2/28. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the Chairman of the House Commerce Committee (HCC), sent a letter [PDF] to the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) and the House Budget Committee (HBC) that expresses the positions of the HCC Democrats on President Bush's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2009.

President Bush announced and released his FY 2009 budget proposal on February 4, 2008. See, stories titled "Bush Releases FY 2009 Budget Proposal" and "Bush Releases Proposed Budget and Legislative Proposals for FCC" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,711, February 5, 2008.

Rep. Dingell's letter addresses several telecommunications related items, including federal subsidies for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), spectrum management by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the digital television (DTV) transition, and increased funding for the FCC Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to deal with rampant waste, fraud and abuse in the FCC's universal service subsidy programs.

CPB. Rep. Dingell wrote that the CPB "customarily receives appropriations two years in advance. In 2007, Congress provided CPB with advance appropriations for FY2009 of $400 million. The budget proposes to rescind $200 million of that advance appropriation."

He argued that "The practice of advance appropriations imposes no financial burden on the Treasury but provides certainty for local stations as they develop programming and raise funding from other sources."

DTV Transition. Rep. Dingell welcomed the President's proposal for "an additional $20 million for the FCC to conduct consumer education about the digital television (DTV) transition.

However, he also express concern about "the Federal Government’s efforts in preparing 300 million consumers for the transition." He also reiterated his proposal that the Bush administration create an interagency task force.

Rep. Dingell also noted that Bush's budget proposes no additional funding for public television and radio digital conversion or upgrades to the Public Radio Satellite System. He wrote that "Denying separate additional funds for the digital television conversion is of particular concern given that Congress set a firm date of February 17, 2009, for the end of analog television. Additional funding for the digital television conversion could assist public television in making a smooth transition and continuing its investment in digital content."

Spectrum Management. Rep. Dingell wrote that Bush's budget contains several spectrum management proposals, such as extending indefinitely the authority of the FCC to auction spectrum licenses, which is set to expire in September of 2011.

He wrote that the HCC "believes that all telecommunications policy matters, including rules regarding spectrum management, are best determined by the Committee through the normal legislative process. The telecommunications sector presents some of the most complex technical and public policy questions that Congress confronts."

He argued that "Creating sound policy in this area requires a level of expertise that the Committee is best able to provide. The Committee will work to ensure that the United States maintains a comprehensive and forward-looking spectrum management policy that inures to the maximum benefit of the American public."

FCC OIG. Rep. Dingell wrote that the "Congress provided that the FCC may transfer $21,480,000 from the Universal Service Fund in FY2009 to the Office of the Inspector General to prevent and remedy waste, fraud, and abuse in the Universal Service Fund program. The budget increases this amount by $4 million. These funds, used appropriately for audits and oversight of the Universal Service Fund, will help identify areas for improvement and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse."

Bush's budget proposes to terminate the Telecommunications Development Fund (TDF). Rep. Dingell stated that the HCC "continues to support the goals underlying the fund". See also, 47 U.S.C. § 614.

2/29. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) issued its opinion [10 pages in PDF] in Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, affirming the judgment of the District Court, which dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant, Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz.

Rachel Ehrenfeld is the author of the book [Amazon] titled "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed -- and How to Stop It" in which she alleged that Mahfouz financially supported terrorism. She is also Director of the American Center of Democracy.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) does not list a "Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz" on its list of Specially Designated Nationals and other persons whose property is blocked.

In an earlier action, Mahfouz filed a complaint against Ehrenfeld in London, United Kingdom, alleging libel. He obtained a default judgment that enjoined the further publication of the statements about Mahfouz in England and Wales.

In the present action, Ehrenfeld filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (SDNY) against Mahfouz seeking a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the foreign judgment is not enforceable in the U.S. for violating the First Amendment.

Mahfouz moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over him. The District Court dismissed. This appeal followed.

The Court of Appeals certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question of whether New York's long arm jurisdiction statute, at N.Y.C.P.L.R. §§ 302(a)(1) and 302(a)(3), confers personal jurisdiction over Mahfouz. The NY Court of Appeals opined that personal jurisdiction cannot be obtained over Mahfouz under the NY statute.

The Court of Appeals then affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint, for lack of personal jurisdiction, based upon the NY statute.

There is also legislation pending in the New York legislature that is a reaction to this case. See, related story in this issue titled "New York Senate Passes Libel Terrorism Protection Act".

The Court of Appeals added that "If the new bill is signed into law, plaintiff may file a new action in the district court or move to reopen the judgment and amend the complaint, and the court will have the chance to properly address, in the first instance, the question of personal jurisdiction over defendant."

This case is Rachel Ehrenfeld v. Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, App. Ct. No. 06-2228-cv, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

2/29. The State Senate of New York passed Senate bill 6687, the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act". The other house of the New York legislature, the State Assembly, has not yet passed its version of the bill, Assembly bill 9652. These bills are reactions to Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz.

The Ehrenfeld case is a declaratory judgment action brought in federal court in the U.S. regarding a libel action brought in the United Kingdom. See, related story in this issue titled "2nd Circuit Affirms in Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz". These cases pertain to allegations of libel contained in printed versions of a book. However, jurisdictional issues are also of importance in actions involving internet publication. These New York bills may also impact litigation affecting internet speech.

NY Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Long Island), lead sponsor of the Senate bill, explained his reason for introducing this bill in a January 14, 2008, release. He stated that "These foreign courts are trampling the First Amendment protections guaranteed to American writers and journalists by our Constitution and this legislation will ensure that they cannot infringe upon our freedom."

NY State Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens), lead sponsor of the Assembly bill, stated in the same release that "When American journalists and authors can be hauled into kangaroo courts on phony-baloney libel charges in overseas jurisdictions who don't share our belief in freedom of speech or a free press, all of us are threatened and our war effort is weakened".

Lancman added that "This legislation will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capital of the world".

Bill Summary. The bills, as introduced, both limit the enforceability of foreign libel judgments, and extend the New York long arm jurisdiction statute to include certain declaratory judgment actions regarding foreign libel judgments. See, A 9652.

The bills, as introduced, provide that "Section 5304 of the civil practice law and rules ... is amended to read as follows: ... Grounds for non-recognition. (a) No recognition. A foreign country judgment is not conclusive if: ... the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant ... the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action ..." or "the cause of action resulted in a defamation judgment obtained in a jurisdiction outside the United States, unless a court sitting in this state first determines that the defamation law applied in the foreign jurisdiction provides at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as provided for by both the United States and New York Constitutions."

The bills, as introduced, also amend Section 302, the section relied upon by the U.S. Court of Appeals (2ndCir) in its February 29, 2008, opinion.

These bills would add a new subsection that provides as follows:

"Foreign Defamation Judgment. The courts of this state shall have personal jurisdiction over any person who obtains a judgment in a defamation proceeding outside the United States against any person who is a resident of New York or, if not a natural person, has its principal place of business in New York, for the purposes of rendering declaratory relief with respect to that resident's liability for the judgment, and/or for the purpose of determining whether said judgment should be deemed non-recognizable pursuant to section fifty-three hundred four of this chapter, to the fullest extent permitted by the United States Constitution, provided:
  1. the publication at issue was published in New York, and
  2. that resident
    I. has assets in New York which might be used to satisfy the foreign defamation judgment, or
    II. may have to take actions in New York to comply with the foreign defamation judgment."

These bills also provide for retroactive application of the personal jurisdiction amendment: "The provisions of this subdivision shall apply to persons who obtained judgments in defamation proceedings outside the United States prior to and/or after the effective date of this subdivision."

Analysis. On their face, these bills, as introduced, would give state or federal courts in New York personal jurisdiction over certain declaratory judgment actions involving foreign libel judgments, such as Ehrenfeld's against Mahfouz.

Moreover, these bills would provide for non-recognition of certain foreign libel judgments. Also, since the U.S. stands above almost all other nations in the "protection for freedom of speech and press", few foreign libel judgments would not be subject to non-recognition under these bills.

Jack Goldsmith, a former Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in his 2006 book, Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World [Amazon], that "the First Amendment does not reflect universal values; to the contrary, no other nation embraces these values, and they are certainly not written into the Internet's architecture."

Even if another nation were to offer comparable protection for speech, New York courts might still exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action if "the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant" or "the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action".

In addition, the reach of these bills may be less than intended by their backers. This is state legislation. It may be limited by treaty obligations of the U.S. to recognize foreign judgments, and/or by federal statutory preemption.

Moreover, there is the matter that the U.S. Constitution states that it "shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding". This matter is critical because much of the federal law regarding personal jurisdiction is Constitutional law. That is, much of the limitation on the exercise of personal jurisdiction derives from the federal courts' interpretation of due process.

For the purpose of analyzing the due process limitations upon the exercise of personal jurisdiction by courts in New York, Mahfouz is the person with the due process rights. New York cannot deprive him of his due process rights.

The Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCUS) has long held that the due process clause imposes limitations upon the exercise of jurisdiction over out of state defendants. The SCUS held in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), that "For due process to be satisfied, a defendant, if not present in the forum, must have ``minimum contacts´´ with the forum state such that the assertion of jurisdiction ``does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.´´"

States, as well as foreign countries, tend to write very broad jurisdiction statutes. Due process is applied by the federal courts to protect defendants from being hauled into distant courts in places with which they have little if any connection.

In the Ehrenfeld case, the Court of Appeals did not reach reach due process analysis. The first question for the courts in a challenge to personal jurisdiction is whether the applicable long arm jurisdiction statute reaches the defendant. Only if the court finds that the defendant is covered by the jurisdictional statute does the court then analyze whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be inconsistent with the due process rights of the defendant. In the Ehrenfeld case, the Court of Appeals did not decide the due process question because it ruled on the basis of the state jurisdictional statute.

If New York enacts it pending bills into law, then New York's long arm jurisdiction statute will reach Mahfouz, and the Court of Appeals' February 29 opinion will offer him no protection. However, Mahfouz can still argue due process. The Court of Appeals may then rule again that the U.S. declaratory judgment action must be dismissed -- on due process grounds.

Young v. New Haven Advocate and Dow Jones v. Gutnick. The New York bills contain aggressive assertions of jurisdiction in the context of publishing. First Amendment advocates have praised the bills.

In other fora, First Amendment advocates, writers, and publishers, and especially those concerned about internet speech, have criticized aggressive jurisdiction laws. Aggressive long arm jurisdictional rules enable censors and subjects of news reporting to sue anywhere. It enhances their capacity to forum shop, and to select courts inconvenient for the speakers.

The 2002 opinion [12 pages in PDF] of the U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued in Young v. New Haven Advocate represents a model of judicial limitation of distant libel actions. In that case the Court of Appeals held that a court in Virginia does not have jurisdiction over two small newspapers, and their editors and reporters, located in Connecticut, who wrote allegedly defamatory stories about a Virginia prison warden and published them on the internet. The Court of Appeals held that the web publication did not establish minimum contacts because the newspapers are not directed at a Virginia audience.

See, story titled "4th Circuit Rules in Internet Jurisdiction Case" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 568, December 16, 2002. See also, story titled "Supreme Court Denies Cert in Case Involving Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Suit" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 665, May 20, 2003.

In contrast, the 2002 opinion of the High Court of Australia in Dow Jones v. Gutnick, represents a model of judicial overreaching to impose libel liability on distant speakers. The plaintiff in that case sued in Australia for an allegedly defamatory news story published on the internet by Dow Jones, a U.S. publisher. The Court held that because of publication on the internet, the Australian courts have jurisdiction, that Australian law applies, and that the case should proceed in the trial court in the Australian state of Victoria. In the end, Gutnick and the Australian courts were able to coerce the speech of a U.S. publisher located in the U.S.

See, story titled "High Court Rules Australia Has Jurisdiction Over Dow Jones Based on Web Publication" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 564, December 10, 2002.

The New York bills, like the holding in Gutnick, contain aggressive assertions of jurisdiction for the home jurisdiction. However, while the court in Gutnick asserted jurisdiction for the purpose of enabling anyone in the home jurisdiction (Australia) to coerce or suppress speech anywhere in the world, New York would assert jurisdiction for the purpose of undoing some of the speech suppressing consequences of libel litigation. New York's bills would leave Mahfouz free to intimidate speakers everywhere but New York. Also, while the court in Gutnick asserted jurisdiction for the purpose of imposing financial judgments on persons for engaging in speech, New York would assert jurisdiction for the purpose of rendering declaratory relief regarding enforceability. New York would not create, for example, a cause of action for abusive foreign libel litigation.

Although, the question remains, if New York enacts a statute, whether, once a New York court has personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant for a declaratory judgment claim, the court might also then exercise jurisdiction over that same foreign defendant for other claims added to the same complaint. Publishers and writers might plead claims in the nature of tortious interference with business opportunities and/or malicious prosecution.

The House will meet at 12:30 PM for morning hour debate and at 2:00 PM for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. The House will consider numerous non-technology related items under suspension of the rules. See, Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of March 3.

The Senate will meet at 10:00 AM. It will begin consideration of S 2663 [LOC | WW], a bill pertaining to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). This is a large bill that contains provisions regarding web advertising of certain child products, and requires manufacturers to allow internet registration of certain child products.

10:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Evaluation Committee will hold a closed meeting to discuss persons and companies that have been nominated for awards. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 12, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 29, at Pages 8033-8034. Location: USPTO, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA.

1:00 - 4:00 PM. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board's (ATBCB) Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC) will meet by conference call. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 24, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 16, at Page 4132.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will hold one of a series of meetings to discuss the U.S. positions for the March and April 2008 meeting of the ITU-T Study Group 3 and related issues of the international telecommunication regulations. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 23, at Page 6547. Location?

2:30 PM. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (SHSGAC) will hold a closed hearing titled "NSPD-54/HSPD-23 and the Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative". This pertains to National Security Presidential Directive 54, dated January 8, 2008, and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23, also dated January 8, 2008. The witnesses will be Robert Jamison (Under Secretary, National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS), Melissa Hathaway (Cyber Coordination Executive , Office of the Director of National Intelligence), Dennis Bartko (Special Assistant to the Director for Cyber, National Security Agency), and Scott O'Neal (Section Chief, Cyber Division, FBI). See, notice. Location: Room S-407, Capitol Building.

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and others titled "7th Symposium on Identity and Trust on the Internet" or "IDtrust 2008". See, notice. The basic price to attend is $110. Location: NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

Day one of a two day conference hosted by the George Washington University's (GWU) Graduate School of Public Management's (GSPM) Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet titled "Politics Online Conference 2008". See, conference web site. Location: Renaissance Hotel, 999 9th St., NW.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of March 3 states "Possible consideration of Legislation Regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act".

8:45 - 10:30 AM. The House Intelligence Committee will hold a closed hearing titled "FBI Intelligence Reforms". See, notice. Location: Room H-405, Capitol Building.

9:30 AM. The House Commerce Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Competition in the Sports Programming Marketplace". The hearing will be webcast by the HCC. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

LOCATION CHANGE. 10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold a hearing titled "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation". The witness will be FBI Director Robert Mueller. See, notice. Location: Room 106, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) will hold a hearing titled "Oversight Hearing on the Department of Homeland Security". See, notice. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch will hold a hearing titled "Library of Congress Budget". Location: Room H-144, Capitol Building.

12:00 NOON. The Cato Institute will host a panel discussion titled "Freeing SpeechNow: Free Speech and Association vs. Campaign Finance Regulation". The speakers will be Steve Simpson (Institute for Justice), David Keating (SpeechNow.org), and Michael Malbin (Campaign Finance Institute). See, notice and registration page. Lunch will be served after the program. Location: Cato, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW.

12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The House Intelligence Committee will hold a closed hearing titled "FISA Part II". See, notice. Location: Room H-405, Capitol Building.

Day two of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and others titled "7th Symposium on Identity and Trust on the Internet" or "IDtrust 2008". See, notice. The basic price to attend is $110. Location: NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

Day two of a two day conference hosted by the George Washington University's (GWU) Graduate School of Public Management's (GSPM) Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet titled "Politics Online Conference 2008". See, conference web site. Location: Renaissance Hotel, 999 9th St., NW.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of March 3 states "Possible consideration of Legislation Regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act".

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and others titled "7th Symposium on Identity and Trust on the Internet" or "IDtrust 2008". See, notice. The basic price to attend is $110. Location: NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

? The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property (SCIIP) may meet to mark up HR 4279 [LOC | WW], the "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2007". See, story titled "Representatives Introduce PRO IP Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,683, December 5, 2008.

10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration of several bills, including S 2449 [LOC | WW], the "Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2007", and S 352 [LOC | WW], the "Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007". The agenda also includes consideration of the nominations of Kevin O'Connor (to be Associate Attorney General) and Gregory Katsas (to be Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division). The agenda also includes consideration of the nominations of Brian Stacy Miller (to be a Judge of the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Arkansas), James Randal Hall (U.S.D.C., S.D. Georgia), John Mendez (U.S.D.C., E.D. California), and Stanley Thomas Anderson (U.S.D.C., W.D. Tennessee). The SJC rarely follows its published agendas. All of the above listed agenda items have been on prior agendas. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) will hold a hearing titled "Administration's 2008 Trade Agenda". See, notice. Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM - 12:00 NOON. The House Intelligence Committee will hold a closed hearing titled "Intelligence Budget Overview". See, notice. Location: Room H-405, Capitol Building.

1:30 PM. The House Appropriations Committee's (HAC) Select Intelligence Oversight Panel will hold a hearing titled "National Intelligence Program Budget". Location: Room H-140, Capitol Building.

2:00 - 6:00 PM. The Federal Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Privacy and Data Security Committee will host an event titled "3rd Annual ABA/FCBA Privacy & Data Security for Communications and Media Companies". For more information contact Jenell Trigg at 202-416-1090 or strigg at lsl-law dot com. See, registration form [PDF]. Location: Hogan & Hartson, 555 13th St., NW.

Rep. Hoyer's schedule for week of March 3 states that "no votes are expected in the House".

Deadline for states to submit applications to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for grants related to the implementation of the identification systems mandates of the REAL ID Act. See, DHS release and story titled "DHS Announces Minimal REAL ID Act Grants" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,708, January 31, 2007.

Deadline to submit comments to the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) regarding matters discussed at its February 28, 2008, meeting by teleconference (the NSTAC's Global Positioning Systems report, the results of the NSTAC's investigation of the global network infrastructure environment, and the NSTAC's Network Security Scoping Group). See, notice in the Federal Register, February 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 23, at Pages 6521-6522.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding pole attachments and 47 U.S.C. § 224. The FCC adopted this NPRM on October 31, 2007, and released the text [40 pages in PDF] on November 20, 2007. This NPRM is FCC 07-187 in WC Docket No. 07-245. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 6, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 25, at Pages 6879-6888, and story titled "FCC Sets Comments Deadlines for Pole Attachments NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,714, February 8, 2008.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in its proceeding titled "In the Matter of Petition to Establish Procedural Requirements to Govern Proceedings for Forbearance Under Section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended". The FCC adopted this NPRM on November 27, 2007, and released the text [25 pages in PDF] on November 30, 2007. This item is FCC 07-202 in WC Docket No. 07-267. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 6, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 25, at Pages 6888-6895, and story titled "FCC Sets Comments Deadlines for Forbearance NPRM" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,714, February 8, 2008.

Daylight savings time begins.

9:00 AM - 2:00 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event titled "Health Information Technology: Increasing Transparency and Enhancing Quality and Value in America's Health Care". Prices vary. Breakfast and lunch will be served. See, notice. Location: Chamber, 1615 H St., NW.

10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee's (SCC) Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation will hold a hearing titled "The FY 2009 Budget Proposal to Support U.S. Basic Research". The witnesses will be John Marburger (Director of the Executive Office of the President 's Office of Science and Technology Policy), Arden Bement (Director of the National Science Foundation), James Turner (acting Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology). See, notice. Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

1:00 - 6:00 PM. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board's (ATBCB) Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC) will meet by conference call. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 24, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 16, at Page 4132.

2:00 - 4:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS) International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will hold one of a series of meetings to discuss the U.S. positions for the March and April 2008 meeting of the ITU-T Study Group 3 and related issues of the international telecommunication regulations. See, notice in the Federal Register, February 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 23, at Page 6547. Location?

4:00 PM. Deadline to submit prospective applications to the Department of Labor's (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) regarding its Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Opportunities in the Workforce System Initiative. See, notice in the Federal Register, January 15, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 10, at Pages 2529-2543.

Day one of a three day conference hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Federal Information Systems Security Educators' Association (FISSEA) titled "FISSEA Annual Conference". See, notice. The basic price to attend is $205. Registrations are due by February 25, 2008. Location: NIST, Red Auditorium, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD.

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 information page.

Contact: 202-364-8882.
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Privacy Policy
Notices & Disclaimers
Copyright 1998-2008 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.