TLJ News from April 1-5, 2011

House Begins Consideration of HJRes 37

4/5. The House began its consideration of HJRes 37, a resolution disapproving the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) rules regulating broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers.

On Monday, April 4, the House Rules Committee (HRC) adopted a closed rule [PDF] that did not allow the consideration of amendments.

On Tuesday, April 5, the House debated and approved that rule, by a vote of 241-178. See, Roll Call No. 227. The House has yet to vote on HJRes 37.

Republicans voted 236-0 for the rule. Democrats voted 5-178. The Democrats who supported the rule were Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA), and Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN).

See, story titled "House Commerce Committee Approves HJRes 37" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,204, March 15, 2011; story titled "House Subcommittee Passes Resolution of Disapproval of FCC BIAS Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,202, March 10, 2011; and story titled "House Subcommittee to Mark Up Resolution Disapproving FCC's BIAS Rules" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,201, March 2, 2011.

The FCC's rules are contained in the Report and Order (R&O) [194 pages in PDF] adopted on December 21, 2010, and released on December 23, 2010. This R&O is FCC 10-201 in GN Docket No. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52. See also, stories in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,186, December 22, 2010, and TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,188, December 24, 2010.

On April 5, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Commerce Committee (HCC), and other Democratic members of the HCC, sent a Dear Colleague letter [PDF] urging opposition to HJRes 37.

They wrote that "While many of us support the FCC's Open Internet Rules, others among us differ on the provisions. But we are united in opposing the straitjacket H. J. Res 37 imposes, which prevents the House from debating and amending the substantive issues involved."

They explained that "Under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, resolutions of disapproval are not open to amendment. This means we are forced into an up-or-down vote on H. J. Res. 37. Even an amendment to restore the transparency provisions of the FCC rule, which gives consumers basic information about the speed and cost of their Internet connections, was ruled out of order in Committee."

Verizon Pays $93 Million to Settle False Claims Act Claims

4/5. The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in a release that Verizon Communications has paid $93,525,410.96 in settlement of qui tam claims brought under the False Claims Act (FCA), 37 U.S.C. §§ 3721-3733, by Stephen M. Shea and 2Probe LLC that Verizon overcharged the General Services Administration (GSA) on invoices for voice and data communications contracts with the federal government.

This pertains to ten year old contracts between the federal government and MCI Communications Services Inc., which is now a Verizon subsidiary.

The DOJ elaborated that "Verizon and MCI submitted false claims under the contracts for the reimbursement of property taxes, common carrier recovery charges and unallowable surcharges, charges that are not directly reimbursable under the" contracts.

The case is U.S. ex rel. Stephen M. Shea and 2Probe LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, D.C. No. 1:07CV00111 (GK).

Movie Companies Sue Zediva for Copyright Infringement

4/5. Warner Bros. Entertainment, and other members of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), filed a complaint [PDF] in the U.S. District Court (CDCal) against WTV Systems, the operator of the video service marketed as Zediva, alleging copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501.

The plaintiffs -- Warner Bros., Columbia, Disney, Paramount, Twentieth Century Fox, and Universal -- allege in this complaint that the Zediva web site "streams Plaintiffs' movies on demand to paying customers over the Internet" without plaintiffs' authorization.

They allege that this is a public performance in violation of their exclusive rights of copyright. See, 17 U.S.C. § 106(4).

They allege that "Unlike Netflix and other licensed online services, Defendants' business is based on infringing Plaintiffs' rights. Defendants transmit performances of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works to members of the public without Plaintiffs' authorization."

The one count complaint seeks injunctive and monetary relief -- $150,000 per statutory award.

Zediva's CEO, Venkatesh Srinivasan, who is also a named defendant, filed a comment [6 pages in PDF] with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) dated December 10, 2010 in the proceeding in which it adopted rules regulating broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers. This proceeding is FCC Docket Nos. GN 09-191 and WC 07-52.

He urged the FCC to write rules that would prevent BIAS providers from blocking or discriminating against the Zediva service. He urged the FCC to adopts rules that "ban all application-specific discrimination". He made no mention of an exception for copyright infringing applications.

He offered this description of Zediva in his comment to the FCC. "Zediva enables its users to rent DVDs, and watch their rentals instantly on their computer, without needing to pick up a physical copy of the DVD." He further stated that "users can rent a DVD and a DVD player located in Zediva's data centers". He further described this as remote place shifting.

This case is Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. WTV Systems, Inc. and WTV Systems, LLC dba Zediva, and Venkatesh Srinivasan, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, D.C. No. CV11-02817-JFW. The plaintiffs are represented by Glenn Pomerantz of the law firm of Munger Tolles & Olson.

Commentary: Zediva, Movie Streaming, and the First Sale Doctrine

4/5. Neither WTV Systems (operator of Zediva) nor its CEO, Venkatesh Srinivasan, have filed an answer to the copyright infringement complaint [PDF] filed by movie companies on April 5, 2011. Under Rule 12, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the general rule is that one must serve an answer "within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint". The defendants have not yet disclosed what arguments and defenses they might raise.

However, based upon Srinivasan's filing with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in December of 2010, the likely legal argument appears to be that the Zediva service is a DVD rental service, even though there is no brick and mortar DVD rental store, and the customers do not acquire possession of any DVDs. See, related story in this issue titled "Movie Companies Sue Zediva for Copyright Infringement".

The argument appears to rely upon the first sale doctrine. That is, under 17 U.S.C. § 109, traditional brick and mortar DVD rental companies, having purchased a large number of physical DVDs, can then rent them out, or resell them, to customers.

The factual basis underlying this defense would be stronger if Zediva actually purchases physical DVDs and makes no copies, and when a customer pays for the streaming of a movie, that movie it is on a DVD purchased and possessed by Zediva, Zediva is actually streaming from that DVD, and that DVD is only being used to stream to one customer at a time.

This would not be an efficient delivery technology, compared to other internet content delivery systems, but it would be more analogous to the legitimate business model of brick and mortar DVD store rentals.

However, even if the nature of Zediva's service is as described above, there remains the application of the Copyright Act.

First, there are several exclusive rights of copyright. They are listed in 17 U.S.C. § 106. The complaint alleges infringement of only one exclusive right of copyright, the performance right, which is codified at subsection 106(4).

Second, there is Section 109, which codifies one exception to the exclusive rights of copyright, the first sale doctrine. Significantly, section 109 does not apply the first sale doctrine uniformly across all exclusive rights of copyright, and all technologies. The basic exception pertains to the exclusive rights codified in subsection 106(3).

This subsection provides that "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following ... (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending".

But, the movie companies allege in their complaint violation of their exclusive right under 17 U.S.C. § 106(4), which provides that "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following ... (4) in the case of ... motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly". (Emphasis added.)

Section 109 only provides an exemption to the performance right in the context of "an electronic audiovisual game intended for use in coin-operated equipment". (Emphasis added.)

Thus, if the Zediva service provides public performances within the meaning of subsection 106(4), but not distribution by rentals within the meaning of subsection 106(3), then the first sale doctrine would provide no defense.

The movie companies have already disclosed that they argue that Zediva provides public performances. The defendants will likely argue that Zediva provides distribution by rental. Definitions will be critical.

17 U.S.C. § 101 contains definitions. It provides that "To ``perform´´ a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of any device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible."

It further provides that "To perform or display a work ``publicly´´ means---
  (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
  (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."

Performance includes rendering "by means of any device or process", which would include internet streaming. Public performance includes performance "by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times". These definitions are broad enough to be interpreted to encompass streaming movies one at a time to customers.

Section 101 provides no definition of "rent" or "rental". Although, the word rent in legal usage connotates an occupational or possessory right. Under Zediva's system, customers take possession of nothing.

One precedent that is likely to be invoked in this case is the August 4, 2008, opinion [44 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) in Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, 536 F.3d 121. The Court of Appeals held that CSC's Remote Storage Digital Video Recorder (RS-DVR) system does not violate the Copyright Act by infringing plaintiffs' exclusive rights of reproduction and public performance. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 29, 2009.

See, story titled "2nd Circuit Reverses in Remote Storage DVR Copyright Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,806, August 5, 2008; story titled "Copyright Alliance and Others File Amicus Briefs in Remote Storage DVR Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,854, November 10, 2008; and story titled "DOJ Urges SCUS to Deny Cert in RS-DVR Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,946, June 2, 2009.

IAB Forecasts Migration of TV Ad Spending to Digital Video Ads

4/5. The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) announced that a survey conducted by the Advertiser Perceptions found that marketers and agencies plan to increase their digital video advertising.

The IAB stated in a release that "69% of marketers and 55% of agencies plan to increase their Digital Video Advertising (DVA), with a 22% growth predicted in the next 12 months".

The IAB also stated that the survey shows that "Marketers will migrate TV ad dollars to digital video based on the belief it will deliver better" return on investment, and that "agencies and television decision makers will shift ad dollars in an attempt to follow their target audiences".

The survey results are published in a set of presentation slides [29 pages in PDF] titled "An Inside Look at Demand-Side Perceptions of Digital Video Advertising".

OMB Says President's Advisors Would Recommend Veto of HJRes 37

4/4. The Executive Office of the President's (EOP) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a short statement [PDF] that states that "If the President is presented with a Resolution of Disapproval that would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution."

This statement argues that HJRes 37 "would undermine a fundamental part of the Nation's Internet and innovation strategy -- an enforceable and effective policy for keeping the Internet free and open. Since the development of the Internet, Federal policy has ensured that this medium is kept open and facilitates innovation and investment, protects consumer choice, and enables free speech."

"The rule at issue resulted from a process that brought together parties on all sides of this issue -- from consumer groups to technology companies to broadband providers -- to enable their voices to be heard." The OMB statement continues that the FCC's rules "reflected a constructive effort to build a consensus around what safeguards and protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment and to spur innovation."

It argues that "Disapproval of the rule would threaten those values and raise questions as to whether innovation on the Internet will be allowed to flourish, consumers will be protected from abuses, and the democratic spirit of the Internet will remain intact."

The Public Knowledge's (PK) Gigi Sohn praised the OMB announcement. See, PK release.

Court of Appeals Dismisses Verizon's and MetroPCS's Premature Challenges to the FCC's BIAS Rules

4/4. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued a per curiam order [PDF] that dismisses the appeals of both Verizon and MetroPCS of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) order adopting rules regulating broadband internet access service (BIAS) providers.

Verizon and MetroPCS filed appeals in early January arguing that the FCC's BIAS rules exceed the statutory authority of the FCC, are arbitrary and capricious, and violated the Constitution. The FCC moved to dismiss both as premature on January 28.

The FCC's rules are contained in the Report and Order (R&O) [194 pages in PDF] adopted on December 21, 2010, and released on December 23, 2010. This R&O is FCC 10-201 in GN Docket No. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52. For descriptions and discussions of these rules, see stories in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,186, December 22, 2010, and TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,188, December 24, 2010.

However, the FCC has not yet published a notice in the Federal Register regarding this R&O. Verizon and MetroPCS are free to file again when the FCC has published this notice.

The Court wrote "The challenged order is a rulemaking document subject to publication in the Federal Register".

"The order will therefore be subject to judicial review upon publication in the Federal Register. ... Regardless of whether the order is reviewable by way of a petition for review, 47 U.S.C. § 402(a), or a notice of appeal, 47 U.S.C. § 402(b), the prematurity is incurable."

47 U.S.C. § 402 provides for judicial review of final orders of the FCC. 28 U.S.C §§ 2341-2351 provide for judicial review of agency orders generally.

Aparna Sridhar of the Free Press (FP) wrote in a release that "We are pleased that the D.C. Circuit rejected this attempt by Verizon and MetroPCS to circumvent basic rules on challenging FCC decisions. We're gratified that the Court ruled that even powerful companies like these cannot jump the line to have their arguments heard. We expect that Verizon and MetroPCS are not finished trying to undo the FCC's Net Neutrality policy, but we hope that this ruling sends a signal to those companies that their arguments will face close scrutiny, no matter how novel or clever they appear to be."

These cases are Verizon v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 11-1014, and MetroPCS 700MHz, LLC, et al. v. FCC, App. Ct. No. 11-1016.

IRS Releases Revenue Procedures for Communications Network Property

4/4. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released three Revenue Procedures tax treatment of communications companies' expenditures to maintain, replace, and improve wireless and wireline network property, and recovery periods for depreciation of certain tangible assets used by wireless companies.

See, Revenue Procedure 2011-28 [13 pages in PDF], Revenue Procedure 2011-27 [12 pages in PDF] and Revenue Procedure 2011-22 [11 pages in PDF].

The IRS stated in a release that RP 11-28 provides "two alternative safe-harbor methods for determining the amount of network asset repair and replacement expenditures that must be capitalized", RP 11-27 provides "similar safe harbors for `wireline´ telecom carriers, firms with `landline´ networks", and RP 11-22 provides "a safe-harbor method for determining the recovery period for depreciation of certain tangible assets used by wireless telecommunications carriers".

The CTIA, which represents wireless companies, stated in a release that RP 11-28 "will provide a guideline to settling issues that have caused significant confusion for both the taxpayers and the IRS. It has been a pleasure to work with such remarkable professionals from the IRS and the industry looks forward to working with them on future issues that are important to ensure clarity for all parties."

Indictment Charges Two With Efforts to Export Radiation Hardened Microchips to PRC

4/4. A grand jury of the U.S. District Court (EDVa) returned a two count criminal indictment that was unsealed on April 4, 2011, that charges Hong Wei Xian and Li Li with violation of the Arms Export Control Act in connection with their efforts to obtain radiation hardened microchips for export to the People's Republic of China (PRC).

The Department of Justice (DOJ) stated in a release that "neither Xian nor Li applied for nor received a license from the United States to export defense articles of any description; however, from April 2009 to Sept. 1, 2010, the two are charged with contacting a company in the Eastern District of Virginia and seeking to export thousands of radiation-hardened" programmable read only memory (PROM) microchips.

The DOJ added that "Xian and Li knew a license was required, but did not seek to obtain one because it was difficult, time-consuming, and would require them to identify the end user and describe the end use. They are accused of conspiring to break up orders into multiple shipments and designate countries outside of the PRC for delivery to avoid drawing attention to the orders."

People and Appointments

4/4. Sen. Kay Hutchison (R-TX), ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee (SCC), named Courtney Sanders her news media contact for the SCC. Sanders replaced Joe Brenckle, who is now news media contact for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), its ranking Republican.

4/4. The Senate confirmed Jimmie Reyna to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) by a vote of 86-0. See, Roll Call No. 47. He has worked in the Washington DC office of the law firm of Williams Mullen on international trade matters. See, story titled "Obama Nominates Jimmie Reyna for Federal Circuit" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,138, October 4, 2010.

4/4. The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) announced in a release that Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) will be honored at, and speak at, its event titled "Digital Patriots Dinner" on May 11, 2011, in Washington DC.

House Communications and Technology Subcommittee Approves BTOP/BIP Bill

4/1. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Communications and Technology (SCT) held a hearing on, and then approved without amendment, a discussion draft of HR __ [6 pages in PDF].

This bill pertains to oversight by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of broadband related spending under HR 1 (111th Congress). That bill appropriated $7 Billion for broadband grant and loan programs.

The Department of Commerce's (DOC) NTIA administers the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). The Department of Agriculture's (DOA) RUS administers the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP).

The Subcommittee also held a hearing on February 10, 2011, on this topic. See, HCC web page with hyperlinks to video, opening statements and prepared testimony.

This bill addresses unused and reclaimed funds, termination of certain awards of funds, and waste, fraud and abuse.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), Chairman of the Subcommittee, wrote in his opening statement that "issues of fraud, waste and abuse will start popping up now that the money is beginning to flow".

The HCC also released a March 30, 2011, memorandum [4 pages in PDF] on this hearing and mark up. It states that the "NTIA has made a total of 233 awards valued at $3.94 billion. Only $300 million has actually been spent to date. Three awards have been returned, worth approximately $39 million altogether (Leech Lake County, MN $1.7 million; Badgernet, WI, $23 million; and Education Network, IN, $14.3 million)." (Parentheses in original.)

This memorandum states that the "RUS has made a total of 320 awards valued at $3.53 billion. Less than $100 million has actually been spent to date. Ten (10) awards worth more than $38 million altogether have been returned. The fact that this number of awards has already been returned, and that so much money still remains obligated but unspent, makes oversight of the program and this legislation all the more important." (Parentheses in original.)

See also, the NTIA's March 3, 2011, report titled "Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) Quarterly Program Status Report".

Lawrence StricklingLarry Strickling (at right), head of the NTIA, wrote in his prepared testimony [14 pages in PDF] that "NTIA supports the ultimate goals of the bill, which are to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse and to ensure that unused or reclaimed BTOP funds are promptly returned to the Treasury".

He also said that "NTIA does have some concerns, however, about the specific wording of the requirement to deobligate and return funds to the Treasury and looks forward to working with the Subcommittee to clarify its intent."

It was a hurried hearing and mark up. While numerous members made opening statements, and asked questions, during the hearing, there was no debate, and no amendments were offered, during the mark up.

See also, prepared testimony [9 pages in PDF] of Jonathan Adelstein, head of the RUS.

See also, related story in this issue titled "Summary of BTO/BIP Bill".

Summary of BTO/BIP Bill

4/1. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Communications and Technology (SCT) released a discussion draft of HR __ [6 pages in PDF], a bill pertaining to Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Billion Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), and the Department of Agriculture's (DOA) Rural Utilities Service's (RUS) Billion Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP).

The Subcommittee held a hearing on this discussion draft bill, and approved it without amendment, on April 1, 2011. See, related story in this issue titled "House Communications and Technology Subcommittee Approves BTOP/BIP Bill".

This bill would require the NTIA and RUS to terminate an award of either a grant or loan if the NTIA or RUS determine that "cause exists to terminate the award". Moreover, "Such cause may include an insufficient level of performance, wasteful spending, or fraudulent spending."

It would require the NTIA and RUS to "immediately deobligate" and return to the U.S. Treasury any terminated awards.

It would require the NTIA and RUS to return to the U.S. Treasury any awards that have been returned to the NTIA or RUS, and any awards "disclaimed by the award recipient".

It would require the NTIA and RUS to make determinations on matters of "material noncompliance with the award terms or provisions or improper usage of award funds" within 30 days of receiving information.

The bill would also designate the officials who would make such determinations, and require notice and explanation of such determinations within three days to the Committees of Congress with jurisdiction.

Finally, the bill would amend Section 6001 of the HR 1 (111th Congress) to make explicit that BTOP funds for awards that are terminated because of insufficient performance, waste, or fraud shall be deobligated.

GAO Releases Report on Child Porn on the Internet

4/1. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report titled "Combatting Child Pornography: Steps Are Needed to Ensure That Tips to Law Enforcement Are Useful and Forensic Examinations Are Cost Effective".

It states that "The Internet ... has ... changed ... online child pornography" (CP). The main reason is that "Digital cameras and computers have made it easier for offenders to produce and distribute child pornography because they can bypass print shops and upload photos from their cameras directly to the Internet."

The report also suggests that CP is on the increase. However, the main evidence cited in the report is increased arrests, which in turn resulted from an increase in the number of CP investigators.

The 110th Congress enacted S 1738 [LOC | WW], the "PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008". The report notes that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which maintains the CyberTipline for CP tips, have not implemented all of the provisions of the Act.

The report states that the "DOJ has not implemented three provisions -- that address studying the potential danger posed by child pornography offenders, designating foreign law enforcement agencies that can receive reports from NCMEC's CyberTipline, and developing a report on DOJ’s information-sharing structure -- and has not yet established specific plans or time frames for doing so."

The GAO recommends that the DOJ implement the Act.

Representatives Introduce Rare Earths Bill

4/1. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and eight other Democrats introduced HR 1314 [LOC | WW], the "Resource Assessment of Rare Earths Act of 2011", or "RARE Act", a bill that would direct the Department of the Interior's (DOI) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a global assessment of rare earth materials (REM).

Rep. Hank JohnsonRep. Johnson (at left) stated in a release that "The RARE Act will dramatically advance our ability to access rare earths worldwide". He added that "This bill represents an important piece of a much-needed comprehensive approach to understanding current and future domestic and international supply of and demand for rare earth elements".

Rep. Markey stated in this release that "Unfortunately, we have gone from self reliance in the production of our rare earth materials to 100 percent reliance on imports, mostly from China. This bill will help reverse that troubling trend and give industry the tools and information to get America back in the rare earths business."

It was referred to the House Natural Resources Committee.

111th Congress. The Congress considered, but did not enact, REM related bills in the 111th Congress.

The House, but not the Senate, passed HR 6160 [LOC | WW], the "Rare Earths and Critical Materials Revitalization Act of 2010". HR 6160 was a very limited bill. It would merely require the DOE to study the issue, including possible use of alternative materials, which the DOE is already doing, and write plans. The bill would also have authorized the DOE to make loan guarantees to incent private sector activity. The bill would also have amended the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, which is codified at 30 U.S.C. § 1604, et seq.

See also, story titled "House Passes Rare Earths Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,136, September 30, 2010, and "House Science Committee Approves Rare Earths Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,134, September 28, 2010.

In the Senate, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee (SENRC), introduced S 3521 [LOC | WW], titled the "Rare Earths Supply Technology and Resources Transformation Act of 2010". The SENRC held a hearing on September 30, 2010, which she did not attend. She was engaged in a close re-election campaign.

Also, on December 15, 2010, former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and former Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) introduced S 4031 [LOC | WW], the "Rare Earths Supply-Chain Technology and Resources Transformation Act of 2010" or "RESTART Act". See, story titled "Outgoing Senators Bayh and Bond Introduce Rare Earths Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,189, December 29, 2010.

More News

4/1. Verizon Communications, Inc. announced in a release that its "successful completion of the tender offer made by Verizon’s wholly owned subsidiary, Verizon Holdings Inc., for all outstanding shares" of common stock of Terremark Worldwide, Inc., a data storage and cloud computing services company.

Go to News from March 26-31, 2011.