Mike Fitzpatrick on Technology
Former Republican Representative (PA-8, 2005-2007)
Voted YES on protecting cyber security by sharing data with government.
- CISPA conducts federal cybersecurity activities to provide shared situational awareness enabling integrated operational actions to protect, prevent, and recover from cyber incidents.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
- Rep. SINEMA: We need a 21st century solution for this 21st century problem. This bill ensures that research and development, intellectual property, and software code is no longer being stolen by China, Iran, and Russia.
- Rep. MAFFEI: We've already seen state actors like the People's Republic of China pursue widespread data theft from American computer networks. This is a clear and present danger.
Reference: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act;
; vote number 13-HV117
on Apr 18, 2013
- Rep. McNERNEY: I'm concerned with the civil protections not required in H.R. 624. Businesses should be required to remove personally identifiable information before submitting data to Federal agencies.
- CNet.com: Rep. Ron Paul warned that
CISPA represents the "latest assault on Internet freedom"; that "CISPA is Big Brother writ large." CISPA would permit, but not require, Internet companies to hand over confidential customer records to federal agencies. What sparked the privacy worries--including opposition from the ACLU and the Republican Liberty Caucus--is the section of CISPA that says "notwithstanding any other provision of law." By including the word "notwithstanding," CISPA's drafters intended to make their legislation trump all existing laws. It would render irrelevant wiretap laws, Web companies' privacy policies, and more.
- Rep. LOFGREN: CISPA could allow any private company to share vast amounts of sensitive, private data about its customers with the government. CISPA would override all other privacy laws, and allow a private company to share nearly anything--from the contents of private emails to medical records--as long as it "directly pertains to" a broadly defined "cyber threat."
Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio.
Congressional Summary: To prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content, including:
- broadcasting, transmitting, and programming over noncommercial educational radio broadcast
Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created in 1967. Today, we have multiple listening choices; NPR [has become an] absurd anachronism. It is time to move forward and to let National Public Radio spread its wings and support itself.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
Reference: Prohibit Federal Funds for NPR;
; vote number 11-HV192
on Mar 17, 2011
[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.
Voted YES on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet).
An amendment, sponsored by Rep Markey (D, MA) which establishes "network neutrality" by requiring that broadband network service providers have the following duties:
Proponents say that network neutrality ensures that everybody is treated alike with regard to use of the Internet,
which has been a principle applied to Internet use since it was first originated. Proponents say that without network neutrality, large corporations will pay for exclusive preferential service and hence small websites will be relegated to a second tier of inferior service. Opponents say that the Markey amendment forsakes the free market in favor of government price controls, and would chill investment in broadband network and deployment of new broadband services, and would reduce choice for internet users. Voting YES favors the network neutrality viewpoint over the price control viewpoint.
Reference: Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act;
Bill HR 5252 Amendment 987
; vote number 2006-239
on Jun 8, 2006
- not to block or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access the Internet;
- to operate its broadband network in a nondiscriminatory manner so that any person can offer or provide content and services over the broadband network with equivalent or better capability than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties, and without the imposition of a charge for such nondiscriminatory network operation;
- if the provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, to prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service.
Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting.
Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005: Expresses the sense of Congress that broadcast television station licensees should reinstitute a family viewing policy for broadcasters. Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that for violators of any Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license, if a violator is determined by the FCC to have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane material, the amount of forfeiture penalty shall not exceed $500,000 for each violation. Sets forth:
Reference: Bill sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton [R, MI-6];
; vote number 2005-035
on Feb 16, 2005
- additional factors for determining indecency penalties;
- indecency penalties for non-licensees;
- deadlines for actions on complaints;
- additional remedies for indecent broadcasts; and
- provisions for license disqualification, revocation, or renewal consideration for violations of indecency prohibitions.
Page last updated: Jun 30, 2017