110th Congress High Tech Scorecard First Session

Dear Friends,

For the better part of the last four decades the Computer & Communications Industry Association has worked with our members to further our common goals and meet the policy needs of our increasingly important industry. In order for our concerns to be understood, and to see how they are received in the national arena, we again publish our High Tech Scorecard. It is impor-tant to have both a well-informed Congress and electorate in order for our democracy to function properly.

Innovation has always been our central tenet. We work diligently to promote competition, openness and a favorable climate for innovation that allows our economy to thrive. As we again focus on our economy it becomes increas-ingly important that we, as a nation, keep an eye on the job growth potential that can come from our tech economy. This dynamic sector holds a key to our future prosperity as a nation and has the power to make our world a bet-ter place.

Aside from our traditional core issues, the first session of the 110th Congress saw CCIA take a leadership role in making sure the power of the Internet is not misused by government authorities. In order for the networks that em-power the Information Age to be fully utilized, clear legal guidelines that pro-tect the privacy of law-abiding end users must be established and followed. Out of neccessity, the debate and votes over surveillance, its limits, authori-ties, and appropriate accountability for misuse, occupies a significant role in this year’s ratings.

As always any scorecard is imperfect. It can only measure members by re-corded votes that made it to the floors of the respective chambers. The House, as usual, had more floor votes overall, thus we had more on which to evaluate them. In fact several important bills, such as patent reform, made it through the House but have yet to receive a Senate floor vote. CCIA encourages both the House and Senate to pursue an active tech agenda in the second session of the 110th Congress and continue to update our nation’s legal framework to comport with the realities of the digital age in which we now live.

Sincerely,

Ed Black President & CEO

Contents

1. IntroduCtIon

i. President’s Letter

ii. Overview

ii. High/Low Scores

2. senate sCoreCard

i. Vote Descriptions

ii. Senate Votes

3. House sCoreCard

i. Vote Descriptions

ii. House Votes

4. Index

i. CCIA Info

* Scorecard Compiled and Edited by Dan O’Connor, Deputy Director of Government Affairs

When it comes to technology policy, the first session of the 110th Congress was an improvement over the second of the 109th Congress which, distracted by a heated midterm election, did little legislatively to address the needs of the high tech industries. Nevertheless, the actual conclusive accomplishments of this session of Congress were modest. There is some reason for the tech community to be cautiously optimistic going into the second session of the 110th Congress if initiatives begun in the first session are concluded successfully in the second session.

H.R. 1908 (The Patent Reform Act) is one of the most important pieces of tech legislation in a long time. In curbing some of the most blatant abuses of our patent system, the bill creates a better cli-mate for innovation. The bill has yet to be taken up on the Senate floor, but we hope Congress will vote on the bill early in the 2008 legislative cycle.

At the start of the session, the shift to Democrat-ic control brought with it high hopes that the cri-sis in H-1B visas for skilled workers would finally be addressed within the framework of compre-hensive immigration reform. While the Senate did take up reform, the collapse of the bill due to disagreement on illegal immigration issues was a great disappointment.

Progress on free trade agreements was extremely difficult due to increased skepticism toward (and in some cases outright opposition to) free trade among many members. The approval of the Peru FTA indicated that bipartisan support for free trade could still be achieved, but other pending FTAs still face uphill struggles in the second ses-sion. Even though the first session of the 110th brought with it mixed results, serious tech issues are get-ting more attention and making their way into the discourse of leadership on both sides of the aisle. With the 2008 election fast approaching, all major candidates have expressed a commitment to tech policy—although to varying degrees. Go-ing forward, we are encouraged by the prospects for tech policy advancement.

overvIew

With the new Congress came new Democratic leadership and with it came a well intentioned “Innovation Agenda” that promised the promo-tion of science and math education, increased emphasis on research and development, increased broadband deployment and affordability, federal support for green technologies, and a renewed commitment to small business. With the Amer-ica COMPETES Act, it looked as if Congress had fulfilled at least part of its pledge in regard to R&D funding and science and math education. The bill promised funding for several key initiatives. However, at the end of the day various pressures resulted in a budget in which these programs failed to be funded.

Also on a disappointing note, Congress passed legislation that green-lighted the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, although only for a six-month time frame. However, when it came time to approve a more permanent exten-sion of the program, Congress resisted the Ad-ministrations’ extreme demands, at least for the first session. The Democratic caucus with the backing of a few key Republicans (such as Sena-tor Specter) were able to push back against some of the more egregious administration proposals including retroactive immunity for a few favored telecommunications companies who may have broken the law. This matter is being hotly debated in the beginning of the second session.

The first session of Congress also saw the House of Representatives pass much needed legislation to reform the U.S. patent system.

Cantwell 100% Washington

Schumer 100% New York

Wyden 100% Oregon

Baucus 86% Montana

Cardin 86% Maryland

Durbin 86% Illinois

Kennedy 86% Massachusetts

Kohl 86% Wisconsin

Lautenberg 86% New Jersey

Lugar 86% Indiana

Menendez 86% New Jersey

Murray 86% Washington

Obama 86% Illinois

Clinton 79% New York

Dodd 79% Connecticut

senate - top tIer senate - Bottom tIer

Allard 29% Colorado

DeMint 29% South Carolina

Inhofe 29% Oklahoma

Kyl 29% Arizona

McCaskill 29% Missouri

Voinovich 29% Ohio

Coburn 36% Oklahoma

Barrasso 40% Wyoming

Brownback 43% Kansas

Bunning 43% Kentucky

Burr 43% North Carolina

Chambliss 43% Georgia

Cochran 43% Mississippi

Cornyn 43% Texas

Dole 43% North Carolina

Dorgan 43% North Dakota

Enzi 43% Wyoming

Graham 43% South Carolina

Hatch 43% Utah

Hutchison 43% Texas

Isakson 43% Georgia

McConnell 43% Kentucky

Pryor 43% Arkansas

Roberts 43% Kansas

Sessions, J 43% Alabama

Stabenow 43% Michigan

Vitter 43% Louisiana

senate HIgH/Low sCores

Ackerman 100% New York

Baird 100% Washington

Berman 100% California

Bishop, S. 100% Georgia

Bishop, T. 100% New York

Butterfield 100% North Carolina

Capps 100% California

Cardoza 100% California

Castor 100% Florida

Crowley 100% New York

DeGette 100% Colorado

Dingell 100% Michigan

Emanuel 100% Illinois

Eshoo 100% California

Farr 100% California

Frank, B. 100% Massachusetts

Giffords 100% Arizona

Gillibrand 100% New York

Gonzalez 100% Texas

Harman 100% California

Honda 100% California

Hoyer 100% Maryland

Inslee 100% Washington

Israel 100% New York

Kind 100% Wisconsin

Klein, R. 100% Florida

Larsen, R. 100% Washington

Levin, S. 100% Michigan

Lewis, John 100% Georgia

Lofgren 100% California

Lowey 100% New York

Lynch 100% Massachusetts

Maloney 100% New York

Matsui 100% California

McCarthy, C. 100% New York

Meek, K. 100% Florida

Meeks, G. 100% New York

Moore, D. 100% Kansas

Moran, James 100% Virginia

Murtha 100% Pennsylvania

Perlmutter 100% Colorado

Ruppersberger 100% Maryland

Schiff 100% California

Sestak 100% Pennsylvania

Smith, Adam 100% Washington

Tauscher 100% California

Thompson, M. 100% California

Towns 100% New York

Udall, M. 100% Colorado

Van Hollen 100% Maryland

Wasserman-Schultz 100% Florida

Watt 100% North Carolina

Waxman 100% California

*Pelosi 100% California

Bachmann 21% Minnesota

Buyer 21% Indiana

Lamborn 21% Colorado

McHenry 21% North Carolina

Royce 21% California

Shadegg 21% Arizona

Weldon 21% Florida

Broun 22% Georgia

Miller, J. 25% Florida

Poe 25% Texas

Westmoreland 25% Georgia

Akin 29% Missouri

Barrett 29% South Carolina

Barton 29% Texas

Blackburn 29% Tennessee

Chabot 29% Ohio

Foxx 29% North Carolina

Franks, T. 29% Arizona

Jordan 29% Ohio

King, S. 29% Iowa

Kline, J. 29% Minnesota

Rohrabacher 29% California

Sensenbrenner 29% Wisconsin

Tancredo 29% Colorado

Wilson, J. 29% South Carolina

Boehner 32% Ohio

Deal 32% Georgia

Feeney 32% Florida

Aderholt 36% Alabama

Blunt 36% Missouri

Brown-Waite, G. 36% Florida

Burgess 36% Texas

Campbell 36% California

Duncan 36% Tennessee

Flake 36% Arizona

Garrett 36% New Jersey

Gingrey 36% Georgia

Hall, R. 36% Texas

Hensarling 36% Texas

Herger 36% California

Kingston 36% Georgia

Linder 36% Georgia

Mica 36% Florida

Murphy, T. 36% Pennsylvania

Myrick 36% North Carolina

Petri 36% Wisconsin

Roskam 36% Illinois

Sali 36% Idaho

Paul 39% Texas

Rogers, Mike 39% Michigan

Sullivan 39% Oklahoma

House - top tIer House - Bottom tIer

*Speaker Votes at Her Discretion

House HIgH/Low sCores

1) S. 761 – The AmericA cOmPeTeS AcT [SenATe VOTe 146]

Summary: This bill that would authorize $21 billion for education in science and math through fiscal 2010. The bill also would require the president to issue a report identifying research and technology challenges and programs the federal government should invest in for a five-year period. This bill passed by a vote of 88 – 8.

CCIa PoSItIon: It is vitally important to the future competitiveness of our nation that our country prioritize math and science education and stress the importance of innovation to our economy. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

2) h.r. 6 - renewAble FuelS, cOnSumer PrOTecTiOn, And energy eFFiciency AcT OF 2007 [SenATe VOTe 226]

Summary: This comprehensive legislation contains many responsible initiatives to encourage innovation in more sustainable green technologies. Provisions that are important to the high tech industries include smart grid technologies that would significantly improve our nation’s energy efficiency by using computing technology to modernize our electrical grid, tax incentives for green technologies, and data center efficiency programs among others. This motion was agreed to by a vote of 65 – 27.

CCIa PoSItIon: Our nation’s high tech industries are deeply committed to sustainable and responsible development and innovation. In fact, technology holds the key for modernizing our economy to become more “green” without taking significant steps backwards in productivity. This balanced legislation was a significant step in the right direction and encourages environmentally friendly innovation without heavy-handed regulation. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

3) S. 1639 – cOmPrehenSiVe immigrATiOn reFOrm [SenATe VOTe 235]

Summary: This bill would overhaul U.S. immigration policies, addressing both legal and illegal immigration. Regarding visas for skilled workers, the bill would increase the annual cap on H-1B visas and establish a new self-sponsored skills points system for employment-based green cards. The bill would also institute new border security measures, including an electronic verification system, and would provide for a temporary guest worker program that would allow workers to remain in the United States for up to six years, provided that they return to their home country for a year after every two years they remain in the United States. A successful cloture vote would have allowed the Senate to continue on to debate other components of the “clay pigeon” amendment. This motion was rejected by a vote of 46 – 53.

CCIa PoSItIon: CCIA supported comprehensive immigration reform legislation as the best way to address the inadequate number of skilled worker visas. While we had concerns about some aspects of the underlying bill (such as the lack of employer sponsorship for merit-based green cards), which we hoped would be addressed in further amendments, we considered this an opportunity to address long-standing problems with the H-1B and green card process and reform an untenable status quo. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

4) cOrnyn AmendmenT TO The Kennedy AmendmenT TO h.r. 2669 – cOllege cOST reducTiOn And AcceSS AcT [SenATe VOTe 266]

Summary: The Cornyn amendment would increase the H-1B visa cap to 115,000 for 2008. It would require that 20,000 of such visas be reserved for those with graduate degrees from a U.S. school. This motion was rejected by a vote of 55 – 40 (60 votes were needed).

senate - desCrIptIon of sCored votes

CCIa PoSItIon: CCIA believes that in order for U.S. companies to maintain their global competitiveness, they must have continued access to highly qualified foreign nationals who currently make up the shortfall in science and engineering students. In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, the Cornyn amendment represented a short-term relief measure for the crisis facing technology companies unable to hire the skilled foreign nationals they need due to the unavailability of visas. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

5) S. 1927 - PrOTecT AmericA AcT OF 2007 (Sen. mccOnnell VerSiOn)[SenATe VOTe 309]

Summary: This bill would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to expand the authority of the attorney general and the director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of one suspected foreign terrorist to another without a court warrant. Communications companies would be compelled to comply with the government’s conduct of such surveillance. Although the FISA court would have to approve of the program itself, they would not have direct oversight over it, which is necessary to ensure that the government does not abuse its surveillance power. Also, the bill would sunset after 6 months. This bill passed by a vote of 60 – 28.

CCIa PoSItIon: CCIA strongly believes that all government surveillance that occurs on America’s communications infrastructure that has the potential to target American citizens should be adequately supervised to prevent abuse and assure law-abiding American consumers that their privacy is protected. Not providing for suitable intelligence oversight would erode consumer faith in their privacy when using communications networks and could hinder the continued adoption and expansion of next generation networks. The pro-High Tech vote was “no.”

6) S. 2011 – PrOTecT AmericA AcT OF 2007 (Sen. leVin VerSiOn) [SenATe VOTe 310]

Summary: This bill was similar to S.1927, but was more limited in scope and included important safeguards such as protecting Americans overseas from warrantless surveillance. The bill was rejected by a vote of 43 – 45.

CCIa PoSItIon: Although not a perfect bill, its focus on more thorough oversight and privacy protection set it apart from S. 1927 and made it a superior temporary measure. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

7) h.r. 3688 – u.S. Peru Free TrAde AgreemenT [SenATe VOTe 413]

Summary: This agreement would reduce most tariffs and duties currently affecting trade between the two countries, increase protections for intellectual property and would require Peru to take steps to strengthen its labor- and environmental-enforcement standards. Under the agreement, 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods to Peru would enter duty-free immediately. This agreement was approved by a vote of 77 – 18.

CCIa PoSItIon: CCIA continues to promote expanded trade and market access for high-tech exports through the abolition of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. Despite continuing concerns about the overly broad intellectual property provisions in the FTA template, CCIA supports passage of this agreement as a reflection of the U.S. commitment to free trade and open markets. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

Amer

icaCO

MPETE

SCl

ean En

ergy

Immigr

ation

Overh

aul

H-1B

Visa

s

FISA

(with

out O

vers

ight)

FISA

(with

Overs

ight)

US- P

eru FT

A

Senate Vote # 146 226 235 266 309 310 413

CCIA Position Y Y Y Y N Y Y

Senator Score Party StateSessions, J 43% R Alabama + + - - - - +

Shelby 50% R Alabama + NV - + - - +Murkowski 57% R Alaska + + - + - - +

Stevens 57% R Alaska + + - + - - +Kyl 29% R Arizona - - + + - - -

McCain 64% R Arizona NV NV + + NV NV NVLincoln 71% D Arkansas + + + - - + +Pryor 43% D Arkansas + + - - - - +Boxer 57% D California + (+) + - NV NV -

Feinstein 71% D California + + + - - + +Allard 29% R Colorado - - - + - - +

Salazar 71% D Colorado + + + - - + +Dodd 79% D Connecticut + + + - + + NV

Lieberman 71% I Connecticut + + + + - - +Biden 71% D Delaware (+) + + - + + (-)

Carper 71% D Delaware + + + - - + +Martinez 57% R Florida + - + + - - +Nelson 71% D Florida + + + - - + +

Chambliss 43% R Georgia + - - + - - +Isakson 43% R Georgia + - - + - - +Akaka 71% D Hawaii + + + - + + -Inouye 71% D Hawaii + + + - - + +Craig 71% R Idaho + + + + - - +Crapo 57% R Idaho + + - + - - +Durbin 86% D Illinois + + + - + + +Obama 86% D Illinois + + + NV + + NVBayh 71% D Indiana + + - + - + +Lugar 86% R Indiana + + + + NV NV +

Grassley 57% R Iowa + + - + - - +Harkin 50% D Iowa + + - - (+) NV -

Brownback 43% R Kansas (+) NV - NV - - +Roberts 43% R Kansas + - - + - - +Bunning 43% R Kentucky + - - + (-) (-) +

McConnell 43% R Kentucky + - - + - - +Landrieu 57% D Louisiana + - - + - + +

Vitter 43% R Louisiana + - - + - - +Collins 57% R Maine + + - + - - +Snowe 71% R Maine + + + + - - +Cardin 86% D Maryland + + + - + + +

Mikulski 71% D Maryland + + + - - + +Kennedy 86% D Massachusetts + + + - + + +

Kerry 71% D Massachusetts + + + - NV NV +Levin 71% D Michigan + - + - + + +

Stabenow 43% D Michigan + - - - + + -Coleman 57% R Minnesota + + - + - - +

Klobuchar 71% D Minnesota + + + + - + -Cochran 43% R Mississippi + - - + - - +

Lott 64% R Mississippi + - + NV NV NV +Bond 50% R Missouri + NV - + - - +

McCaskill 29% D Missouri + - - - - + -Baucus 86% D Montana + + - + + + +Tester 57% D Montana + + - - + + -Hagel 57% R Nebraska + - + + - - +

Nelson 71% D Nebraska + + - + - + +Ensign 57% R Nevada + + - + - - +

Reid 71% D Nevada + + + - + + -Gregg 71% R New Hampshire - + + + NV NV +

Sununu 57% R New Hampshire + + - + - - +

CC

IA H

igh

Tec

h Sc

or

ecar

d - Sen

ate

Amer

icaCO

MPETE

SCl

ean En

ergy

Immigr

ation

Overh

aul

H-1B

Visa

s

FISA

(with

out O

vers

ight)

FISA

(with

Overs

ight)

US- P

eru FT

A

Senate Vote # 146 226 235 266 309 310 413

CCIA Position Y Y Y Y N Y Y

Senator Score Party StateLautenberg 86% D New Jersey + + + - + + +Menendez 86% D New Jersey + + + - + + +Bingaman 71% D New Mexico + + - - + + +Domenici 57% R New Mexico + + - + - - +

Clinton 79% D New York + + + - + + NVSchumer 100% D New York + + + + + + +

Burr 43% R North Carolina + - - + - - +Dole 43% R North Carolina + - - + - - +

Conrad 71% D North Dakota + + + - - + +Dorgan 43% D North Dakota + + - - NV NV -Brown 57% D Ohio + + - - + + -

Voinovich 29% R Ohio + - - - - - +Coburn 36% R Oklahoma - NV - + - - +Inhofe 29% R Oklahoma - - - + - - +Smith 57% R Oregon + + - + - - +Wyden 100% D Oregon + + + + + + +Casey 57% D Pennsylvania + + + - - + -

Specter 71% R Pennsylvania + + + + - - +Reed 71% D Rhode Island + + + - + + -

Whitehouse 71% D Rhode Island + + + - + + -DeMint 29% R South Carolina - - - + - - +

Graham 43% R South Carolina - - + + - - +Johnson 100% D South Dakota N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A +

Thune 57% R South Dakota + + - + - - +Alexander 57% R Tennessee + + - + (-) (-) +

Corker 57% R Tennessee + + - + - - +Cornyn 43% R Texas + - - + - - +

Hutchison 43% R Texas + - - + - - +Bennett 57% R Utah + - + + - - +Hatch 43% R Utah + - - + - - +Leahy 71% D Vermont + + + - + + -

Sanders 57% I Vermont + + - - + + -Warner 57% R Virginia + + - + - - +Webb 57% D Virginia + + - - - + +

Cantwell 100% D Washington + + + + + + +Murray 86% D Washington + + + + NV NV +

Byrd 64% D West Virginia + + - NV + + -Rockefeller 71% D West Virginia + + - - + + +

Feingold 71% D Wisconsin + + + - + + -Kohl 86% D Wisconsin + + + - + + +

Barrasso 40% R Wyoming N/A N/A - + - - +Enzi 43% R Wyoming + - - + - - +

WWW.CCIANET.ORG

CC

IA H

igh

Tec

h Sc

or

ecar

d - Sen

ate

+ = Pro - High Tech Vote- = Anti - High Tech Vote

(+) = Announced + (Scored as +) (-) = Announced - (Scored as -) NV = Did not Vote (1/2 point deduction) N/A = Not Available to Vote (not scored)

1) h.r. 1677 – TAxPAyer idenTiTy PrOTecTiOn AcT [hOuSe VOTe 214]

Summary: This bill would require the IRS to notify a taxpayer if it suspected an unauthorized use of the taxpayer’s identity because of evidence discovered during an investigation. It would allow the sharing of information with prison officials to limit tax fraud, permit the IRS to withhold information from lenders it deemed predatory and require the IRS to expand its outreach to people who might be eligible for the earned-income tax credit, even if they did not file a tax return. It includes a provision that would establish civil and criminal penalties for the use of deceptive Internet domain names that mislead taxpayers into believing that their websites are officially authorized or affiliated with the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service. This bill passed by a vote of 407 – 7.

CCIa PoSItIon: CCIA believes that the great success of e-commerce is built on the ability of consumers to trust the websites they use, and misleading domain names seriously undermine that trust. Electronic tax filing, which CCIA has supported through initiatives such as the Free File Alliance, involves the most sensitive personal financial information consumers have. If doubt exists among consumers regarding the veracity of websites, this would seriously undermine efforts to promote e-filing. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

2) gillibrAnd AmendmenT TO h.r. 363 – SOwing The SeedS ThrOugh Science And engineering reSeArch AcT

[hOuSe VOTe 255]

Summary: This amendment would authorize $281 million in fiscal 2009 through 2013 to create a new scholarship program for undergraduates specializing in science, technology, math or engineering. This amendment was adopted by a vote of 254 – 165.

CCIa PoSItIon: CCIA believes that the American workforce increasingly requires highly technical skills, particularly science and engineering, in order to remain globally competitive in a knowledge-based economy. Measures such as this will enhance the competitiveness of American workers and better the US economy as a whole. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

3) h.r. 1873 – SmAll buSineSS FAirneSS in cOnTrAcTing AcT [hOuSe VOTe 323]

Summary: This bill would increase the federal government’s small-business procurement goal to 30 percent from 23 percent under current law, and increase the goal for procurement for minority- and women-owned businesses to 8 percent from 5 percent. It would limit the ability of federal agencies to bundle small projects into large contracts. The bill would require the Small Business Administration to take steps to reduce erroneous entries in the government’s contractor registry. This bill passed by a vote of 409 - 13.

CCIa PoSItIon: CCIA has long opposed procurement practices such as contract bundling that limit the ability of small businesses to compete for government contracts. Complying with and increasing statutory small business goals is the first step toward full and open competition in procurement. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

4) SchiFF AmendmenT TO h.r. 2082 - inTelligence AuThOrizATiOn AcT FOr FiScAl yeAr 2008 [hOuSe VOTe 339]

Summary: This amendment would state that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the exclusive means by which domestic electronic surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information may be conducted. This amendment was adopted by a vote of 245 – 178.

House - desCrIptIon of sCored votes

CCIa PoSItIon: CCIA strongly believes that widespread, secret and unchecked surveillance of U.S. communications networks corrodes the fundamental openness and freedom on which the Internet was built. CCIA recognizes the need for legitimate law enforcement and intelligence monitoring, but in order for our Internet economy to thrive and prosper, ordinary Americans must have faith that their personal privacy is not improperly disregarded. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

5) JOrdAn AmendmenT TO h.r. 2674 – dePArTmenT OF STATe, FOreign OPerATiOnS And relATed PrOgrAmS APPrOPriATiOnS AcT 2008 [hOuSe VOTe 537]

Summary: This amendment would reduce the funding for the Department of State Foreign Operations budget by $3 billion. This amendment was rejected by a vote of 152 – 268.

CCIa PoSItIon: The Foreign Operations Budget funds diplomatic and development programs that are vital in promoting our nation’s economic prosperity, protecting our national security, and enhancing our humanitarian values around the world. CCIA believes that these programs are crucial tools for creating a stable international environment enabling U.S. companies to explore new opportunities for economic engagement. The pro-High Tech vote was “no.”

6) h.r. 2272 – AmericA cOmPeTeS AcT [hOuSe VOTe 802]

Summary: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would reauthorize programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for three years and provide them with a significant boost in funding. Further more, it would create a new grant program for undergraduate degree programs for aspiring teachers in math, science, engineering, or a “critical” foreign language and authorize $151 million in fiscal 2008 for the program. The

Conference report was adopted by a vote of 367 – 57.

CCIa PoSItIon: This bill took several steps to ensure that the United States stays internationally competitive by not only authorizing important federal programs such as the NSF and NIST but also providing funding for much needed science and math teachers. This was one of the most important high tech bills of the first session of the 110th Congress. Unfortunately, even though this Report made funding critical tech initiatives a priority, the programs discussed in this measure went unfunded in the final budget. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

7) henSArling AmendmenT TO h.r. 3161: AgriculTure, rurAl deVelOPmenT, FOOd And drug AdminiSTrATiOn, And relATed AgencieS APPrOPriATiOnS AcT, 2008[hOuSe VOTe 805]

Summary: This amendment would reduce the funding by $8.9 million for a grant program to finance broadband transmission in rural areas eligible for Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program benefits. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 66 – 360.

CCIa PoSItIon: Funding rural broadband deployment is almost always money well spent. Broadband deployment helps America’s rural areas become more competitive in both the domestic and international economy and brings with it social benefits as well, such as better education and healthcare. The pro-High Tech vote was “no.”

8) S. 1927 - PrOTecT AmericA AcT OF 2007 [hOuSe VOTe 836]

Summary: This bill would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to expand the authority of the attorney general and the director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of one suspected foreign terrorist to another without a court warrant. Communications companies would be compelled

to comply with the government’s conduct of such surveillance. Although the FISA court would have to approve of the program itself, they would not have direct oversight over it, which is necessary to ensure that the government does not abuse its surveillance power. Also, the bill would sunset after 6 months. This bill passed by a vote of 227-183.

CCIa PoSItIon: Similar to our position on the earlier Schiff Amendment, CCIA strongly believes that all government surveillance that occurs on America’s communications infrastructure should be adequately supervised to prevent abuse and assure the law-abiding American consumer that their privacy is protected. The pro-High Tech vote was “no.”

9) cOnyerS mAnAger’S AmendmenT TO h.r. 1908 - The PATenT reFOrm AcT OF 2007 [hOuSe VOTe 862]

Summary: This amendment would to incorporate a number of revisions to the Patent Reform Act including sections on damages, willful infringement, prior user rights, post-grant review, venue, inequitable conduct, applicant disclosure information, among others. This Amendment passed by a vote of 263 – 136.

CCIa PoSItIon: For high tech industries, the Patent Reform Act was one of the most important pieces of legislation to be considered in Congress in 2007. Although the most important vote for members of Congress was the vote on passage of the overall Patent Reform Act (featured next), the manager’s Amendment was critical as well. Furthermore, CCIA felt that due to the importance of patent reform to our industries, the issue should be given significant weight in our scorecard. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

10) h.r. 1908 – The PATenT reFOrm AcT OF 2007 [hOuSe VOTe 863]

Summary: This bill would make several crucial changes to the patent system. These included changing from the current first-to-invent system

to a first-to-file system, creating a new post-grant review process that eases the requirement to challenge the validity of patents after they are granted, and apportioning damages according to a patent’s contribution to the overall value of a product. The bill also would limit the venue in which suits could be filed for patent infringement to the judicial district in which the defendant resides or operates preventing heavy reliance on certain courts prone to be disproportionately favorable to plaintiffs. This bill passed by a vote of 220 – 175.

CCIa PoSItIon: Although not addressing all of the problems with the current patent system, the Patent Reform Act of 2007 was a significant step in the right direction. This bill helped control some of the worst abuses of the patent system that encouraged frivolous litigation, which stymied real progress in industries that rely heavily on innovation. The passage of this legislation by the House proved to be one of the biggest victories of the year for the high tech industries. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

11) h.r. 2102 – Free FlOw OF inFOrmATiOn AcT OF 2007 [hOuSe VOTe 973]

Summary: This bill would create a qualified privilege for journalists that would prevent them from being legally compelled to provide testimony or documents that would reveal their confidential sources, unless a court finds one of several exceptions applies. Just as importantly, this bill extends this privilege not just to members of the traditional media but to online reporters and bloggers as well. This bill passed by a vote of 398 – 21.

CCIa PoSItIon: As the U.S. economy and society continue to embrace technology and the Internet, more and more traditional “services,” such as media coverage have moved online. It is important to update our current legal framework and provide protections for those who embrace technology. This bill moves our nation in the right direction and it is important that Congress continuously seek to update our laws to better

reflect the technology of our times. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

12) h.r. 3688 – u.S. – Peru Free TrAde AgreemenT [hOuSe VOTe 1060]

Summary: This agreement would reduce most tariffs and duties currently affecting trade between the two countries, increase protections for intellectual property and would require Peru to take steps to strengthen its labor- and environmental-enforcement standards. Under the agreement, 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods to Peru would enter duty-free immediately. This agreement was approved by a vote of 285 – 132.

CCIa PoSItIon: CCIA continues to promote expanded trade and market access for high tech exports through the abolition of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. Despite continuing concerns about the overly broad intellectual property provisions in the FTA template, CCIA supports passage of this agreement as a reflection of the U.S. commitment to free trade and open markets. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

13) h.r. 3773 – reSPOnSible elecTrOnic SurVeillAnce ThAT iS OVerSeen, reViewed, And eFFecTiVe (reSTOre) AcT OF 2007[hOuSe VOTe 1120]

Summary: This bill would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) specifying that no warrant is needed to conduct surveillance on foreigners abroad. A court order would be required, however, to survey any communication in which one or more of the parties involved in the communication are located within the United States, or if one or more U.S. persons, regardless of location, participates in the communication. It would create a new “blanket” warrant program allowing the government to conduct surveillance on groups of foreign targets who may contact people in the United States, and surveillancecould include communications of such individuals. The measure also would establish new oversight

responsibilities for the FISA court and Congress. This bill passed by a vote of 227-189.

CCIa PoSItIon: Although not a perfect measure, this bill was an attempt to balance the concerns of our intelligence community with the privacy rights of Americans guaranteed by the Constitution. It is critical that our laws be updated to reflect the new structure of communications networks, but this process must be done in a transparent way that recognizes traditional rights of Americans. This bill would ensure adequate oversight into the intelligence gathering process when American citizens are involved, while helping protect Americans from governmental abuse of power. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

14) dingell mOTiOn TO cOncur wiTh SenATe AmendmenT TO h.r. 6 - renewAble FuelS, cOnSumer PrOTecTiOn, And energy eFFiciency AcT OF 2007 [hOuSe VOTe 1140]

Summary: This comprehensive legislation contains many responsible initiatives to encourage innovation in more sustainable green technologies. Provisions that are important to the high tech industries include smart grid technologies that would significantly improve our nation’s energy efficiency by using computing technology to modernize our electrical grid, tax incentives for green technologies, and data center efficiency programs among others. This motion was agreed to by a vote of 235 – 181.

CCIa PoSItIon: Our nation’s high tech industries are deeply committed to sustainable and responsible development and innovation. In fact, technology holds the key for modernizing our economy to become more “green” without taking significant steps backwards in productivity. This balanced legislation was a significant step in the right direction and encourages environmentally friendly innovation without heavy-handed regulation. The pro-High Tech vote was “yes.”

Taxp

ayer

Iden

tity

Prot

ectio

n

Scie

nce

&En

gine

erin

gR

esea

rch

Smal

l-Bus

ines

sC

ontr

actin

g

FISA

- Dom

estic

Surv

eilla

nce

Fore

ign

Ops

Bud

get C

utSc

ienc

eR

&D

Dis

tanc

eLe

arni

ng/T

elem

edic

ine

FISA

(with

out o

vers

ight

)Pa

tent

Ove

rhau

l -M

anag

er's

Am

endm

ent

Pate

ntO

verh

aul -

Full

Bill

Rep

orte

r Fed

eral

Shie

ldLa

wU

S-Pe

ruFT

A

FISA

(with

over

sigh

t)C

lean

Ener

gy

House Vote # 214 255 323 339 537 802 805 836 862 863 973 1060 1120 1140CCIA Position Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y

Representative Score Party State DistrictBonner 54% R Alabama 1 + - + - NV + + - - + + + - -Everett 46% R Alabama 2 + - + - - + + - - - + + NV -

Rogers, Mike D. 43% R Alabama 3 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Aderholt 36% R Alabama 4 + - + - - + + - - - + - - -Cramer 75% D Alabama 5 + + + + NV + + - - - + + + +

Bachus, S. 46% R Alabama 6 + - NV - - - + - + + + + - -Davis, A. 93% D Alabama 7 + + + + + + + - + + + + + +Young, D. 61% R Alaska AL + - + - + + NV NV NV NV + + - NV

Renzi 50% R Arizona 1 + + + - - + + - - - + + - -Franks, T. 29% R Arizona 2 + - + - - - - - - - + + - -Shadegg 21% R Arizona 3 + - - - - - - - - - + + - -

Pastor 86% D Arizona 4 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +Mitchell 93% D Arizona 5 + + + + + + + - + + + + + +Flake 36% R Arizona 6 - - - + - - - - + - + + + -

Grijalva 86% D Arizona 7 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +Giffords 100% D Arizona 8 + + + + + + + + + + + (+) + +

Berry 93% D Arkansas 1 + + + + + + + + + - + + + +Snyder 93% D Arkansas 2 + + + + + + + - + + + + + +

Boozman 43% R Arkansas 3 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Ross 93% D Arkansas 4 + + + + + + + - + + + + + +

Thompson, M. 100% D California 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Herger 36% R California 2 + - + - - - + - - + - + - -Lungren 39% R California 3 + - - - - + + - + + - NV - -Doolittle 57% R California 4 + - + - + - + - + + + + - -Matsui 100% D California 5 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Woolsey 82% D California 6 + + + + + + + + NV NV NV - + +Miller, George 86% D California 7 + + - + + + + + + + + - + +

Pelosi 100% D California 8 S S S S S + S + S S S + S +Lee 93% D California 9 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Tauscher 100% D California 10 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +McNerney 93% D California 11 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Lantos 93% D California 12 + + + + + + + NV + + + NV + +Stark 93% D California 13 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Eshoo 100% D California 14 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Honda 100% D California 15 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Lofgren 100% D California 16 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Farr 100% D California 17 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Cardoza 100% D California 18 + + (+) + + + + + + + + + + +Radanovich 46% R California 19 + - + NV - - + - - + + + - -

Costa 93% D California 20 + + + + + + + - + + + + + +Nunes 43% R California 21 + - + - - - + - - + + + - (-)

McCarthy, K. 50% R California 22 + - + - - + - - + + + + - -Capps 100% D California 23 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Gallegly 57% R California 24 + - + - - + + - + + + + - -McKeon 50% R California 25 + - + - - + - - + + + + - -Dreier 50% R California 26 + - + - - + - - + + + + - -

Sherman 93% D California 27 + + + + + + + + + + (+) - + +Berman 100% D California 28 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Schiff 100% D California 29 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Waxman 100% D California 30 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Becerra 96% D California 31 + + + + + + + NV + + + + + +

Solis 93% D California 32 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Watson 82% D California 33 + + NV + + + + + NV NV + - + +

Roybal-Allard 93% D California 34 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Waters 93% D California 35 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Harman 100% D California 36 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Richardson 83% D California 37 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A + + + - + +Napolitano 93% D California 38 + + + + (+) + + + + + + - + +

Sanchez, Linda 93% D California 39 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Royce 21% R California 40 + - - - - - - - NV NV - + - -

Lewis, Jerry 50% R California 41 + - + - + + + - - - + + - -Miller, Gary 39% R California 42 + - + - - + - - - - + + - NV

Baca 86% D California 43 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +Calvert 50% R California 44 + - + - + + + - - - + + - -

Bono 75% R California 45 + + + - - + + - + + + + NV +Rohrabacher 29% R California 46 + - + - - - - - - - + + - -

Sanchez, Loretta 82% D California 47 + + + + NV + + + NV NV + - + +Campbell 36% R California 48 + - - - - - - - + + + + - -

Issa 43% R California 49 + - + - - - + - + + - + - -Bilbray 39% R California 50 + NV + - - + - - - - + + - -

CC

IA H

igh

Tec

h Sc

or

ecar

d - H

ou

se

Taxp

ayer

Iden

tity

Prot

ectio

n

Scie

nce

&En

gine

erin

gR

esea

rch

Smal

l-Bus

ines

sC

ontr

actin

g

FISA

- Dom

estic

Surv

eilla

nce

Fore

ign

Ops

Bud

get C

utSc

ienc

eR

&D

Dis

tanc

eLe

arni

ng/T

elem

edic

ine

FISA

(with

out o

vers

ight

)Pa

tent

Ove

rhau

l -M

anag

er's

Am

endm

ent

Pate

ntO

verh

aul -

Full

Bill

Rep

orte

r Fed

eral

Shie

ldLa

wU

S-Pe

ruFT

A

FISA

(with

over

sigh

t)C

lean

Ener

gy

House Vote # 214 255 323 339 537 802 805 836 862 863 973 1060 1120 1140CCIA Position Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y

Representative Score Party State DistrictFilner 93% D California 51 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Hunter 50% R California 52 NV NV + - NV + + NV - - + NV NV -Davis, S. 86% D California 53 + + + + + + + + - - + + + +DeGette 100% D Colorado 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Udall, M. 100% D Colorado 2 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Salazar, J. 86% D Colorado 3 + + + + + + + - NV NV + + + +Musgrave 50% R Colorado 4 + - + - - - + - + + + + - -Lamborn 21% R Colorado 5 + - - - - - - - - - + + - -Tancredo 29% R Colorado 6 - - + - - - - NV NV NV NV + - -Perlmutter 100% D Colorado 7 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Larson, J. 96% D Connecticut 1 + + NV + + + + + + + + + + +Courtney 79% D Connecticut 2 + + + + + + + + - - + - + +DeLauro 86% D Connecticut 3 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +

Shays 57% R Connecticut 4 + + + - + + - - (-) (-) + + - +Murphy, C. 93% D Connecticut 5 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Castle 57% R Delaware AL + - + - + + + - - - + + - +Miller, J. 25% R Florida 1 + - + - - - - - - - + NV - -Boyd, A. 79% D Florida 2 + + + + + NV + - NV (+) + + + -

Brown, C. 96% D Florida 3 + + NV + + + + + + + + + + +Crenshaw 50% R Florida 4 + - + - + (+) (+) (-) - - + + - -

Brown-Waite, G. 36% R Florida 5 + - + - - + - - - - + + - -Stearns 50% R Florida 6 + - + + - + + - - - + + - -

Mica 36% R Florida 7 + - + - - + + - - - - + - -Keller 50% R Florida 8 + - + - - + - - + + + + - -

Bilirakis 43% R Florida 9 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Young, C.W. 43% R Florida 10 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -

Castor 100% D Florida 11 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Putnam 43% R Florida 12 + - + - - - - - + + + + - -

Buchanan 43% R Florida 13 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Mack 39% R Florida 14 + - + + - - - - - - + + NV -

Weldon 21% R Florida 15 + - + - - - - - - - - + - -Mahoney 93% D Florida 16 + + + + + + + + - + + + + +Meek, K. 100% D Florida 17 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Ros-Lehtinen 57% R Florida 18 + - + - - + + - + - + + - +Wexler 93% D Florida 19 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Wasserman-Schultz 100% D Florida 20 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Diaz-Balart, L. 57% R Florida 21 + - + - - + + - + + + + - -

Klein, R. 100% D Florida 22 + + + + + + + (+) + + + + + +Hastings, A. 93% D Florida 23 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Feeney 32% R Florida 24 + - + - - - - - - - + + - NVDiaz-Balart, M. 57% R Florida 25 + - + - - + + - + + + + - -

Kingston 36% R Georgia 1 + - + + - - - - - - + + - -Bishop, S. 100% D Georgia 2 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Westmoreland 25% R Georgia 3 - NV + - - - - - - - + + - -Johnson, H. 89% D Georgia 4 + + + + NV + + + + + + - + +Lewis, John 100% D Georgia 5 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Price, T. 50% R Georgia 6 + - + - - + - - + + + + - -Linder 36% R Georgia 7 + - + - - - + - - - + + - -

Marshall 71% D Georgia 8 + + + - + + + - + + + - + -Deal 32% R Georgia 9 + - + - - - - - - - + + NV -

Broun 22% R Georgia 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - - - - - + + - -Gingrey 36% R Georgia 11 + - + - - + - - - - + + - -Barrow 71% D Georgia 12 + + + - + + + - + + + + - -

Scott, D. 93% D Georgia 13 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Abercrombie 79% D Hawaii 1 + + + + + + + + + - - - + +

Hirono 82% D Hawaii 2 + + + + + + NV + + - + - + +Sali 36% R Idaho 1 + - - + - - - - + + - + - -

Simpson 57% R Idaho 2 + - + - - + + - + + + + - -Rush 89% D Illinois 1 NV + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Jackson, J. 93% D Illinois 2 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Lipinski 71% D Illinois 3 + + + + + + + - - - + - + +

Gutierrez 89% D Illinois 4 + + + + + + + + + + NV - + (+)Emanuel 100% D Illinois 5 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Roskam 36% R Illinois 6 + - + - - + - - - - + + - -

Davis, Danny 93% D Illinois 7 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Bean 93% D Illinois 8 + + + + + + + - + + + + + +

Schakowsky 93% D Illinois 9 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Kirk 75% R Illinois 10 NV + + + + + + - + - + + - +

Weller 57% R Illinois 11 + + + - + + + - (-) (-) + + (-) -Costello 82% D Illinois 12 + + + + NV + + + + - + - + +Biggert 43% R Illinois 13 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -

CC

IA H

igh

Tec

h Sc

or

ecar

d - H

ou

se + = Pro - High Tech Vote- = Anti - High Tech Vote

(+) = Announced + (Scored as +) (-) = Announced - (Scored as -) NV = Did not Vote (1/2 point deduction) N/A = Not Available to Vote (not scored)

S = Speaker

Taxp

ayer

Iden

tity

Prot

ectio

n

Scie

nce

&En

gine

erin

gR

esea

rch

Smal

l-Bus

ines

sC

ontr

actin

g

FISA

- Dom

estic

Surv

eilla

nce

Fore

ign

Ops

Bud

get C

utSc

ienc

eR

&D

Dis

tanc

eLe

arni

ng/T

elem

edic

ine

FISA

(with

out o

vers

ight

)Pa

tent

Ove

rhau

l -M

anag

er's

Am

endm

ent

Pate

ntO

verh

aul -

Full

Bill

Rep

orte

r Fed

eral

Shie

ldLa

wU

S-Pe

ruFT

A

FISA

(with

over

sigh

t)C

lean

Ener

gy

House Vote # 214 255 323 339 537 802 805 836 862 863 973 1060 1120 1140CCIA Position Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y

Representative Score Party State DistrictHastert 62% R Illinois 14 + - + - NV + + NV NV NV + + - N/A

Johnson, Timothy 79% R Illinois 15 + + + + + + + + - - + + - +Manzullo 43% R Illinois 16 + - + + - - + - - - + + - -

Hare 79% D Illinois 17 + + + + + + + + - - + - + +LaHood 61% R Illinois 18 + - + - + + + NV - - + NV NV +Shimkus 43% R Illinois 19 + - + - - - + - NV NV + + - -

Visclosky 86% D Indiana 1 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +Donnelly 79% D Indiana 2 + + + + + + + - + - + - + +Souder 50% R Indiana 3 + - NV NV + + + - - - + + - -Buyer 21% R Indiana 4 + NV + - - - - - - - - NV - -Burton 43% R Indiana 5 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Pence 43% R Indiana 6 + - + - - - - - + + + + - -

Carson 86% D Indiana 7 (+) + + + + + + + + + NV NV NV NVEllsworth 86% D Indiana 8 + + + + + + + - (+) (-) + + + +

Hill 75% D Indiana 9 NV + + + + + + - - - + + + +Braley 96% D Iowa 1 + + + + + + + + + + + NV + +

Loebsack 79% D Iowa 2 + + + + + + + + - - + - + +Boswell 93% D Iowa 3 + + + + + + + - + + + + + +Latham 54% R Iowa 4 + NV + - + + + - - - + + - -King, S. 29% R Iowa 5 + - + - - - + - - - - + - -

Moran, Jerry 57% R Kansas 1 + - + + - + + - + - + + - -Boyda, N. 93% D Kansas 2 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Moore, D. 100% D Kansas 3 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Tiahrt 57% R Kansas 4 + - + - - + + - + + + + - -Whitfield 50% R Kentucky 1 + + - - + + + - - - + + - -Lewis, R. 43% R Kentucky 2 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Yarmuth 93% D Kentucky 3 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Davis, G. 50% R Kentucky 4 + - + - - + + - + - + + - -

Rogers, H. 57% R Kentucky 5 + - + - - + + - + + + + - -Chandler 86% D Kentucky 6 + + + + + + + - + + + - + +

Jindal 57% R Louisiana 1 NV + + - - + + NV NV NV NV NV NV NVJefferson 93% D Louisiana 2 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Melancon 64% D Louisiana 3 + + + - + + + - - - + + + -McCrery 50% R Louisiana 4 + - + - + + + - - - + + - -

Alexander, R. 50% R Louisiana 5 + - + - + + + - - - + + - -Baker 57% R Louisiana 6 + - + - + + + - NV NV + + - -

Boustany 50% R Louisiana 7 + - + - + + + - - - + + - -Allen 93% D Maine 1 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Michaud 71% D Maine 2 + + + + + + + + - - + - - +Gilchrest 82% R Maryland 1 + - + + + + + - + + + + + NV

Ruppersberger 100% D Maryland 2 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Sarbanes 93% D Maryland 3 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Wynn 93% D Maryland 4 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Hoyer 100% D Maryland 5 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Bartlett 43% R Maryland 6 + - + + - + - - - - + + - -Cummings 93% D Maryland 7 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Van Hollen 100% D Maryland 8 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Olver 86% D Massachusetts 1 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +Neal 96% D Massachusetts 2 NV + + + + + + + + + + + + +

McGovern 93% D Massachusetts 3 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Frank, B. 100% D Massachusetts 4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Tsongas 67% D Massachusetts 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - + +Tierney 86% D Massachusetts 6 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +Markey 93% D Massachusetts 7 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Capuano 79% D Massachusetts 8 + + + + + + + + + - + - - +Lynch 100% D Massachusetts 9 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Delahunt 89% D Massachusetts 10 + + + + + + + NV + + + - + +Stupak 93% D Michigan 1 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Hoekstra 43% R Michigan 2 + - + - - + + - + - + - - -Ehlers 50% R Michigan 3 + - + + + + - - - - + + - -Camp 43% R Michigan 4 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -

Kildee 79% D Michigan 5 + + + + + + + + - - + - + +Upton 50% R Michigan 6 + - + + - + + - - - + + - -

Walberg 50% R Michigan 7 + - + + - + + - - - + + - -Rogers, Mike 39% R Michigan 8 NV - + - - + + - - - + + - -Knollenberg 57% R Michigan 9 + + + - + + + - - - + + - -

Miller, C. 50% R Michigan 10 + - + - - + + - + - + + - -McCotter 43% R Michigan 11 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Levin, S. 100% D Michigan 12 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Kilpatrick 89% D Michigan 13 + + + + + + + NV + + + - + +Conyers 93% D Michigan 14 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

CC

IA H

igh

Tec

h Sc

or

ecar

d - H

ou

se + = Pro - High Tech Vote- = Anti - High Tech Vote

(+) = Announced + (Scored as +) (-) = Announced - (Scored as -) NV = Did not Vote (1/2 point deduction) N/A = Not Available to Vote (not scored)

S = Speaker

Taxp

ayer

Iden

tity

Prot

ectio

n

Scie

nce

&En

gine

erin

gR

esea

rch

Smal

l-Bus

ines

sC

ontr

actin

g

FISA

- Dom

estic

Surv

eilla

nce

Fore

ign

Ops

Bud

get C

utSc

ienc

eR

&D

Dis

tanc

eLe

arni

ng/T

elem

edic

ine

FISA

(with

out o

vers

ight

)Pa

tent

Ove

rhau

l -M

anag

er's

Am

endm

ent

Pate

ntO

verh

aul -

Full

Bill

Rep

orte

r Fed

eral

Shie

ldLa

wU

S-Pe

ruFT

A

FISA

(with

over

sigh

t)C

lean

Ener

gy

House Vote # 214 255 323 339 537 802 805 836 862 863 973 1060 1120 1140CCIA Position Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y

Representative Score Party State DistrictDingell 100% D Michigan 15 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Walz 86% D Minnesota 1 + + + + + + + - + + + - + +Kline, J. 29% R Minnesota 2 + - + - - - - - - - + + - -

Ramstad 71% R Minnesota 3 + + + - + + + - + - + + - +McCollum 86% D Minnesota 4 (+) + - + + + + + + - + + + +

Ellison 93% D Minnesota 5 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Bachmann 21% R Minnesota 6 - - + - - - - - - - + + - -

Peterson, C. 79% D Minnesota 7 + + + + + + + - + - + - + +Oberstar 86% D Minnesota 8 + + + + + + + + + - + NV NV +Wicker 57% R Mississippi 1 + - + - - + + - - + + + - +

Thompson, B. 86% D Mississippi 2 + + + + + + + + + + + - + -Pickering 57% R Mississippi 3 + - + - - + + - NV NV + + - +

Taylor 46% D Mississippi 4 + + + + - + - - - - NV - + -Clay 96% D Missouri 1 + + + + + + + NV + + + + + +Akin 29% R Missouri 2 + - + - - + - - - - - + - -

Carnahan 79% D Missouri 3 NV + + + + + + + - NV + - + +Skelton 96% D Missouri 4 + + + + + + + NV + + + + + +Cleaver 96% D Missouri 5 + + + NV + + + + + + + + + +Graves 43% R Missouri 6 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Blunt 36% R Missouri 7 + - + - - - + - - - + + - -

Emerson 50% R Missouri 8 + - + - + + + - - - + + - -Hulshof 50% R Missouri 9 + - + - - + + - NV NV + + - -

Rehberg 43% R Montana AL + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Fortenberry 64% R Nebraska 1 + - + - + + + - + + + + - -

Terry 43% R Nebraska 2 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Smith, Adrian 50% R Nebraska 3 + - + - - + + - + - + + - -

Berkley 93% D Nevada 1 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Heller 57% R Nevada 2 + - + - - + + - + + + + - -Porter 71% R Nevada 3 + + + - + + + - + + + + - -

Shea-Porter 79% D New Hampshire 1 + + + + + + + + - - + - + +Hodes 79% D New Hampshire 2 + + + + + + + + - - + - + +

Andrews 93% D New Jersey 1 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +LoBiondo 57% R New Jersey 2 + + + - + + + - - - + - - +

Saxton 61% R New Jersey 3 + + + - + + + NV - - + + - -Smith, C. 71% R New Jersey 4 + + + - + + + - + + + - - +Garrett 36% R New Jersey 5 + - + - - + - - - - + + - -Pallone 86% D New Jersey 6 + + + + + + + + NV NV + - + +

Ferguson 54% R New Jersey 7 NV + + - + + + - - - + + - -Pascrell 93% D New Jersey 8 + + + + + + + + + - + + + +Rothman 82% D New Jersey 9 + + + + + + + + - - + NV + +

Payne 86% D New Jersey 10 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +Frelinghuysen 50% R New Jersey 11 + - + - + + + - - - + + - -

Holt 79% D New Jersey 12 + + + + + + + + - - + - + +Sires 93% D New Jersey 13 + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Wilson, H. 64% R New Mexico 1 + + + - + + + - - + + + - -Pearce 50% R New Mexico 2 + - + - - + + - NV NV + + - -

Udall, T. 93% D New Mexico 3 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Bishop, T. 100% D New York 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Israel 100% D New York 2 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +King, P. 61% R New York 3 + NV + - + + + - + + - + - -

McCarthy, C. 100% D New York 4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Ackerman 100% D New York 5 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Meeks, G. 100% D New York 6 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Crowley 100% D New York 7 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Nadler 93% D New York 8 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Weiner 96% D New York 9 + + + + NV + + + + + + + + +Towns 100% D New York 10 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Clarke 79% D New York 11 + NV + + + NV NV NV + - + + + +

Velazquez 93% D New York 12 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Fossella 54% R New York 13 + NV + - - + - - + + + + - -Maloney 100% D New York 14 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Rangel 93% D New York 15 + + + + NV + + + + NV + + + +Serrano 86% D New York 16 + + + + + + + + + + + - - +Engel 93% D New York 17 + + NV NV + + + + + + + + + +Lowey 100% D New York 18 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Hall, J. 93% D New York 19 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Gillibrand 100% D New York 20 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +McNulty 86% D New York 21 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +Hinchey 86% D New York 22 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +McHugh 46% R New York 23 + + + - + + NV - - - + - - -Arcuri 93% D New York 24 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

CC

IA H

igh

Tec

h Sc

or

ecar

d - H

ou

se + = Pro - High Tech Vote- = Anti - High Tech Vote

(+) = Announced + (Scored as +) (-) = Announced - (Scored as -) NV = Did not Vote (1/2 point deduction) N/A = Not Available to Vote (not scored)

S = Speaker

Taxp

ayer

Iden

tity

Prot

ectio

n

Scie

nce

&En

gine

erin

gR

esea

rch

Smal

l-Bus

ines

sC

ontr

actin

g

FISA

- Dom

estic

Surv

eilla

nce

Fore

ign

Ops

Bud

get C

utSc

ienc

eR

&D

Dis

tanc

eLe

arni

ng/T

elem

edic

ine

FISA

(with

out o

vers

ight

)Pa

tent

Ove

rhau

l -M

anag

er's

Am

endm

ent

Pate

ntO

verh

aul -

Full

Bill

Rep

orte

r Fed

eral

Shie

ldLa

wU

S-Pe

ruFT

A

FISA

(with

over

sigh

t)C

lean

Ener

gy

House Vote # 214 255 323 339 537 802 805 836 862 863 973 1060 1120 1140CCIA Position Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y

Representative Score Party State DistrictWalsh 54% R New York 25 NV - + - + + + - NV NV + + - -

Reynolds 50% R New York 26 + - + - - + + - NV NV + + - -Higgins 75% D New York 27 NV + + + + + + - + - + - (+) +

Slaughter 89% D New York 28 + + + + + NV + + + + + - + +Kuhl 50% R New York 29 + - + - + + + - - - + + - -

Butterfield 100% D North Carolina 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Etheridge 79% D North Carolina 2 + + + + + + + - - - + + + +Jones, W. 61% R North Carolina 3 + NV + + - + + + - - + - + -Price, D. 93% D North Carolina 4 + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Foxx 29% R North Carolina 5 + - + - - - - - - - + + - -Coble 54% R North Carolina 6 + - + - - + - NV + + + + - -

McIntyre 71% D North Carolina 7 + + + + + + + - - - + - + +Hayes 46% R North Carolina 8 + - + - - + + NV - - + - (-) +Myrick 36% R North Carolina 9 + - + - - - - - + - + + - -

McHenry 21% R North Carolina 10 - - - - - - + - - - + + - -Shuler 71% D North Carolina 11 + + + + + + + - - - + - + +

Watt 100% D North Carolina 12 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Miller, B. 93% D North Carolina 13 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Pomeroy 93% D North Dakota AL + + + + + + + - + + + + + +Chabot 29% R Ohio 1 + - + - - - - - - - + + - -Schmidt 43% R Ohio 2 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Turner 43% R Ohio 3 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Jordan 29% R Ohio 4 + - + - - - - - - - + + - -

Latta N/A R Ohio 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AWilson, C. 75% D Ohio 6 + + + + + + + - + - NV - + +Hobson 50% R Ohio 7 + + + - - + + - - - + + - -Boehner 32% R Ohio 8 + NV + - - - - - - - + + - -Kaptur 79% D Ohio 9 + + + + + + + + - - + - + +

Kucinich 68% D Ohio 10 + + + + + - + + - - + - NV +Jones, S. 93% D Ohio 11 + + + + + + + + NV NV + + + +

Tiberi 43% R Ohio 12 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Sutton 89% D Ohio 13 + NV + + + + + + + + + - + +

LaTourette 43% R Ohio 14 + - + - + + + - - - + - - -Pryce, D. 71% R Ohio 15 + + + - + + + - + + + + - -

Regula 50% R Ohio 16 + - + - + + + - - - + + - -Ryan, T. 79% D Ohio 17 + + + + + + + + - - + - + +Space 86% D Ohio 18 + + + + + + + - + + + - + +

Sullivan 39% R Oklahoma 1 + - + - NV - - - NV NV + + - -Boren 82% D Oklahoma 2 + + + + + + + - + + + NV + -Lucas 46% R Oklahoma 3 + - + - - + + - - - + + - NVCole 50% R Oklahoma 4 + - + - + + + - - - + + - (-)Fallin 43% R Oklahoma 5 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -

Wu 93% D Oregon 1 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Walden 71% R Oregon 2 + + + - - + + - + + + + - +

Blumenauer 96% D Oregon 3 + + + + + + NV + + + + + + +DeFazio 75% D Oregon 4 + NV + + - + + + + - + - + +Hooley 89% D Oregon 5 + + + + + + + + NV NV + + + NV

Brady, R. 79% D Pennsylvania 1 NV NV NV NV + + + + + + + - + +Fattah 86% D Pennsylvania 2 NV NV NV NV + + + + + + + + + +English 43% R Pennsylvania 3 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -Altmire 79% D Pennsylvania 4 + + + + + + + - + - + - + +

Peterson, J. 57% R Pennsylvania 5 + - + NV - + + - + + NV + - -Gerlach 64% R Pennsylvania 6 + + + - + + + - - - + + - +Sestak 100% D Pennsylvania 7 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Murphy, P. 86% D Pennsylvania 8 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +Shuster 57% R Pennsylvania 9 + - + - - + + - + + + + - -Carney 71% D Pennsylvania 10 + + + + + + + - - - + - + +

Kanjorski 86% D Pennsylvania 11 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +Murtha 100% D Pennsylvania 12 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Schwartz 93% D Pennsylvania 13 + + + + + + + + + - + + + +Doyle 89% D Pennsylvania 14 + + + + + + + + + + + - NV +Dent 57% R Pennsylvania 15 + + + - + + + - - - + + - -Pitts 43% R Pennsylvania 16 + - + - - + + - - - + + - -

Holden 86% D Pennsylvania 17 + + + + + + + + NV NV + - + +Murphy, T. 36% R Pennsylvania 18 + - + - - + + - - - + - - -

Platts 57% R Pennsylvania 19 + + + - + + + - - - + + - -Kennedy, P. 89% D Rhode Island 1 + + + + + + NV + + + + - + +

Langevin 93% D Rhode Island 2 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Brown, H. 43% R South Carolina 1 + - + - - + + - + - - + - -Wilson, J. 29% R South Carolina 2 + - + - - - - - - - + + - -Barrett 29% R South Carolina 3 + - + - - - - - (-) (-) + + - -

CC

IA H

igh

Tec

h Sc

or

ecar

d - H

ou

se + = Pro - High Tech Vote- = Anti - High Tech Vote

(+) = Announced + (Scored as +) (-) = Announced - (Scored as -) NV = Did not Vote (1/2 point deduction) N/A = Not Available to Vote (not scored)

S = Speaker

Taxp

ayer

Iden

tity

Prot

ectio

n

Scie

nce

&En

gine

erin

gR

esea

rch

Smal

l-Bus

ines

sC

ontr

actin

g

FISA

- Dom

estic

Surv

eilla

nce

Fore

ign

Ops

Bud

get C

utSc

ienc

eR

&D

Dis

tanc

eLe

arni

ng/T

elem

edic

ine

FISA

(with

out o

vers

ight

)Pa

tent

Ove

rhau

l -M

anag

er's

Am

endm

ent

Pate

ntO

verh

aul -

Full

Bill

Rep

orte

r Fed

eral

Shie

ldLa

wU

S-Pe

ruFT

A

FISA

(with

over

sigh

t)C

lean

Ener

gy

House Vote # 214 255 323 339 537 802 805 836 862 863 973 1060 1120 1140CCIA Position Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y

Representative Score Party State DistrictInglis 50% R South Carolina 4 + - + + - + - - (-) - + + + -Spratt 93% D South Carolina 5 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Clyburn 96% D South Carolina 6 + + + + + + + + + + NV + + +Herseth-Sandlin 86% D South Dakota AL + + + + + + + - + - + + + +

Davis, David 50% R Tennessee 1 + - + + - + + - - - + + - -Duncan 36% R Tennessee 2 + - + + - - - - - - + - + -Wamp 50% R Tennessee 3 + - + + - + + - - - + + - -

Davis, L. 86% D Tennessee 4 + + + - + + + - + + + + + +Cooper 93% D Tennessee 5 + + + + + + + - + + + + + +Gordon 93% D Tennessee 6 + + + + + + + - + + + + + +

Blackburn 29% R Tennessee 7 - - + - - + - - - - + + - -Tanner 93% D Tennessee 8 + + + + + + + - + + + + + +Cohen 93% D Tennessee 9 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Gohmert 43% R Texas 1 + - + - - + - - + - + + - -Poe 25% R Texas 2 (+) - + - - - - - - - + NV - -

Johnson, S. 39% R Texas 3 + - + - - NV NV NV NV NV - + - -Hall, R. 36% R Texas 4 + - + - - + - - - - + + - -

Hensarling 36% R Texas 5 + - - - - - - - + + + + - -Barton 29% R Texas 6 + - + - - + - - - - - + - -

Culberson 43% R Texas 7 + - + - - + - - + + - + - -Brady, K. 50% R Texas 8 + - + - - - + - + + + + - -Green, A. 93% D Texas 9 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +McCaul 57% R Texas 10 + - + - - + + - + + + + - -

Conaway 43% R Texas 11 + - + - - - + - + - + + - -Granger 46% R Texas 12 + - + - - - + - NV NV + + - NV

Thornberry 50% R Texas 13 + - + - - + + - + + - + - -Paul 39% R Texas 14 - - + + - - - NV NV NV + - NV NV

Hinojosa 93% D Texas 15 + + + NV + + + NV + + + + + +Reyes 96% D Texas 16 + + + + + NV + + + + + + + +

Edwards 86% D Texas 17 + + + - + + + - + + + + + +Jackson-Lee, S. 93% D Texas 18 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Neugebauer 50% R Texas 19 + - + - - - + - + + + + - -Gonzalez 100% D Texas 20 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Smith, L. 50% R Texas 21 + - + - - + + - + + - + - -Lampson 57% D Texas 22 NV NV + + + + + - - - + + - -

Rodriguez 86% D Texas 23 + + + + + + + - + + + - + +Marchant 50% R Texas 24 + - + + - + - - - + + + - -

Doggett 96% D Texas 25 + + + + + NV + + + + + + + +Burgess 36% R Texas 26 + - + - - + + - - - + - - -

Ortiz 89% D Texas 27 + + + + NV + + + + + + + + (-)Cuellar 93% D Texas 28 + + + + + + + - + + + + + +

Green, G. 86% D Texas 29 + + + + + + + + + + + - + -Johnson, E. 86% D Texas 30 + + + + + + + + - - (+) + + +

Carter 39% R Texas 31 NV - + - - - + - (+) (+) - + - -Sessions, P. 50% R Texas 32 + - + - - + - - + + + + - -

Bishop, R. 39% R Utah 1 + - + - - + NV - NV NV + - - -Matheson 93% D Utah 2 + + + + + + + - + + + + + +

Cannon 50% R Utah 3 + - + - - + - - + + + + - -Welch 93% D Vermont AL + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Whitman N/A R Virginia 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ADrake 50% R Virginia 2 + - + - - + - - + + + + - -

Scott, R. 93% D Virginia 3 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Forbes 57% R Virginia 4 + - + - - + + - + + + + - -Goode 39% R Virginia 5 + - + - - + + NV - - + - - -

Goodlatte 57% R Virginia 6 + - + - - + + - + + + + - -Cantor 43% R Virginia 7 + - + - - - - - + + + + - -

Moran, James 100% D Virginia 8 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Boucher 93% D Virginia 9 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Wolf 71% R Virginia 10 + + + - + + + - + + + + - -Davis, T. 71% R Virginia 11 + + + - + + + - + + + + - -

Inslee 100% D Washington 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Larsen, R. 100% D Washington 2 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Baird 100% D Washington 3 + + + + + + + + + + + + + (+)Hastings, D. 50% R Washington 4 + - + - - + + - + + + - - -

Rodgers, 50% R Washington 5 + - NV NV - + + - + + + - - -Dicks 96% D Washington 6 + + + + + NV + + + + + + + +

McDermott 96% D Washington 7 + + + + + + + + NV (+) + + + +Reichert 68% R Washington 8 + - + - + + + - NV (+) + + - +

Smith, Adam 100% D Washington 9 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Mollohan 86% D West Virginia 1 + + + + + + + + + - + - + +

Capito 71% R West Virginia 2 + + + - + + + - + + + + - -

CC

IA H

igh

Tec

h Sc

or

ecar

d - H

ou

se + = Pro - High Tech Vote- = Anti - High Tech Vote

(+) = Announced + (Scored as +) (-) = Announced - (Scored as -) NV = Did not Vote (1/2 point deduction) N/A = Not Available to Vote (not scored)

S = Speaker

Taxp

ayer

Iden

tity

Prot

ectio

n

Scie

nce

&En

gine

erin

gR

esea

rch

Smal

l-Bus

ines

sC

ontr

actin

g

FISA

- Dom

estic

Surv

eilla

nce

Fore

ign

Ops

Bud

get C

utSc

ienc

eR

&D

Dis

tanc

eLe

arni

ng/T

elem

edic

ine

FISA

(with

out o

vers

ight

)Pa

tent

Ove

rhau

l -M

anag

er's

Am

endm

ent

Pate

ntO

verh

aul -

Full

Bill

Rep

orte

rFe

dera

l Shi

eld

Law

US-

Peru

FTA

FISA

(with

over

sigh

t)C

lean

Ener

gy

House Vote # 214 255 323 339 537 802 805 836 862 863 973 1060 1120 1140CCIA Position Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y

Representative Score Party State DistrictRahall 79% D West Virginia 3 + + + + - + + + + - + - + +

Ryan, P. 43% R Wisconsin 1 + - + - - - - - + + + + - -Baldwin 93% D Wisconsin 2 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Kind 100% D Wisconsin 3 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Moore, G. 89% D Wisconsin 4 + + + + + + + + + - + NV + +

Sensenbrenner 29% R Wisconsin 5 + - - - - - - - + + - + - -Petri 36% R Wisconsin 6 + - + + - + - - - - - + - -Obey 93% D Wisconsin 7 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +

Kagen 93% D Wisconsin 8 + + + + + + + + + + + - + +Cubin 50% R Wyoming AL + NV + - NV - + - NV NV NV NV NV NV

CC

IA H

igh

Tec

h Sc

or

ecar

d - H

ou

se

WWW.CCIANET.ORG

+ = Pro - High Tech Vote- = Anti - High Tech Vote

(+) = Announced + (Scored as +) (-) = Announced - (Scored as -) NV = Did not Vote (1/2 point deduction) N/A = Not Available to Vote (not scored)

S = Speaker

CCIA is a nonprofit membership organization consisting of leading companies in the computer, Internet, information technology, and telecommunications indus-tries, represented by their senior executives. CCIA’s member companies employ almost one million workers and generate nearly $250 billion in annual revenue.

CCIA has been highly regarded, respected and trusted by decision makers in gov-ernment and industry for more than 35 years. CCIA serves as a vital link to Capitol Hill and the issues directly impacting technology businesses.

• Copyright law in the context of computer software, open networks and interoperability, and the “fair use” of copyrighted material on the Internet;

• Telecommunications and Internet privacy;

• Secondary liability of Internet companies for misuse of their services by third parties; • Patent law reform and reduced patent litigation;

• Major FCC proceedings on wired and wireless broadband deployment and access;

• Antitrust law interpretation and implementation;

• Government competition with the private sector;

• Immigration of technically skilled workers.

• copyright warnings.

CCIa Info

AbOuT cciA

currenT POlicy PriOriTieS

To view the High Tech Scorecard online or learn more about CCIA membership please vist our website at:

WWW.CCIANET.ORG

The Computer & Communications Industry Association

900 17th Street N.W. Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20006 (202) 783-0070