Television Agency Proposes More Coupons For Digital Transition by David Hatch      A federal coupon program that will help consumers buy equipment needed to keep television sets functioning after the nation shifts to digital signals will be broader than originally planned.      Under guidelines released Monday by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, consumers who subscribe to cable or satellite television can participate. Those households were originally excluded because they can receive digital broadcast signals via subscription services.      But Democratic lawmakers, broadcasters, equipment manufacturers and watchdog groups complained that many analog sets in such homes are not connected to pay television and would go dark when the switch-over occurs Feb. 17, 2009.      The new plan would let pay-TV customers apply for up to two $40 coupons per household to purchase converter boxes that allow over-the-air digital signals to be viewed on older analog sets. All households would be eligible for subsidies under the first phase, in which 22 million vouchers would be distributed.      NTIA can request funding for another 11 million coupons -- but the second wave would only go to homes that rely solely on over-the-air reception.      Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee, complained in a statement that the limits on the second phase are "likely to increase consumer confusion about who is eligible." He pledged to review the matter at upcoming hearings.      An estimated 73 million analog televisions are not hooked to cable or satellite, suggesting that some consumers might be left without assistance. But NTIA officials emphasized at a Monday briefing that many people will buy equipment that is ineligible for the coupons, such as digital televisions or high-end converter units.      The Association for Maximum Service Television, Consumer Electronics Association and the National Association of Broadcasters jointly applauded the guidelines, saying they provide "much-needed certainty" to the industry and retailers.      NTIA issued the regulations amidst mounting concern that the transition may not be on track. House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., recently suggested that the deadline for terminating analog signals may have to be delayed because the $1.5 billion that Congress reserved for the vouchers might be insufficient.      "Unfortunately, NTIA's decision to limit eligible households may impede a smooth transition, which could delay both getting spectrum to public safety users and the benefits of advanced wireless technologies to consumers," Dingell warned in a statement.      But NTIA Administrator John Kneuer countered that postponing the transition would adversely impact public-safety officials who plan to use some frequencies to be returned by analog broadcasters. "There are a huge, broad range of public policy benefits that flow from this transition," he said.      Only basic converter boxes would qualify for the subsidies -- recording or playback functions, for example, would be disqualifying features. To reduce fraud, the vouchers would be electronically traceable and only issued by retailers that have sold electronics for a year and registered with a database. The coupons would be available from Jan. 1, 2008, to March 31, 2009.      NTIA will hold a March 19 public forum on the new rules, and Kneuer is scheduled to testify March 22 at an NTIA oversight hearing before Markey's panel.

Competitiveness Senate Bills Take Different Tacks On Competition by Heather Greenfield      The desire to ensure that America can compete in the global economy has sparked a legislative competition of sorts in the Senate. Two competitiveness bills were introduced last week -- and both have "compete" as part of the title.      Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced the America Competes Act, S. 761, on Monday with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. They held a big news conference. The bill already has 40 co-sponsors, including key committee chairs and ranking members. It seeks to improve mathematics and science education, and to boost basic research at the Energy Department's science office and at the National Science Foundation.      Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman, meanwhile, quietly dropped the Compete Act, S. 833, on Friday. It would make the research and development tax credit permanent, give businesses a 50 percent tax break on employee technology training, and award $500,000 grants to the five primary and secondary schools that most improve their math and science test scores.      Grant Myeland, who lobbies on technology workforce issues for the Computing Technology Industry Association, described S. 761 as a version of a bill from last year and S. 833 as partnership programs with elementary and secondary schools to improve math and science scores.      He said an advisory board would help tailor and update the training tax breaks each year to reflect what the workforce actually needs so the nation is not training IT workers in an outdated computer language that would not help them get jobs.      Both bills have education components. The leadership bill is more comprehensive and adds basic research funding, whereas Coleman's focuses more on training and the R&D tax credit. Together, they give tech lobbyists three of the four elements they want in competitiveness legislation.      "We're supportive of both bills," said Kara Calvert, director of government relations for the Information Technology Industry Council. She added that neither bill addresses immigration for higher skilled workers.      But will the Compete Act and America Competes Act end up competing on Capitol Hill for attention and ultimately dollars?      "We should always be a little concerned about that," Myeland said, "but with such a large focus on competition, [the hope is that] different congressional leaders will get together and emerge with a strong bill."      A spokesman for Coleman said that is the plan. "Senator Coleman introduced his bill as a complement to the American Competes Act, and to further the competitiveness discussion," a spokesman said. "As we move forward, he looks to add some of his key provisions to the comprehensive competitiveness package."      But a couple tech lobbyists, who asked not to be identified, doubt such expensive, comprehensive legislation will make it out of the Senate this year. One called the Senate bills "feel good" measures. "They're there to make industry happy, and they're not going to move," one tech lobbyist said.      Another said that even if the Reid bill passes, the tech industry is frustrated because it sees little chance the bill can be matched with similar enough House legislation and be cleared by Congress.

Competitiveness Report Offers An Education In 'Digital Prosperity' by Heather Greenfield      An information technology think tank will release a report Tuesday that it hopes will change both what lawmakers understand about the IT engine driving the economy and what policy changes industry lobbyists request of lawmakers.      The right IT policies can make the difference between productivity growing 2 percent a year versus 1 percent, according to Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. He authored the report, "Digital Prosperity: Understanding the Economic Benefits of the Information Technology Revolution."      An advance copy obtained by Technology Daily says that 1 percent is the difference between incomes doubling in 36 years instead of 70 years. Atkinson said the rate grew about 1.4 percent a year from 1974 to 1995. Economic studies credit technology with about 80 percent of productivity gains since 1995, which have doubled to nearly 3 percent a year.      "The [gross domestic product] is $1.9 trillion bigger than it would be otherwise," said Atkinson, referring to the productivity boost since 1995. "That's the equivalent of 2-1/2 Indian economies."      Other statistics in the report argue that productivity helps solve issues that perplex Congress, like the deficit or raising taxes to pay for spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that an increase in productivity of just one-tenth of 1 percent adds $200 billion to GDP after 10 years. It also means $50 billion more for federal tax coffers.      The report says the government can boost this growth by viewing information technology as a centerpiece of economic policy rather than as another interest group.      Atkinson said digital transformation deserves monitoring by agencies along with fiscal policy, monetary policy and investment policy. He said policy debates should consider how the changes "would advance or retard digital transformation."      Atkinson said often no connection is made, for instance, between banning radio-frequency identification, which is a type of tracking technology, over-regulating Internet content, or taxing high-speed Internet service and the overall impact on the economy of such rules.      Other recommendations in the report include using the tax code to spur IT investment, encouraging digital literacy and technology adoption, and having the government lead by example in switching to more productive IT solutions and supporting research.      Atkinson said that after the technology bubble burst in 2000, people mistakenly thought IT was less of a driver because the IT companies were not growing astronomically and creating as many high-paying jobs. He said they did not gauge how many other industries were being transformed by the companies' products.      A goal of the report is to show that the driver of economic growth is the digital economy, elementary and secondary education, or tax rates. "I'm not going to say it [education] is not important. But the digital economy is going to be far more important," Atkinson said. "I don't think policymakers know that."      Atkinson plans to present the numbers to congressional staff. He would like to see both lawmakers and techies realize that tech-friendly policy is not just about tech jobs but also about an economic engine that helps everyone.

Budget Earmarks Data Now Set To Go Online In Phases by Aliya Sternstein      The White House Office of Management and Budget will publish some information on spending earmarks to the Internet late Monday -- a departure from the detailed disclosure that OMB outlined earlier this year.      In a Jan. 25 memorandum, OMB directed all federal agencies to submit earmark details from every appropriations bill so OMB could post the data points online by Monday. The order followed the president's call for Congress to cut the number and cost of earmarks by at least half.      The earmark data previously scheduled for release Monday had included recipients of the federal money, costs, project descriptions, whether the projects are first-time or continuing items, account names, whether the earmarks are funded through discretionary or mandatory funding, and other elements.      But OMB Press Secretary Sean Kevelighan said the information that will be posted on the Web later that day will be the first phase of the effort and will only include "aggregate data on the number and cost of earmarks down to the agency and account level."      "In the coming weeks," the Web site will display the rest of the data, Kevelighan said. "There's an incredibly large amount of information that we're talking about. For this reason, [the rollout] will be broken up into separate phases to make sure everything is accurate and certified."      The partial public showing, which happened to coincide with the start of the annual Sunshine Week campaign for greater government transparency, did not surprise many in the open-government community.      "They deserve a lot of credit for trying to do this. It is a tremendously ambitious project" said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation. But he added, "It would behoove them to address the question of whether there was something else that was slowing them down."      Allison wondered whether the White House might have been worried about passage of the president's fiscal 2008 budget request. "A question may be, did they sacrifice transparency to keep on the good side of congressional appropriators."      When asked if there was an additional reason why OMB chose to release data in aggregate, Kevelighan, replied, "Before we move forward in providing even greater detail, it is important everything possible is done to ensure the data is as complete and consistent as possible, and is presented in such a way that it cannot be misused or perceived incorrectly."      John Hart, a spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican and a vocal critic of pork-barrel spending, stated: "It's disappointing that the administration has fallen far short of its own standards of transparency. Taxpayers have a right to know not just how much of their money is spent but how it is spent."      Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy at OMB Watch, said that if the White House fears releasing earmark details might embarrass members of Congress, "this underscores the need for transparency in the first place."

Courts N.J. Court Upholds Right To Video Public Meetings by Michael Martinez      Open-government advocates are cheering a ruling by the highest court in New Jersey last week because it protects the right to videotape government proceedings in the state.      The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday in favor of Robert Tarus, a Pine Hill Borough resident who was arrested in 2000 after he tried to videotape council meetings. Tarus filed subsequent complaints at the federal and state levels, accusing the city and former Mayor Leslie Gallagher of arresting him without probable cause. He also alleged malicious prosecution and constitutional violations.      The ruling overturned a 2005 state appellate court decision that the restrictions placed on Tarus were reasonable. The state Supreme Court also found that while citizens have the right under the state's common law to videotape government proceedings, the right is not absolute.      Delivering the opinion for the court, Chief Justice James Zazzali said arbitrary rules that hinder the openness of public meetings are bad for democracy. He said the broad and pervasive use of cameras that can be attached to devices like cellular telephones is evidence of societal acceptance of their use in public spaces.      "The use of modern technology to record and review the activities of public bodies should marshal pride in our open system of government, not muster suspicion against citizens who conduct the recording," Zazzali wrote.      The New Jersey affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an amicus brief in support of Tarus, hailed the ruling. In that document, the ACLU argued that videotaping is subject only to "time, place and manner" restrictions, and the city's claims that the people in the council meeting did not want to be taped were not enough to deny Tarus his right to tape them.      ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas said in statement, "videotaping is an invaluable method of documenting government activities or misconduct."      "We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that American freedom and democracy depend on the people having a right to access government information," he said.      The court found that citizens should not be permitted to disrupt meetings, and reasonable guidelines should be allowed to ensure that recordings do not interfere with access of others to meetings. The court, however, added that Pine Hill had not established any guidelines that would have precluded Tarus from taping the meetings.      It also noted that the restrictions imposed on him were at least partly intended "to prevent a political opponent, whom they did not trust, from exercising his right to videotape."

E-Government C-SPAN Details Plans To Expand Public Video Access by Andrew Noyes      More details emerged Monday about a new plan by the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network, commonly known as C-SPAN, to greatly expand public access to its catalog of digital video of federal government activities.      The cable industry-financed nonprofit revised its copyright policy last week to allow "non-commercial" copying, sharing and posting of congressional hearings, agency briefings and White House events with attribution -- and more changes are on the way.      Confusion over the network's intellectual property provisions came to a crescendo recently when House Republicans questioned whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had illegally used C-SPAN clips on her Web site. A network spokeswoman insisted that the policy shift was "a year in the making" and was not in response to the flap.      In an interview with Technology Daily, C-SPAN President Rob Kennedy said liberalizing the policy was the first step in an ongoing process. In coming months, he said C-SPAN will "do some things on our site and on the Internet that make our video easier to find and use."      First, the network will open up its 20-year-old vault of digitized recordings so users can search for and stream hundreds of thousands of hours of footage. The streaming video will be technologically protected to prevent viewers from "ripping" directly from the site, Kennedy said.      But on April 1, C-SPAN will unveil new, lower prices for ordering digital videodiscs of the content. Currently, some videos cost more than $100, but prices could plummet to as low as $19.95 or $29.95, Kennedy said. The purchased DVDs will let users clip, manipulate and post content online in a noncommercial way with attribution, he said.      Kennedy said the "vast majority" of C-SPAN footage that Internet users want to post and share will be "programming from this point forward," rather than old events on DVD. Under the new rules, they are free to personally record and post those new clips online, he said.      "Non-commercial" users include people who write Web logs and other "citizen journalists" whose sites accept advertising and other forms of revenue, Kennedy said. "'Commercial' means a direct connection between revenue that's produced and our video," he said. Subscription or pay-per-view sites, for example, still could not use C-SPAN video.      Down the road, C-SPAN wants to make direct video downloads easier for users. The question is whether to partner with YouTube, the Web's most popular video-sharing site, or a similar site, or for the network to offer downloads itself, a spokeswoman said.      C-SPAN has had preliminary discussions with several major players in the online video market, Kennedy said. He would not reveal whether YouTube is a contender.      The network's new policy borrows from an approach popularized by the San Francisco-based Creative Commons. Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford University law professor and CEO of the commons, called C-SPAN's change of heart "critically important" to "support the spread of political commentary and speech."      The commons hopes it can work with C-SPAN "to assure interoperability of this important content with other valuable free content," he said.

Courts SEC Accuses Former Nortel Executives Of Fraud by Winter Casey      The Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday filed civil fraud charges against four former senior executives of Nortel Networks for allegedly engaging in accounting fraud.      The complaint holds that the executives -- Douglas Beatty, Frank Dunn, Michael Gollogly and MaryAnne Pahapill -- attempted to falsely paint a brighter picture of Nortel's true performance, its internal targets and Wall Street expectations between September 2000 and January 2004.      The decision to file the charges against Nortel, a Canadian manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, "sends a strong message that officers of U.S.-filing foreign corporations will be held to the same standards of accountability that are required of all participants in the U.S. financial markets," Linda Thomsen, director of the commission's enforcement division, said in a statement.      "The fraudulent conduct at issue here was egregious and long-running," Thomsen added. "Each of the defendants betrayed Nortel's investors, and their misconduct gave rise to billions of dollars in shareholder losses."      The commission said actions by Beatty, Dunn and Pahapill improperly inflated Nortel's fourth quarter and fiscal 2000 revenue by more than $1 billion.      Christopher Conte, an associate director at the SEC, noted that the "defendants all received significant compensation, in some cases in the millions of dollars, while they were manipulating Nortel's financial results. In some cases, these individuals received such compensation only because they manipulated Nortel's financial results."      The SEC accused Beatty, Dunn and Pahapill of altering Nortel's policies to accelerate revenue in order to meet forecasts between late 2000 through January 2001. It also said Beatty, Dunn and Gollogly wrongly established, maintained and released reserves to meet earnings targets, fabricate profits and pay performance-related bonuses from at least July 2002 through June 2003.      The commission said the Ontario Securities Commission, which also is investigating, offered assistance in the case. Dean Mundy, a spokesman for Nortel, said the company "is not commenting on the proceedings" but is cooperating with the Ontario Securities Commission.      The Wall Street Journal reported in February 2006 that Nortel agreed to pay about $2.4 billion in cash and shares to settle two U.S. class-action lawsuits that stemmed from the company's accounting scandal. Nortel said an independent investigation had concluded that top officials manipulated the company's earnings results.      Also on Monday, the SEC said it was filing civil charges against three individuals in India for involvement in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the prices of at least 14 securities through the unauthorized use of other people's online brokerage accounts.      It is the first account-intrusion case the commission has filed that involved the stock of well-known, large-capitalization stocks such as Google and Sun Microsystems. The SEC said it also is the first case involving criminal indictments and actual arrests in a foreign jurisdiction.

Civil Liberties Wiretaps Hurt U.S. Standing, Middle East Expert Says by Andrew Noyes      An Arab-American leader on Friday told the U.S. government's commission on race that the Bush administration's domestic anti-terrorism wiretapping "killed any chances of success" for the federal campaign to win "the hearts and minds" of people in the Middle East.      News of the electronic eavesdropping spooked Arab Americans and others in the Muslim and South Asian communities, Kareem Shora, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's director, told the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. People are afraid of calling family overseas for fear that their conversations will be misunderstood or mistranslated, he said.      The National Security Agency wiretapping initiative in question previously operated without oversight from the secret court created by a 1978 intelligence law. After a year of pressure from lawmakers and activists, the Justice Department changed the practice to operate under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court review.      The secret nature of the NSA effort prevented Shora from providing specific examples that demonstrate the negative impact it has had on the communities he represents. But he said anecdotal evidence shows that people of Middle Eastern descent have been targeted.      Jennifer Braceras, a Republican appointee on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, said "law enforcement has to go where the evidence points." "There will always be investigations on the facts that are reported, [and those] may or may not include a racial component," she said.      Certain populations may receive more scrutiny because suspected terrorists typically do not communicate in Polish; they speak Arabic, Braceras said. "That doesn't mean there's been discrimination or that someone has been erroneously singled out," she added.      Gregory Nojeim, chief legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office, also testified. He commended the commission for holding the hearing and said he regarded it as "an important first step."      He urged commissioners to conduct an official inquiry into the wiretapping, which he called a "gross violation" of the law and of civil rights. "Americans deserve to know what has been done with the information about them that was collected illegally," Nojeim said.      John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University, said he believes that a resolution adopted by Congress after the terrorist attacks authorized both the use of military force in the war on terror and the NSA's spying program.      The panel's staff director, Kenneth Marcus, said he asked representatives from the office of the national intelligence director and Justice Department to attend, but neither agency believed it could contribute due to the "highly classified" nature of the NSA program.

On The Download The Best And Worst Presidential Sites Of Campaign 2008 by Shira Toeplitz, The Hotline      Every week, National Journal magazine asks select "insiders" for their views about the hottest policy and political issues. This week, "On The Download" borrowed that concept and asked 24 of the best Republican Internet strategists what they think of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates' Web sites.      Though the survey never esteems to be scientific, here is a quick note on methodology: Of the 24 strategists polled, 15 are unaffiliated and nine work for a 2008 presidential campaign in some capacity. Therefore, all 24 responses were used for the first question on Democratic Web sites, while only the unaffiliated strategists' answers were used for the question about GOP sites.      A full list of the participants is available at Hotline On Call. Here are the questions, sample answers and vote tallies: Question 1: Which Democratic candidate has the most effective Web site? Sen. Barack Obama -- 10 votes -- "Obama has the best offline story to tell right now, and it is translating effortlesssly to his online efforts." -- "The emphasis on social networking is the perfect fit for Obama, who has already shown himself to be the most popular candidate on social-networking sites like Facebook." -- "Very rewarding site, visually, a lot of rich content, very modern and sophisticated, and a great logo." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- 7 votes -- "Her site is slightly more attractive than (Obama's), and I appreciate the lack of a landing page." -- "The video component on Hilary's site is very good for her because she comes across as accessible when normally she does not." John Edwards -- 5 votes -- "Edwards' emphasis on social networking is exactly what he needs -- supporters generating some buzz in states like Iowa and New Hampshire. He's harnessing all the Web 2.0 tools to do it." -- "John Edwards is trying way too hard and making a lot of mistakes in the process." -- "Say what you will about the rest of his campaign, Edwards understands how to effectively use the Internet." Sens. Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd, Mike Gravel, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson garnered two votes or fewer. "Oddly Joe Biden has the best site," one of the insiders said. "Poor use of real estate on the upper left, but the home page is simple ... and the video is smartly displayed." Question 2: Which Republican candidate has the most effective Web site? Sen. John McCain -- 8 votes -- "His site is best because it is, by far, the best looking -- and easiest to navigate. I also give him lots of credit for the use of video." -- "Brilliant use of design and iconography. Good to see that the campaign had the courage to throw out the tired and boring 'red, white and blue' color scheme." -- "The fact that McCain wins with that awful black-and-white design and phony social network is a real indictment of the effort of the Republicans so far." Mitt Romney -- 3 votes -- "While Romney's site is not as pleasing to the eye as McCain's, it gets the job done in other places. 'MittTV' is innovated and functional and the site integrates new technologies like YouTube and Facebook." -- "Romney seems to think people love to scroll and scroll and scroll." -- "Not as tight as it should be, but good, and the feed from conservative blogs is a nice touch." Rep. Duncan Hunter -- 2 votes fewer -- "If I had to pick one, I'd settle with Duncan Hunter because at least he is trying. The others should, or at least act, like they know better." Sen. Sam Brownback, James Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Reps. Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson received one vote or none. "It doesn't appear that any of the Republicans learned much from 2004," one expert said. "Their sites have actually moved backward in time and are less functional than the previous generation." Editor's Note: "On The Download" is Hotline's weekly dispatch on politics, multimedia and the Internet.

Today's Feature: Issue Of The Week In telecommunications circles, the federal universal service fund is the proverbial elephant in the room. Every Monday, read the Issue Of The Week by Technology Daily staff.

E-briefs Civil Liberties:   A Pennsylvania court ruled last week that a man left legally blind by Lasik laser eye surgery can maintain a Web site documenting the risks of the procedure. The Pennsylvania Superior Court on Friday overturned an injunction blocking Dominic Morgan from criticizing online the doctors who performed the operation on him. A pair of doctors sued Morgan in 2002 after he launched the site lasicksucks4u.com and posted criticism of them. The advocacy group Public Citizen helped Morgan with his case. "This is another victory for consumers who use the Internet to criticize companies," Public Citizen attorney Paul Levy said. "Free speech and consumer rights would be seriously endangered if the temporary removal of criticisms from a Web site could be construed as an 'agreement' not to say anything about the company in the future." Budget:   From fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2007, the number of earmarks that went toward the Defense Department decreased by 7 percent, while the total cost declined 28 percent, according to the 2007 Congressional Pig Book published by Citizens Against Government Waste and released last week. The organization said in a summary for the annual report on so-called pork-barrel spending that $18.3 million in Defense was added in the Senate for defense programs that went toward technology education. The figure includes $2 million that funded "mathematics and technology teachers' development" and "cyber curriculum for the education of children in the military." CAGW said this year's Pig Book was the smallest it has been since 1999 but not inconsequential. The report also included data on only two of the annual spending bills because the others weren't completed when the report was compiled. For more on the Pig Book, visit Technology Daily's blog, Tech Daily Dose.

President -- John Fox Sullivan, 202-739-8468 Editor in Chief -- Louis Peck, 202-739-8481 Editor -- K. Daniel Glover (bio) Assistant Editor -- Theresa Poulson Senior Writers -- David Hatch (bio), Heather Greenfield (bio), Andrew Noyes (bio) and Aliya Sternstein (bio) Special Correspondent -- Chris Strohm (bio) Staff Writer -- Michael Martinez Senior Business Affairs Manager -- Chris Hamby Business Affairs Associate -- Anne TeBeest Advertising Sales -- Alex Treadway National Journal's Technology Daily is published every weekday, except holidays, by National Journal Group Inc., 600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20037.   ©2006 by National Journal Group Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction or transmission in any form of this product by any means—from a retrieval service or any other electronic form or from a photocopy—in whole or part without permission is strictly prohibited. National Journal Group makes no representations or warranties with respect to and is not responsible for the content of World Wide Web sites linked to by this publication but not controlled by National Journal Group. Please read the details of our Privacy Policy. Editorial: 202-266-7197 Fax: 202-266-7094 Subscription Inquiries: 202-266-7264 Customer Service: 202-266-7230 or 1-800-207-8001