Amazon Executive Says Congress Should Address Online Taxes

(Updates with additional testimony starting in second paragraph.)

Nov. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Paul Misener, Amazon.com’s vice president for global public policy, urged Congress to set standards for collecting state sales taxes from online commerce. Any exceptions to the tax should be kept “very low” for fairness reasons, Misener said.

Misener spoke today at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Seattle-based Amazon, the largest online retailer, has long battled attempts by states to levy sales taxes on Internet transactions. Now it’s backing efforts to create a federal standard for states to collect sales tax on online purchases.

A 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision exempted businesses from collecting sales taxes in states in which they don’t have a physical presence, or “nexus,” such as a store or warehouse.

That ruling has given Internet-based sellers an edge in the marketplace over brick-and-mortar retailers, said Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

“Online retailers have, let’s face it, an unfair advantage,” said Conyers, a co-sponsor of one of three pending bills that would give states the ability to collect taxes on sales by out-of-state vendors.

Ground Rules

John Otto, an accountant and state senator from Texas, urged lawmakers to set ground rules for requiring the collection of online sales taxes.

If the 1992 Supreme Court decision “is allowed to remain the law of the land, are we not picking winners and losers within the retail sector?” Otto said. “The marketplace has changed in 19 years and we have not.”

In 2012 states will forgo an estimated $23 billion in uncollected taxes from out-of-state catalog and online sales, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The issue has divided online retailers. Executives from San Jose-based EBay Inc. and Overstock.com of Salt Lake City cautioned lawmakers against passing a measure that would harm small businesses or saddle online retailers with added expenses.

“Unfortunately, the authors of recent remote sales tax bills have walked away from true small business protections. They want businesses everywhere to be collecting online everywhere. Obviously we disagree,” EBay vice president and deputy general counsel for government relations Todd Cohen said in his prepared remarks.

Overstock chairman and CEO Patrick Byrne said requiring companies like his to collect sales tax “would be very burdensome.”

Small Retailers

Byrne said efforts to pass sales tax legislation are an attempt by Amazon and other big retailers to hurt smaller rivals.

Amazon’s Misener said technology has advanced enough so that all but the smallest sellers can manage sales tax collections.

“With today’s computing and communications technology, widespread collection no longer would be an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, and Congress feasibly can authorize the states to require all but the very smallest volume sellers to collect,” Misener said.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

MY VIEW, Robert G. Dyck: Where has deregulation gotten us?

By Robert G. Dyck

Robert G. Dyck

The documentary film "Inside Job" (Sony Pictures Classics, 2010), shown in Birmingham recently, provides a devastating analysis of high risk-taking and corruption in the financial services industry. It contains very telling interviews with banking executives, government officials and highly placed business and economics professors.

Despite revelations like "Inside Job," most leading business and economics educators continue to defend the underlying economic and administrative theory that supports the nearly absolute deregulation of the financial services industry, despite cataclysmic economic failures that began in 2008 and continue on a global scale today. These failures demonstrate the underlying economic theory is bankrupt.

During the 1960s and '70s, Milton Friedman and his Chicago School popularized and politicized the notion that government interference in the market is an undesirable distortion of the free market, defined as the place where individual self-interested decisions sum to desirable economic outcomes. As a result of Friedman's mistaken theoretical perspective, the U.S. and many other countries now have adopted economic policies that render them incapable of providing full employment, basic human services and a decent income for the 99 percent.

Most people seem to have forgotten that the purpose of any economy is to provide goods and services which people need and can afford, not to make money for the few as fast as possible. Accordingly, we have lost the talent, entrepreneurship and collaborative spirit necessary to make a goods and services economy work successfully. These capacities have gone to the financial sector and the corporatocracy (the unhealthy linkage of corporate interests and government), whose interest is simply the quick buck.

It also has become apparent the financial services sector is incapable of regulating itself to avoid unreasonable risks that threaten the well-being of whole societies. Making money fast requires huge risks, and if the risks don't pan out, society as a whole becomes the loser: public-sector bailouts, distortion of the goods and services economy, and the loss of full employment, decent jobs and a living wage.

"Inside Job" offers no remedies except to restore regulatory control on the financial services industry. As necessary as that is, it does not fully address the root problem of economic reality at this time, which is the "rationality" of self-interest, as claimed by prevailing economic equilibrium theory, is not sufficient for good societal outcomes. Good outcomes include full employment, decent incomes and basic services.

For fully functional democratic societies, we must have economies based on mutual interest and collaboration.

An important practical step in this direction has been proposed by U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. His bill, HR 870, the Humphrey-Hawkins 21st Century Full Employment and Training Act, would recreate something like the Works Progress Administration, financed with a nominal tax on high-risk financial transactions. It would generate revenue, create significant employment opportunities and increase demand for consumer goods. But it would not increase our national debt.

We should strongly encourage its enactment.

Misplaced obsessions with national debt and low taxes for the wealthy dominate the current debate on the economy. If Congress cannot muster bipartisan support to enact HR 870, state and local governments should link with Warren Buffet and the top 1 percent who have already volunteered to provide significant additional revenues. Their funds would then be invested in infrastructure, health care and housing for the other 99 percent, on a local and regional rather than a national basis.

Robert G. Dyck is emeritus professor of public and international affairs at Virginia Tech University. He now lives in Birmingham and is one of the authors of "The New Science of Sustainability: Building a Foundation for Great Change" (2008). Email: bobdyck@vt.edu.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Eliminating Regulations That Protect the Health and Safety of Americans Is Not Job Creation

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

As you are preparing to gather around the Thanksgiving table, the Republican majority in Congress is rushing to push through legislation that will undermine the continued health and safety of the loved ones seated next to you. Over the next two weeks they will bring three bills to the House floor that will halt regulation as we know it, making it more difficult to protect public health and safety. Nobody likes red tape and everyone can agree that there are areas where our regulations could be streamlined. However, these bills go much further and will make it virtually impossible to enact new regulations or fine-tune existing ones. Indeed, under these bills it would even be harder to get rid of burdensome regulation.

Consider H.R. 3010, the "Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011," the latest salvo in conservatives' war against safeguards provided by regulations. If enacted, H.R. 3010 would effectively halt agency rulemaking, which threatens the government's ability to protect the American people from a wide range of health and safety harms. H.R. 3010 will result in "paralysis by analysis" by imposing numerous unnecessary analytical requirements on agencies before they even start the rulemaking process. This bill will arrest the rulemaking process and slow down the implementation of critical regulations that ensure our air and water is clean, and our consumer products are safe.

But that is not the only bill being crammed into the remaining few days of the congressional session. H.R. 10, The "REINS Act," would adversely impact how necessary and beneficial rules are promulgated by imposing a mandate requiring all new major regulations to be affirmatively approved by both Houses of Congress and signed by the president within 70 days before they can take effect. By requiring congressional approval and by giving Congress too little time to act, the REINS Act will effectively prevent major rules, including those related to public safety, from ever being implemented.

Rounding out the trio of public safety killing legislation is H.R. 527, the "Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2011." Under current law, rulemaking agencies must make an analysis for every new rule that would have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, such as small businesses. Among other things, this bill repeals the authority of an agency to waive or delay this analysis in response to an emergency that makes compliance or timely compliance impracticable.

So if there is an epidemic of E. coli or listeria infection caused by some item in our nation's food distribution network, or if there is an imminent environmental disaster that could be addressed systemically through regulation, this bill says "Don't worry. Don't rush."

My conservative colleagues argue that this legislation is necessary because too much regulation is responsible for our nation's current economic difficulties. They must be suffering from some collective form of amnesia. It was not too much regulation of Wall Street that led to the near collapse of the worldwide marketplace. It was not too much regulation that caused the BP oil spill. And, it was not too much regulation that allowed mortgage brokers, servicers, bankers and others to engage in predatory lending and falsify foreclosure documents in court proceedings.

Regulation has had no discernable impact on our economy compared with the devastating impact that the lack of demand has had. As a July Wall Street Journal survey of business economists found, "The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies." Even the business community recognizes that the biggest problem it faces is lack of demand. The most recent National Federation of Independent Business survey of its members likewise shows that business owners believe that poor sales -- not regulation -- are the biggest problem.

The focus of this debate, rather, should be on the fact that regulations are really about job creation. Historically, American-made goods have been sought the world over because of their high quality and safety standards. But the United States will lose this competitive advantage if we continue toward lowering our regulatory standards.

The solution to the recession is fairly straightforward. We must increase demand for American goods, create jobs and resolve the home foreclosure crisis. If we continue this regulatory race to the bottom, American manufacturers will be less competitive, demand will further weaken, and fewer -- not more -- jobs will be created. These bills provide yet another opportunity for big business to recklessly cut corners on public health and safety in the name of increasing big profits without creating a single new job.

The safety standards for American goods are so high, and our products are so consistently safe that it is no surprise we often take for granted the regulations that ensure their quality. So as you sit down to a nice meal consisting of food put through a thorough inspection process with loved ones who traveled safely on planes, trains and automobiles subject to rigorous safety standards, remember: Regulations don't kill jobs, they save lives. And that there are plans underway in Washington to undermine the regulatory process that guarantees the health and safety of millions of Americans. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wright Museum Confers Lifetime Achievement Award On Conyers

For Immediate Release

Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Contact: Matthew Morgan – 202-226-5543

Wright Museum Confers Lifetime Achievement Award On Conyers

(DETROIT) – Yesterday, Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) received a lifetime achievement award from the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History for his work in promoting and preserving jazz and the arts in Congress at a meeting of the Detroit Entertainment Commission. Created by the city government, the Detroit Entertainment Commission is dedicated to the support and promotion of the arts.  Representative Conyers recently introduced H.R. 2823, “The National Jazz Preservation and Education Act of 2011”,  a bill that would educate students on the vital contribution jazz music has made to American culture, and establishes a National Jazz Preservation program through the Smithsonian Institution to preserve knowledge and promote education about Jazz.

“Jazz grew out of the unique experiences of African Americans in the United States.  It is one of America’s truly original art forms.  I am honored to receive an award that recognizes both jazz’s place in Detroit’s history and its contribution as an art form to American culture.  The promotion and preservation of jazz and of the arts is a worthy goal and a key element in the education of our young people.

“The arts are an invaluable educational tool that help inspire children to learn about the diverse contributions Americans from all walks of life have made to our national culture.  The arts contribute to the creation of well-rounded adults, and in a nation that is defined by its multi-cultural character, we need young people to grow into adults who appreciate the cultural contributions of all Americans.  This is one of the most important reasons not to cut funding for music and the arts in our nation’s public schools.

“One of my goals as a Member of Congress is to provide support to our public school students and teachers.  And this is one of the many reasons why I am working in Congress to pass President Obama’s American Jobs Act.  The bill would preserve jobs in the state of Michigan by providing much needed federal grants to avoid lay-offs of school teachers, many of who could continue to teach the arts, music, and the humanities to our students.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Will Congress Push Google To Tweak Its Algorithm To Punish Pirate Sites?

Will Congress Push Google To Tweak Its Algorithm To Punish Pirate Sites?

Mar 14, 2011 

Judging by today’s hearings (March 2011), some members of Congress are willing to consider radical measures to rid the internet of “rogue” websites accused of piracy. Among them: getting search engines like Google (NSDQ: GOOG) to tweak their search results, and ordering ISPs to block certain websites from U.S. viewers altogether. Until several months ago, Congress had never even discussed taking steps like these. The fact that they are now on the table is probably a function of several factors, including aggressive lobbying by the entertainment industry and a proliferation of illegal content online.

Congress first started considering the idea of allowing federal law enforcement to block websites in September, when Sen. Patrick Leahy introduced the controversial COICA bill in the last Congress. Now the House of Representatives is considering a similar proposal, although no bill has yet been introduced.

SEE ALSO: Congress Wants To Shut Down ‘Rogue’ Websites, But Verizon Wants Limits

That debate is taking place against a backdrop in which the government has already begun getting more aggressive with piracy. Since the middle of last year, immigration and customs officials have seized more than 100 domain names of websites they claim were flouting copyright and trademark laws.

Highlights from the hearing included:

Hollywood spokesman describes a “shadow economy” of illicit content. Frederick Huntsberry, the chief operating officer of Paramount Pictures, described how just four or five clicks from a simple Google search consumers are likely to come into contact with websites that stream content from Paramount and others without permission. Huntsberry said the big problem is the flourishing “cyberlocker” sites, which are encouraging users to upload movies and other content by offering rewards. Huntsberry estimated that one site alone, MegaUpload, earns annual profit between $40 million and $300 million.

Congress needs to pass a law to “level the playing field” between legitimate providers and pirate sites, said Huntsberry.  “We have reached the limits of self-help,” he said, noting that Paramount sent over 40 million “infringement notices” last year, but it didn’t dent piracy much. (It isn’t clear exactly what Huntsberry meant by an “infringement notice,” since later in the hearing he said Paramount sent 1.5 million copyright takedown notices.) Piracy is stealing American jobs and tax revenue, he added.

Sympathy for the cause but frustration at lack of detail. At least one Congressman was clearly sympathetic to Huntsberry’s overall cause but annoyed by the lack of detail in the proposal. Huntsberry and other witnesses should have brought a specific proposal to the table telling Congress what it should do, said Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan). “I’m disappointed in all the witnesses,” Conyers said.

“We need the ability for [law enforcement] officers to go after rogue websites,” said Huntsberry. “It is today impossible to even discover who the owners are of these sites, or where they’re served.”

Another witness, analyst Daniel Castro of The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, gave Conyers some of the specifics he was looking for: Congress should simply create blacklist of sites, then force ISPs to block them and tell search engines to remove them from lists of search results. “The federal government should work with industry to create a master list of all these sites,” said Castro. “You could require service providers and financial networks to stop doing business with these sites.”

Ready to tweak search results? In his presentation, Huntsberry showed how simple searches for normal search terms—like “stream” or “watch movies online”—still brought up many websites the entertainment industry considers “rogue” sites. That clearly had an impact on the panel, and a few different members, including Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.), asked about the possibility of giving search prioritization to “authorized” media options like Netflix (NSDQ: NFLX). For example, typing a search for “stream movies” in Google makes the top link a site called Solar Movies, which Huntsberry singled out as a site full of links to pirated content, including just-released films like Paramount’s The Adjustment Bureau.

Most of the panel seemed to support the idea of cracking down on ‘rogue’ websites, but a few had criticisms. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) again emerged as one of the few Congressional opponents of a simplified system for taking down websites accused of piracy. Earlier this month, Lofgrencriticizedthe government’s seizures of websites; today, Lofgren expressed concern that a website-takedown law wouldn’t leave room for fair use or other legitimate uses of copyright material. And she also implied she was concerned about legislators ordering around search engines and ISPs. “If we move into designing technology by the U.S. government, that, too, will move offshore,” she said.

Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) had some concerns about what kind of due process should be involved with removing a website. Both Huntsberry and Castro said that it wasn’t important to let the accused address a judge before their websites were taken; allowing them to come back a day or two after the seizure took place is good enough, they said. Watt was clearly uncomfortable with that proposal. “If you look at physical goods, they are seized without court review,” noted Castro. “I wasn’t too hot on that process, either,” responded Watt. Even if the goods are unlawful, the accused should have an opportunity to make their case before their property is taken, Watt said.

Acting Regitrar of Copyright Maria Pallante testified that shutting down a website “dedicated to infringement” would not violate the First Amendment. But “even the worst of the worst should receive notice,” she said, and relief provided to copyright owners should be “narrowly tailored.” Pallante didn’t take a position on whether the government should tweak search results, saying only that it’s “a harder question.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Editorial: Continuing abuses by immigration authorities belie promise of more humane treatment

Despite some encouraging signals on immigration reform from the White House, widespread human rights abuses continue on both the northern and southern borders.

Immigration reform advocates across the country want to meet with Alan Bersin, national commander of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. That meeting should happen soon if the Obama administration is serious about adopting more practical and humane policies. U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, is among lawmakers calling for Bersin to meet with community members.

In a new report called "A Culture of Cruelty," the Arizona-based advocacy group No More Deaths details thousands of abuses by U.S. Border Patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexican border -- many in violation of the department's own rules -- including withholding food and water from detainees, beatings and failure to provide needed medical treatment.

The report is based on interviews with nearly 13,000 people in three Mexican border towns, conducted from late 2008 until the spring of this year, immediately after illegal immigrants were deported from Arizona. Among the findings: Only 20% of people in custody for more than two days said they had received a meal, and 86% were deported without necessary medical care.

Calling for independent oversight of U.S. immigration practices and policies, the report concluded that abuses were systemic -- part of the Border Patrol's culture -- rather than the result of aberrant behavior by a few bad agents.

"There's a real lack of accountability and a general disregard for human rights by the U.S. Border Patrol," said Charlie Rooney, a Detroit-area human rights activist who also lives in Tucson, where he is active with No More Deaths.

Human rights violations are not limited to the Southwest. Racial and religious profiling, harassment, abusive interrogation, searches without probable cause, sweeps of public transit (especially on trains and buses in New York), and inadequate medical care of detainees have become common along the northern border as well.

Ryan Bates, director of the Alliance for Immigrants Rights & Reform Michigan, cited numerous recent incidents in the Detroit area, including a July 25 detention by border patrol agents on the grounds of St. Anne's Church in southwest Detroit during mass. Agents released the man after an hour.

Many residents -- legal and illegal -- live in fear of harassment. The federal government deported a record 392,000 people last year. When abuses occur -- especially when U.S. agents violate their own policies -- internal investigations should not close the books. Such cases need the scrutiny of an outside agency, such as the U.S. Department of Justice.

Moreover, reform advocates want to see border patrol agents given the same sort of training and scrutiny other police agencies undergo, including in-car cameras. They also want schools and churches off-limits to agents seeking to interrogate people. El Paso has already adopted such a policy.

A meeting between Bersin and immigration advocates won't resolve all these issues, but it could help the U.S. make sensible and informed changes in policy, while improving relations with all immigrant communities.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Seeks Health Insurance Coverage For Routine HIV Screening

**Follow Me On Twitter @RepJohnConyers**

For Immediate Release

Date: Thursday, November 17, 2011

Contact: Matthew Morgan – 202-226-5543

Conyers Seeks Health Insurance Coverage For Routine HIV Screening

(WASHINGTON) – Yesterday, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) joined with 54 of his House colleagues in sending a letter to the Honorable Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, urging her to include routine annual screening for HIV in the Essential Health Benefits package under the Affordable Care Act.  The text of the letter follows:

“As Members of Congress who are concerned about the impact of HIV/AIDS in our communities, we write to urge you to include routine annual screening for HIV as a preventive procedure in the Essential Health Benefits package under the Affordable Care Act.

“There are over 1.1 million people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States today, and about 20% of them do not know they are infected.  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there are approximately 50,000 new HIV infections every year, and more than 16,000 people with AIDS died in 2008.

“The CDC recommends routine HIV screening in all health care settings for patients aged 13-64.  Routine HIV screening allows HIV-positive individuals to learn of their status and begin medical treatment to prolong their lives and maintain their health and productivity.  Research also indicates that HIV-positive individuals are less likely to transmit HIV to other persons if they are receiving treatment.  Routine HIV screening is also consistent with the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, which was released by the White House in July of 2010 and which seeks to increase the percentage of people living with HIV who know their status.

“Unfortunately, some health insurance plans do not cover routine HIV screening.  Instead, these plans cover HIV tests for patients with known or perceived risk factors (for example, men who have sex with men and intravenous drug users) and patients who show symptoms of AIDS.  However, many of those who are infected do not fall into high risk categories.  About 27% of new infections involve heterosexual transmission, and women account for 23% of new infections.  People of color have been impacted severely, with African Americans accounting for 44% of new infections and Hispanics/Latinos accounting for 20%.  Approximately 68% of new infections are among people of color.

“As long as health plans refuse to cover HIV tests as routine health screenings, many doctors and health providers are unlikely to encourage routine HIV screening for their patients.  As a result, many patients who are HIV-positive will not discover their infection until their HIV/AIDS is more advanced and treatment is less likely to be effective.  Meanwhile, they will not be able to take action to avoid spreading the virus to others.  Indeed, approximately one-third of people who test positive for HIV progress to an AIDS diagnosis within 12 months, suggesting that many were unaware they were HIV-positive for an extended period of time.  Thus, routine HIV screening is a critical component of HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention efforts.

“We appreciate your commitment to comprehensive health benefits, and we urge you to facilitate routine HIV screening by including it as a preventive procedure in the Essential Health Benefits package.  We look forward to working with you to ensure that the Affordable Care Act meets the needs of all Americans, including those who are affected by HIV/AIDS.”

###

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Republican Bill Slams Courthouse Door in the Face of the Poor

For Immediate Release

Date: Thursday, November 17, 2011

Contact: Matthew Morgan – 202-226-5543

Republican Bill Slams Courthouse Door in the Face of the Poor   

(WASHINGTON) –  Today at a markup held by the House Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) opposed the passage of  H.R. 1996, the “Government Litigation Savings Act.”  The bill prohibits groups and individuals seeking to protect important rights and interests threatened by unreasonable government action from recovering attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).  The EAJA allows a court to award attorney’s fees when a citizen, non-profit organization, or small business wins a case against the federal government in which the government’s actions are proved unjustifiable.  The Alliance for Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, National Consumer Law Center, Sierra Club, and over one hundred other consumer, environmental, civil rights, and civil liberties organizations oppose H.R. 1996 because the bill undermines the EAJA, making it more difficult for low income people and other parties that cannot obtain free legal counsel from securing quality legal representation in a wide range of cases.

“Contrary to the title of the bill, H.R. 1996 is a thinly disguised effort to prohibit litigation against the Government by the needy and public interest groups,” said Conyers.  “  Under current law, the Equal Access to Justice Act enables the needy to recover attorneys fees, which makes it easier for them to obtain legal representation.  Without the ability to recover fees, it is doubtful that many low income people, including seniors and veterans, will be able to secure legal representation.

“In addition, H.R.1996 also unnecessarily restrict eligibility for awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act.  The EAJA already limits who is eligible for awards.  For example, businesses with a net worth of $7 million or more are ineligible while individuals with a net worth of $2 million or more are also ineligible.  However, H.R. 1996 contains new ill-conceived eligibility standards and prohibits some non-profit organizations from recovering awards under the Act.

“Specifically, H.R. 1996 requires the prevailing party to have a direct and personal interest in the action.  Thus, public interest groups and others could be deterred from pursuing litigation that serves the public good because those actions may not provide a direct relief to these groups.  For example, we could see fewer cases brought on behalf of individuals with physical disabilities as well as fewer suits to enforce federal laws that protect our health.

“Furthermore, I am concerned that this bill is purely aimed at restraining environmental groups and is an attack on those groups who have been awarded fees under the Act.  Most, if not all, environmental groups are non-profit organizations.  Many file lawsuits for injunctive relief to enforce laws and protect the public health.  As a result of this bill, however, many of these organizations will be deterred from bringing such actions if they cannot recover full attorney’s fees.

“Finally, this bill eliminates the possibility of increased fees, which are particularly appropriate for complex and highly specialized adjudications involving environmental law.   By eliminating the possibility of increased fees for specialization, this bill creates yet another hurdle that will make it more difficult to find competent legal representation to enforce complex environmental laws.”

Letter outlining public interest group opposition:

Letter of Opposition to the “Government Litigation Savings Act” (H.R. 1996) November 16, 2011
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

SOPA bill won't make U.S. a 'repressive regime,' Democrat says

The first House of Representatives hearing devoted to a controversial online copyright bill began in an unusual way: with politicians defending themselves from charges that the proposal goes too far.

It's "beyond troubling to hear hyperbolic charges that this bill will open the floodgates to government censorship," Rep. Mel Watt, a North Carolina Democrat, said during a House Judiciary committee hearing this morning.

Rep. Lamar Smith, who says the "problem of rogue websites is real, immediate and widespread"

(Credit: U.S. House of Representatives)

Claiming that the Stop Online Piracy Act, orSOPA, will transform the United States into "a repressive regime belittles the circumstances under which true victims of tyrannical governments actually live," said Watt, a SOPA sponsor.

SOPA, which was introduced last month in the House to the applause of lobbyists for Hollywood and other large content holders, is designed to make allegedly copyright-infringing Web sites, sometimes called "rogue" Web sites, virtually disappear from the Internet. (Here is a CNET preview of the Motion Picture Association of America's remarks on piracy and job loss.)

"The notion that this bill threatens freedom of information is insupportable," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the committee's senior Democrat and another SOPA sponsor.

These complaints are a sign that a last-minute campaign by opponents of SOPA may be working. Google, Facebook, Zynga, Twitter, and other Internet companies who oppose the measure took out a full-page ad in the New York Times; Mozilla turned its home page blackat midnight in protest; and a slew of other groups publicly came out against the bill yesterday.

SOPA's supporters are surely not delighted that today has been dubbed American Censorship Day, with Web sites including Wikimedia (as in, Wikipedia) charging that SOPA is an "Internet blacklist bill" that "would allow corporations, organizations, or the government to order an internet service provider to block an entire website simply due to an allegation that the site posted infringing content." Tumblr "censored" its users' content streams, andreported that its users are averaging 3.6 calls per second to Congress through the company's Web site.

Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and chairman of the committee, charged that Google opposed his SOPA bill because it profited from piracy.With a bit of HTML fromAmericanCensorship.org, a Web site supported by the Free Software Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge, hundreds of Web sites have "censored" themselves to protest SOPA. (Even Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat from Silicon Valley, has joined the fight-censorship protest.)

Google has "disregarded requests to block advertisements from rogue pharmacies, screen such sites from searches and provide warnings about buying drugs over the Internet," Smith said. "Given Google's record, their objection to authorizing a court to order a search engine to not steer consumers to foreign rogue sites is more easily understood."

SOPA is so controversial -- EFF calls it "disastrous" -- because it would force changes to the Domain Name System and effectively create a blacklist of Internet domains suspected of intellectual property violations. Civil liberties groups and the ACLU have criticized this approach; so have free-market and libertarian groups including TechFreedom and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

A Senate version of the bill called the Protect IP Act, which a committee approved in May, was broadly supported by film- and music-industry companies. Google chairman Eric Schmidt was sharply critical, as were prominent venture capitalists, civil liberties groups, andtrade associations representing Web companies.

Rep. Lofgren from California said during this morning's hearing that it was a mistake for SOPA's backers to dismiss criticism from people and companies who would be affected by it.

"It hasn't generally been the policy of this committee to dismiss the views of the industries that we're going to regulate," Lofgren said. "I understand why cosponsors of this legislation aren't happy about widespread criticism of this bill," but attacking the messenger isn't the answer.

Lofgren also accused Smith, the panel's chairman, of deliberately stacking the composition of the panel in favor of SOPA. Of the six witnesses invited, "five are in favor and one is against," she said. "That's not a balanced panel."

Katherine Oyama, Google's copyright counsel, who was the lone witness allowed to testify against SOPA

(Credit: U.S. House of Representatives)

The lone dissenter among the witnesses was Katherine Oyama, Google's copyright counsel, who joined Google after stints in the Washington offices of the Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale law firm and as Vice President Joe Biden's associate counsel.

SOPA's supporters were not gentle in their questioning of Oyama, prompting one wag tonote on Twitter that: "I'm surprised that nobody asked Katherine Oyama if she was a communist." Rep. Tom Marino, a Pennsylvania Republican, suggested that Google's executives "sent you to the lion's den" instead of daring to show up themselves.

Oyama said that Google and other Silicon Valley companies are critical of SOPA because "it would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that could require monitoring of Web sites and social media."

A better approach, Oyama said, would be a law that attempted to cut off the flow of funds to piratical Web sites. "We would publicly support legislation like what I described, the follow the money approach," especially if it had "a good definition of rogue site that doesn't sweep in legitimate U.S. Web sites," she said.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©