Reuters reports that Senate backers of the INDUCE Act — including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Minority Leader Tom Daschle — may attempt to attach the bill to a must-pass spending bill in an effort to secure passage for the controversial (and ill-conceived) legislation.
The Senate Judiciary Committee could take up the bill on Thursday, according to the Reuters’ report.
We’ve covered the bill here previously. The bill attempts to create a new form of secondary liability for copyright infringement that would hold technology makers and service providers liable for copyright violations by end users even if they never knew, contemplated, or intended to facilitate user infringement.
The U.S. Public Policy Committee of ACM has been keeping a close eye on the legislation and has more information.
Update: Much better coverage from Wired here.
Another Update: It now appears that the consensus within the technology community is strongly against the current version of the Induce Act. As Jason Schultz from EFF explains, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) (Microsoft, Apple, HP, IBM, Intel, etc), the Computer Systems Policy Project (Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, NCR, Motorola, etc), and the Information Technology Industry Council (Accenture, Canon, Cisco, Kodak, Oracle, Sun, etc) have all weighed in against the measure. EFF has links and analysis.
One More Update (Thursday, Sept 30, 2004): The Senate markup of the bill scheduled for today has been postponed.
The AP reports today (via USA Today) that the House Republican leadership will propose moving the cyber security offices of the Department of Homeland Security back to the White House as part of the House version of the intelligence reorganization. According to the article, the change reflects “frustration among some Republican lawmakers about what they view as a lack of attention paid to cybersecurity by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).”
CRA has certainly shared that frustration, especially a frustration with DHS’s relative lack of adequate funding support for cyber security research and development efforts at the agency. As we’ve noted before, cyber security gets a very small share of a $1 billion science and technology budget at DHS — $18 million in FY 04 (and that is double the amount the administration initially proposed). However, it’s not clear to me — having only seen the proposal summarized in news reports — that this new effort would have any effect on the current level of support for cyber security R&D or address any of the concerns we’ve raised (pdf) concerning cyber R&D efforts at other agencies as well.
Judging from the responses of the industry folks cited in the article, it doesn’t sound like very many folks were consulted before this got put on the fast track.
More details as we figure them out….
Early word out of yesterday’s Senate Appropriations Committee markup is that NSF ended up with a 3 percent increase over FY 2004, matching the President’s budget request. That’s $5.75 billion for FY 05, $169 million over FY 2004, and significantly better than the House’s 2 percent cut to NSF’s overall budget.
Still, we’re a long way from the 15 percent increases authorized by Congress and signed by the President in December 2002 in the NSF Authorization. Given inflation, that 3 percent increase won’t mean many new opportunities for the agency.
More details about specific programs as I get them.
Update: Here’s the breakout:
(in millions) |
||||||
Level |
Budget Request |
House Mark |
Senate Mark |
FY 05 Senate vs. FY 04 |
FY 05 Senate vs. FY 04 |
|
| Research and Related Activities | ||||||
| Major Research Equip | ||||||
| Education and Human Resources | ||||||
| Salaries and Expenses | ||||||
| National Science Board | ||||||
| Inspector General | ||||||
| Total | ||||||
Another Update: Here’s the directorate by directorate breakout:
(in millions) |
|||||
(est) |
Request |
Senate Mark |
FY 05 Senate vs. FY 04 |
FY 05 Senate vs. FY 04 |
|
| Biological Sciences | |||||
| Computer and Information Science | |||||
| Engineering | |||||
| Geosciences | |||||
| Mathematical and Physical Sciences | |||||
| Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences | |||||
| Polar Programs | |||||
| Integrative Activities | |||||
Final Update: So, it appears computing did a little better than average in the Senate mark. Only SBE and “Integrative Activities” had higher levels of increase vs. FY 2004 than CISE, and they have considerably smaller baselines. CISE benefited in part from an increase to the Information Technology Research (ITR) line vs. the President’s budget request. The program had been slated to decrease to $178 million for FY 05, but was bumped up to $190 million in the Senate mark. The remainder of the increase is apparently spread throughout the core research programs in CISE.
Here are some snippets relevant to computing research from the Committee Report:
NSF has completed the planned 5-year priority for Information Technology Research [ITR] within Computer and Information Science and Engineering [CISE], yet the ITR program has also increased our understanding of computing, communications, and information systems as well as the areas of large-scale networking, new high-end architectures, high-data-volume instruments, and information management. To continue this fundamental research, the Committee has provided $190,000,000 to ITR within CISE.
I think a part of the credit for IT R&D remaining a priority within this appropriation has to go to all those who participated in CRA’s CRAN activity to urge members of the Senate to recognize the critical role NSF plays in leading the federal IT R&D effort, and how critical that effort, in turn, is to the future of innovation in this country.
But there’s still more to be done. Neither the House nor the Senate bills have yet come before their respective bodies — and it’s likely neither will before the election. What is likely is that the bills will get bundled together as part of an omnibus appropriations bill that contains all of the unfinished FY 2005 appropriations bills (currently numbering 12) and passed en masse. How the discrepancies between the cuts in the House bill and the more generous Senate bill get resolved is still an open question. If you haven’t yet contacted your Senators and House Member, there’s still time!