10/21. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled "Protecting Our National Security from Terrorist Attacks: A Review of Criminal Terrorism Investigations and Prosecutions". Attorney General John Ashcroft did not appear, but sent one Assistant Attorney General, and two U.S. Attorneys, in his place.

Several of the Democrats on the Committee offered harsh criticism of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Although, much of their criticism focused on matters unrelated to the PATRIOT Act, such as gun control, CIA leaks, and the Washington DC snipers.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the Committee, wrote in his opening statement that "I expect the Attorney General to participate in these hearings, and I am disappointed that we will not be hearing from him today. Unlike other senior Administration officials who regularly participate in oversight hearings, Attorney General Ashcroft has appeared before this Committee only once this year, and then only for a short time."

He also criticized Ashcroft at length for his "dismissive attitude" about, and attempts to marginalize, critics of the DOJ. He said that this is "beneath the dignity of the Department of Justice".

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) stated that "only the Attorney General can supply adequate answers to our questions". Kennedy criticized the Attorney General for "barnstorming the country", and waging a "public relations" campaign, rather than meeting with Senators.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) stated that the government has "done a pretty good job", citing the breakup of terror cells. And, he reiterated his support for the PATRIOT Act. But, he continued, that he is troubled by the DOJ's "lack of candor". He said that "the Department operates in a shroud of secrecy". He warned the DOJ officials present at the hearing that "the Act will be repealed unless you guys get your act together." He called the Attorney General's absence from the hearing "outrageous".

Republican members of the Committee did not criticize the Attorney General or the DOJ. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) (at right), the Chairman of the Committee, said in his opening statement that the "inquiry will attempt to cut through the rhetoric, confusion, and distortion to get to the facts necessary to find out if we are protecting our citizens’ lives and their liberties."

He stated that the next hearing on this issue is tentatively set for November 5, and that the Committee may hold field hearings on this issue during the next recess.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said "I worry about hysterical claims about civil liberties violations." He said that they undermine legitimate claims.

Internet Surveillance. Christopher Wray, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, testified at the hearing regarding several of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that have been criticized.

Wray wrote that "The Patriot Act also brought the law up to date with current technology, so we no longer have to fight a digital-age battle with antique weapons. Terrorists, like drug dealers and other organized criminals, have employed modern technology to conduct and conceal their activities. They are now trained to thwart surveillance by rapidly changing cell phones. The Patriot Act simply leveled the playing field by allowing terrorism investigators to adapt to these methods. Section 216 clarified that the authority to use pen registers and trap-and-trace devices -- long used for performing surveillance on phones -- may be sought from a court for Internet communications.

Sneak and Peak Warrants. Wray also addressed sneak and peak warrants. He wrote that "Another important tool has been the court-approved delayed notice search warrant. This warrant allows investigators, with court approval, to delay notifying the target of a search for a limited time while the warrant is executed. Authority to delay notice can be used only upon the issuance of a court order in narrow circumstances, such as when delay is necessary to protect witnesses and cooperators, to avoid the disclosure of undercover operations, or to prevent the removal or destruction of evidence. This is a valuable tool, the use of which has long been upheld by courts nationwide in investigations of organized crime, drug offenses, and child pornography. The Patriot Act simply codified the case law in this area to provide certainty and nationwide consistency in terrorism and other criminal investigations."

Sneak and peak warrants are addressed in Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act. The Act does not sunset this provision. However, Sen. Leahy, Sen. Craig, and Sen. Feingold, all members of the Judiciary Committee, have each sponsored bills that would sunset this provision. Also, the Otter amendment in the House would bar use of federal funds to implement Section 213. (See, following story.)

Sen. Feinstein defended this Section of the PATRIOT Act. She said that it is merely a codification of case law, and that "it was actually narrower than the authority that existed before" passage of the PATRIOT Act.

Roving Wiretaps. Wray also wrote in his prepared testimony that "``Roving´´ wiretaps, when approved by a court, allow investigators to conduct electronic surveillance on a particular suspect, rather than a particular telephone. This technique has been used for over a decade to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering; thanks to the Patriot Act, terrorism investigators now have the same valuable tool."

See also, prepared testimony of Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and prepared testimony of Paul McNulty, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

10/15. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DC) against the Department of Justice (DOJ) alleging violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552. The EPIC seeks expedited processing and release of records pertaining to lobbying by U.S. Attorneys in opposition to legislative proposals to revise or limit investigative powers authorized in the USA PATRIOT Act.

On September 10 the EPIC submitted a FOIA request to the DOJ requesting records related to an August 14, 2003 memorandum from Guy Lewis, of the DOJ's Executive Office for United States Attorneys, regarding an amendment offered in the House by Rep. Butch Otter (R-ID).

Rep. Otter offered an amendment to HR 2799, the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2004. This is House Amendment 292. The House approved this amendment by a vote of 309-118 on July 22, 2003. See, Roll Call No. 408.

This short amendment provides, in full, that "None of the funds made available in this act may be used to seek a delay under Section 3103a(b) of title 18 United States Code." The PATRIOT Act, at Section 213, amended 18 U.S.C. § 3103a to allow a court to order the delay of notice of a search warrant, if it finds "reasonable cause". This is also sometimes referred to as the "sneak and peak" provision. (Rep. Otter's amendment could not address substantive law, since it was an amendment to an appropriations bill, which can only address appropriations.)

The House passed the bill, as amended. The Senate has not yet approved an CJS appropriations bill for FY 2004. The Senate Appropriations Committee passed S 1585, its version of the bill, on September 5, without the Otter amendment.

There are several substantive bills pending in the Congress that would address delayed notice of search warrants.

For example, on October 2, Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Sen. John Sununu (R-NH), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) introduced S 1709, the "Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003", or SAFE Act. This bill, would, among other things, amend 18 U.S.C. § 3103a to limit the authority to delay notice of search warrants. See, story titled "Senators Craig and Dubin Introduce Bill to Modify PATRIOT Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 753, October 6, 2003.

Similarly, on October 1, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and others introduced S 1695, the "PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act". It pertains to the sunsetting of various provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This Act was passed by the 107th Congress as HR 3162 shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It became Public Law 107-56 on October 26, 2001. The original PATRIOT Act provides that some of its provisions sunset, or cease to have effect, on December 31, 2005. Sen. Leahy's bill provides for the sunsetting of more provisions.

See, story titled "Sen. Leahy Introduces Bill to Expand List of Surveillance Provisions of PATRIOT Act to Be Sunsetted" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 757, October 14, 2003.

Another bill, S 1701, the "Reasonable Notice and Search Act", introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) on October 2, would also sunset Section 213.

The EPIC also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking expedited processing of its request for records. See, memorandum [17 pages in PDF] in support of motion for preliminary injunction. It argues that this is matter of interest to the public and news media, and that "The current and ongoing debate on the Patriot Act will be hampered by further delay in DOJ’s response to plaintiff’s request."

The EPIC memorandum quotes from an August 22, 2003 article in the Washington Post, which states that the DOJ "urged U.S. attorneys to contact congressional representatives who voted against a key anti-terrorism provision of the USA Patriot Act, part of a broad-based publicity campaign on behalf of the law ..."

The EPIC now seeks records pertaining to this lobbying campaign.

10/21. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property (CIIP) held a hearing on HR 2723, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2003. This bill would split the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit into two circuits, with California, Nevada and Arizona remaining in a new Ninth Circuit, and Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii forming a new 12th Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit has by far the largest number of Appeals Court judges. It currently has 28 authorized active judges. The Judicial Conference has proposed adding 7 more. Also, there are usually about 15 to 20 senior judges who sit on panels.

Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School, wrote in his prepared testimony [49 pages in PDF] that "the court will be a court of 50 or more judges. I believe that there is a real question whether the judges on a court of that size will be able to know one another as members of a court should do."

He also noted that for the last ten years "the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has consistently ranked at or near the bottom among federal appellate courts in the median time interval from filing the notice of appeal to final disposition."

Proposals to split the Circuit have been advanced for some time. At this hearing, a group of Ninth Circuit Judges offered a relatively new argument for keeping one huge circuit intact -- computers.

For example, Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in his prepared testimony in opposition to HR 2723 that "The advances in technology in the past quarter century have transformed the world, and that world includes the court system. The Ninth Circuit was the first circuit to institute an automated docketing system; we are now on the verge of an electronic web-based filing system. The use of instantaneous electronic mail has allowed circuit judges over wide geographic distances to communicate as if they were in the same courthouse. Videoconferencing for motion panels, and administrative meetings has become common place."

He added that "the court's ability to manage its caseload, and to track novel and potential precedential though the use of computer programs has allowed this court to function more efficiently today than it ever has. I believe that HR 2723 would impede much of the progress we have made in managing a large appellate court."

Similarly, Chief Judge Mary Schroeder wrote in her prepared testimony that "Due to the advances in technology, such as the automated docket, computer aided legal research, instantaneous electronic mail, videoconferencing, along with the economies of scale that can be achieved in a large circuit, we have increased our efficiency and our caseload has become more, and not less, manageable."

10/21. The U.S. Court of Appeals (5thCir) issued its opinion [11 pages in PDF] in Southwestern Bell v. PUC of Texas, affirming the District Court.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) determined in an arbitration proceeding that AT&T, and not Southwestern Bell, was responsible for paying the increased interconnection costs resulting from Southwestern Bell having to carry traffic outside a particular calling area to a distant point of interconnection (POI) selected by AT&T.

AT&T filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (WDTex) seeking judicial review of this determination. The District Court granted summary judgment to AT&T, reversing the PUC order, and remanding. This appeal followed. The Appeals Court affirmed.

This case is Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 03-50107, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

10/21. The World Trade Organization (WTO) announced that Hong Kong, China will host the Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference. However, the WTO did not set a date. See, WTO release.

11/21. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced that November 21 is the deadline to submit comments to it regarding its foreign policy-based export controls. This category includes high performance computers, encryption items, as well as chemical and biological agents, missiles, and "implements of torture". The BIS is reviewing these controls in the Export Administration Regulations to determine whether they should be modified, rescinded or extended. See, notice in the Federal Register, October 21, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 203, at Pages 60050-60052.

10/20. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register regarding amendments to its rules of practice to conform them to certain amendments made to the regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). See, Federal Register, October 20, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 202, at Pages 59881-59889.

10/13. VeriSign wrote a letter to the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding its IDN program.

10/21. The U.S. Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its opinion [12 pages in PDF] in Doe v. GTE, a case involving Section 230 interactive computer services immunity. The District Court dismissed the complaint against a pair of interactive computer service providers (or ISPs) who had merely provided web hosting services to smut merchants who had surreptitiously videotaped the plaintiffs, and then sold the videotapes through their web sites. The Appeals Court affirmed. The Court also held that the ISPs are not liable under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) when their users sell videotapes that were made in violation of the ECPA.

The plaintiffs (below) and appellants (on appeal) are the college athletes who were secretly videotaped in their locker rooms. The videotapes were then sold by web based businesses, who obtained web hosting services from several companies, including GTE and Genuity. (Both are now subsidiaries of Verizon.)

The athletes filed a John Doe complaint, which was removed to the U.S. District Court (NDIll), against the smut merchants, their web site hosting companies, and the universities where the videotaping took place. They alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2511.

The universities prevailed on qualified immunity. The smut merchants (one of whom was named Franco) either defaulted -- the athletes have $500 Million in uncollectible judgments -- or could not be served. Several web hosting companies went bankrupt. This left only two defendants, GTE and Genuity. The District Court then dismissed the complaint against these defendants on the grounds that they have immunity, as interactive computers services, under 47 U.S.C. § 230. This appeal followed.

Section 230(c)(1) provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The Appeals Court, with Judge Frank Easterbrook writing the opinion, affirmed. This outcome is consistent all other circuit court opinions. See, Zeran v. AOL, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997); Ben Ezra, Weinstein & Co. v. AOL, 206 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2000); Green v. AOL, 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003); Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003); and Carafano v. Metrosplash.com. (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, the District Court in the District of Columbia reached the same conclusion in Blumenthal v. AOL and Drudge (1998).

Nevertheless, the athlete appellants tried to argue their way around Section 230 and this body of precedent.

They argued that GTE and Genuity are liable under the ECPA, and cited Section 230(e), which provides that the ECPA is not limited by Section 230. The Court concluded that Franco and the other smut merchants had intercepted oral communications, because the video tapes also included audio. However, the Court continued that neither GTE nor Genuity had intercepted anything, and that the ECPA does not create secondary liability.

The plaintiffs also argued for a tortured construction of the statute, and that GTE and Genuity are liable for negligent entrustment of facilities. The Appeals Court rejected these arguments.

However, the Appeals Court left open a possible argument for future cases. It wrote that "Maybe plaintiffs would have a better argument that, by its contracts with Franco, GTE assumed a duty to protect them. No third-party-beneficiary argument has been advanced in this court, however, so we need not decide how it would fare."

This case is John Doe, et al. v. GTE Corporation and Genuity, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, No. 02-4323, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, D.C. No. 99 C 7885, Judge Charles Kocoras presiding.

See also, TLJ story titled "9th Circuit Applies Section 230 Immunity to Online Dating Service", August 13, 2003, regarding the Carafano case, and story titled "9th Circuit Construes Section 230 Immunity in Suit Against Listserv Operator" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 687, June 25, 2003, regarding the Batzel case.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Janice Brown to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Press contact: Margarita Tapia (Hatch) at 202 224-5225 or David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

8:00 AM - 1:30PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host a seminar titled "Immigration -- Access, Security and the American Economy". At 9:00 AM, Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) will speak. At 9:30 AM, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) will speak. At 12:30 PM, Asa Hutchinson, Under Secretary of Homeland Security, will deliver the keynote speech. See, notice and agenda. Location: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H Street, NW.

12:00 NOON. The Benton Foundation will hold a news conference regarding e-government. For more information, contact Andy Carvin at 202 678-5770. Location: First Amendment Lounge, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

6:00 - 8:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Nuts and Bolts of the Triennial Review Order". The price to attend is $75 for members, $125 for non-members, $50 for government, academic, and student members. RSVP to Wendy Parish at fcba@fcba.org. Location: ?

8:15 AM. The George Washington Law Review at the George Washington University Law School (GWULS) will host a day long conference titled "Internet Surveillance, Privacy & USA PATRIOT Act". To register, contact Amanda Johnson at ajohnson@law.gwu.edu. Location, GWULS, 2000 H Street, NW.

8:30 AM - 3:30 PM. The Association for Maximum Service Television will host an event titled "MSTV 17th Annual Fall Conference: Digital Covalence". The speakers will include Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), Will Nordwind (House Commerce Committee), Greg Rothschild (HCC), Bruce Franca (Deput Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology), Paul Galante (Advisor to FCC Chairman Michael Powell), Johanna Mikes (Advisor to FCC Commissioners Adelstein), and Catherine Bohigian (Advisor to FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin). The price to attend is $300. Location: Park Hyatt Hotel, 24th & M Streets, NW.

9:30 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) will hear oral argument in AT&T v. FCC, No. 02-1221. Judges Ginsburg, Edwards, and Garland will preside. Location: 333 Constitution Ave. NW.

11:45 AM. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "Online Gambling: Lessons from the Internet and Illegal Bookmakers". The speakers will be Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Mike Knesevitch (Tradesports.com), Koleman Strumpf (UNC Chapel Hill), Raymond Sauer (Clemson University), and Justin Wolfers (Stanford Business School). See, notice and registration page. The event will be webcast. Lunch will be served after the program. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:15 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Cable Practice Committee will host a brown bag lunch. The speaker will be Jordan Goldstein, Senior Legal Advisor to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. For more information, contact Catherine Bohigian at catherine.bohigian@fcc.gov. RSVP to: wendy@fcba.org Location: NCTA, 1724 Massachusetts Ave, NW.

12:30 PM. The Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) will hold a news conference titled "National Cyber Security". For more information, contact Holly Cherico at 703-247-9311 or hcherico@cbbb.bbb.org. Location: First Amendment Lounge, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.

4:00 PM. Roberta Kwall (DePaul University College of Law) will present a paper titled "In the Beginning ... The Impact of Genesis on Innovation". See, notice. For more information, contact Robert Brauneis at 202 994-6138 or rbraun@law.gwu.edu. Location: George Washington University Law School, Faculty Conference Center, Burns Building, 5th Floor, 716 20th Street, NW.

TIME? Joseph Liu (Boston College of Law) will give a lecture titled "Rationalizing Trademark Defenses". This is a part of Georgetown University Law Center's (GULC) Colloquium on Intellectual Property & Technology Law Series. For more information, contact Julie Cohen at 202 662-9871. Location: GULC, 600 New Jersey Ave., NW.

Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to its rules governing the provision of air ground telecommunications services on commercial airplanes in order to enhance the options available to the public. The FCC adopted this NPRM on April 17, 2003, and released it on April 28, 2003. This is WT Docket No. 03-103. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 25, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 143, at Pages 44003 - 44011.

Deadline to submit requests to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to speak at its October 23, 2003 hearing regarding its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding computation and allocation of the credit for increasing research activities for members of a controlled group of corporations or a group of trades or businesses under common control. The rules implement the research and development tax credit codified at 26 U.S.C. § 41. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 29, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 145, at Pages 44499 - 44506.

7:30 AM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) will host a breakfast titled "New Horizons in the Digital Migration". The speaker will be FCC Chief of Staff Bryan Tramont. The price to attend is $35.00. Register by Tuesday, October 21, 2003. See, registration page. Location: J.W. Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

8:00 AM - 3:30 PM. The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and Engineering will hold a meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, September 22, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 183, at Page 55067. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1235, Arlington, VA.

9:00 AM. The U.S. District Court (DC) will hold a status conference in U.S. v. Microsoft, D.C. No. 98 cv 1232. Location: Courtroom 11, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.

Deadline for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding telecommunication relay services (TRS) and speech-to-speech services for individuals with hearing and speech disabilities. This is CG Docket No. 03-123. See, notice in the Federal Register, August 25, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 164, at Pages 50993 - 50998.

6:00 - 8:15 PM. Intellectual Property Section of the D.C. Bar Association will host a CLE course titled "Transactions Involving Intellectual Property, Part II: Intellectual Property in Financings and Bankruptcy". Prices vary. For more information, call 202 626-3488. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 level.

12:00 NOON. Deadline to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) regarding countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974  requires the USTR to prepare a report. Section 182, which is codified at 19 U.S.C. § 2242, is also referred to as "Special 301". This is an out of cycle review. The USTR announced that this review will focus on Korea. However, it added that "Additional countries may also be reviewed as a result of the comments received pursuant to this notice, or as warranted by events." See, notice in the Federal Register, October 3, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 192, at Page 57503.

RESCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 28. 2:00 PM. The House Ways and Means Committee will meet to mark up HR 2896, the "American Jobs Creation Act of 2003". This bill would, among other things, replace the FSC & ETI tax regimes that the WTO held to be illegal export subsidies. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building.

5:30 - 7:30 PM. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a book forum. Charles Murray will discuss his book (due for release on October 21) titled Human Accomplishment : The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. See, Amazon page. See also, AEI notice. Location: AEI, Twelfth floor, 1150 17th St., NW.

Deadline to submit nominations to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau for positions on the Board of Directors of its Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). See, FCC notice [PDF].

Deadline to submit written comments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding computation and allocation of the credit for increasing research activities for members of a controlled group of corporations or a group of trades or businesses under common control. The rules implement the research and development tax credit codified at 26 U.S.C. § 41. See, notice in the Federal Register, July 29, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 145, at Pages 44499 - 44506.

9:00 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee will meet to mark up HR 2896, the "American Jobs Creation Act of 2003". This bill would, among other things, replace the FSC & ETI tax regimes that the WTO held to be illegal export subsidies. Location: Room 1100, Longworth Building. This mark up was previously scheduled for Monday, October 27.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a book forum. Charles Murray will discuss his book (due for release on October 21) titled Human Accomplishment : The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. See, Amazon page. See also, AEI notice. Press contact: Veronique Rodman at 202 862-4871 or vrodman@aei.org. Lunch will follow the program. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

6:00 - 9:15 PM. The Intellectual Property and International Law sections of the D.C. Bar Association will host a CLE course titled "Practical Guide to U.S. Implementation of the Madrid Protocol". Prices vary. For more information, call 202 626-3488. Location: D.C. Bar Conference Center, 1250 H Street NW, B-1 level.

Deadline to submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding its proposal "to issue new guidance to realize the benefits of meaningful peer review of the most important science disseminated by the federal government regarding regulatory topics." See, OMB document [14 pages in PDF] titled "Peer Review and Information Quality".