COMMERCE DEPT. STILL PLANS TO PRESS HILL FOR NTIA REORGANIZATION

A Commerce Dept. plan to merge NTIA, the Technology Administration (TA) and the e-commerce duties of the International Trade Administration (ITA), while delayed, still is headed to Capitol Hill. The proposal had been expected to be sent to Congress 45 days after Commerce Secy. Donald Evans unveiled plans Feb. 14 for the merger into a new agency headed by TA Undersecy. Phillip Bond, formerly Evans’s chief of staff. That would have put the proposal in congressional hands last Fri. But Connie Correll, a counselor to Bond, told us legislative language still was being drafted and could be ready as soon as the next week or 2: “We don’t have anything yet, but we are closer.”

Some expect Evans’ plan to revamp the department’s technology and telecom arms to face an uphill battle in Congress, where one industry source said the reception had been “frigid.” Hill staffers on the House side have said there was concern that moving the jurisdiction of NTIA under TA would shift spectrum oversight from the Commerce Committee, which oversees NTIA, to the Science Committee, which has oversight of TA. “Why would we want to bury the spectrum issue?” a staffer asked.

While Commerce Committee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.) told Evans he would keep an “open mind” about the proposal, spokesman Ken Johnson questioned whether plan was “change for change’s sake.” Committee ranking Democrat Dingell (Mich.) had opposed a similar proposal in the past. And Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. McCain (R-Ariz.) has said that until he sees a specific proposal, he’s likely to support the “status quo.”

“It’s deader than Elvis,” a House Commerce Committee staffer told us this week. “I know why it’s a bad idea, I don’t know why it’s a good idea.”

But Correll cited public statements by some members of Congress that they would reserve judgment on the plan until they saw it on paper. She also said TechNet, the Information Technology Industry Council, Information Technology Assn. of America, USTA, Business Software Alliance, VeriSign and CapNet were among the trade groups and companies that supported the plan. In an unusual alignment given their at- odds views in the FCC’s Triennial UNE Review decision, AT&T and SBC also have signaled support. SBC Pres. William Daley, who was a Commerce Secy. in the Clinton Administration, in Feb. lauded the “benefits that will result from these improvements.” The plan would keep NTIA Dir. Nancy Victory as asst. secy. for communications & information, but she would report to Bond, instead of directly to Evans as she does now (CD Feb 14 p1).

The point of the proposal is to consolidate those issues into a “superagency” that would give them greater visibility and allow more to be accomplished, Correll said. When asked whether staff reductions would result from the proposal, she said: “This move was done to enhance the policymaking ability of these 2 areas, it’s not being done to reduce head count. That may or may not be a result. We don’t know that yet… We anticipate that we are going to have something here very soon.”

Some lobbyists privately have voiced concerns that such a move could lower the profile of telecom in the Bush Administration by moving NTIA deeper into another part of the Commerce Dept., and it no longer would be a standalone entity. Another issue raised by some was that administrations outside of the U.S. now negotiated with NTIA knowing that its head reported directly to the Commerce Secy. A restructuring of those reporting lines could alter at least the perception of NTIA’s weight overseas, one source said. Another industry source said some lobbyists concerned about the possible elimination of NTIA had been fairly relaxed about not raising that as an issue on the Hill because a formal proposal hadn’t arrived yet and Tauzin and ranking Senate Commerce Committee Democrat Hollings (D-S.C.) hadn’t embraced the idea.

Still, some saw the proposal in a more positive light. One industry source said that in intragovernmental debates, NTIA would be represented by an undersecy. under the plan, rather than an assistant secy., as now. “When you have discussions among government. agencies, it is useful to have higher-level appointees at the table for a particular agency. I think that NTIA would be stronger as an agency were it to be merged with TA and represented by an undersecretary,” the source said.

“Even making the suggestion is very damaging to policymaking and the agency. It raises doubt internationally and nationally as to the confidence the Administration has in the agency and the way that it views its role,” another industry source said. “It gives the impression that you have a power play that is threatening the agency without any justification.” The source said: “It was an idea that was floated but it wasn’t obviously vetted by anybody on the Hill. I haven’t seen anybody who has come out and said, ‘Aha, it makes sense, we should consider it.’ At best, it has gotten some guarded comments from key players.”

Commerce Committee officials have said that the change merely would formalize an existing relationship, and there would be no jurisdictional change in congressional oversight. One official said it would “double telecom advocacy” in the Administration, since Bond would become more involved with telecom issues. Commerce officials have said there already was some Hill support and more would emerge once a specific proposal was put forward.

Efforts to restructure or abolish NTIA are nothing new. The agency was created in 1978 by the Carter Administration under a reorganization that combined functions of the White House Office of Telecom Policy and the Commerce Dept.’s Office of Telecommunications. An industry source recalled that the Reagan Administration was interested in radically streamlining the agency. In 1989, the first Bush Administration proposed a Commerce Dept. revamping that would have folded NTIA into TA, with the NTIA head no longer reporting directly to the Commerce Secy. Congress ultimately didn’t approve that proposal amid concerns raised by members such as Dingell.

While the proposal is taking longer than expected, numerous sources said it didn’t appear that the Commerce Dept. was putting the plan on ice, despite its mixed reception. “They're willing to expend some political capital on this,” a source said. Some industry observers expressed surprise that the Commerce Dept. had issued a news release in mid-Feb. before conducting what it said would be an internal review that would lead to a draft legislative proposal.

While winning broad Hill support may be a challenge, one source said, “it’s almost a credibility issue” that the department still move forward with the plan. Bond was in an unusual position to make a case for such a change internally because he’s close to Evans, another source said. “It’s a unique set of circumstances. A normal undersecretary for technology couldn’t have sold this,” the source said. “Because he’s close to the secretary, he can sell it.”