The House on Wed. passed the Patriot Act conference report, which accompanies the reauthorization bill (HR- 3199), by a roll call vote of 251-174. The ACLU said it was disappointed with “the failure of the House to protect the liberty and freedom of innocent Americans” by adopting a bill the group called flawed. The conference report fails to put needed protections against abuse into the law, the civil liberties group said, noting that House leaders ignored growing calls to reform the law to focus on suspected foreign terrorists while protecting Americans’ privacy and civil liberties. Documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) through a Freedom of Information Act litigation raise questions about the govt.’s use of Patriot Act powers, particularly the Sec. 215 provision (WID Dec 14 p3), Exec. Dir. Marc Rotenberg told us. He urged the Senate not to reauthorize the sunsetting provisions until the FBI has provided all documents EPIC seeks and Congress can review them. In floor remarks Wed., House Minority Leader Pelosi (D-Cal.) said she couldn’t support the extension because the conference report “does not secure the right balance between security and liberty.” She said the country’s founders recognized the importance of that balance and “led a revolution to secure liberty against an arbitrary power.” The secrecy allowed in using Patriot Act powers -- such as the national security letters (NSLs) that allow the FBI to demand private records from ISPs, banks, credit card firms and other businesses -- worried her most, she said: The request doesn’t have to explicitly connect someone to terrorism and the subject of the NSL doesn’t know a letter has been issued. “You can’t know; you will never know,” she said: “Any information including your most sensitive personal data, along with that of thousands of American citizens gathered by these national security letter requests will be held in perpetuity by law enforcement.” A motion to recommit, which would have let lawmakers work on the bill, failed 202-224. A Senate vote is expected this week. Attorney Gen. Alberto Gonzales applauded the effort as “an essential part of our nation’s efforts in the war against terrorism.” He urged the Senate to “act now.”

High-tech and civil liberties groups questioned how the federal govt. has used, or abused, Patriot Act powers since 2001. The ACLU, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), American Library Assn. (ALA) and other groups are sounding alarms this week as Congress considers whether to renew key provisions of the law, including 3 components with high-tech implications: govt. access to business records, roving wiretaps and surveillance of “lone wolf” suspects with no apparent links to foreign terrorist organizations.

Universal Service Fund (USF) reform should be a pillar of telecom reform, FCC Comr. nominee Copps told Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) at his Tues. confirmation hearing. The FCC needs to hear from Congress what “universal service” means, Copps said. He also said the contribution methodology needs repair. Responding to Stevens’ query on Copps’s top priority in updating the ‘96 Telecom Act, he said: “USF is so essential to the future of this country… I think we've got to fix that system.”

Whether CTIA has the right to challenge an FCC order adopting the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) was among key questions raised at a U.S. Appeals Court, D.C. oral argument Thurs. The court has jurisdiction in CTIA v. FCC (05-1008) only if the FCC’s 2004 order constituted “reopening” the case. Judges Merrick Garland and David Tatel told CTIA and FCC to file supplemental briefs addressing the question within 5 days. Also on the court panel was Judge Thomas Griffith. Whether the FCC has authority to impose NHPA compliance requirements on tower construction is another question judges focused on.

Since the EU’s approval of the Safe Harbor framework in 2000, virtually no complaints have arisen about the degree to which U.S. companies’ privacy protection measures are in compliance with European authorities’ data security laws, Commerce Dept. (DoC), EU and private industry players heard Wed. from German Federal Data Protection Comr. Peter Schaar. But govt. officials speaking at a workshop on bridging U.S. and EU policy differences said determining how well the system is working requires more dialog on both sides of the Atlantic.

There’s too much discussion of whether govt. data mining is “good or bad,” and the result is not enough contemplation about “how to do it right,” a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies told the Homeland Security Dept. (DHS) Data Privacy & Integrity Advisory Committee Tues. Maria DeRosa urged members to focus on privacy, data quality standards and the resulting analysis rather than whether DHS should engage in the controversial practice, she said.

On November 10, 2005, President Bush signed into law the conference version of H.R. 2744, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law (P.L.) 109-097).

Progress on the U.S. govt.’s online regulatory portal and developments underway for a comprehensive electronic docketing system are laudable, but challenges confront the effort to re-engineer rulemaking for the 21st century, panelists said Mon. at a Capitol Hill forum. While the new system holds promise for improved management at agencies plus savings on resources and outlays, a Web- based infrastructure could encourage more feedback from citizens ignorant of regulation, experts said at the House Judiciary Committee-sponsored event.

A federal court in Me. denied a Verizon request for an injunction to bar the Me. PUC from enforcing orders in 2004 and 2005 that continued state rate regulation of certain unbundled network elements (UNE) under Telecom Act Sec. 271 even though those UNEs had been deregulated by the FCC under Sec. 251 in its Triennial Review Orders. Verizon had wanted the PUC order blocked until its appeal of the decision could be decided. Judge Gene Carter of the U.S. Dist. Court, Portland, in Case 05-53-B-C said Thurs. that Verizon is unlikely to succeed on the merits because it couldn’t point to anything specific in the Telecom Act or FCC policies that prohibits states from setting “just and reasonable” UNE rates under Sec. 271, even if those UNEs had been released from rate regulation under Sec. 251. The court said the FCC orders demonstrated its preference for market-based UNE rates -- but there was nothing in federal law or FCC policy that preempted a state’s use of TELRIC-based pricing for Sec. 271 UNEs on an interim basis until permanent just & reasonable rates can be set. The court also said Verizon failed to quantify its claims that it would suffer irreparable harm if TELRIC-based UNE rates were kept in place pending the outcome of its appeal. The court said the difference between the TELRIC rate and probable negotiated rates isn’t great enough to impose an unreasonable refund burden on either Verizon or CLECs by the time the case is decided. The court also said nothing in the case record demonstrates that continued application of TELRIC pricing on the 271-UNEs would impair market competition. The court also said Verizon’s waiting a year from the initial state order in Sept. 2004 before filing for an injunction raised doubts about its financial hardship claims. Verizon said it delayed filing until the PUC nailed down which UNEs were covered by its order in Sept. 2005, but the court said some of the UNEs would obviously be included from day one, so Verizon could have challenged on those. Sec. 271 required Bell companies to meet certain local competition tests, including network unbundling, as a prerequisite to their long distance market entry.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently issued notices announcing the availability of a revised compliance policy guide on prior notice (PN) of imported food as well as the second edition of a questions-and-answers (Q&A) document regarding the final rule on the establishment and maintenance of records under the Bioterrorism Act.