Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., introduced a kill-switch bill. S-2032 would “require mobile service providers and mobile device manufacturers to give consumers the ability to remotely delete data from mobile devices and render such devices inoperable,” according to a bill text the senator’s office shared with us. The legislation, to be known as the Smartphone Theft Prevention Action, is eight pages long and is not yet posted online. Klobuchar chairs the Senate Antitrust and Consumer Rights Subcommittee and told us last week that she plans a hearing on the issue before the end of the month. Late last year, she queried several carriers on behalf of her subcommittee about kill-switch technology, calling it a competition issue. Her office declined to provide additional details Thursday. The bill would waive the kill-switch requirement for low-cost, voice-only cellphones that only have limited data functions, such as for text messaging. Carriers would not be allowed to charge subscribers for the kill-switch feature. The bill’s requirements would apply to all cellphones made in or imported into the U.S. starting Jan. 1, 2015. It has three Democratic co-sponsors, Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and has been referred to the Commerce Committee. CTIA voiced concerns about the legislation, preferring the approach of Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “While Senator Klobuchar and CTIA are of like mind when it comes to wanting to prevent the theft of wireless devices, we clearly disagree on how to accomplish that goal,” CTIA Vice President-Government Affairs Jot Carpenter told us in a statement. “Rather than impose technology mandates, a better approach would be to enact Senator Schumer’s legislation to criminalize tampering with mobile device identifiers. This would build on the industry’s efforts to create the stolen device databases, give law enforcement another tool to combat criminal behavior, and leave carriers, manufacturers, and software developers free to create new, innovative loss and theft prevention tools for consumers who want them."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., signed onto the Open Internet Preservation Act as a co-sponsor, giving the legislation seven Senate backers. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced the bill earlier this month. It proposes to restore FCC net neutrality rules.

The House Homeland Security Committee delayed a hearing with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, previously scheduled for Wednesday. The hearing on “The Secretary’s Vision for the Future” is now scheduled for Feb. 26 at 10 a.m., the committee said in a news release Tuesday (http://1.usa.gov/NCYB0N).

Three members of the House Judiciary Committee asked Deputy Attorney General James Cole for clarification on his remarks before the committee at a hearing last week. “You indicated that the Administration would look only at call records from a Member of Congress if it had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the number was related to terrorism,” wrote Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., in a letter to Cole Wednesday (http://1.usa.gov/1fhi6lx). “That is not accurate. The NSA looks at individual numbers when it has low level, particularized suspicion, but it looks at millions more with no suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever, some of whom may well be Members of Congress.” The members said the government looks at a wide network based off of contacts of contacts and suggested a wide swath of records that could be collected. Such surveillance may raise separation-of-powers concerns, with the executive branch collecting information on the legislative, they said. Cole must clarify his testimony and “fully disclose all of the ways in which the government conducts or may possibly conduct surveillance on Members of Congress,” they said.

Ford Motor isn’t giving “clear consent” to consumers when collecting data, said Senate Privacy Subcommittee Chairman Al Franken, D-Minn., in a Wednesday statement. Franken had sent the automaker a letter asking for information on its data collection practices. Franken found Ford’s Feb. 3 response lacking (http://1.usa.gov/1j5Farb), he said Wednesday. “I wrote Ford to clarify some of their data collection practices, and I'm glad that they responded,” Franken said. “But consumers in Minnesota and across the country still deserve to get basic information about who’s collecting their location and when it’s being collected.” Ford was getting consent through the fine print of website and mobile app user agreements, said Franken. “This is sensitive information -- and notices to consumers about this sensitive data shouldn’t get lost in fine print.” Franken said he would be reintroducing a location privacy bill requiring consumers give “clear consent before their information is collected or shared.” Ford did not comment.

Senate Judiciary Committee lawmakers questioned the government’s phone surveillance program due to revelations in recent weeks about how few calls the program clocks. During a Wednesday hearing with the five members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said the idea that the government collects perhaps only 30 percent of all call metadata information “contradicts representations made to the court in justification of the program itself” and by President Barack Obama. Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., was not present but also expressed concern in a written opening statement. “The intelligence community has defended its unprecedented, massive, and indiscriminate bulk collection by arguing that it needs the entire ‘haystack’ in order for it to have an effective counterterrorism tool -- and yet the American public now hears that the intelligence really only has 20 to 30 percent of that haystack,” Leahy said (http://1.usa.gov/1j3NMi2). “That calls even further into question the effectiveness of this program.” Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., expressed disappointment that over half a year since surveillance revelations, it’s still unclear how much bulk collection is happening and pressed for more transparency and disclosure related to surveillance requests. A recent Justice Department announcement on a partnership with such companies “didn’t address the bulk collection question,” said PCLOB member Jim Dempsey, vice president-public policy at the Center for Democracy & Technology. Franken argued that companies want this surveillance request information to be more public, but Dempsey countered that it may depend. “Honestly I think there may be a split between what the telephone companies want to do and the Internet companies want to do,” Dempsey said. “I'm not sure about that."

Five House members signed on as co-sponsors to the Local Radio Freedom Act, which opposes new performance royalties, said an NAB news release Tuesday (http://bit.ly/1nscqts). Reps. Susan Brooks, R-Ind.; Andy Harris, R-Md.; Steven Horsford, D-Nev.; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; and Steve Scalise, R-La., are the most recent sponsors of the bill, which now claims 193 House and 12 Senate sponsors, it said.

Empowering tech firms requires “a fine balance of the government helping and the government staying out of the way,” BigBelly Solar Vice President-Engineering Michael Feldman told the House Small Business Committee Tuesday during questioning at a hearing. Network access is important, said Leo McCloskey, senior vice president-technical programs at the Intelligent Transportation Society of America. There has been little real work in how spectrum sharing would work in practice, McCloskey said, advising letting sharing services mature and advancing any sharing efforts slowly. There should be more “clarity” on data policies, he said. Darrell West, director of the Brookings Institution’s Center for Tech Innovation, stressed improving consumers’ access to the Internet. The wireless sphere is great at attracting unconventional firms, West said, identifying the importance of people from diverse backgrounds having access to capital.

The House Transportation Committee easily cleared by voice vote a bill that would ban in-flight cellphone conversation. Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., authored HR-3676 and introduced it Dec. 10 after the FCC said it would begin a proceeding to examine whether it was technically wise to allow cellphone voice use on planes aloft. The bill has 29 cosponsors, 18 Republicans and 11 Democrats. “It’s not the FCC’s place,” Shuster said during the Tuesday markup. “Tap, don’t talk.” Such in-flight conversation “would have a negative impact on social discourse,” Shuster said, though said his bill exempts the flight crew and law enforcement from the talking prohibition. Shuster said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler expressed a desire to avoid such calls and also cited polls showing popular concern with allowing them. Committee ranking member Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., backs the bill, he said, though he’s not listed as a cosponsor. Rahall said a “chill went through the flying public” when the prospect of in-flight cellphone conversation rose up last year.

House Republicans intend to move the FCC Process Reform Act for a full vote before the House “probably toward the end of the month,” Ray Baum, senior policy director to Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., told NARUC during a Tuesday panel. “We expect pretty bipartisan support, perhaps unanimous support, across the House,” Baum said, saying he hopes the Senate takes up the bill as well. The House Commerce Committee cleared the bill in December. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., introduced a version of the bill in the Senate this month. The FCC “needs a legislative backstop” despite FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s own move toward process reform, Baum said. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., prefers to wait for the FCC’s process reforms before legislative action, said committee Democratic Senior Counsel John Branscome during the NARUC panel. “It really becomes ‘what reforms will actually help the FCC actually protect consumers and competition?'” Branscome said. He commended the bipartisan nature of the House bill, which he said has “significant improvements” and positive aspects.