Privacy advocates had mixed reactions to the House Judiciary Committee taking up the USA Freedom Act (HR-3361) for markup Wednesday at 1 p.m. as well as the substitute language key committee lawmakers plan to offer, as the committee announced earlier this week. “The mere fact that the Judiciary Committee is taking up this bill now is positive and encouraging,” the ACLU said (http://bit.ly/1kTXXHN). “The details still need to be hammered out, but the bill is certainly better than the one that the House Intelligence Committee will be considering this week, which is a non-starter.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation called the substitute a “potentially powerful approach to stopping the mass collection of phone records under the Patriot Act,” but said: “Nonetheless, we are deeply concerned about the number of ‘hops’ that the bill would permit, as well as the undefined phrase ’selection term,’ which may leave the door open to government attempts to take a nonintuitive interpretation of the language” (http://bit.ly/1if9Fg0). “We are also concerned that this bill [substitute language] omits important transparency provisions found in the USA FREEDOM Act, which are necessary to shed light on surveillance abuses.” The New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute also said it was pleased the bill is being taken up but said it’s “dismayed to see that the strong transparency provisions in the original USA FREEDOM Act, which would have allowed Internet companies to engage in more reporting about the number and kind of government demands for information they receive and which were broadly supported by both industry and privacy advocates, have been removed” (http://bit.ly/1iZZFD7).

Two key House committees on Monday announced markups of surveillance bills. The House Judiciary Committee plans to mark up the USA Freedom Act (HR-3361), which would strongly curb U.S. phone surveillance, introduced last fall. Judiciary lawmakers plan to introduce an amendment in the nature of a substitute (http://1.usa.gov/1okqc3e) Wednesday at the 1 p.m. session, the committee said in a news release. The substitute “prohibits bulk collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act (Section 501 of FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]), prohibits bulk collection under the FISA Pen Register/Trap and Trace statute (Section 402 of FISA) and National Security Letter statutes, authorizes the government to acquire telephone records stored by telephone providers but only with prior approval from the FISA Court on a case-by-case basis, increases privacy protections at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and clarifies privacy protections for Americans under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act,” the news release said (http://1.usa.gov/1iVA3av). Six Judiciary members -- Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich.; Crime Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the original bill author; subcommittee ranking member Bobby Scott, D-Va.; and Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Randy Forbes, R-Va. -- issued a joint statement calling the substitute “a bipartisan solution” that’s the product of months of cooperation. Also Monday, House Intelligence Committee leaders announced plans to mark up the FISA Transparency and Modernization Act of 2014 (HR-4291) Thursday morning in a closed session in HVC-304. The committees have sharply disagreed throughout the past half-year over which has jurisdiction over FISA matters.

Two House Homeland Security Committee subcommittees plan a joint hearing Thursday to “examine the persistent threat, assess intentions and capabilities of these bad actors, and review U.S. coordination and response efforts,” said Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., in a statement. National Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center Director Larry Zelvin is among the witnesses to testify during the hearing, which the Cybersecurity and Intelligence subcommittees are co-hosting. FBI Assistant Director-Cyber Division Joseph Demarest and Glenn Lemons, DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis senior intelligence officer-Cyber Intelligence Analysis Division, are also to testify. The hearing is to begin at 10 a.m. in 311 Cannon (http://1.usa.gov/1nZJopy).

The Senate Appropriations Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Subcommittee plans a hearing Wednesday on investment in cybersecurity. Phyllis Schneck, DHS deputy undersecretary-cybersecurity, is among the DHS officials to testify. Others include Peter Edge, executive associate director-homeland security investigations, and William Noonan, U.S. Secret Service deputy special agent in charge-Criminal Investigative Division Cyber Operations. Representatives from CenturyLink, Entergy, Indiana Statewide Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives and the University of Maryland are also to testify. The hearing is to begin at 2 p.m. in 192 Dirksen (http://1.usa.gov/Su3Tyc).

House Communications Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., will address net neutrality issues Wednesday, she said in a news release. She plans a Google Hangout discussion on the FCC’s proposed new net neutrality rules at 6:30 p.m. The panel will include Republican former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, content delivery network CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince and Stanford Law School professor Barbara van Schewick. Eshoo had issued a statement last month stating her fear that new FCC rules would “not do enough” to protect net neutrality. Several people have already posed questions on the Google Hangout page (http://bit.ly/RlMKFK): “What is holding up the FCC classifying internet providers as common carriers and access as a Title II telecommunications service??” one person asked.

The House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee plans to do “a detailed examination of the proposed merger between the nation’s two largest cable companies,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., committee ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., and subcommittee ranking member Hank Johnson, D-Ga., in a joint statement Monday. “We look forward to an even-handed and robust discussion on the proposed Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger from our distinguished witnesses on Thursday. The hearing will provide an opportunity for Members to ask questions about the proposed merger and a public forum to explore effects on competition in the video and broadband markets that may impact consumers.” The oversight hearing of Comcast’s buy of Time Warner Cable is at 9:30 a.m. Thursday in 2141 Rayburn.

Top officials from the American Cable Association and Cogent Communications are slated to weigh in before Congress on Comcast’s proposed purchase of Time Warner Cable. The House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee is holding an oversight hearing on the deal Thursday at 9:30 a.m. in 2141 Rayburn. Witnesses include Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen and Time Warner Cable CEO Robert Marcus, defenders of the deal, which requires FCC and Justice Department approval. Also testifying are ACA President Matthew Polka and Cogent CEO David Schaeffer as well as Patrick Gottsch, chairman of the Rural Media Group; Allen Grunes, an antitrust attorney at GeyerGorey who worked at the Justice Department Antitrust Division for upwards of a decade; C. Scott Hemphill, a Columbia Law School professor and former New York attorney general’s office antitrust bureau chief who has studied how antitrust law influences the competition and innovation balance; and Craig Labovitz, CEO of DeepField Networks.

Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology Executive Director Fred Campbell attacked multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) attempts to turn the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act reauthorization process into a vehicle for a video market overhaul. He released a white paper on the issue Thursday (http://bit.ly/1i2tym9). It posited that the “ultimate goal of retransmission consent ‘reform’ is to kill free over-the-air television so that MVPDs can appropriate TV station advertising revenue for themselves.” Such overhaul should be debated as part of the Communications Act overhaul process, not “rushed” through the STELA process, he said. STELA expires at the end of the year unless Congress reauthorizes it. Campbell’s paper attacked several proposed pay-industry tweaks that have been brought up during the STELA debates. The “must carry” provisions don’t impact retrans negotiations, nor do TV stations have unfair bargaining power, Campbell contended. Retrans consent prices are not excessive, he said.

One Senate Democrat flagged the importance of rural high-speed broadband. Agriculture Subcommittee on Jobs, Rural Economic Growth and Energy Chairwoman Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., wants regional strategies in rural economic development to address the provision of high-speed Internet, she said in an opening statement (http://1.usa.gov/1o6Ea8O) at a hearing Thursday. “'Regional strategies’ may sound vague, but the main point is that they target resources to where they will have the most impact locally,” Heitkamp said. “It could mean working with multiple counties and state officials to install high-speed Internet services in homes in those areas to support a regional plan to attract food processing businesses to locate closer to the farm.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee delayed its markup of the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act (S-1720) again Thursday, as industry stakeholders expected (CD May 1 p13). The committee had hoped to have a compromise manager’s amendment ready for markup earlier this week, but negotiations continued Thursday. Still, Senate Judiciary has “settled the vast majority of the issues in there, and I think by next week we can actually start marking up” the manager’s amendment, said committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., during a committee executive session. Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he too believed they were continuing to make progress in negotiations and that he hoped they would be “bringing a bill to fruition shortly.” Industry stakeholders are continuing to push Senate Judiciary to mark up S-1720. More than 400 companies and groups, including many major communications and technology players signed a joint letter to Leahy and Grassley Wednesday urging their continued support for patent revamp legislation (http://bit.ly/1fC9HQ9).