Lobbying Tech Groups Seek Quick Action On Two Trade Pacts by Heather Greenfield      The U.S. High-Tech Trade Coalition is turning up the lobbying volume in its efforts to win passage of trade agreements in Panama and Peru after the August congressional recess. The group also wants agreements with Colombia and South Korea resolved over the next year.      The group of 15 tech trade associations will meet with the staff of about 50 Republican lawmakers and 60-70 Democratic House members Friday on Capitol Hill.      "Peru and Panama are good agreements, and we want to make sure they understand the other two behind them are of equal importance to us," said Ralph Hellman, a lobbyist for the Information Technology Industry Council. ITI helped organize the coalition, which includes other industry associations like AeA, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Semiconductor Industry Association and the Telecommunications Industry Association.      Earlier this month, the group also sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio; and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. The council said the trade agreements would help tech companies gain deeper access to international markets.      "Given the importance of global supply chains and the fact that overseas sales make up 60 percent of the high tech industry's total revenues, access to free and fair trade is imperative to the industry's total competitiveness," the letter said.      The agreements in Columbia, Panama and Peru would eliminate current tariffs of 6 percent to 8 percent on U.S. tech products. The IT market for the countries is worth $2 billion to U.S. companies, and the South Korean market for IT products is estimated at $150 billion.      "They are important markets for us and an important foothold in a region," said Brian Peters, who handles trade issues at ITI.      Peters said having more countries join existing IT agreements that 69 countries have signed is helpful, too. The agreement with Peru, for example, would give its legislature until Jan. 1, 2008, to approve a series of international treaties on patents, trademarks and copyright protections.      The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative had expressed hope that Congress would approve the Panama and Peru deals before the August recess next week. The optimism grew in May after the administration included stronger labor and environmental provisions Democrats wanted.      But this month, Democrats indicated they may delay approval until the legislatures in those nations actually pass the stronger labor provisions, saying they don't trust the White House to enforce them.      House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., will travel to Panama and Peru during August to meet with legislators. Rangel said in a statement from his committee staff that he is committed to passing the trade agreements in September and the trip should help.      The tech coalition is not alone in lobbying Congress for the pacts. Peruvian President Alan Garcia has sent a letter to Pelosi asking for a House vote before Rangel's trip.

Budget Senators Add Money For Border Technology To Bill by Chris Strohm      In a major turn of events, Senate Democrats and Republicans on Thursday agreed to add $3 billion in technology and resources to Homeland Security Department spending for border security and to curtail illegal immigration.      But the extra funding also is likely to complicate House and Senate talks for the department's fiscal 2008 bill and put Congress on a path toward a showdown with the White House. President Bush already had threatened to veto the legislation over its spending levels.    Other Budget Coverage Seeking More Border Security Aid Privacy Plan For E-Health Is Sought Dems Push More Security Funding REAL ID To Face Funding Scrutiny More stories ...      In approving the extra funding, Senate Democrats and Republicans declared that gaining control of the nation's borders and going after illegal aliens constitutes a national emergency. "If there was ever a legitimate emergency in this country, I think this would be one of those times because we've lost control of our border," said Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.      Senators attempted to reach agreement about the funding late Wednesday but could not agree on how to spend it. The debate became acrimonious at times, with Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., charging that John Cornyn, R-Texas, opposed a deal for political reasons. But in a late-night conversation after their floor exchange, Reid and Cornyn reached an accord.      "What a difference a night makes," Reid said. "Like a lot of things around here, if you don't get your way, you kind of throw a tantrum sometimes. ... I was wrong and Sen. Cornyn was right."      The extra $3 billion would fund the completion of 700 miles of border fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers. It also would pay for 105 ground-based radars and surveillance towers along the border and four unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border.      "The technology in this bill will be a force multiplier," Graham said.      Under the agreement reached with Cornyn, the funds could be used to detain and remove foreigners who have overstayed their visas, criminal aliens, and aliens who have illegally re-entered the United States after being deported. And State and local governments could be reimbursed for costs associated with border security.      Cornyn said 45 percent of illegal immigrants entered the country legally and stayed too long.      The amendment was approved 89-1, with only Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, dissenting. Voinovich called the amendment "absolutely fiscally irresponsible" and a "charade," saying that funds Congress already has appropriated for border security are "more than enough."      Senators acknowledged that the White House likely will oppose the additional spending. But Graham noted that Bush consistently has requested more money for the war in Iraq. "Now it's time to spend $3 billion, I think, to secure our own border here at home," he said.      Reid said he wants to finish work on the bill Thursday, but with 11 pending amendments, it was not clear if that would be possible. Reid threatened to file a motion to limit debate. If adopted, it would mean that a final vote on passage would not be held until Saturday.

Courts Judge Rebuffs Bid To See Surveillance Documents by Andrew Noyes      A federal judge on Thursday halted a California high-tech watchdog group's crusade to force the release of documents that supposedly authorized domestic electronic surveillance.      In a ruling from the bench, Chief Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the Justice Department, saying the government does not have to release materials that its lawyers claim are classified.      The Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the department in February, demanding the records after its Freedom of Information Act request was ignored. The complaint demanded orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and any guidelines that accompanied them.      The White House first acknowledged the spying program's existence in 2005 but claimed warrants were unneeded. In January of this year, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the program would operate with the secret surveillance court's oversight.      During the hour-long hearing, EFF attorney David Sobel explained why he thought an "in-camera" review of the documents is needed to gauge whether elements of the papers could be made public. Such a meeting is held in a judge's private chambers or in a closed courtroom.      Given the breadth of the material, "which is not voluminous," the possibility that sensitive portions could be redacted, and the "substantial public interest in this case," Sobel argued that his case must continue.      He noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee also is "struggling to obtain this material." The panel has subpoenaed the documents but is giving the Bush administration longer than last Tuesday's deadline to comply with its request.      Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and ranking Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania "seem to have reason to believe there is some legal analysis contained in this material," and it is not a matter of "wild speculation on my part," Sobel said.      But government lawyer Rupa Bhattacharyya insisted that "any information about the content of the orders" is top-secret. "In-camera review of documents themselves should be a last resort," she said, adding that in this case, there is "no reason to risk potential inadvertent disclosure" of sensitive national security information.      In an interview after the hearing, Sobel said he was disappointed with Hogan's decision because there is "no argument that this is a matter of substantial public interest." EFF has not yet decided whether it will appeal the ruling.      In the short term, "the fight will center on the Senate Judiciary Committee's subpoenas," he said. Sobel does not believe Hogan's ruling will have a negative impact on the committee's efforts.

Civil Liberties Lawmakers Seek Checks Against Secret Subpoenas by Andrew Noyes      A handful of House Judiciary Committee members on Thursday introduced legislation that would add what they believe are crucial checks against a secret subpoena power codified by the anti-terrorism law known as the USA PATRIOT Act.      The FBI's use of "national security letters," which let investigators obtain telephone, e-mail and financial records without prior judicial approval, has come under fire on Capitol Hill after a Justice Department report showed the agency widely misused the power.      New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee, was joined by Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.; William Delahunt, D-Mass.; and Texas Republican Ron Paul in sponsoring the bill. Paul is a presidential candidate.      Nadler held a press briefing to unveil the measure an hour before the full Judiciary Committee was to hear testimony from FBI Director Robert Mueller. The legislation "protects Americans against unnecessary intrusion into their private lives and, more importantly, prevents abuse of power by the government," he said in a statement.      The bill would address some of the problems disclosed by an FBI audit earlier this year, which found that agents possibly violated the law or internal rules more than 1,000 times while stretching the security letters' authority, Nadler said.      Among other things, the legislation would make clear that records sought must be related to a suspected terrorist or spy; give a recipient the right to challenge the letter and its nondisclosure requirement; and place a time limit on the statute's gag order.      The bill would be "a critical step toward re-establishing fundamental privacy protections that were lost in a rush to bolster national security in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks," said Gregory Nojeim of the Center for Democracy and Technology.      At the hearing, Mueller said his agency is working on the problem by streamlining the letters' approval process to include review by FBI attorneys, and the agency is training agents and supervisors how and when to use the power.      An investigation also is under way with respect to the FBI's use of specialized "exigent letters," which are for emergencies but were sent to telecommunications firms in non-emergencies, Mueller said.      But five months have passed since the agencies' mishaps surfaced, and committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said he has "yet to learn of a single FBI agent or employee being disciplined." Nor have there been any "concrete guarantees that this will not happen again," he said.      "The FBI has a lot of explaining to do," said Caroline Fredrickson, the American Civil Liberties Union's top lobbyist. "From the rampant abuse of [the letters] to the murky negotiations with the administration over domestic spying, there are far too many unanswered questions."

Television Sen. Inouye: 'We Will Do Something' About Digital TV by David Hatch      Senate lawmakers warned Thursday that the government is not devoting enough resources to educating citizens about the nation's transition to digital television because it is spending roughly two cents per person to send the message.      Noting that up to 21 million Americans rely on over-the-air signals, Hawaii Democrat Daniel Inouye, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said they "could see their televisions go dark ... unless they get a converter box and attach it to their television."      "I can assure you that Congress has heard your message and we will do something about it," he told witnesses at the conclusion of his panel's hearing on informing consumers about the switchover, which occurs Feb. 17, 2009.      At the center of the storm is a $1.5 billion coupon program administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. The effort is designed to ease the cost of purchasing converter boxes that analog-dependent viewers will need to receive digital signals. NTIA will spend $5 million on consumer education, an amount that critics consider insufficient.      Skeptical senators, along with witnesses representing the elderly and minorities, blasted the initiative, which has only modest commitments from retailers to sell the boxes. They also expressed concern that NTIA and the television industry don't have a firm date for commencing public-service messages.      "If you ask me, there's a high potential for a train wreck here," Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., demanded details from NTIA Chief John Kneuer about whether the devices have been field tested and how coupon fraud would be prevented. "I am really worried about this," she said. Kneuer assured her that the units would work and fraud would be mitigated.      "Imagine [the 2001 terrorist attacks] without TV coverage and you understand how important television is," said Nancy Zirkin, vice president and public policy director for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.      Alex Nogales, president and CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, complained that the United States will spend only two-and-a-half cents per American on consumer education about digital television, compared to Great Britain's expenditure of 33 cents per person for its transition.      Kneuer said domestic awareness would improve and added that Americans already are quite familiar with digital television. "But we certainly have more work to do," he conceded. Catherine Seidel, chief of the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, emphasized that the agency already is taking steps to ensure that viewers don't lose signals.      "It is in our interests and the interests of Congress to make sure that no American loses access to television signals for a lack of education," Dennis Wharton, spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, said in an interview.      Also Thursday, Alaskan Ted Stevens, Senate Commerce's ranking Republican, Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., and Kneuer warned that a plan by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to impose consumer-friendly restrictions on a major upcoming spectrum auction could reduce revenue for the U.S. treasury. They worry that the restrictions will devalue the spectrum.      The agency will adopt final auction rules Tuesday.

Taxes Exception To Internet Tax Ban Remains Sticking Point by Winter Casey      The exception that has been a sticking point in past debates about renewing a ban on taxing Internet access looks like it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. The debate surfaced again Thursday in a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing.      Four bills -- two each in the House and Senate -- call for extending the Internet tax ban that was first enacted in 1998. The moratorium will end Nov. 1 unless Congress renews it. One of the obstacles to congressional action is a disagreement over what to do about the grandfather clause that lets states that were taxing Internet access before 1998 keep doing so.      During the Thursday hearing at House Judiciary's Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, the authors of the House bills noted the differences in their measures on that issue. Both bills, H.R. 743 and H.R. 1077, would make permanent the ban on taxing Internet access or treating taxation of e-commerce differently.      But the former measure, authored by California Democrat Anna Eshoo, would keep the grandfather clause intact; the legislation introduced by California Republican John Campbell would end that exception to the tax moratorium.      Two witnesses disagreed about whether to extend the clause. Meredith Garwood, a tax specialist for Time Warner Cable, said "it is time to bring these limited and temporary exceptions to a close and to fulfill the original objective of a national policy against taxing Internet access."      But David Quam, the federal relations director at the National Governors Association, said the grandfather clause protects existing state and local tax revenue. Quam supports a temporary extension of the ban and wants the definition of Internet access to be clarified.      One Senate bill, S. 1453, would extend the tax ban for another four years. The other Senate measure, S. 156, calls for making the moratorium permanent.      Those in favor of extending the ban claim that it is needed to support innovation and high-speed Internet penetration, to help end the technology divide between low- and high-income households, and to prevent discriminatory taxes on e-commerce.      State officials tend to oppose the ban as it would interfere with a state's power to collect taxes. Some also argue that the Internet has grown tremendously since the ban first became law, so the ban is no longer justified.      Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., said at the hearing that Congress originally understood that the ban should "balance the interests of state and local governments to collect revenue while encouraging the development of the Internet and related industries. Congress also justified the moratorium as a temporary solution to provide time for administrative and definitional issues to be addressed regarding the fledgling industry."      Campbell said access to the Internet still should not be taxed, and whether online purchases should be taxed is a separate discussion.

Competitiveness U.S. Branch Campuses Abroad May Boost Innovation by Aliya Sternstein      American universities increasingly are opening campus branches outside the United States for foreign students to earn degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics in order to boost American competitiveness, experts in university globalization said Thursday. But the same experts admit that the implications for long-term competitiveness are not yet known.      At a House Science and Technology Committee hearing, Cornell University President David Skorton said: "We do need the best and the brightest from overseas. By the same token, these cliches about the world being flat are actually true. We accrue the main benefits in this country with international collaboration -- but we have to keep an eye on it."      The United States dominates the branch-campus phenomenon, operating about half of the 82 known campuses, according to witness Philip Altbach, director of Boston College's Center for International Higher Education. Cornell has opened a campus for its medical school in Doha, Qatar. Carnegie Mellon has an official presence in Athens, Greece; Australia; Kobe, Japan; and Qatar.      The Georgia Institute of Technology campus in Metz, France, which is focused on telecommunications, gives the school fast access to French research and technology that would otherwise be unavailable to Americans, Georgia Tech Provost Gary Schuster testified.      "We in our higher education industry are the gold standard today," Altbach noted.      Thursday's hearing on the globalization of American universities was held partly to assess whether the nation is exporting one of its principle sources of comparative advantage. The central question: Are we training American workers' competitors?      Oregon Democrat David Wu recounted a tale told to Chinese children about the days when the penalty for exporting silk technology from China was death. "I thought I'd share with you, as you consider exporting American know-how," that "there may be a grain of wisdom" in that story.      Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said the day's testimony had not changed his opinion that bringing U.S. science, technology, engineering and math education, or STEM, to other countries "is a symbol of failure, not something that we should be bragging about."      U.S. citizens pay for U.S. schools primarily, he said. "This is not a public service to foreigners." The witnesses are "glancing over the negative impact," Rohrabacher added. "Aren't many of these foreign students from China being trained to take research back ... and utilize that research, in some cases, in their military?"      Skorton, a national security higher education adviser to the FBI, disagreed. While there is no question that hostile relations are a potential concern, the board is monitoring the situation, he said, adding that as of now, the branch campuses are doing more good than harm.      "I believe that the American public is putting money into American universities for [U.S. students] -- and for research that leads to innovation," Skorton said.      Unfortunately, he said, the U.S. education system is not up to par in the STEM area. "Right now, I need the brightest individuals that can fill out our university."

Today's Feature: State Roundup A federal judge in California said this week that lawsuits filed by several states challenging the legality of an anti-terrorism surveillance program should be allowed to continue. Every Thursday, read the State Roundup by Michael Martinez.

E-briefs Television:   The FCC finds no compelling reason to revive the "fairness doctrine" that once required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves, AP reports. In a letter to Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said the commission has no intention of reinstating the doctrine. "With the continued proliferation of additional sources of information and programming, including satellite broadcasting and the Internet, the need for the fairness doctrine has lessened even further since 1987" when it was repealed, Martin wrote. Pence and other Republicans in the House and Senate introduced legislation to bar the FCC from reinstating the rule after Democratic lawmakers suggested that Congress re-examine it. The reaction came after controversy over attacks by conservative radio talk-show hosts against the Senate immigration bill, which subsequently was pulled from the floor. Pence welcomed Martin's position but said he still wants legislation to prevent administrative revival of the fairness doctrine. Intellectual Property:   The AFL-CIO, which is the country's largest federation of trade unions, voiced concerns Wednesday with a House bill to overhaul portions of the current patent system. The group's letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., cited worries about the measure, H.R. 1908, expressed by "a number of manufacturers," many of whom are AFL-CIO members. "We want to make sure that patent law reforms do not undermine our leadership in innovation, and that they help the American economy produce good new jobs and products at home," the AFL-CIO said. The process proposed to review patents after their issuance and apportionment of damages in patent disputes "may have a negative impact on innovation and research," the group said. While the Chinese government is "constantly being challenged to live up to its intellectual property obligations, we do not want to take actions that may weaken ours," the AFL-CIO added.

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