addressed is whether telecommunications companies should be granted immunity against pending lawsuits for their involvement in the earlier surveillance program. This legislation preserves a role for the U.S. court system to decide independently whether the telecommunications companies acted in good faith. Only after that review would the courts decide whether the telecommunications companies deserve any form of liability protection.
Opponents argument for voting NAY: Rep. LEVIN. I oppose this bill because of the provisions that would confer retroactive immunity on the telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. It sets a dangerous precedent for Congress to approve a law that dismisses ongoing court cases simply on the basis that the companies can show that the administration told them that its warrantless surveillance program was legal. A program is not legal just because the administration claims that it is.
Rep. NADLER. The House must decide today whether to uphold the rule of law & the supremacy of the Constitution or whether to protect & reward the lawless behavior of the administration and of the telecommunications companies that participated in its clearly illegal program of spying on innocent Americans. The bill is a fig-leaf, granting blanket immunity to the telecom companies for illegal acts. It denies people whose rights were violated their fair day in court, and it denies the American people their right to have the actions of the administration subjected to fair & independent scrutiny.
Veto message from President Bush:
This bill lacks fiscal discipline. I fully support funding for water resources projects that will yield high economic and environmental returns. Each year my budget has proposed reasonable and responsible funding, including $4.9 billion for 2008, to support the Army Corps of Engineers' main missions. However, this authorization bill costs over $23 billion. This is not fiscally responsible, particularly when local communities have been waiting for funding for projects already in the pipeline. The bill's excessive authorization for over 900 projects and programs exacerbates the massive backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, which will require an additional $38 billion in future appropriations to complete. This bill does not set priorities. I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities.
Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007 - Amends the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent the ban on state and local taxation of Internet access and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.
Related bills: H.R.743, H.R.1077, H.R.3678, S.156.
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.