Technology

In 1988, Congress mandated that the Department of Defense keep statistics of crimes committed within the armed forces, including sexual assault, similarly to the tabulation of civilian crimes by the Department of Justice. This would allow crime rates to be compared between the civilian population and military personnel. Eighteen years later, the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS) has yet to be fully implemented, even though Congress has repeatedly ordered the Pentagon to complete the process.With hundreds of thousands of our soldiers on active duty defending our nation, we must ensure that servicemen and women are at the very least not at any more risk for crime than the general population, particularly in terms of sexual assaults. We cannot adequately do that unless we have accurate data about the crimes that are being committed, and we have been waiting eighteen years for the Pentagon to complete this project. I have introduced legislation (H.R. 5735) to give DoD a firm deadline to finally complete the implementation of DIBRS in the hope that it will not take DoD twenty years to get the job done. 

 

There should be no underestimating the significance of the change or the impact the absence of non-discrimination will have on the Internet as we have come to know it. Allowing network operators to discriminate against specific websites and Internet content will change the very nature of the Internet forever. I am disappointed by the committee's vote, but I am committed to restoring the non-discrimination principle that has guided the Internet since its inception, and hopeful we will continue to make progress.

The amendment Senator Dorgan and I offered yesterday during the Senate Commerce Committee's consideration of the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 would have simply ensured all Internet users have an equal ability to view the content and applications of their choice. Net Neutrality is not a government regulation, but rather a restoration of the guarantee to unfettered, unfiltered, collection and dissemination of ideas and ideals on the Internet. The misunderstanding of this issue can be countered with information, discussion, and the facts.

Yesterday the Commerce Committee, which I am a member of, passed the most comprehensive telecommunications bill in a decade. This legislation addresses many issues and fixes many problems consumers have faced ranging from how we communicate with one another to how we will view television. I was very pleased with how the members of the committee worked together in order to create a piece of legislation that will help our nation move forward in the area of telecommunications.

One area of this bill I would like to comment on is language I added to protect children. This language requires operators of pornographic websites to have a homepage that contains no pornographic images or material. This will prevent children from stumbling across obscene pictures without restricting access by adults. Many times pornographic websites use web addresses which are very similar to other, non-pornographic websites. When a child, for example, accidentally types in a .com instead of .gov or .org, sexually explicit photos would appear on the screen. As we offer legislation to move our nation forward into new territories dealing with telecommunications, I want to ensure we protect our kids from dangers that may come their way.

This week, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is holding another set of hearings on the exploding problem of online child exploitation. This crime is growing at an alarming rate and is surpassing law enforcements best efforts to stop it. During these hearings we learned of many efforts by law enforcement officials to stop these predators. Unfortunately, many of these investigators have watched their cases reach a dead end because Internet Service Providers (ISPs) fail to retain subscriber data. Thankfully, due in part to these hearings certain ISPs have agreed to retain subscriber data for up to 180 days. We welcome their voluntary efforts, but there still needs to be a national standard.

That is why I am drafting legislation to require ISPs to retain limited customer data for one year. This would allow law enforcement officials, working through the proper legal channels, to obtain the information they need to solve these crimes. This bill is a step in the right direction in stopping this horrible epidemic and I hope members from both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting it.

I drove to Tallahassee and went to see what was supposed to be a secure facility.   They had brought in an outside hacker.  In less than thirty minutes, he was able to completely change the vote.

There has got to be a way to check the system to make sure that every vote is counted as the person intended to cast it.  You have soldiers in Iraq fighting to give people the right to vote.  We need to have that same right in the United States.

We used to just worry about people breaking into our homes or stealing our cars, but in the 21st century, we have to worry about people stealing our identities via computers and the Internet. Given what we've seen happen recently with the security lapses at the Veterans Administration and other financial institutions, it's imperative that we write a national law to help protect consumers from being victims of identity theft. This bill would require all financial institutions, retailers and government agencies to maintain strong internal safety protections for the data they hold, to quickly investigate any security breach, and notify law enforcement, regulators and the public when there's a real risk of harm.

Last week in Committee... Although two of my committees were idle, the House Armed Services Committee was very active last week. On Tuesday, the Full Committee met to discuss the realignment and bed-down of forces returning to stateside locations from Europe and the Far East. Since the end of the Cold War, our overseas basing structure has remained largely unchanged. The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony from the Department of Defense on the plans to close many overseas basing locations and bring forces back to the United States.

On Wednesday, there were two more hearings. The first was on the U.S. Space Industry and how it relates to National Security. Basically, without our GPS, Weather, Com, Surveillance, and Imaging satellites, our quality of life would be vastly different. We would return to living a 1960s lifestyle and fighting wars similar to the way we fought in Vietnam. For example, one target can be destroyed today with one bomb using GPS guidance. During the Vietnam War, to destroy one target took an entire flight of aircraft (4 to 6 F-111 fighters) each armed with 6 to 8 bombs. Read more...

Broadband is the dial tone of the 21st century. We are all aware that deployment of broadband is crucial for all Americans to compete and succeed in today's global economy. The Universal Service Fund (USF) is essential for ubiquitous broadband service. After Wednesday's USF hearing, I have a new found optimism that USF reform could happen this year. I have worked diligently along with my Democratic colleague Congressman Rick Boucher to draft a USF Reform bill that can reach a wide consensus of industry needs. The USF hearing reconfirmed that all sectors of the industry can come together and agree on reforming USF.

Even today, I have been speaking with fellow Members of the Subcommittee on Telecommunication and the Internet and I am pleased with the positive feedback and strong support of USF from both sides of the aisle. The consistent message I get from everyone is "we need to update and reform the USF.

USF reform is an example of how Republicans and Democrats can work together to move America in the right direction.

Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held the first of a series of hearings focusing on reform of the Universal Service Fund. The Fund ensures, among other things, that residents of rural areas have access to affordable communications services. Affordable communications services not only benefit their individual users, but also, at a time when electronic commerce is central to national economic growth, they are essential for our national economic success. While the importance of affordable rural connectivity has increased, new technologies and new business plans are combining to diminish the long distance revenues that have been relied upon for universal service funding, and reform is now needed. Representative Lee Terry and I have recently introduced the Universal Service Reform Act of 2006, legislation which would control the spiraling growth of the Universal Service Fund while ensuring that universal service support is available to the rural carriers which rely on it to provide service. Our measure would expand who pays into the fund, cap the growth of the fund, and modernize it by allowing its use for the deployment of high speed broadband service. Our bill would expand the existing Universal Service Fund revenue base by requiring VOIP providers and all who offer a connection to the Internet to contribute to the fund, as well as by assessing contributions on intrastate revenues in addition to interstate and international revenues. It would also impose strict limitations on fund growth, assuring that the only growth is in accordance with an inflationary growth factor. I hope that Members will consider our bill as the Congress looks for practical answers to the universal service challenges we face.

Heard a presentation by Jim Gattuso of Heritage yesterday. He's the author of this backgrounder on the nearly-incomprehensible -- and incomprehensibly-named -- topic of net neutrality.

Here's what we gleaned from that session: "Net neutrality" = "net regulation." If you want to regulate the net, you'll love net neutrality. Net regulation will require a one-size/one price fits all approach to the net. Today, you can spend more to get a better car, house, iPod, whatever. Even the US Postal Service allows you to spend more to send a letter or a package faster. So why is it bad for companies to be able to charge more for faster and more complex Internet service? If you don't want that, you'd pay less. Makes sense, no? Remember the market?

Read more...