The Senate Judiciary Committee is “close to an agreement” on a compromise version of the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act (S-1720) “and I expect to begin discussion on this at the mark up on Thursday,” Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in a statement Tuesday. The committee is supposed to examine S-1720 as part of its executive business meeting Thursday. Leahy’s statement followed an Internet Association webcast Tuesday in which Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he’s “hopeful” the committee might mark up S-1720 as early as next week. The committee appears to be “really, really close to a bipartisan agreement that could pass the Senate,” Schumer said. The committee first discussed ongoing negotiations on the bill last week (CD March 28 p12). Schumer has been a proponent of including an expansion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s covered business method patent review program, but said Tuesday his main goal “is to get a good bill done. I'm not wedded to any one way to do it.” Leahy cautioned that he’s hopeful the committee can mark up S-1720 Thursday, but the compromise that will take the form of a manager’s amendment “will be significant so we may need additional time for drafting and for members to review it. If we cannot report the bill this Thursday, we will reconvene the mark up on Tuesday morning.” Earlier Tuesday, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said he was concerned Congress would “do more harm than good” to the U.S. patent system by rushing to pass legislation aimed at curbing abusive patent litigation. Massie was one of 91 House members who voted against the House-passed Innovation Act (HR-3309) back in December. That bill was “rushed through,” with House leaders only allowing four hours to file amendments to the bill before the vote, he said.

Top House Republicans want stakeholders’ thoughts on spectrum policy as part of a proposed Communications Act overhaul. Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., released on Tuesday the second in what they say will be a series of white papers addressing a possible update to the Communications Act (http://1.usa.gov/1iW0LTX). The five-page document offered a history of U.S. spectrum policy and posed several questions. “What structural changes, if any, should be made to the FCC to promote efficiency and predictability in spectrum licensing?” a question asked. Another asked about the role of unlicensed spectrum and another about spectrum efficiency. One questioned a purported spectrum shortage and wondered how to expand the amount of commercially available spectrum. “What principles should Congress and the FCC consider when addressing spectrum aggregation limits?” the lawmakers asked. “How has the converging marketplace and growing demand for services changed the discussion of spectrum aggregation?” Responses are due April 15. Future white papers “will each focus on a specific issue related to our effort to ensure our laws correspond with the innovation era,” Upton and Walden said in a joint statement.

The spectrum legislation that Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., reintroduced would create a Federal Spectrum Reallocation Commission composed of nine members, appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. The membership would include not more than one Commerce Department employee, not more than one Defense Department employee, not fewer than one carrier representative and not fewer than one representative of a standard-setting body. The bill text of the Maximizing Spectrum Efficiency and Value Act of 2014 runs 50 pages (http://1.usa.gov/1ghddcz). S-2155 was reintroduced last week. The full text was not then available at that time. The commission would be charged with making recommendations on reallocating spectrum. This proposal mirrors past legislative efforts, specifically that of HR-4044, introduced by Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., which failed in 2012. Kirk had joined him in introducing a Senate companion then. The new legislation has no co-sponsors and was referred to the Commerce Committee, where Kirk is not a member.

NARUC backs a push from Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Tom Udall, D-N.M., to make the FCC create an easily accessible online database of consumer complaints, it said in a news release Friday (http://bit.ly/1hiXluu). Nelson and Udall had sent FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler a letter last week pressing the issue. Wheeler, in a budget subcommittee hearing before Udall Thursday (CD March 28 p2), agreed it’s a great idea but lamented the terrible IT state of the agency, asking for more money.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is to again consider the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act (S-1720) at an executive business meeting Thursday. The committee delayed consideration of the bill at its meeting last week because negotiations had not yet resulted in a deal on a manager’s amendment that would serve as a compromise version of the bill (CD March 28 p12). The meeting is to begin at 10 a.m. in 226 Dirksen.

Comcast Senior Vice President David Cohen will testify at the April 9 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the proposed Comcast acquisition of Time Warner Cable, he said. “I will be the Comcast witness at that hearing,” Cohen said during an episode of C-SPAN’s The Communicators, which was to be telecast Saturday. “We've been to this rodeo a few times before. We thoroughly respect the role that Congress has and its oversight role of the Justice Department and the FCC.” Comcast sees it as an opportunity “to make our case” for why the deal should be approved, Cohen added. The hearing will be at 10 a.m. in 226 Dirksen, and witnesses haven’t been announced by the committee.

A Congressional Research Service report dug into the constitutional questions and other issues raised by the possible creation of what it calls a “public advocate” for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees government phone surveillance. Lawmakers and President Barack Obama have suggested variations on such an advocate position for several months now. “First and foremost is the question of what is the legal nature of the office of a public advocate,” CRS said in the 55-page report, dated March 21. “Some may argue that the advocate is functioning as a non-governmental entity, much like a public defender in an ordinary criminal prosecution, in serving as an adversary to the government’s position. On the other hand, a public advocate, unlike a public defender, would not be representing the views of any particular individual, but rather the general interests of society in ensuring that the government’s foreign surveillance efforts adequately protect the public’s privacy rights.” One big question is whether certain clauses of the Constitution on executive hires would apply to any advocate, it said. Several of its questions concern where such an advocate would be housed, such as whether it would constitutionally possible to keep it within the judiciary branch. “While there are no clear answers that exist to the novel questions raised by the establishment of an office for a FISA public advocate, generally the more modest and confined the role of the advocate in a given proposal is, the more likely that proposal, if made into law, would raise fewer constitutional issues,” CRS said.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said Friday he won’t seek re-election to Congress. Rogers is chairman of the Intelligence Committee and a member of the Communications Subcommittee. “The genius of our institutions is they are not dependent on the individual temporary occupants privileged to serve,” he said in a statement, citing his long intentions for a career after politics. Rogers is excited to stay a voice for “American exceptionalism and support a strong national security policy agenda,” he said. He introduced legislation last week with Intelligence ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., that would nix the government’s role in bulk collection of phone metadata for surveillance. He has strongly defended government surveillance over the last several months of controversy and debate. Rogers’ next move will be into talk radio with Cumulus Media.

A bipartisan group of leaders from the House Judiciary Committee said President Barack Obama’s “many good ideas” on surveillance revamp “need to be implemented through legislation that protects our privacy.” Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., Crime Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and subcommittee ranking member Bobby Scott, D-Va., issued a joint statement Friday responding to the White House’s Thursday proposal, which would involve phone companies holding onto metadata rather than the government (CD March 28 p10). Judiciary members will “strengthen” Obama’s ideas, they said, emphasizing that Judiciary has primary jurisdiction over these issues. “It’s imperative that we reform our nation’s intelligence-gathering programs so that we better protect our civil liberties and regain the trust of the American people.”

NAB CEO Gordon Smith and NCTA CEO Michael Powell will both testify on the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act reauthorization Tuesday. They are witnesses at a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee, starting at 2:30 p.m. in 253 Russell. Also testifying are Bill Lake, chief of the FCC Media Bureau, DirecTV Executive Vice President Michael Palkovic, TiVo CEO Tom Rogers and Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood.