I am proposing that we invest to finish connecting the state with broadband. Even the most remote communities across our state should be provided the tools they need to be connected. There are still 135,000 South Dakotans without high-speed broadband
access that meets the needs of the 21st Century. A state investment, coupled with industry funding and federal grants, is enough to get the job done.
Source: 2021 State of the State Address to South Dakota legislature
, Jan 12, 2021
We have a chance to lead the nation in cybersecurity
One important and emerging sector is cybersecurity. In May 2019, the Economic Development Administration awarded a $1.46 million-dollar grant to Dakota State University to help establish a high-speed research network. We have a chance to
lead the nation in cybersecurity. We must remember to train not only this workforce, but also to attract or create new companies here in South Dakota. Let's keep our graduates, at home, with great jobs and a way of life they love.
Source: 2020 South Dakota State of the State address
, Jan 14, 2020
Voted YES on protecting cyber security by sharing data with government.
Congressional Summary:
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:
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.
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
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."
Reference: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act;
Bill H.R.624
; vote number 13-HV117
on Apr 18, 2013
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: [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.
Reference: Prohibit Federal Funds for NPR;
Bill H.1076
; vote number 11-HV192
on Mar 17, 2011
Award research grants based on national interest.
Noem voted YEA Scientific Research in the National Interest Act
Congressional Summary: Scientific Research in the National Interest Act: This bill directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to award federal funding for basic research and education in the sciences only if the grant promotes the progress of science in the United States, is worthy of federal funding, and is in the national interest.
Support on GovTrack.us: Lead sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21)--chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee--noted the millions of dollars the NSF has doled out for purposes he considers less than worthwhile. In particular, he cited a few examples he considered particularly egregious, including:
$700,000 to support a climate change-themed musical
$487,000 to study the Icelandic textile industry during the Viking era
$516,000 to help amateurs create a video game to 'Relive Prom Night'
Opposition on GovTrack.us: The Science Committee's ranking member,
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX-30) called the bill anti-science. She wrote, "Most Members of Congress lack the relevant expertise to fairly evaluate the merits of any particular grant. If we do not trust the Nation's scientific experts to make that judgement, then who are we to trust?" Johnson also noted that the NSF already has a rigorous review process, only funding about 1/5 of grant proposals.
White House Opposition: Contrary to its stated purpose, [HR.3293] would add nothing to accountability in Federal funding for scientific research, while needlessly adding to bureaucratic burdens and overhead at the NSF. It would replace the clarity of the [current rules implemented in] 1950, with confusing language that could cast a shadow over the value of basic research.
Legislative outcome: Passed House 236-178-26 (roll call 70, CR H684) on 2/11/16; bill died in Senate committee. The White House had threatened to veto the bill if it passed the Senate.
Source: Congressional vote 16-HR3293 on Jul 29, 2015