The House Commerce Committee approved three communications bills...

The House Commerce Committee approved three communications bills by voice vote Wednesday during a markup session: the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013 (HR-3670), the E-LABEL (Enhance Labeling, Accessing, and Branding of Electronic Licenses) Act (HR-5161) and the Kelsey Smith Act (HR-1575). Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, introduced an amendment in the nature of a substitute (http://1.usa.gov/1ldL6OU) to the Anti-Spoofing Act, as he has previously said he would, to address some stakeholder concerns about the language, and it was approved. Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., successfully tweaked (http://1.usa.gov/1obNjdG) the Kelsey Smith Act to address some possible privacy concerns. Committee ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., backed the changes but reiterated the concerns he aired during opening statements, saying the committee process could have been better. Sprint applauded the lawmakers for advancing the Kelsey Smith Act. “We support Congressional efforts to establish a national framework that will enable law enforcement and wireless carriers to better assist families to obtain access to GPS information promptly in times of crisis,” Sprint Vice President-Government Affairs Bill Barloon said in a statement. The American Civil Liberties Union “believes that the Kelsey Smith bill needs to be strengthened ... so that it has a strong definition of emergency and people have a remedy when their location information is revealed illegally,” ACLU Legislative Counsel Chris Calabrese said. “We have not yet taken a final position on the bill.” The ACLU sent Commerce leaders a letter Tuesday outlining “continuing concern” with the amended bill. “The more significant problem is that the legislation as drafted does not create any penalty if the court finds a violation of the law,” ACLU said in the letter. “There is no penalty for police misconduct, nor is there any remedy allowing a criminal or civil defendant to suppress evidence gathered from this illegal data collection. The result is that a defendant could be harmed by clearly illegal conduct, but have no remedy -- a gross injustice and at odds with criminal procedural remedies in other contexts."