Hill, The

A push by Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) to block the Obama Administration from handing over management of the internet is not part of a short-term spending bill backed by Senate GOP leadership. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) filed the continuing resolution (CR) without Cruz's initiative, which had gotten fierce pushback from Democrats and the White House. Sen Cruz said that he was "profoundly disappointed" that the provision is being left out.

"This is one more example why the American people are so fed up with Washington, because they expect all of us — Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike — to protect free speech online," he said. Sen Cruz added that his House colleagues should "continue to stand united to ensure that the government funding bill prevents the Obama administration from permanently undermining free speech on the Internet."

Lawmakers have until Oct. 1 to try to block the change, but without the measure in the spending bill, their efforts are likely to fall short.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blasted Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) for trying to tie a fight over management of the Internet to a short-term government funding bill with an Oct 1 deadline. "It's not [time for] a big debate for talking about how we change the internet forever," the outgoing Senate Democratic leader said. "It's not a time to try to satisfy Cruz because he doesn't get along with the caucus and they're trying to shut him up."

Top Democratic lawmakers have signaled they don't want to include Sen Cruz's language, which would prevent the Administration from relinquishing the US's role in Internet oversight, in the short-term funding bill known as a continuing resolution (CR). Sen Dick Durbin (D-IL) said Democratic lawmakers have made a counteroffer to Republican lawmakers as part of the spending negotiations for a "clean" CR that wouldn't link the Internet fight to the bill. But top Republican lawmakers — who have argued that nothing about the deal is finalized until the entire agreement is done — said Sen Cruz's effort is still part of the talks. "I think it's going to have to get resolved one way or another before the end of [September], and this is the only vehicle out there," Sen John Thune (R-SD) said.

Until Sept 13 when the bills merged, Reps Will Hurd (R-TX) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD) had rival plans to modernize the government’s outdated communications systems. Two days later, the new Modernizing Government Technology Act has already left committee. “We did something today that was a big deal,” Rep Hurd said. The bill combines Rep Hoyer’s idea, a centralized loan program repaid through the cost savings agencies would achieve by using newer, more efficient technology, with a direct funding approach advocated by Rep Hurd. Agencies will reinvest the savings realized by using the direct funds to purchase more new technology. Federal Chief Information Officer Tony Scott has advocated both ideas, saying modernizing infrastructure is not only cheaper in the long run, but also more secure from hackers.

“Not once did [my constituents] see a campaign ad about IT procurement. IT procurement is not a sexy topic. No one has ever thrown a rally for IT procurement,” Rep Hurd said. “But when the Federal government is spending $80 billion on IT procurement and 80 percent of that is on old and outdated systems, people are automatically outraged." Rep Hurd said the bill would be on the floor the week of Sept 19 and pass under suspension of the rules. “Despite being 60 days from an election, we had a significant piece of bipartisan legislation that will change how the government does business and create incentives for our CIOs within the federal government to save money and to modernize,” he said. "It’s a big deal. It’s a really big deal.”

Nearly a dozen Senate Republicans are urging Democratic lawmakers to come to the negotiating table to prevent President Barack Obama from transferring management of the Internet to an international governing body before the Oct 1 deadline. Sens Ted Cruz (R-TX), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Ron Johnson (R-WI), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Roger Wicker (R-MI) released a joint statement arguing that lawmakers should be able to reach a deal. "Partisanship and political gamesmanship have no place when it comes to the Internet, basic principles of freedom, and the right of individuals in our great nation and across the globe to speak online free from censorship," the senators said. They added that it would be "irresponsible" to allow the transfer to occur, calling on Democrats to "work with us to ensure this transition does not occur on October 1."

The 11 GOP senators said it was "disappointing" that the Obama Administration was moving forward with the transition without congressional approval, adding that they had lingering questions about the change as it relates to national security, free speech and consumer protections. Sen Cruz and other Republicans believe the administration must obtain permission from Congress before going forward.

The nation’s second most powerful court upheld a ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a labor dispute between the DirecTV and employees of its subcontracting satellite installation company MasTec. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit court ruled 2-1 that DirecTV must reinstate the MasTec technicians it fired for complaining about the company’s new pay policy in an interview with a local news station. Employees that protest an employer action or policy are protected under NLRB rules from being retaliated against unless their actions rise to the level of "flagrant" or they say malicious or untrue statements about the employer.

In this case, DirecTV argued that the technicians were not protected under NLRB rules because the statements they made in the TV interview were "maliciously untrue and flagrantly disloyal, wholly out of step with the employees’ objections to the pay policy." NLRB disagreed and found that the company’s firing of the employees was an unfair labor practice. In it’s decision, the court upheld NLRB’s order requiring DirectTV to reinstate the employees.

[Commentary] The public debate in the US over encryption has focused almost exclusively on law enforcement officials’ concerns that they will not have access to information that could help solve crimes. But there has been little discussion of the known real world impact of mandates in this area. In the 1990s, when then FBI Director Louis Freeh lobbied Capitol Hill and the Clinton Administration for greater law enforcement access to communications, regulations were put in place to prohibit US citizens from exporting strong encryption products to other countries. While this prevented US companies from using encryption that law enforcement couldn’t access, it did not stop foreign companies from building advanced encryption tools, and creating new security markets in countries like Israel, Canada and Russia.

Instead of mandating technical solutions and impacting research, we need to develop encryption solutions that encourage a robust US security marketplace. As many Internet security experts have suggested, we could invest in greater research by government so that it can find more vulnerabilities in our systems themselves and, eventually, share these with the vendors. We could enhance the technical know-how of state and local law enforcement officials so that they understand how current technologies process information and what they can lawfully access under the current regime. We could build closer ties among researchers, the FBI and local law enforcement to find novel solutions to access information without building back doors. These solutions will not solve every problem, but they will start us down the path of allowing law enforcement to adapt to the continuing changes in new technologies without creating the unintended consequences that we’ve faced in the past.

[Schwartz is Managing Director for Cybersecurity Services at Venable LLP. He was formerly Senior Director for Cybersecurity Policy and Special Assistant to the President for Cybersecurity on the National Security Council from 2013-2015.]

The FBI is imposing new restrictions making it more difficult for investigators to impersonate journalists, following scrutiny over a 2007 episode in which the bureau posed as a reporter to track a suspected criminal. The FBI did not violate its internal policy during that controversial incident, the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General claimed in a 30-page report.

“In 2007, FBI policies did not prohibit the practice of agents impersonating journalists, nor was there any requirement that agents seek special approval to engage in such practice,” the watchdog concluded. Yet June 2016, it implemented an interim policy barring impersonation of a journalist without approval from the FBI’s deputy director, the watchdog revealed. That move “is a significant and important improvement to FBI policies,” the inspector general’s office claimed. The changes are the result of a 2007 incident when FBI investigators wrote a fake AP story and placed it on a website designed to mimic the Seattle Times in order to infect a suspect’s computer. A link to the story bearing the headline “Bomb threat at high school downplayed by local police department” was sent to the MySpace page of a student suspected of making multiple threats against the school and launching cyberattacks against its computer network. In followup emails to the student, Charles Jenkins, an FBI investigator portrayed himself as an “AP staff publisher” in order to get Jenkins to click on the link and links to other photographs. The operation became public in 2014 and was immediately attacked by news organizations claiming that it eroded the public’s trust in journalists.

[Commentary] While Donald Trump’s wall has received considerable press, a different wall has been created to block Hispanics from having a say in a subject that affects their entire culture. It is a wall that has kept Hispanic-Americans out of the debate regarding their own future. Every day, major media outlets discuss candidate views and policies on Hispanic immigration. However, the Commission on Presidential Debates has yet to select a single Hispanic-American academic, journalist or political figure to moderate a Presidential Debate. This is a glaring omission that must change!

Hispanic professionals know immigration better than anyone because we live with the issue every day. We have friends and families that have immigrated and understand the problems and stigmas faced as immigrants. More important, we understand what it is like to be labeled and judged based on all the media about immigration. The Commission on Presidential Debates must correct this unfortunate misstep of lacking a Hispanic-American voice in this election’s presidential debates.

[Javier Palomarez is the President and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce]

Escalating tensions between Senate Republicans and the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) came to a head at a hearing on transferring management of the Internet domain name system. Senate Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) opened the hearing with a blistering warning that the transition would make the Internet vulnerable to censorship and weaken the First Amendment. Sen Cruz has been fighting against transition of oversight of the domain name system — which is central to how consumers reach websites — since before Congress returned from its summer recess. The change is set to happen at the end of September, unless Congress blocks it. Ranking Member Chris Coons (D-DE) called the hearing unnecessary and challenged Sen Cruz’s opposition the management change.

But Sen Cruz’s aggressive rejection of the transition bled into the witness testimony. He battled top NTIA official Lawrence Strickling, who became visibly frustrated as Sen Cruz suggested that the NTIA may have violated federal law by assessing the transition. Strickling says it is "extreme and wrong" to claim the transition would be a giveaway to China or Russia, saying the contract is too limited to be a tool for protecting Internet freedom, while "failing to follow through on the transition or unilaterally extending the contract will only embolden authoritarian regimes to intensify their advocacy for government-led or intergovernmental management of the Internet via the United Nations." “Senator, if I may finish …,” Strickling said at one point in attempting to clarify the NTIA's responsibilities. “No you may not,” Sen Cruz said. “You may answer my questions.” Sen Cruz warned Commerce Department officials they could face jail time for their efforts to hand control of the Internet's domain name system to an international group, saying they violated congressional funding restrictions.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) accused Republicans on the Federal Communications Commission of obstructing an investigation into 2015’s network neutrality debate. Rep Cummings said that commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly have not provided documents as part of an investigation into the process leading up to the net neutrality rules the commission approved last February.

“I am writing to request an explanation for your refusal to provide any documents in response to a request from the Oversight Committee more than a year ago relating to the rulemaking process for the Open Internet Order, which was released publicly on March 12, 2015,” Rep Cummings said in the letter. "Your refusal to cooperate with the Committee’s request is unacceptable, it obstructs our investigation, and it prevents the Committee from having a complete or accurate understanding of the circumstances surrounding this rulemaking," he said. He asked that by Sept 16 the two commissioners lay out the steps they have taken to respond to the committee’s request and to say when their offices will fulfill the request.