|Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on
Chile and Singapore FTAs
6/17. The Senate Finance
Committee held a hearing titled "The Implementation of U.S.
Bilateral Free Trade Agreements With Singapore and Chile".
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), the
Chairman of the Committee, wrote in his
opening statement [PDF] that "The two agreements
we are discussing today are the first to be considered under the Trade Promotion
Authority (TPA) procedures that Congress implemented last year with the passage
of the Trade Act of 2002." He noted that the Trade Act was passed with
bipartisan support, and stated that "I hope this bipartisan consensus will carry
through while we consider these two agreements."
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), the ranking
Democrat on the Committee, wrote in his
opening statement [PDF] that "These two
agreements break new ground on a host of important issues", including
"intellectual property, services, and e-commerce".
The U.S. Singapore FTA
addresses technology related subjects, including e-commerce, intellectual
property rights (IPR), and telecommunications. The
U.S. Chile FTA
similarly addresses several technology related topics. See,
Peter Allgeier, a Deputy U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR), included in his
prepared testimony [PDF] summaries of the e-commerce, IPR, and
telecommunications provisions of two FTAs.
He stated that "The U.S.-Singapore FTA provides for a very high
level of IPR protection, including state of the art protections for trademarks
and digital copyrights, as well as expanded protection for patents and
undisclosed information. These are supported by tough penalties for piracy and
counterfeiting, including procedures for seizure and destruction of counterfeit
products, the equipment used to produce counterfeit products, and the
establishment of statutory and actual damages for violations. Singapore will
accede to international Internet treaties, extend the term of protection for
copyrighted works, and maintain criminal penalties for circumvention of
technology protection measures and for trade in counterfeit goods."
He also said that "The FTA ensures government involvement in
resolving disputes between trademarks and Internet domain names, which is
important to prevent ``cyber-squatting´´ of trademarked domain names."
"The FTA contains provisions designed to ensure that only
authors and other copyright owners have the right the make their works available
online. Copyright owners maintain rights to temporary copies of their works on
computers, which is important in protecting music, videos, software and text
from widespread unauthorized sharing via the Internet."
"The FTA requires that governments only use legitimate computer
software, thus setting a positive example for private users. Singapore agrees to
prohibit the production of optical discs (CDs, DVDs or software) without a
source identification code, unless the copyright holder authorizes (in writing)
such production", said Allgeier.
"The FTA provides for limited liability for Internet Service
Providers (ISPs), reflecting the balance struck in the U.S. Digital Millennium
Copyright Act between legitimate ISP activity and the infringement of
He also addressed the e-commerce provision of the Singapore FTA. He said that
"No previous U.S. free trade agreement contains such
cutting-edge provisions on digital trade as the proposed FTA with Singapore."
"For example", said Allgeier, "the Agreement establishes
explicit guarantees that the principle of nondiscrimination applies to digital
products delivered electronically, such as software, music, images, videos, or
text. This will provide fair treatment and protection to U.S. firms that deliver
such digital products via the Internet. The FTA also establishes a binding
prohibition on customs duties charged on digital products delivered
electronically. For digital products delivered on hard media (such as a DVD or a
CD-ROM), customs duties will be based on the value of the media (e.g., the
disc), not on the value of the movie, music or software contained on the disc."
He also noted that the Singapore FTA "affirms that any
commitments made related to services also extend to the electronic delivery of
such services, such as financial services delivered over the Internet. This sets
a very good precedent for U.S. services liberalization efforts in the WTO and in
He also addressed the telecommunication provisions of the Singapore FTA. He
said that it contains "a full range of market access
commitments on telecommunications services, consistent with the regulatory
regimes of the U.S. and Singapore." He also said that the FTA "specifies that
companies, not governments, will make technology choices, particularly for
mobile wireless services, thus allowing firms to compete on the basis of
technology and innovation, not on government-mandated standards."
Allgeier similarly addressed the IPR, e-commerce and telecom provisions of
the Chile FTA. He said that the "Protection of
copyrights, patents, trademarks, and undisclosed trade information in the
U.S.-Chile FTA is state of the art, with protections that go beyond previous
U.S. free-trade agreements."
He continued that "The Electronic Commerce text in the FTA
identifies Chile as a leader in Latin America for the further development of
digital trade, as both countries agreed to provisions on electronic commerce
that reflect the issue's importance in global trade."
He added that "Chile and the United States committed to
non-discriminatory treatment of digital products, agreed not to impose customs
duties on such products, and affirmed that commitments made related to services
also extend to the electronic delivery of such services. For digital products
delivered on hard media (e.g., a DVD or CD), customs duties will be based on the
value of the media (e.g., the disc), not on the value of the movie, music or
software contained on the disc. Finally, both countries agreed to cooperate in
numerous policy areas related to electronic commerce, including on the
maintenance of cross-border flows of information."
James Jarrett, of Intel, testified on behalf of the
Business Software Alliance (BSA) and High-Tech
Trade Coalition (HTTC). He stated in his
prepared testimony [6 pages in PDF] the Intel, the BSA and the HTTC support
He said that the "Singapore and Chile FTAs significantly advance
the establishment of strong intellectual property protection, tariff-free and
barrier-free e-commerce in Singapore and Chile".
He added that "Both agreements recognize the importance of
strong intellectual property rights protections in a digital trade environment
by building on the obligations in the TRIPS Agreement, and ensuring that works
made available in digital form receive commensurate protection by incorporating
the obligations set out in the WIPO Copyright Treaty."
He also noted that both
agreements contain "Requirements to establish prohibitions against the
circumvention of effective technological protection measures employed by
copyright owners to protect their works against unauthorized access or use,
coupled with the ability to fashion appropriate limitations on such
prohibitions, again consistent with those set out in the Digital Millennium
|Reps. Lofgren and Boucher Address FTAs and
6/18. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) urged
passage of two bills that would amend the DMCA to provide exceptions to its
anti-circumvention provisions. They also stated that Secretary of Commerce
Don Evans has advised
them that these bills would not breach the treaty obligations of the U.S. under
the negotiated Singapore and Chile free
trade agreements (FTA). President Bush signed the Singapore FTA on May 6, 2003,
and U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
Zoellick signed the Chile FTA on June 6, 2003. Both require
approval by the Congress.
Rep. Lofgren and Rep. Boucher wrote a
letter to USTR Zoellick on April 24, 2003. They stated that the FTAs "contain
provisions that essentially mimic the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),
a law that is currently being
litigated and whose scope is as yet unclear. As you know, the DMCA, while
intended to protect the legitimate interests of copyright holders, may also be
endangering the rights and expectations of legitimate consumers. Contrary to the
intent of Congress, as expressed by Judiciary Committee Chairman
Henry Hyde at
the time of the adoption of the DMCA, section
title 17, United States Code, has
been interpreted to prohibit all users -- even lawful ones -- from circumventing
technical restrictions for any reason, including non-infringing use of a
purchased content. There is substantial reason to believe that the DMCA is
having an adverse impact on technological innovation. There are numerous cases
in court or on appeal that would utilize this act to stifle competition and
technological innovation." (Footnote omitted.)
They then posed the question, "If Congress
decides to clarify the DMCA to strike the correct balance between copyright
holders and the interests of society, as intended by Congress, would the United
States be in violation of the FTA's?"
This April 24 letter specifically referenced two bills that would amend the
DMCA that are pending in Congress. First, it mentions
the "Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations
(BALANCE) Act of 2003", introduced by Rep. Lofgren and Rep. Boucher on March 4,
2003. Second, it mentions
the "Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2003", introduced by Rep. Boucher
and others on January 7, 2003.
The April 24 letter also states that Rep. Lofgren, in a briefing by USTR staff,
"was advised orally that
the treaties would be breached by the enactment of these bills into law".
Rep. Lofgren (at right) and
Rep. Boucher also wrote a
Secretary of Commerce
Don Evans on May 9,
2003, in which they posed the same question, namely, "If Congress decides to
clarify the DMCA to strike the correct balance between copyright
holders and the interests of society, as intended by Congress, would the United
States be in violation of the FTA's?"
On June 5, 2003, Secretary Evans wrote a
letter to Rep.
Lofgren responding to
the May 9 letter. He wrote that "You expressed concern that the incorporation of
provisions based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the Singapore
and Chile FTAs may have an adverse impact on technological innovation. I
believe, however, that strong protection and enforcement of intellectual
property rights in FTAs facilitate the expansion of trade and investment in
digital technologies and products, thereby advancing the interests of all
parties to the FTAs."
He did not state in his letter that the FTAs would be breached by passage of
HR 1066 and HR 107. Rather, he wrote that "If the Congress amends the DMCA in the
future, the FTAs should then be reviewed for consistency with the amended DMCA."
Of course, this statement by Secretary Evans stops short of advising that the
two bills are consistent with the two FTAs.
Rep. Lofgren and Rep. Boucher
(at right) issued a release on June
18, 2003. Rep. Lofgren stated in this release that "Earlier this year, I was
advised by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) that if we amend
the DMCA, we would be in
breach of our treaty obligations with Chile and Singapore. I am pleased that
the Secretary of Commerce has now confirmed that Congress may amend the DMCA
even after the Chile and Singapore FTAs, containing DMCA provisions, are
Rep. Boucher stated in this same release that "The response we received from
the Secretary of Commerce is promising. It alleviates our concern that the
Administration had somehow sought to tie the hands of Congress by seeking to
effectively prevent it from amending a law that has had many troublesome
consequences for consumers and innovators of technology".
Rep. Boucher added that "With the Administration now negotiating the more
far-reaching Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement, we should amend the DMCA
now so that the balance
we strike can be incorporated into the agreement and preserve the fair use
rights of consumers throughout the Western Hemisphere."
HR 1066. HR 1066 contains many provisions. One section would
§ 1201, which was added to the Copyright Act by the DMCA.
First, it adds language stating that "Notwithstanding any other provision in
this title, a person who lawfully obtains a copy or phonorecord of a work, or
who lawfully receives a transmission of a work, may circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access to the work or protects a right of the
copyright holder under this title if -- (A) such act is necessary to make a
noninfringing use of the work under this title; and (B) the copyright owner
fails to make publicly available the necessary means to make such noninfringing
use without additional cost or burden to such person."
Second, it adds language permitting circumvention technologies. It states
that "any person may manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or
otherwise make available technological means to circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access or protects a right of a copyright
holder under this title if (A) such means are necessary to enable a
non-infringing use ... ; (B) such means are designed, produced and marketed to
enable a non-infringing use ... ; and (C) the copyright owner fails to make
available the necessary means ..."
See, story titled "Rep. Lofgren Re-Introduces Digital Fair Use Bill" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 618, March 6, 2003. This is substantially the same bill as
the Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002, which Rep. Lofgren introduced late
in the 107th Congress. See,
titled "Rep. Lofgren Introduces Digital Fair Use Bill", October 2, 2002.
HR 107. HR 107 would roll back the anti-circumvention provisions of
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Specifically, it would create fair
use exceptions to the bans on circumvention of technological measures to protect
copyrighted works. It would also provide an exception for scientific research
into technological protection measures.
See, story titled "Reps. Boucher and Doolittle Introduce Digital Fair Use
Bill" in TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 582, January 14, 2003. This is essentially the same bill as
HR 5544 (107th), a bill by the same title that the two introduced late in
the 107th Congress. See,
titled "Reps. Boucher and Doolittle Introduce Digital Media Consumer Rights
Act", October 3, 2002.
DMCA Provisions of FTAs. For
example, the U.S.
Chile FTA provides that "In
order to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against
the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors,
performers, and producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their
rights and that restrict unauthorized acts in respect of their works,
performances, and phonograms, protected by copyright and related rights: (a)
each Party shall provide that any person who knowingly circumvents
without authorization of the right holder or law consistent with this Agreement
any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work,
performance, or phonogram shall be civilly liable and, in appropriate
circumstances, shall be criminally liable, or said conduct shall be considered
an aggravating circumstance of another offense."
This FTA also provides that "each
Party shall also provide administrative or civil measures, and, where the
conduct is willful and for prohibited commercial purposes, criminal measures
with regard to the manufacture, import, distribution, sale, or rental of
devices, products, or components or the provision of services which: (i) are
promoted, advertised, or marketed for the purpose of circumvention of any
effective technological measure, or (ii) do not have a commercially significant
purpose or use other than to circumvent any effective technological measure, or
(iii) are primarily designed, produced, adapted, or performed for the purpose of
enabling or facilitating the circumvention of any effective technological
The Chile FTA goes on to state that "Each Party shall confine
limitations and exceptions to measures implementing subparagraphs (a) and (b) to
certain special cases that do not impair the adequacy of legal protection or the
effectiveness of legal remedies against the circumvention of effective
technological measures." The agreement sets out eight specific exemptions and
limitations that are permissible. Fair use is not enumerated.
|Sen. Hatch Comments Further About Remedies
for P2P Piracy
6/18. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT),
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, issued a statement regarding his off the cuff remarks about
copyright infringement on peer to peer (P2P) networks at the June 17 hearing of the
He stated at that hearing that if no other way can be found to protect
copyrighted materials from piracy on P2P networks, "then I am all for destroying
See, stories titled "Senate Committee Holds Hearing on P2P
Networks" and "News Analysis: Hatch Hyperbolizes About
Destroying Computers on P2P Networks" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 683, June
He stated in his June 18 release that "I am very concerned about Internet
piracy of personal and copyrighted
materials, and I want to find effective solutions to these problems."
He added that "I made my comments at yesterday's hearing because I think that industry is
not doing enough to help us find effective ways to stop people from using
computers to steal copyrighted, personal or sensitive materials."
He concluded that “I do not favor extreme remedies -- unless no moderate remedies can be found.
I asked the interested industries to help us find those moderate remedies."
|DOJ and Microsoft File Briefs with DC
Circuit in CCIA/SIIA Appeal
6/18. The Department of Justice's (DOJ)
Antitrust Division filed its
with the U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir)
in an appeal brought by two non party trade groups to the District Court's denial
of their motion to intervene in USA v. Microsoft. In addition, Microsoft filed
brief [29 pages in PDF]. This is A.C. No. 03-5030.
This is the antitrust case filed by the DOJ in 1998. The DOJ and Microsoft
reached a settlement in 2001, and filed their Revised Proposed Final Judgment
with the District Court. The District Court held that the DOJ and Microsoft had
complied with the Tunney Act, and approved the settlement.
Two groups that are not parties to this litigation, the
Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and the
Software and Information
Industry Association (SIIA), opposed the settlement. They jointly moved for
leave to intervene in late 2002. The District Court
denied their motion on January 11, 2003. The present appeal followed.
The DOJ wrote in its brief that "The district court conducted a careful and
comprehensive Tunney Act review of the proposed consent decree in this
government antitrust enforcement action, painstakingly reviewing massive
quantities of information, including this Court's prior decision, the
government's submissions, Microsoft's submissions, amici's submissions, and an
unprecedented number of public comments. It concluded that the consent decree
"takes account of the theory of liability advanced by Plaintiffs, the actual
liability imposed by the appellate court, the concerns of the Plaintiffs with
regard to future technologies, and the relevant policy considerations," and
that, with one minor amendment, its entry is in the public interest."
The DOJ added that "Appellants, private trade associations representing many
of Microsoft's rivals, nonetheless seek to intervene for the purpose of pursuing
their own vision of relief. In so doing, they ignore the legal standards
governing intervention and distort the purpose of the Tunney Act."
Attorney General Hewitt Pate
stated in a
release that "The Microsoft settlement is in the public interest and the
Department remains committed to actively enforcing its terms. As today’s brief
explains, the District Court properly rejected CCIA and SIIA's attempt to
intervene in this case. Following painstaking review of the record, the District
Court correctly found that the Department fully complied with the Tunney Act
procedures, and that the settlement was in the public interest."
Microsoft wrote in its brief that "The District Court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the request for permissive intervention. CCIA and SIIA
failed to establish the requisite commonality between any issues that remain in
this litigation and any antitrust claims their members may have against
Microsoft. They also failed to comply with Rule 24(c)'s requirement that they
file a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which they sought
intervention. With regard to intervention as of right -- which they pursue on
appeal only in a footnote in connection with their challenge to the parties'
compliance with the Tunney Act's procedural requirements -- CCIA and SIIA did
not identify a legally protectable interest sufficient to give them standing to
intervene. This Court thus should affirm the District Court’s denial of
intervention and dismiss the remainder of this appeal."
6/16. Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) and
a resolution expressing support for freedom in Hong Kong. It states that "the
traditional liberties of Hong Kong's 7,000,000 people are now immediately
threatened by Hong Kong's proposed `Article 23´ laws, which were drafted under
strong pressure from the Government of the People's Republic of China, dealing
with sedition, treason, and subversion against the Chinese Communist Party". It
adds that "similar subversion laws in the People's Republic of China are
regularly used to convict and imprison journalists, labor activists, Internet
entrepreneurs, and academics". Therefore, HRes 277 provides that it is
"Resolved, That the House of Representatives ... condemns any restriction of the
freedom of thought, expression, or association in Hong Kong".
6/18. The Copyright Office (CO) published a
notice in the Federal Register announcing final rule governing
that takes effect on July 18, 2003. The notice states that this rule "will
govern SoundExchange, an unincorporated division of the
Association of America, Inc., when it functions as the designated agent for the
purpose of receiving royalty payments and statements of accounts from nonexempt
subscription digital transmission services which make digital transmissions of
sound recordings under a statutory license." See, Federal Register, June 18,
2003, Vol. 68, No. 117, at Pages 36469 - 36470.
6/16. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
introduced HR 2478,
the "Cable Consumer Rights Act of 2003", a bill to reinstate the
authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to regulate cable television service rates. The bill would repeal Section
301(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and reinstate Section 623 of the
Communications Act of 1934. The bill was referred to the
House Commerce Committee.
|Tech and Communications Bills on the
Agenda of Senate Commerce Committee
June 19 Mark Up Session
? S 1264, the "Federal Communications Commission Reauthorization Act of 2003",
sponsored by Sen. John McCain
the "Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act", sponsored by Sen. McCain and
S 1234, the "Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act of 2003",
sponsored by Sen. McCain and Sen.
Gordon Smith (R-OR).|
the "Preservation of Localism, Program Diversity, and Competition in
Television Broadcast Service Act of 2003", sponsored by
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK),
Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) and
S 1260, the "Commercial Space Transportation Act of 2003", sponsored by
Sen. McCain and Sen. Sam Brownback
the "21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act", sponsored
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sen.
George Allen (R-VA) and others.|
S 877, the "Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
Pormography and Marketing Act of 2003", or "CAN-SPAM Act",
sponsored by Sen.
Conrad Burns (R-MT) and
|Thursday, June 19
The House will meet at 10:00 AM legislative business. It will consider
several non tech related items. See,
Republican Whip Notice.
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The Department of
Defense's (DOD) Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee (TAPAC) will
hold a public meeting. The TAPAC is a Total
Information Awareness Project oversight board. The notice states that "The
purpose of the meeting is for presentations of interest and discussion
concerning the legal and policy considerations implicated by the application
of advanced information technologies to counter-terrorism and
counter-intelligence missions." For more information, contact Lisa Davis,
TAPAC Executive Driector, at 703 695-0903. See,
notice in the Federal Register, June 11, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 112, at Page
34909. Location: Hyatt Arlington,
1325 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes
consideration of several non technology related bills, and consideration of
the nomination of William Pryor to be a Judge
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. See,
Press contact: Margarita Tapia at 202 224-5225. Location: Room 216, Hart
9:30 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee
will meet in executive session to mark 14 bills and consider several pending
agenda. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.
10:00 PM. The Senate Banking
Committee will hold a hearing titled "The Growing Problem of Identity
Theft and Its Relationship to the Fair Credit Reporting Act". See,
Location: Room 538, Dirksen Building.
12:15 - 2:00 PM. The Forum on
Technology and Innovation will host a panel discussion on intellectual
property protections and their impact on innovation. The speakers will be
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Technology Policy, Gigi Sohn,
President of Public Knowledge,
and James DeLong, of the Progress and Freedom
Register by Tuesday, June 17 at 5:00 PM. A
box lunch will be served. Location: Room 106, Dirksen Building.
Deadline to submit comments to the
Copyright Office (CO) in response to its
notice in the Federal Register "requesting comment on proposed regulations
that set rates and terms for the use of sound recordings in eligible
nonsubscription transmissions and new subscription services, other than
transmissions made by certain noncommercial entities, together with related
ephemeral recordings. The rates and terms are for the 2003 and 2004 statutory
licensing period, except in the case of new subscription services in which
case the license period runs from 1998 through 2004." This notice also states
that "The agreement published herein supersedes the agreement published in the
Federal Register on May 1, 2003, and parties should only comment on the
proposed rates and terms set forth in this notice." See, Federal Register, May
20, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 97, at Pages 27506 - 27513. See also,
superseded notice in the Federal Register, May 1, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 84,
at Pages 23241 - 23249. For more information, contact David Carson (CO General
Counsel) or Tanya Sandros (Senior Attorney, CARP) at 202 707-8380.
|Monday, June 23
|The Supreme Court will return from a one week recess.
|Tuesday, June 24
8:45 AM - 2:35 PM. The American
Antitrust Institute will host a Fourth Annual Conference
titled "Antitrust and Access". See, agenda at right. The price to
attend is $400. Location: National Press Club.
10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee will hold a hearing on several pending judicial and other
nominations, including Allyson Duncan (to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 4th Circuit), Samuel Der-Yeghiayan (Northern District of
Illinois), Louise Flanagan (Eastern District of North Carolina), Lonny Suko
(Eastern District of Washington), Earl Yeakel (Western District of Texas), and
Christopher Wray (Assistant Attorney General). Press contact: Margarita Tapia
at 202 224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar
Association's (FCBA) Cable Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch.
The speaker will be Kyle Dixon, Deputy Bureau Chief of the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) Media
Bureau, and Special Counsel to the Chairman for Broadband. RSVP to Wendy
Parish at firstname.lastname@example.org. Location:
National Cable & Telecommunications Association
(NCTA), 1724 Massachusetts Ave., NW, 2nd Floor Conference Room.
2:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee's Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights Subcommittee
will hold a hearings to examine how to preserve and protect media
competition in the marketplace. Press contact: Margarita Tapia at 202
224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
2:30 PM. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's European Affairs
Subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine "U.S. relations with
respect to a changing Europe, focusing on differing views on technology
issues". Location: Room 419, Dirksen Building.
The 21st Century Intellectual Property Coalition will
meet. For information, contact Dana Colarulli at
|Wednesday, June 25
9:30 AM. The Senate
Government Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of
Joshua Bolton to be Director of the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). Location: Room 342, Dirksen Building.
10:15 AM. The
House International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on East Asia and
the Pacific will hold a hearing. The witness will be
Ralph Ives, Assistant U.S. Trade Represenative for Asia-Pacific and
APEC Affairs. Location: Room 2172, Rayburn Building.
12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee
and the US Asia Policy Network will host a panel discussion titled "The
Internet in Asia: Is the US Falling Behind?" RSVP to
email@example.com or 202 638-4370.
Location: Room 216, Hart Building.
The Federal Communications Bar Association
(FCBA) will host a luncheon. Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman
Michael Powell will speak.
2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee will hold a hearing on the
nominations of Allyson Duncan (to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 4th Circuit), and Louise Flanagan (Eastern District of North
Carolina). Press contact: Margarita Tapia
at 202 224-5225. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
Commission (FCC) will begin Auction 53, regarding licenses in the
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS). See,
notice in Federal Register, May 27, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 101, at pages 28825
|About Tech Law Journal
|Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
Contact: 202-364-8882; E-mail.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2003 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All