>> look, i'm happy to respond to this. we just completed a bill $600 billion for the defense of this country. y'all know how difficult it was to pass that. one way we were able to do that piece of legislation is we had to do a number of different compromises. as, you know, that dealt with extending the safety net, food stamps, we weren't able to put the child tax credit in there, because senators didn't want that. that's what legislation is all about. it's the art of compromise.

in this great country of ours, nevada has many different problems than does new hampshire. michigan has many different problems than does georgia. we have wide ranges of different needs throughout region of this country. some of those are basic health care delivery problems, others are because of the unemployment situation. so this legislation is no different than the defense bill we just spent. we spent $600 billion. it's no different than other pieces of legislation that are big large pieces and small pieces of legislation. we work to compromise. there is $100 senators here. and i don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them. if they don't have something in it important to them, then it's -- it doesn't speak well of them. that's what the legislation is all about. it's the art of compromise. >> just very briefly.

talking about the grant program for con transaction. they are roughly 14 states that qualify for grant program. connecticut being one, along with -- i'm told -- 13 other states. it's a grant by the secretary of health and human services. it'll be competitive to whether or not, states if they decide to compete, it is completely competitive. it doesn't involve just my state. although my state is interested. i crafted the language of it. and wrote it in such a way that would include far more than just my state, but make sure it was competitive, to be determined by the secretary, whoever makes those decisions on a competitive basis. >> okay. one more question. >> senator, can you talk about the situation headed into conference now that it does seem likely headed for passage? >> first of all, let me stay this. we have to pass the bill in the

senate first. this is our direction, that is our guiding light. we'll worry about next steps at a later time. we're going to finish this bill before christmas. we're committed to do that. and we'll worry about the next steps at a later time. right now we're focused on what we're going to do with this week. >> follow up on a previous question. can you explain why is it fair for nebraska in particular to get the expanded coverage on medicaid cost paid for by federal government? >> well, let me just say this -- let me just say this. medicaid is a difficult issue. and you will see in this bill different treatments of medicaid. why? same reason i said earlier. nevada has some -- we probably have the lowest health insurance state in the country.

we have some needs that other places don't have. we have problems dealing with primary care physicians, we have problems with medicaid because the low contribution rate we have. so we could go through this bill and talk about individual things for individual senators. we have a bill, we are happy with the bill. >> medicaid through the block grant program. it's up to states to design their own program. different states have different designations. different states covered some populations other states don't cover. some states are do gooder states because they've gone a lot farther than the federal minimums. and so each state is a lot different in the interest of fairness and balance and equity. it does make sense to this legislation to kind of even out some of the inequities that have

even out over time. >> thank you, everybody. [inaudible conversations] >> you're watching c-span 2, created as a public service. up next is the communicators. next is a series of events looking at health care. first, today's debate from the senate floor. that's followed from remarks by president obama. later the conference with senate democrats. >> this book on the communicators, a discussion about the movie industry with dan glickman, the head of the motion picture association of america. >> dan glickman, you met with

vice president joe biden and some motion picture industry officials yesterday. and this is what the web site techdirt.com says about it, biden has prior si summit that appears to be entirely one sided. >> of course, techdirt, that gives me a negative feeling anyway. but whatever. first of all, it's a very productive meeting. vice president, and the secretary of homeland security, attorney general of the united states, and the head of the fbi. i mean it's like you almost had the entire law enforcement apparatus of the united states. music, publishing, games, industries. so it was essentially the copyright industries. it was a meeting of the vice president office requested to get more information about an industry that employed overall nearly $6 million people in this country. that is the only group of industries that have a positive

balance of payment surplus with every single country in the world. and it was his goal to get more information about the nature of the copyright issues, especially the intellectual property and theft. he was very expolice sit, this is not prior prior -- piracy, this is theft. what can the government do about it? the white house has lots of meetings. i'm sure they will meet with people who have different perspectives. i thought it was fair. as you know i spent many years in the government, including in cabinet post. we held meetings like this all the time. we were always careful to have a combination of different types of perspectives in. i thought this was an extremely positive meeting. joe biden, when he was a senator, had chairman of the judiciary, he was very involved with issues of the intellectual

property. it was natural thing for him to continue the interest in it. >> what are the main issues that the motion picture industry is facing when it comes to theft piracy, intellectual property. >> historicically, it was all physical piracy. it was the dvd or the cds on the street. you still see that in various parts of the world and the united states. more and more the issues relate to internet piracy and internet theft. the ability to transfer is instantaneous, the web is ubiquitous. the younger people think it's theirs, whether it is or not. we are facing the issue in a multitude of different ways. obviously, trying to enforce the laws against the criminals who put this stuff on the web is one thing we do. but we're all involved with education messages, dealing with the technologically, as well as the whole new era of providing

the content, whether it's movies or music or television shows online and reasonably priced, hassle-free ways so that people have less incentive to want to steal it in the first place. but it's a complicated problem. and it's one that has the potential of being a dagger in the heart of people creating this content in the future. so we have to address it. but we are addressing it in a ho listic way. we need the government's help. because a lot of this activity is criminal. some of its organizized crime. international. it takes a lot of government prosecutors, a lot of people involved in the criminal justice system to help us deal with this. it also takes homeland security, and so that was the purpose of the meeting yesterday. it was to try to talk about the nature of the problem, and then talk about what solutions there are out there. >> greg piper is the associate

managing editor of the "washington internet daily." >> you do not have dirt in your name. >> i do not. speaking of the pirating, this is one of the more controversial provisions of the anti-counter fit and trade agreement which is now being negotiated privately which has people worried about what is going to come out. it may go beyond u.s. law as far as secondary liability, what the internet service provider could be liable for if they don't try to halt piracy on their networks. there's ban lot of criticisms of other countries, what may happen to their legal regimes, let's say europe and canada, will this go beyond all of the laws in the different countries. will this happen outside of the corrosional. >> the first place, the

negotiating of the anti-count fit and trade agreement is consistent with what our government has done in the past. these types of agreements and others as well, so you get countries together and to try to deal with the issues. and the primary issue in this particular agreement is the online world. and how best to deal with it. and, you know, i can't prejudge. we met with ambassador kirk where we talked about these issues. this trade agreement is basically moving along like most trade agreements move along. that trade agreement will come back to the legislatures and various countries in the world for review. i don't want to prejudge it. i will tell you, however, they are dealing with the issue of online piracy. that is the worldwide phenomenon. it does not stop at boarders of the country. it requires everyone to be in the game. they are worldwide, they move around. you close one, another one opens. every country has an interest in

dealing with this particular problem. but i'm sure it's going to respect national sovereignty. it's almost unthinkable that we would pass an agreement that would create new world order without individual countries looking in the situation. i don't want to prejudge, i have not been involved in the negotiating of the agreement. >> do you think it's possible for all of the legal regimes which have different treatment like prior si, to really come to some kind of baseline agreement that's going to be better for the industry as far as being able to find the thing -- >> i certainly think we can come up with a set of principals to deal with making some of the solutions compatible. you do have national sovereignty. you are not going to get identical laws everywhere in the world. but the problem is very serious. this is a threat -- internet piracy is the threat. every single country in the world who are being helped on the issues by the labor unions

and guilds both in the united states and elsewhere working with us to fight the problems. because it has a direct threat on the creative process on the books, movies, and the like. i don't want to prejudge the issue. i know that there is a community out there. very, very worried about this agreement. i think they are falsely accusing the negotiators of things that are not accurate. i'm comfortable that the obama administration is doing a good job in the negotiating process. >> mr. blinkman, how many does congress spend to fight piracy? >> well, i don't have an exact number. they provided additional $30 billion. i think the president has just signed it or is going to sign it for additional prosecutors helping in the process. the justice department, state government spend a fair amount of money on enforcement of copyright and counterfeiting

generally. much of the work is done through self-regulatory organizations. and we do a lot of work in the states as well. and so i can't give you a precise figure. it's probably a very tiny portion or percentage of what we spent on law enforcement in the country. now as we see more and more piracy into the organizized crime world, which the evidence is showing. a lot of people are doing activities that are moving into this area. then it's our hope that we can get the dollars spent up. >> there's a report that came out that said digital piracy can be halted. it's not going to be unchecked, and you have to change your business models. a couple of suggestions were to go after search engines and advertising networks which make the content which is buried more

visible to users to try to get them to alert users, this is not legitimate content, this is pirated, or even to do some kind of agreement with ad networks that run a lot of advertising, to give them a break on future regulations that's respected in return for cutting ties to these sites. what do you think some of the other intermediaries should do that are facilitating the revenues? >> first of all, i think the report was excellent. it highlighted the problem. there's no question, there are facilitators out there. you see illegitimate products on legitimate sites in which case you can use modern credit cards, to pay for this illegal stuff. and so it gives the impression to the consumers, you can use a legitimate credit card to pay for this. it must be legal. in which case it's not.

so going after the facilitators, the people who kind of -- for lack of a better word, aid and abet. i thought the report said that is a big problem. we agree with that. >> dan glickman and greg piper are joining us on the communicators this week. just to wrap up the topic, i want to read something. this is from art on the web site public knowledge organization. this goes back to the meeting that was just held with vice president biden. we know that big media is a source of big money. we know that biden as a member of the senate judiciary

committee has disposed as many legislators are. even so, agencies heads, big media lobbyist, representing companies which think fair use is theft. and companies that want the providers to spy on you, all in one room. not to mention the chief lobbyist and attorney general who might have to review a little deal nbc has cooking with comcast? >> first of all, if i were them, i would never do a release of the entire cabinet of the united states. we're not going to win very many friends by taking on the chief people who run our government. i would say if they wanted to call me. the fact of the matter is there is an important issue. the movie industry alone employs the people. this is a time when our country is losing jobs all over the country. the unemployment rate is

straggering. particularly with the underreporting of unemployment with respect to people who are off the rolls. i just saw this movie, bringing in a specific movie called "up in the air" with george clooney. it's interesting about what the unemployed have to go through. this is perfectly appropriate for our government to meet with industries that are producing jobs and feel that they have a threat in the event that you see business models come up which has the opportunity of ending that employment or reducing it significantly. i think they are dead wrong. i think they have the perfect opportunity to have their own immediating with all of the same people. and i expect they will. this is the attack. for quite frankly, it's the attack against the leading officers of the government. they are attacking the creditability of the vice president, the secretary of commerce, secretary of homeland security. i think it's dead wrong. >> but hollywood has had a pretty good year even in this

recession right now. your box office receipts are unusually strong. it doesn't seem like people are not going to the movies. yourself has said in the past, it's unique to go to the theater and watch a movie with a group of people. although it seems that your agenda is more oppositional, more aggressive, more like the courting industry has been for the past few weeks. would you see threats that aren't visible at the moment? is there some merit to people stating how endanger you are. >> the experience is still the heart of our business, and we've had a pretty good year this year. part of it is because they have been good movies. part of it is in tough economic times, people tend to go to the movies. it's a great escape. it's a lot cheaper than a psychiatrist. you leave with a smile, usually. part of the business are not doing as well, the dvd business is slipping. the online world is new.

and it's difficult to know how that's going to monetize. and the online world is were digital piracy threatens us. there's no question as a result of the piracy in the areas. as any good business does, it looks at the positives and it looks at the threat. john kendy once had the line. he said the time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining. i'm not saying the sun is shining. i don't want to see us laying off half of the work force and saying we need to do something about the problem. we need to work on it now. especially now. >> what about -- do you work with the tech companies who develop the software? >> we do. all of our countries have relationships with the technology world within , with the internet service providing world. we tend to it demonize our

enemies. that was one of the problems i found with the release. it is the typical these people are evil because they met with these people. the fact of the matter is we do have differences of opinion with some people in parts of the world that we deal with. but what brings us together is much greater than what drives us apart. and so we are working with folks and the tech community and the isp community. anded new media generally. >> dan glickman, if you could, just recently. this is from the web site consumerist.com, npaa ask fcc for control of your tv's analog output. what is this issue about? >> i would say npaa asked fcc to give consumer new options and new ways to watch content earlier in the distribution process. i mean the fact of the matter is what we've asked the fcc is part

of the petition called the selectable output control petition. it's to give the authority to offer first-run movies earlier in the process in a protected manner so that we can show people sooner in the distribution process of the content. a lot of people don't or can't go to the movies for a variety of reasons. they may be older, senior citizens, who don't want to go out. they may be people who are handicaps. they maybe people with small children who can't go out. this is an opportunity to get the terrible earlier on. but to get it out earlier on. if it's not in a protected format, then we're not going to do it at all. because it deals with the piracy issue. this does not hurt any consumer whatsoever. it gives consumer who wish to be offered the service the opportunity to get it.

of course they would pay for it like they might with a video on demand service that some people already get it. this is one the best way that is we can get our product out to a whole variety of consumers, millions of people, who right now are not able to go to the movies at all. and it can be done consistently and with preserving the basic movie experience as well. >> but one of the concerns about this has been that you are asking for a fairly brood permission to turn off the ports on older tvs. there's a concern that there's going to be increasing amount of programming that is protected that is not available to people unless they upgrade their television. why would this not be the government digital transition to television. is this a concern that program is going to the migrate to the protected channels? >> first of all, they are considering this right now. without going into the rather complicated -- there are protections in there against the

kinds of abuses that the some of the folks have alleged. but, you know, more and more upset, we are moving rapidly to a situation in this country where most if not all of some point will effectively provide the kind of ability to offer this service. so there are some older sets that won't do it. those will gradually be reduced as the opportunity to buy new products. it's out there. new consumer electronic products. we're not going to operate the situation. let's look at it this way. here we have a whole group of consumer out there that would like to see movies. faster than what they currently can get them, let's say on dvd or other kinds of things. we're saying, here's the surface to do this. yeah, you'll have to pay for the surface if you want it. the fcc will contain a regulatory oversight role. there are -- i've talked to all

sorts of groups from the handicap to the senior citizen group to small families groups, and said what a great thing it is for us. and we'll work through some of the issues that you have just raised. but that shouldn't be stopping consumers from getting all of the great new option that is are out there. if that were the case, we'd never offer anything new. because the status quo. >> one the options is the blue ray which your industry is putting a lot of faith into to recoop some of the losses from the falloff and dvd sales. blue ray players are expensive. they are not built into other hardware platforms like pc. the price themselves are still higher. they offer consumer better quality and the upcoming digital copy option on some titles to be able to play them on a personal player. is this the right decision right now? to raise the cost of getting the

package content? >> ultimately, my answer would be the marketplace will make those judgments. we're in a period of great experimentation in ways to get new content into people whether at home or other kinds of things that are out there. i don't want to comment too much on business decisions the companies will make. they will make the decisions themselves. there's a lot of innovation. the market someplace going to produce good rewards for people. >> have you seen the consumer interest in having more content available? more context, let's say in the way of interactive feature that are available on blue ray or has the history been more than consumer wants convenience and right now blue ray is not convenient. >> i would say convenience is factor, technology is changing so rapidly, that we don't really know for sure what will be in the best interest of the consumer. they will decide that. so i think you have to look at

this from a futures perspective, as oppose ed to the past perspective. >> we have about seven or eight minutes left in the conversation. dan glickman has been around washington and politics for a long time. he served 20 years in the house of representatives from kansas, the fourth congressional district, he served five years of the secretary of agriculture, he's been the director of the institute of politics, and he started his career as president of the wichita kansas school board. >> best job i had. >> why? >> it was closest to the people. huh to see them all of the time. >> well, you are leaveing your position as chairman and ceo npaa at 2010. >> that's correct. i will move on. this has been a great opportunity to participate in one of the truly spectacular industries of america, producing movies and television shows. not only is it a big economic industry in terms of the number of people we em employ and the

power in terms of the balance of payment. but what we produce, everybody loves the movies. they may not like every movies, but they love what we produce. it changes people's lives. it's also a great part of america's soft power around the world. it tells the story about america. and i'll give you one example. not long ago, i was overseas in china. we were talking about the fact that it's hard for us to get our product into china. you get a lot of illegal product here. i asked somebody. what's the problem here? wasn't anybody high up in the government. it was somebody who knew the system and said, you know, your movies do something that is very interesting. most of your movies, have in some way, the little guy taking on the system. the system may be the government, may be the company, it may be some private sector interest. it maybe a relative. but they are challenging the status quo. that's what makes american movies s