Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2005/11/03.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:24:01+00:00

Document:
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,246, November 3, 2005.
November 3, 2005, 8:00 AM ET, Alert No. 1,246.
11/2. The U.S. Court of Appeals (6thCir) issued it opinion [20 pages in PDF] in Office Max v. USA, affirming the District Court's judgment for Office Max, a taxpayer that argued that certain services are not subject to the 3 per cent excise tax on communications services, provided for by 26 U.S.C. § 4251.
Introduction. This opinion is in agreement with the May 10, 2005, opinion [22 pages in PDF], of the U.S. Court of Appeals (11thCir) in ABIG v. US. See also, story titled "IRS Loses Appeal Over 3% Excise Tax on Communications" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,133, May 11, 2005.
Also, last week, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced, with reference to ABIG v. US, that it "will continue to assess and collect the tax under § 4251 on all taxable communications services, including communications services similar to those at issue in the cases. Collectors should continue to collect the tax, including from taxpayers within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit." See also, story titled "IRS Announces That It Will Violate Court of Appeals Ruling Regarding Excise Tax on Phone Service", in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,241, October 27, 2005.
The IRS offered the excuse that "the government will continue to litigate this important issue. The government is prosecuting appeals in five different circuits. The appeal in Office Max v. United States, 309 F. Supp. 2d 984 (N.D. Ohio 2004), has been briefed and argued, and the parties are awaiting a decision."
The IRS is litigating this issue repeatedly, constantly loosing, yet refusing to follow any of the court opinions. The 6th Circuit wrote that "we are not alone. Every court to reach this issue -- save one district court subsequently reversed -- has concluded that the statute unambiguously requires variance by both distance and elapsed transmission time." The Court provides citations to seven proceedings (at pages 7-8).
TLJ spoke with an attorney in the IRS's Office of Chief Counsel, which prepared the IRS's October notice. She stated that no one in the Office of Chief Counsel would answer any questions from TLJ. The Department of Justice attorneys who handled the appeal in the Office Max case have not returned phone calls from TLJ.
TLJ also spoke with Henry Levine of the Washington DC law firm of Levine Blaszek Block and Boothby. He represented Office Max in this case, as well as ABIG in the 11th Circuit. He speculated that the reason that the IRS decided not to follow the 11th Circuit opinion, and the numerous District Court opinions, was that it thought that the 6th Circuit would rule for the IRS, based upon the oral argument before the 6th Circuit. Judge Rogers, the presiding Judge, appeared to side strongly with the IRS. Judge Rosen, who is only a District Court Judge sitting by designation, appeared to favor the taxpayer. The third Judge, Sutton, had only recently been confirmed by the Senate, and said nothing at oral argument.
When the opinion was issued, it revealed that Sutton wrote an opinion shredding the IRS's argument, with Rosen joining. This left Rogers in dissent.
Now that the IRS has lost twice before Courts of Appeals, and many more times in District Courts, it may concede defeat and follow the courts' opinions.
There are presently five appeals pending. One in the DC Circuit, Amtrak v. U.S., has already been argued. The others are pending in the Federal Circuit, 2nd Circuit, and 3rd Circuit. The IRS lost in the District Court in each case.
Majority Opinion of the 6th Circuit. The Court of Appeals in the present case began its opinion with this: "When a party presents the question whether ``and´´ means ``or,´´ it is tempting to be dismissive of the claim or, worse, to make a crack about the demise of the rule of law."
However, since the United States Department of Justice put a crack team of serious attorneys on the case, the Court wrote a 15 page opinion in which it concluded that, for the statutory language at issue, the word "and" does in fact mean "and".
Office Max purchases telephone service from MCI. When MCI billed Office Max, it also collected, and forwarded to the IRS, a 3% charge, pursuant to § 4251. The rates were based on the length of calls, but not on distance.
That is, to be taxable, a "toll telephone service" must include a "toll charge which varies in amount with the distance and elapsed transmission time". The key word here is "and". Office Max asserted that "and" means "and". The IRS asserted that, in this case, "and" means "or".
The Court concurred with Office Max, and all of the other courts, that in this statute "and" does mean "and", and therefore, the service purchased by Office Max from MCI does not fall within the definition of "telephone toll service", and is therefore not subject to the 3% excise tax.
Dissent. There is also a dissenting opinion, by Judge Rogers. It may be most notable, not for the conclusion that "and" means "or", but rather for the methods of statutory construction that it employs.
For example, while courts often quote judicial precedents, and scholarly treatises, Judge Rogers began by quoting a non-existent hypothetical drunkard. This drunkard, write Rogers, might state "I like beer and wine." And this drunkard might interpret his statement to mean that he does not like beer and wine mixed together in the same glass. And thus, pursuant to this authority, the IRS can interpret "and" to mean "or".
Judge Rogers is not clear in his dissent as to whether his principle of statutory construction implies that the U.S. Congress drafts its statutes with no more care than a linguistically challenged drunkard, whether courts should construe statutes as though the court were composed of drunkards.
Judge Sutton, who wrote the opinion of the Court, responded that the "time and distance" requirement in the definition of telephone toll service is really more like "tequila and worm" than "beer and wine".
The IRS is represented by Teresa McLaughlin and Robert Metzler of the Department of Justice.
This case is Office Max, Inc. v. U.S.A., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 04-4009, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, at Cleveland, D.C. No. 03-00961, Judge Patricia Gaughan presiding.
11/2. The House rejected HR 1606, the "Online Freedom of Speech Act", by a vote of 225-182. See, Roll Call No. 559. The bill was considered under suspension of the rules, which meant that it could not be amended, and that a two thirds majority was required for approval.
The vote broke down largely along party lines, with Republicans voting 179-38 in favor, and with Democrats voting 46-143.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) introduced HR 1606 on April 13, 2005. It is a short and simple bill. The only substantive language provides as follows: "Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'."
The House Administration Committee held a hearing on September 22, 2005. See, story titled "House Committee Holds Hearing on Regulation of Internet Speech" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,222, September 27, 2005.
While HR 1606 is a short bill, its context and consequences are more complicated. This is a response to the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) implementation of the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), that require the FCC to write rules restricting political speech on the internet. The FECA, and regulations thereunder, nominally regulate political money, such as campaign contributions and expenditures. The BCRA requires the FEC to construe individuals' acts of political expression, such as operating blogs, as though the exercise of expression were a financial transaction. The FEC, in its first attempt to write rules, created an exemption for communications over the internet. The authors of the BCRA challenged this in the District Court, and won. The Court held that the FEC could not exempt communications over the internet. The FEC is now in the process of writing new rules. HR 1606 would have statutorily instructed the FEC to do what it did in its first attempt.
The BCRA, which is also known as McCain Feingold, is now Public Law No. 107-155. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) were the lead sponsors in the Senate. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) were the lead sponsors in the House.
As required by the BCRA, the FEC promulgated implementing regulations. At issue was the definition of "public communication". 2 U.S.C. § 431(22) provides that "The term ``public communication´´ means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising."
Rep. Shays and Rep. Meehan then filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (DC) challenging many of these regulations. Sen. McCain and Sen. Feingold submitted an amicus curiae brief. Senate rules prohibited them from being parties.
The District Court, Judge Colleen Kotelly presiding, overturned 14 parts of the FEC's implementing regulations, including the one regarding internet communications. The Court also held that the Congressmen have standing. See, September 18, 2004 Memorandum Opinion and Order [159 pages in PDF]. This is reported at Shays v. FEC, 337 F.Supp.2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004).
The District Court's decision is significant for technology law, and in particular, for political speech on the internet. The BCRA provides for regulation of certain "public communications"s. The FEC promulgated a rule that provides that "The term public communication shall not include communications over the Internet." But, the District Court held that the FEC lacked authority to do this. Hence, certain internet communications, such as personal blogs, web sites, and e-mail, may be subject to federal regulation under the FECA as "public communication"s. Many individuals and small businesses that engage in internet based speech lack the resources to comply with the FEC's regulatory regime, and hence, face government enforcement actions, and a chilling of their speech.
The FEC appealed with respect to five of the fourteen overturned rules. However, it did not appeal the portion of the District Court ruling that threatens internet speech.
The FEC issued another notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in March of this year. See, story titled "FEC Approves NPRM on Internet Speech" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,103, March 25, 2005. See also, stories titled "Bloggers Dodge McCain Feingold Bullet" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,102, March 24, 2005, "FEC to Consider Rules Regarding Internet Speech" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,100, March 22, 2005.
The FEC has held a public hearing, but has yet to issue new rules.
Rep. Hensarling, the sponsor of the bill, wrote in a November 1, 2005, statement that "Unfortunately, new federal campaign finance regulations could actually end up stifling political speech and threatening Americans’ constitutional rights. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is expected to finalize rules and regulations that could squash not only free speech and political activism, but also impede innovation and technology, unless Congress acts now."
He added that "The Internet has opened many new doors for political speech. In today’s e-society, websites and blogs are quickly becoming the most popular and efficient way for people to communicate, express their views, and debate the merits of candidates and causes. Clearly, we ought to embrace these newcomers to our political process instead of applying additional complex and stifling regulatory burdens."
Disclosure. TLJ publishes information via e-mail and the web regarding, among other things, past and future candidates for federal office. This issue references many persons who will likely be candidates for re-election in 2006. Hence, the FEC's rules, and Congressional legislation, may affect TLJ. Readers may wish to take this into consideration when assessing the reliability and objectivity of any TLJ stories on this topic.
11/3.The roll call vote defeating HR 1606, the "Online Freedom of Speech Act", on November 2, 2005, revealed several patterns.
First, it was a party line vote. Republicans voted 179-38 in favor, and Democrats voted 46-143. Second, there was a regional trend. Most of the opposition came from Democrats and Republicans in New England, the northern industrial states, and the midwest. Third, there was a urban rural split. Representatives from rural and sparsely populated areas were more likely to support the bill than urban representatives.
This bill provides a rare opportunity to study the support of members of the House for promoting the development and use of information technologies. Almost all members state that they want to promote technology. Roll call votes sometimes force members to disclose the extent of their commitment.
While the House considers many technology related legislative proposals in each Congress, only a small portion of these make it to the House floor. Many of these are included in large legislative packages. Hence, one cannot always make inferences about why any member voted for or against the bill. Moreover, the votes on some bills are mere formalities, with lopsided votes of about 415-5. On such votes, the debate and compromise took place at earlier stages of the legislative process, and a member's vote tells little about his support for the tech related components of the bill.
However, HR 1606 is different. It is a very short and simple bill, with only one provision, that expressly pertains to use of the internet. It contains one significant tech related provision, and nothing else. Moreover, it came to the floor directly, under a clean and simple procedure. No amendments were permitted. And finally, it was considered under a roll call vote, rather than by voice vote or unanimous consent. Every members' vote was recorded.
For the new members of the House who arrived in January, there have not been many opportunities to demonstrate their support for (or lack of support for) information technology. The freshman Democrats who voted against their party, and for freedom to use technology, made a more definitive statement than the freshmen Republicans who voted in favor, who may have been following their party. The first term Democrats who broke ranks and voted for the bill included John Barrow (D-GA), Dan Boren (D-OK), Jim Costa (D-CA), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Charlie Melacon (D-LA), and John Salazar (D-CO).
Some of the votes of veteran members of the House were predictable, based on past voting on technology related issues. For example, it was not unexpected that Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rick Boucher (D-VA), the technology twins from western Virginia, both voted yes.
Similarly, the Silicon Valley delegation voted yes -- Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA), and Anna Eshoo (D-CA). Also, other frequent supporters of technology related initiatives, such as Adam Smith (D-WA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), and Mark Udall (D-CO), supported the bill, despite their party affiliation.
Party Differences. The Republican vote broke down 179 in favor and 38 against. (13 did not vote.) Of those who voted, 82.5% voted yes.
The Democratic vote broke down 46 in favor and 143 against. (13 did not vote.) Of those who voted, 23% voted yes.
Regional Variations in the Vote. Most of the opposition came from the northern states. Consider, for example, the six states of New England -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. There are a total of 22 Representatives, with 17 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Only two New England Representatives voted yes, Michael Capuano (D-MA) and Patrick Kennedy (D-RI). The Republicans broke down 0-5. That is, none voted for the bill. This is much less than the 82.5% Republican support nationwide. The Democrats broke down 2-15. This is about 12% support for the bill, much less than the 23% Democratic support nationwide.
In contrast, consider the five states of the deep South, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. There are a total of 37 representatives, with 23 Republicans and 14 Democrats.
The deep South voted 29-6 in favor of the bill. (Two did not vote.) This is 83% support, which is far more than the 55% support of all Representatives nationwide. The Republican vote was a unanimous 22-0, with one not voting. The Democratic vote was 7-6, with one not voting. 54% of deep south Democrats voted for the bill, as compared to 23% of Democrats nationwide.
The opposition came from the Union states in the Civil War. The supporters came from the Confederacy and the west.
Urban Rural Variation. Members' votes also corresponded with whether or not they represent urban or rural districts. Representatives from the urbanized area of the Boston to Washington corridor vote overwhelmingly against the bill. Even James Moran (D-VA) from the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC, who is usually a reliable pro-tech vote, voted against this bill.
As a counter example, the sparsely populated states of the west voted overwhelmingly for the bill. For example, in the states of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota there are a total of 30 Representatives, with 20 Republicans and 10 Democrats. These states supported the bill 20-8, with two not voting. This is over 71% support.
Moreover, most of the no votes were cast by Republicans and Democrats who represent urban districts in the few cities of the west, such as Heather Wilson (R-NM) from Albuquerque, Dianne DeGette (D-CO) from Denver, Ed Pastor (D-AZ) from Phoenix, and Shelley Berkley (D-NV) from Las Vegas.
Indeed, if one compares a map of Congressional districts to a list of the yes votes on HR 1606, most of the big districts are represented by members who voted yes.
Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the bill. Big district Republicans did so also. Two notable anomalies are Greg Walden (R-OR), who represents about two thirds of the territory of Oregon, and Charles Bass (R-NH), who represents most of New Hampshire.
If this observation that rural representatives were more likely to vote for HR 1606 is valid, it then raises the question of why representatives from rural areas should be more supportive than representatives from urban areas. Similarly, one might ask why the Congressional Internet Caucus has long been co-chaired by four rural Representatives and Senators, rather than members from urban districts in Silicon Valley or other tech centers.
One explanation would be that it is the residents of rural and dispersed districts that have the most to gain from the development and adoption of new, ubiquitous and cheap information and communications technologies. They lack large hospitals, but could benefit from more telemedicine. They lack large universities, but could benefit from expanded distance learning. They lack the entertainment activities, libraries, and news media of urban areas, but could benefit from digitization and IP based distribution. Large corporations tend to locate in urban areas, but rural workers could find more job opportunities in their home towns if they could more easily telework.
Hence, under this theory, it is the rural legislators who have the greatest hopes for new technologies, and the greatest aversion to government regulations that stand in the way of individuals who would use these new technologies. The FECA/FEC presented one such obstacle. So, they voted for HR 1606.
Committee Based Voting. There is another evident pattern in the voting on HR 1606. The members of the two House subcommittees that are most actively involved in considering tech related bills voted with much different percentages of support for the bill. These two subcommittees are the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet (TI), and the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property (CIIP). The members of both subcommittees are well versed in tech related issues. However, the members of the two subcommittees voted differently on this one bill.
The TI voted 14-15, with two not voting. This is only 48% support, which is less that the 55% support in the House as a whole.
The CIIP voted 15-6, with one not voting. This is over 71% support, which is much higher than the 48% support from the TI. Five out of the ten Democratic members on the CIIP broke with their party and voted for the bill. They were Howard Berman (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and Maxine Waters (D-CA).
One explanation for this difference could be the small sample sizes involved. They may be too small to draw conclusions.
Another possible explanation for the wide difference between the two subcommittees is that the members of the CIIP genuinely care more about the future development and use of information technologies than do the members of the TI subcommittee. Of course, this is mere speculation.
Yet another explanation, that is both speculative and cynical, is that the difference derives, not from different levels of support for information technology generally, but from different levels of support for the particular use of the internet addressed by HR 1606.
That is, blogs and other free or inexpensive internet technologies, offer individuals and others with limited financial resources an opportunity to participate significantly in political debates and federal election campaigns. The FECA and the FEC's regulations threaten to limit these individuals' ability to participate online in the political process. The beneficiaries of this FECA/FEC regulation are those who have the financial resources to make large contributions to candidates, parties and other entities; to purchase political advertising; and to retain lobbyists. Unregulated political speech on the internet competes in the marketplace of ideas and politics with the efforts of the financed interests. This competition may diminish the influence of the moneyed interests.
The House Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over the energy industry, the telecommunications industry, and other well financed and politically active industry sectors. The TI subcommittee has as its main constituent group the telecom industry. The HCC, and its IT Subcommittee, are known as a "money committee", because its constituent groups have a lot of money, and spend a lot on trying to influence the legislative output of the Committee. In contrast, the House Judiciary Committee is not a money committee. It deals with many social issues, which are divisive and emotional, but for which there are few moneyed interests involved. The CIIP has among its constituent groups the movie and record industries. But, it also deals with educational interests. Moreover, it also oversees the administration of the courts. Judges are not a source of political spending.
The cynical argument would be that since the House Commerce Committee, and its TI Subcommittee, represent well funded constituent groups, and these groups also contribute much to the members, the members of the TI subcommittee have less reason for promoting the bloggers who compete in the political process with the monied interests than do CIIP subcommittee members.
11/2. On October 3, 2005, Grande Communications filed a petition for a declaratory ruling [30 pages in PDF] with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that seeks a declaratory ruling (DR) regarding the treatment of traffic terminated through Grande to end users of interconnected local exchange carriers (LECs), in circumstances where customers of Grande have certified that the traffic originated in Internet protocol (IP) format.
Grande, which provides telecommunications services in the state of Texas, requests that the FCC issue a DR that "where a LEC receives a self-certification from its customer that the traffic the customer will send is enhanced services, VoIP-originated traffic ... that other LECS, receiving Certified Traffic over local interconnection trunks from the LEC, are to treat the traffic as local traffic for intercarrier compensation purposes and may not access charges against Certified Traffic, unless the Commission decides otherwise in the IP-Enabled Services or Intercarrier Compensation Rulemakings or in another proceeding."
The FCC initiated its proceeding titled "In the Matter of IP-Enabled Services" with an NPRM in early 2004. The 2004 NPRM is FCC 04-28 in WC Docket Nos. 04-36. The FCC adopted it on February 12, 2004. See also, story titled "FCC Adopts NPRM Regarding Regulation of Internet Protocol Services" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 837, February 16, 2004.
The FCC's intercarrier compensation proceeding has been lurking for four and one half years. The FCC adopted its original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [70 pages in PDF] on April 19, 2001, and released it on April 27, 2001. It is FCC 01-132 in Docket No. CC 01-92. See also, FNPRM numbered FCC 05-33, also in Docket No. 01-92.
Grande also requests that for such self-certified traffic that the FCC rule that "the LEC may properly rely on the customer's self-certification when the LEC makes decision about how to route Certified Traffic for termination" and that "the LEC, where it has no information to conclude that the certification is inaccurate, may offer the customer local services and send Certified Traffic to other terminating LECs, where it is destined for an end user of another LEC, over local interconnection trunks, unless and until the the Commission decides otherwise in the IP-Enabled Services or Intercarrier Compensation Rulemakings or in another proceeding."
The FCC published a notice in the Federal Register (November 2, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 211, at Pages 66411 - 66412) that describes this petition and sets comment deadlines. The deadline to submit initial comments is December 12, 2005. The deadline to submit reply comments is January 11, 2006.
Grande is represented by Brad Mutschelknaus of the law firm of Kelly Drye and Warren.
This proceeding is WC Docket No. 05-283. See also, FCC public notice numbered DA 05-2680.
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. The House may take up HR 4128, the "Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005". See, Republican Whip notice.
The Senate will meet at 9:00 AM. It will vote on the conference report to HR 2744, the agriculture appropriations, FY2006 bill. It will then resume consideration of S 1932, the deficit reduction omnibus reconciliation bill.
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The SJC's published agenda this week includes consideration of several Department of Justice (DOJ) nominations, including Thomas Barnett (to be an Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division), Steven Bradbury (AAG for the Office of Legal Counsel), and Wan Kim (AAG for the Civil Rights Division). The agenda also includes two bills related to personal data and privacy, including S 1789, the "Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005", and S 751, the "Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act". The agenda also includes three bills pertaining to trademarks and counterfeiting: S 1699, the "Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act", S 1095, the "Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005", and HR 683, the "Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005". All of these items have been on previous agenda, only to be held over. The SJC also frequently cancels of postpones meetings without notice. Press contact: Blain Rethmeier (Specter) at 202 224-5225, David Carle (Leahy) at 202 224-4242 or Tracy Schmaler (Leahy) at 202 224-2154. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. The agenda [PDF] includes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding Section 621 and new video entrants, and an Report and Order and Further NPRM regarding DTV tuners. See also, story titled "FCC Releases Agenda for November 3 Meeting" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,242, October 28, 2005. The event will be webcast by the FCC. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).
10:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will meet to mark up HR 4127 [16 pages in PDF], the "Data Accountability and Trust Act". Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) will preside. The meeting will be webcast by the HCC. Press contact: Larry Neal (Barton) at 202 225-5735 or Paul Flusche (Stearns) at 202 225-5744. See, notice. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
10:30 AM. The U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB) and Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) will host a panel discussion titled "Private Sector Perspectives on the World Summit on the Information Society". The speakers will include Michael Gallagher (head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration), Richard Beaird (Department of State), Tae Yoo (Cisco Systems), Fred Tipson (Microsoft), and Thomas Niles (VCh of the USCIB and ICANN board member). For more information, contact Jonathan Huneke (USCIB) at 212 703-5043 or jhuneke at uscib dot org. Location: Cosmos Club, 2121 Massachusetts Ave., NW.
12:00 NOON. The House Homeland Security Committee's (HHSC) Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity will hold a hearing titled "The Future of TSA’s Registered Traveler Program". The witnesses will be Kip Hawley (head of the Transportation Security Administration), Charles Barclay (American Association of Airport Executives), Steven Brill (Verified Identity Pass), Thomas Conaway (Unisys), and Marc Rotenberg (head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center). See, notice. Location: Room 311, Cannon Building.
1:00 PM. The Department of Justice (DOJ) will hold a "background briefing on Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s judicial opinions from his service on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit". The DOJ notice states that attendees must present "VALID MEDIA CREDENTIALS". Location: Room 2107, DOJ, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
2:00 PM. House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will hold an oversight hearing titled "Content Protection in the Digital Age: The Broadcast Flag, High-Definition Radio, and the Analog Hole". The witnesses will be Gigi Sohn ( Public Knowledge), Michael Petricone (Consumer Electronics Association), Mitch Bainwol (RIAA) and Dan Glickman (MPAA). See, HJC notice. The hearing will be webcast by the HJC. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202 225-2492. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
5:00 PM. Pamela Samuelson (UC Berkeley) will give a lecture titled "Copyright and Consumer Protection". There will be a reception at 5:00 PM. The lecture will be at 6:00 PM. The lecture is hosted by the American University Washington College of Law's (AUWCL) Program on Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. RSVP to Steve Roberts at iplecture at wcl dot american dot edu or 202 274-4148. Location: AUWCL, 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Room 603.
Day one of a two day event sponsored by the American Bar Association's (ABA) Standing Committee on Law and National Security titled "15th Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law". Location: Crystal City Marriott, Arlington, VA.
Day four of a five day conference sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Networks and Information Integration (OSD NII) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff titled "DoD Spectrum Summit 2005". See, notice.For more information, contact Patty dot Hopkins at osd dot mil or 703 607-0613. Location: Radisson Hotel, Annapolis, MD.

References: v. 
 § 4251
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4251
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4251
 v. 
 § 431
 v.