that the number of children of writing each day is likely placing a strain on border patrol agents and facilities. the would you say the situation evidence is a security problem necessarily? >> in airports if in airports at the guy friday when we were there it was clear to me that based on the reporting that is available locally in the rio grande valley that most of the family innocent children are coming out a couple of zones along the southwest border. we break down the operational area by sounds and effects in rio grande valley most of the traffic is coming out with a couple of songs they are and by and large the traffic is seeking out any -- agents not the reverse. >> i would note for the record that when someone appears and again this is not a new policy.

this is in the law that congress created. there are several ways to comply with the law and if you are the victim of trafficking in the anti-slavery law that we passed unanimously for this committee you are eligible as a victim of trafficking. the united states requested you are eligible for a new visa and if you are a child that has been abandoned then you have no one here you can be eligible for a special immigrant juvenile visa that was created because we had kids. this goes back to the 70s. you have a child that appeared five years old and no parents. they are in foster care but what is their status. ..

extraordinary delays because we do not have enough personnel,

but we do not have enough immigration law judges to actually -- and lawyers to actually adjudicate these matters. are you able to comment on that? >> that is our experience. it would like to see those cycle faster which is part of the work we're done with in the unified command group. >> one final question. his administration recently announced it would be opening up a 700-bed family detention center at the federal law enforcement training center in artesia, new mexico. i am interested in this and will be following it closely. of want to make sure -- pegasuses to you, that we learn the lessons of the pluto center. i remember when that opened. we sent the chief counsel from hours of committee down and had 5-year old soldiers in prison uniforms and conditions that were so egregious that eventually lawsuits were filed.

we need to have facilities to accommodate the surge, but none of the less you do real learning lessons from the mistakes of command. >> family detention unit of detention. we are primed for 700 beds. we are aware of the requirements , which are fast. i mean, our family residential standards is a providence -- to a private boat. there are a lot of requirements that must be met. we have an entire team there to make sure that we address as many of those was necessary. >> the time as the gentleman has expired.

chris thank you, mr. chairman. you are here, as i and the standard, representing the border agent spirit is that true? >> that's correct. >> and how many would that be? >> roughly 16,500. >> you were asked if the law unchanged. >> when it comes to the transportation of unaccompanied it and children. >> you would not deny the enforcement policies of the simmons trisha changed. >> the enforcement policies have changed. >> mr. crane to you were here representing the ice agents. how many windy be representing? >> approximately 5,000. >> are you familiar with whether are not homeland security conducted a town hall meeting at a d.h. s office in fairfax, virginia on april 203rd? >> i have spoken to the officers that were present.

>> to your knowledge did they police strong concerns to the secretary that gang members, other public safety threats, and criminals were being released due to new administration policies such as deferred action for child of arrivals? >> yes. that is what is reported to me. >> to these officers and is still the a demonstration of the policies had died the hands? their opinion is boots on the ground officers are a failure? >> says, and i would have that is the message that every leader is hearing in every field office we have. officers and agents are standing up and saying exactly the same thing. these policies are not working. >> for these statements clear enough for secretary johnson to understand? forceful enough for him to remember? >> the statements that were

relayed to me, absolutely. >> of a surprise you that a month later he could not remember those statements. your testimony, as i am disturbed to the level of earlier representing an 16,500 border agent, from the interviews you're getting, they're telling you that one of the prairies as they're coming is because they think there is a living in enforcement policy in place. >> when we were on deck and made a couple of phone calls. they reiterated. >> to any of those interviews reflected they are coming here equally because of this violence ? >> that is one of the reasons. >> do you have any of this that was just mentioned about this uptick in violence taking place

since 2009? any particular uptake in the violence? >> i could -- >> you can speak to that. in honduras have been hit by mentioned earlier the killings of children are way up in recent months cards and can you also speak, the data shows the lowest level of violence since 2004. would you dispute those pictures? >> i'm was familiar with the search mission. i do know that the number of people to five i'm sorry, the u.n. agency that sir rate of children of relieving, something like 400 children reporter like

60 percent have actionable claims for asylum. >> i would end by saying the biggest complaint i have heard today from those supporting this administration is that the title of this hearing was wrong. also we heard someone say, take a vote. as i understood the testimony he said we need to catch and release policy, enforce the law. if we can get that i think all of us will vote on that today. >> the chair thanks the german and asks unanimous consent that the data from national police of guatemalan showing the lowest level of homicide rates in that country since 2000 for. without objection that will be made a part of the record.

the chair readiness is a general move from texas. >> thank you very much. would never underestimate the hearing that deals with the vulnerability of children. let me thank you for your service and commitment to humanitarian issues. i happen to represent captain canard no. i hope you will tell him i said hello. i hope you work with him and of the compassion that he has. think it is appropriate. the work together to put on the record that we all long overdue for putting comprehensive immigration reform on the floor of the house and passing it and moving forward so that our good friends at ice and border patrol agents will of a road map they can address. i want to say on the record,

other nations are watching, and our moral standing is a stake. i only have a short amount of time. would you quickly say what you mean? >> the many other nations, much less populous and more poor and we that are accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees, people who are fleeing violence in their home countries. our nation has been on record for decades to say that we have day -- you have a responsibility to receive these people who are fleeing the violence. it behooves us act under the same principles that we have enunciated. >> thank you very much.

let me go to mr. hohmann for comment. i heard you say something about the law changing. if you determine there should be removal proceedings they're is a process under the law to proceed. some of these families can been deported. and the children can be deported . >> yes. >> i would like to know what ages you have been seeing come across the border back. >> we have children as a gun as -- and given that. >> you have seen someone like this, at this stage.

this just happens to show children lane on floors. you would as a parent or being around children not argue with this baby has the fought to apply for asylum are not show up at a hearing. >> that would be correct. >> wind up is a wide vast range of ages. you have been extending your cells in dealing with these children. let me say thank you for your service. it is clear the removal proceedings are still there. that is still in place. the impression is you are against the administration and president. >> i'm here testifying from a

law enforcement perspective. i have to give the perspective. >> we welcome that. who want to engage in. the senate is best and most of $2 billion allotment. generally speaking more resources for your agents over time, but facilities, would that be helpful? >> of course. >> the question of law, as my colleague said passed a law to provide assistance. then we pass this idea of responsibility for those who are human traffic in. is it not true that in the course of your work you have seen humans bucklers,

individuals or smuggling and human traffickers. >> would you venture to say that their character and integrity is not at any level equal to those he would respect? >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> absolutely not. >> its time has expired. no. your time has expired. >> the time has expired. the chair recognizes the gym from ireland. the to come from gile is recognized. >> thank you for your testimony. i am looking an article, a periodical which is a guatemalan newspaper. the story is ben is this is essentially in spanish and

english that two-thirds of the children are coming from other guatemalans, all solvable, honduras. we are consistent with that. only 12 percent come from mexico , all of the rest of them come through mexico. 80 percent are male. 80 percent are over 14 but unaccompanied minors. i would say first, is that consistent with what you observed? >> it is consistent. >> from what i have been told from the agents commit yes. >> thank you. >> without objection the article will remain a part of the record

>> i looked at some other date a year. the testimony of the fear of violence i began to check this out and see that eight of the top ten most violent countries in the world are central america or northern south america. along these countries, on doors, the most violent, venezuela second, billy's third canal salvador next. in guatemala, south africa, the london. these are very shocking numbers.

that would cellosolve of the most violent countries in the world, eight of ten of them are to our southern border. the united states, great is six and a half per hundred thousand. roughly triple. both those numbers have gone up. if the killings out but it's far more dangerous. what can i compare that to? north q. most violent country in the world has to look up to the toward. the homicide rate is 54. the rest range from 53 to a 38. if you will look is it to america with the area of getting away from violence, we at least have to keep them out of detroit . we should put this in perspective.

now with the point that these children that are coming here, these thousands of unaccompanied minors, was a child and one of my towns found wandering the streets and neighborhoods several blocks away from her mother who was sleeping the issue is working at night, when she nodded often the child, to weigh. department of human services picked this child out to modify the mother, and said to her, if this happens again you're in danger of having a child taken away. we don't tolerate child endangerment or abandonment. yet we're watching tens of thousands of kids being abandoned in to the united states, pushed across the thousand miles of mexico, some of the most dangerous terrain and dry in cartel wants that there is and somehow we as a

country are reuniting families by bringing children under force of law, violating the law, completing the crime companies of renter households. no country in its right mind would repatriate families who have abandoned their children this is so appalling to me. i would ask, mr. jett, with this concept i have laid up here, how do we responded with will be a nation of walls? >> who would have to take custody, but we are not given that opportunity because we give them over to hhs and hhs gives in to a new escort service. my co-worker here with me today

sat next to an el salvador and a-year-old monoplane with someone from this new service. when they got off the plane here in washington d.c. that child was the united with the parent. reunited with the parent and was not done under any law enforcement supervision or oversight. >> the tone and -- >> consent request on both sides >> i have a unanimous consent request which the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> a parliamentary inquiry. unanimous consent required in order to introduce a ducking into the record in this committee. >> another is a desire to up

more documents placed into the record. in the meantime who will turn to the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you. when i first heard about this increase in the numbers of children and the company children appearing at our borders my first thought was what is it that is traffic that can flow from its spectacular rise in the numbers of children. what would cause apparently. all parents love their children regardless of where they are. with a 42,000 square miles with

a median household income those people love their children. and guatemalans, over a million people. about 43,000 square miles as opposed to 42,000 for virginia. the san size per capita income, with those people in one and all of the children. what would cause someone to with their children be accompanied except by -- week : three of these. how many of those within the

phone actually make it to the border? is anyone concerned? i am. and concerned about what would transparent to the look and child in danger. it has to be more than just a president, and you maybe able to -- i don't know what document it is is being raised. it is being ridiculous to think that people put the children risk, but even if a parent in virginia had a -- head 70 children per month being murdered in that state they would look to relocate those children summer. and in hunters have the highest homicide rate in last year's.

to 70 children were murdered month. and there were 102 children murdered last month, the month of may in honduras. and in this country of or mall the take place like virginia and imposing conditions and trap parents there. the parents some of the children want to see them grow a beard want to get them out of there. what is causing at? what is causing that? it's got to be something more than the present offering some of is something. it's a problem with the war on drugs with the militarization of the police forces, the ms 13

gang, 54,000 gain dollars in el salvador, guatemala, honors since 2005 murders increased 292%. targeted for gain in extortion. perceived to be receiving remittances. i mean, there is just so much violence that we cannot relate to it here. if we were in the santa chelation we would be trying to get our junior. it is really not matter of in illumination. it is a humanitarian disaster

with children, not parents with children. it is a humanitarian disaster, and we should be about trying to solve the problem. >> the gentleman has expired. >> i seek to be recognized. >> i have a case here. it accompanying fox news article that i ask unanimous consent to it introduce into the record. >> are there additional? >> i have some oxygen normal state. >> i would like to enter into the record a statement from the hebrew immigrant aid society

from the favre alliance against slavery and traffic in, a paper on the nexus between human traffic in and immigration, a statement from the american bar association, a statement from kids in the the defense, a statement from the u.s. committee for refugees and immigrants, a statement from the safe passage project, a report on mission to central america, forced from home considerations for hondurans when the judge or a conference of the united states. a letter from the california latino legislative caucus as well as a data from the you in office on drugs for years 2000- 2012 and the u.s. department of state report on

guatemalans pointing out that there has been a significant increase in violence and that the police in guatemala are part of the violence problem. >> the gentleman from texas seeks recognition. >> the letter from, i'm sorry, first focus, campaign for children, leveling argues. alexis smith into the record a statement dated june 15th 2012 from the department of homeland security making sure -- excuse me, indicating that any eligible person has to continuously reside in the united states for a least five years. ask unanimous consent. >> without objection.

>> the following articles the included in the record. nearly 200 guatemalan police removed for criminal tied. the reports put on national police under the gun. renewing police report efforts and/or, april 2014, or more employes wars has over 200 new offers given police for corruption. former guatemalan police chief found guilty for killing. one is june 6. >> without objection. >> make sure we know all about. >> what purposes the genentech's is seek recognition? >> actually, the german from utah is recognized for five minutes. >> i think the chairman. from those of you for the border patrol, are you aware of any internal assessment regarding

why his children a coming north the way they are? is there any internal assessment you have seen? >> there are several reports from various locations about the intelligence. >> our committee would like to have a copy. are you aware of any? >> yes, i am aware. >> or 2%? >> pardon me? which were to visit? >> they talk about various factors. >> i guess in the essence of time could you please provide those to this committee? which is, sir. >> thank you. when these unaccompanied minors are coming across our they're communicating his they are and when i want to go? >> when they come to the processing center obviously if

there five years old bat as a little bit difficult. we have to turn them over. but when they are older than 14 they give us numbers. we allow them to call the parents of the relatives or whoever. they tell us exactly where they want to go. >> some of them her papers. >> sometimes. >> what sort of batting is time to figure out whether the authenticity of the relationships -- >> we can. there is none that we can do. >> what happens? >> we process them, take the information at face value and turn them over. kirk's but these are ice and sports? >> yes. the a turnover.

officers fly them to place the directed by it along. >> and when these get to their destination, what vetting do they actually do? >> on our end we don't. prior to that we typically try to verify addresses. >> that the addresses a real? >> and that there's someone there. >> in terms of getting his hair given, the drug cartel, a gang, sex trafficker. are you you? >> here is no verification. >> by daughter flew from salt lake city to phoenix. we had to provide delta telephone number, social security, a driver's license. good time minute we're ticking 13 year old kids and we are with

no questions asked having them over to someone in the united states? i am asking these people. >> i'm asking the people that i here. unanimous consent. >> recognized for 30 seconds. >> the people on this panel, of the four of you involved, do we do anything whatsoever? >> border patrol and what type of veteran again. they take the soda and them over. hhs to resolve of getting. they the background investigations of sponsors.

that is there responsibility. >> what sort of fighting do you do in the pre? >> and to view the individual themselves or if it is part of a family unit. illicit and permission. where they're from. >> what percentage of the border do you have under operational control? >> i don't have any. >> i don't have that information >> would it be an accurate? >> the border changes every day. >> how did you testify yesterday you have an adequate personnel? >> i could have been a bit more

precise. >> you were fairly precise. you said you were adequately -- he went on to say that you were adequately or better staff. >> did not want people to comply fact that we are not concerned. we were told by folks on the ground that the issue of large numbers of family units and these children entering the specific area. my remarks were designed to inform everyone that the deployment outside of those zones are as well or better staffed. >> you are allowed to answer the question. >> we are adequately staffed to process. we create holes on . they are able to process. but the actual border takes a hit because we have to take people out.

>> the chair recognizes the domal in from california. >> first of all, i have to say i heard that the sooner released to these relatives and then they disappear. i did not know how you could say such a thing when once they leave your jurisdiction you don't know what the actual result is. you don't know what the end result is. >> we contract that. what happens is we have to assign what is called an alien number. that can be tracked pd concede what court dates they have, everything that is associated with it. from what has been reported from intelligence is that they don't show up to the hearings.

the bishop in his written testimony on page 11 said that they don't show want to they're hearing. >> let me keep on going. just two weeks ago i visited the unaccompanied minors being house i did see more than 175 children who been transferred. thank goodness the facility as clean and safe, but i can't understand there are a lot of misconceptions about what is going on. back and understand that these children are not given a free pass to enter our country. just like this hearing is a misnomer, also this term catch and release is a misnomer. the children are not just released into society.

first overall rereleased to a relative because of a law that dates back to 17 years ago. that was reinforced by to laws that were signed in by president bush so that they are with relatives. but then they have to have a notice to appear, go through a court hearing. they have to apply if they're going to stay here. they can only stay here if they qualify for asylum or special juvenile status. and so nothing is changed. all of these walls were done before the obama administration. what we do have is a broken immigration system. a court system that has been in

operation because of the like immigration judges, a huge backlog. so all of these children are being held up. there is something else on one task. it is disturbing to me that children have to appear in court without counsel. they are left alone to present a defense to the removal making it nearly impossible for them to assert a claim even if they do qualify. in fact, two days ago my colleagues and i introduced the venerable and the invoice hacked to provide for attorneys for unaccompanied minors and individuals with mental disability. i believe that this is actually

cost-effective because detain individuals who have information regarding their rights prior to the first hearing spend an average 11 fewer days in detention which means more than one under $64 a day for every individual that is detained. so what procedures are currently in place cuba. >> when the child comes in front of the immigration judge, and the last five years for every unaccompanied child with file the case with you why are. 87 percent are still in proceedings which, there is a lack of immigration judges and it is a lot of continuances.

when the air placed with response or family member they certainly can attend the hearing. and aware of the office of principal legal advisor things that supplying an attorney to an unaccompanied child may benefit and make the system faster. i would have to defer to doj on how those hearings are conducted. i am sure it is different in every part of the country. >> the time of the gentlewoman has expired. >> thank you. i know it has been a long day. i appreciate your patience because this is important. having spent the weekend on the border, all along the border, the rio grande, public, dirt, gravel roads down miles, hardtop road seeing dozens of people

being processed out in the public area on a dirt roads and in the middle of the night, i have a better sense of this. the issue of a free pass came up a hearing in which peaking from new york was asking secretary johnson. and he said, if i were a parent or, wouldn't i see that as being a free pass? getting ordered to show up in immigration court. you going to actually deport that child? to me that is a free pass. i don't see it as a free pass, particularly given the danger of migrating over a thousand miles, especially now in the months of july and august. it is exceedingly dangerous. so he is saying because of the danger to get here it is not considered by homeland security

is a free pass. but as to the child was the into the united states, it is a free pass. what is occurring by this administration loring these children into america by the promise of a free pass once they get here, there are children that are suffering in being heard. if they did years successfully that is a different story. having looked at hundred the needs of people because there's nowhere else to put the and i ask about when i here there are 18 cases of scabies, where are they, the illiterate, herrnstein take. that is the best that we can do because health and human services won't come pick up these people in a timely manner.

a.m. lying year and a concrete floor. that little area are scabies cases. we are still looking for all the lice. and i did not get this from the federal people of from taxes folks that just said to thousand doses of age one in one vaccine. they say their is a case. tuesday when know for sure that that is not true? >> when we were there last friday they did consider it -- confirm a single case. >> right. are you familiar with the intent -- incubation? and a stand can be one to seven days. >> has put to the doctor about that.

>> and i appreciate your commendation of these agencies, but the fact is, in 2008 with the democrat-controlled house and senate passed a bill that make children the responsibility of health and human services, which is also trying to take over our health care now. they seem to be commended busy, one that passed it was signed into law. we really tied the hands of our border patrol and ice agents. as i was seeing this week and coming you have hundreds of kids to be have to wait on them. >> with the gentleman yield. >> no, i would not. my time is limited. >> let me ask it this way.

it border patrol of the responsibility of the children you could move without having to wait. >> there are couple of different pieces of the government. their resources are building with the help of the interagency . >> my time is running out. let me indicate that of all the people about what being interviewed, they were all honest, candid. not one of them said that they were fleeing because of violence they were saying, a mother for these two is in miami. now that we know that children can come and not have to go home with want to get them with their mother. these three over here, their followers are in north carolina and have a good job. now that we know they can stay

in get a good education we want them with their fathers. folks, we have sent the message no we are open to anyone who wants to come in. i am telling you, we're not doing her job as the congress. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> pile of like to place into the record the homeland security act of 2002 that was the act fed transfer of this responsibility to help and human services during the republican majority and signed into law. >> there may be a limitation on the number of pages. >> i would ask unanimous consent

to submit the bill that change that in 2008. >> the documents that meet the size conditions will be made at par on the record to leave the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> more than 60,000 children will cross the border without parents or guardians. the migration could be as high as 90,000. it is a tent full june and hit some of my colleagues and suggesting that they are here because of, as we just heard on a free pass. they are coming here trying to come to the united states to to the ministrations of migration policy. as we have our own day, but as

we have heard, these children are embarking on dangers journeys to escape violence in their home countries. you have spoken extensively. the homicide capitol will with your employees having a one and 300 chance of being murdered. in 24 to a woman was killed in the 17 minutes. in guatemala suffering from the spillover of mexican drug cartel bonds, 98 percent of crimes go on prosecuted. this extraordinary violence as well as lack of economic and kennedy are some of the reasons that unaccompanied minors are making what is an extremely dangerous journey. according to a recent study issued by the u.n. high commissioner on refugees

58 percent of the unaccompanied children could raise potential international protection needs. 78 percent of the total number will qualify for international protection. 40 percent or, 557% from on doors, 64 percent for mexico. this is a humanitarian crisis. if that is a will that we are to play, if we take their responsibilities seriously our credibility is on the line that children are treated humanely. now, i also serve on the foreign affairs committee. i meet regularly with representatives from jordan, turkey, lebanon. according to the u.n. high commissioner these three countries have taken in nearly two and a half million syrian refugees since this began. moreover it has been rick porter that germany has offered a

somewhat a portion of a 25,000 refugees who are continuing to be inundated by refugees fleeing mass slaughter. we support their efforts and praise these countries for keeping their borders open to people fleeing violence in their home countries. we praise them for doing that. as we urge other countries are round the world to keep their borders open to people fleeing violence, especially children fleeing violence, it is incumbent upon us to treat people fairly and humanely or fleeing an extreme violence and seeking safety in the united states. if we are to be taken seriously at all when we speak out in support of. no, bishops, have a question for you.

tell me whether you believe the united states has an obligation to treat an accompanying children seeking safety fairly and humanely? >> we have a responsibility in the world is watching us and see us as a leader in human rights. so how we deal with this much smaller population of people showing up on our borders will be looked at with a great deal of interest. >> what is the agency and the company children the ec? >> by definition it is anyone that is under 17. >> i understand. give a sense how many of them are under 13, 14. >> we could get back to you. it is generally the older age, 14-17.

>> these children come across the border. sphere a sense of the chair and walked in from all solid door or on doors or, to the united states. >> not specifically, but it has to be days. >> two they ever walk or do they just -- how they get here? coor's the jungle as time has expired. >> i don't think many of them walk all the way. there will what part of the way. some of them if they have enough money will get bus tickets. >> thank you. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you very much. thank you for being here today. see you know how many nephew easily accepted last year? >> i do not have those numbers.

>> 70,000. a pretty good effort of reaching out of communities. see now how many immigrants the accepted? >> to not. >> in the millions. for anyone to suggest the united states is not accepting people from other countries, i would differ with you. i have heard a lot of reasons why this is happening. if you look at this chart to my right in your life and of the numbers started increasing in at 412. the law changed in fyl8. in f19 you had about the same number. in the numbers started increasing. this year rare estimating it will be an increase of 13 and%. what has changed in those years.

>> i do not know. >> is there any evidence that country conditions -- >> we have heard a lot of bad things about those countries. i agree that the conditions are not great. has anything significantly changed in the last three years? >> i could not answer that. >> is there any evidence that anything is changed? that today the police is more corrupt? >> nothing specific. >> so we believe that the conditions are about the same as the war, do we not? >> i'm just not an expert on what is happening in those locations. and the the group says we -- i have some the size the reports

that we developed that have been developed by our agents in the field. there are four major factors cards and what are those? >> it is the violence, the economic conditions and lack of opportunity, the failed to weigh you know, services, will wall, and there is open source reporting. we have our own the says that people are under the belief that there's some kind of benefit. >> but those first three factors are not any different today than they were. to you have any evidence that they are? >> i do not know the difference. >> and i would submit that there not. corrupt countries, police. the thing that is changing is your number four factor. they now believe that they can remain in the united states. when you talk about your agents, what are they telling you? when a saying that these children are coming to the

united states? >> again, our agents are required to interview these individuals. and the biggest triple we're getting is that they're coming here because they can stay. >> because they can stay. and i find it outrageous that anyone would say that things have not -- have changed dramatically, and i find it outrageous that nobody in the stands it seems on the other side that inviting and saying that we're going to actually allow people to stay weather for a month for two years or permanently, that anyone would imply that that is not an incentive because if i had children, and i had been born and doors, guatemala, el salvador and believed there was a chance for me to remain, i would do anything in my power to bring those children here. what do you think, one single

thing that we could do right now to stop what i believe is a humanitarian crisis immobile and that has been created by this president and a lack of enforcement. >> i am going to have to answer, i want to stop the smugglers. i have seen too many dead bodies of the desert. i want them to present themselves up ports of entry. i want to stop the smugglers. ..

>> without objection the document will be made part of the bolam in this record. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois mr. gutierrez for five minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. first of all one simply needs to google things and you find a different reality than that. central america nicaragua bring us your own charts and show shows there is absolutely no increase in the numbers of nicaraguans unaccompanied children to this country.

none. there's no increase from mexico. it's an increase from three specific countries and you go back. if you want to talk about the guatemalan police, google it one second. the former head of the guatemalan police was convicted on june 6 of this month for murdering people. it is pervasive the violence. they are part and parcel of the criminal enterprise in many instances that plagues guatemala and you want us to believe them? the very people people that help facilitate these processes? please. the other thing is let's be clear because i would like a little more honesty here mr. chairman. we have unions that come here that when they are directors give prosecutorial discretion they get together with their union and then condemn their supervisors for initiating those prosecutorial discretion memorandums. that is the truth and that is the rhetoric.

you don't like doc. you don't like anything that has to do with compassion. he don't like anything that has to do with the united states is initiating prosecutorial discretion because this is a nation of laws and it's a nation of compassion. it's also a nation that understands that there is truth and justice in our law. please tell me the solution set up and offered that would stop the children from coming here other than to say if we lock them up and sent them back which is not allowed to land. it is simply not the law of the united states. if you want to change the law and you want to send them back then prepare legislation that says that and get passed by the congress of the united states and united states and simon the president but that's not the law. now we have got they are

bringing diseases. how many times do we have to hear about poor children fleeing drug cartels, crime, violence, murder, rape and they find a ride in this country and what do we do to those children? do we continue what was said in virginia just a couple of weeks ago when mr. cantor potts opponent says i'm going to congress to continue the judeo-christian tradition that this country was founded on. that's the judeo-christian tradition to take children and dehumanize them and criminalize some? one of my colleagues on the republican side says oh they are reuniting them with their parents. i'm aghast, really? what a sin. what a sin. the government of united states is spending money to reunite children with their parents. i say we have sensible

comprehensive immigration reform which i am ready to work and have been ready to work with the other side of the aisle. do you know why they are coming? i will tell you why. the drug traffickers and the drug cartels are filming this hearing and what they have heard time and time again from the republicans is what? you get a free pass. how many times have we heard them say that? do you know the drug traffickers and the drug cartels print that stuff up? let's tell them the truth of what our laws are. the fact is they are being placed in removal proceedings. we know the vast majority of them will not receive anything from the government of united states and they will be reported after going through these long trials and tribulations and murderous roads to get here. i've got to tell you something. i am astonished and ashamed that this committee is going to have a trip to visit the centers in

texas and have this hearing and prejudge the theory expedition we are taking on next week. look i want to stick to the judeo-christian tradition of this country and that is one that is welcoming of people who are refugees that come here seeking peace and humanity. i don't know about the rest of my colleagues but i think that should be our goal each and every instance and i want to thank mr. -- for reminding us what we are doing given the terrible crisis in syria and what we have asked other people to do. it seems to be that if they come for our own specific atmospheres bad. we have spent trillions of dollars in countries where people don't like us. let's spend some money in countries where people of this nation i think we would be a lot better off. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chairman recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and i would like to thank the witnesses for joining us. i think we can all agree that we

have a crisis on our hands. it's profoundly disappointing to some of my colleagues are using this crisis as an excuse for inaction. an action is what got us here in the first place. we have now waited a full year since the bipartisan senate bill was passed, a full year. if we had passed immigration reform we would have taken care of the people who are already here and directed resources to criminals and traffickers and people who wish to do this nation harm. we have been able to provide reintegration assistance and legal representation to these children and we would have a comprehensive strategy at the border so we could stop throwing money at the problem and stop militarizing border commanders. just yesterday speaker boehner wrote the president asking him to send troops to the border, to

send national guard troops to the border to do what? these are children. they need help. not a gun in their face. others are using this excuse to an dr. and deport all the young people who have benefited from that program. daca is a program that secretary johnson testified before this committee as a success. these young people have become assets in our community. they want nothing more than to go to school and contribute to our country, to their country. in fact i have that dream and turning -- dreamer and turning in my office this summer. no matter who you think is at fault but that the matter is there are hundreds of kids arriving on our border each day hungry, thirsty, often traumatized by their journey. and here because they are trying to game the immigration system. they are here out of desperati desperation. you don't hand your 10-year-old

daughter and let her travel thousands of miles into the desert on the backs of trucks through a foreign country because you are hoping she will be your immigration enemy. they feel they have no other choice and in fact in many cases they have no other choice. these kids are coming from places where children are recruited by gangs, where they are used as pawns to coerce their families. they are here because of a foreign policy that has ignored the problems in our own backyard and exist immigration system is too broken to deal with reality. we need to fix our immigration system and invest in this part of the world to get to the root of the problem. using these kids to score political points is unproductive and simply beneath us. stop finger-pointing and start governing is what we should be doing.

now i have just been astonished by some of the questions. i want to ask any of you they are, have you heard with the exception of some of the members across the aisle, at the any of you heard u.s. officials saying to people come to the united states so you can stay? >> i have not heard any u.s. officials say that. >> mr. crane? >> no sir i have not. >> i wanted to ask the bishop because somehow you got involved in the conspiracy. somehow the catholic church is in collusion with the coyotes trying to come here. could you state for the record what the catholic church thinks about people breaking the law and coming to the united states as they wanted per trade? >> first of all we do not recommend that you, children children, anyone leave their home country and make that journey.

we try to discourage them from coming. however, i think we also recognize that there are people as you said that feel they have no other option, like the woman said that i quoted in my testimony. she said she would rather see them die on the journey and take a chance of dying on the journey than to die on her doorstep and that is the option that i believe many of these people feel. >> bishop one final question. i sometimes look at bumper stickers finds and i always loved the monogram wwjd. what would jesus do? could you tell me who jesus would deport just so i know? >> i think we have plenty of indications in the gospel that jesus identified in special way with people who are on the margins, with people who have no voice. he told the story of the good samaritan and he said the

neighbor was the one you showed compassion. i don't think we ever get a pass on compassion especially to the one who is. >> thank you very much and i yield back the balance of my time. >> this concludes today's hearing. thank you to all the witnesses for attending. >> mr. chairman unanimous consent to put in the record. >> without objection all members will have five additional days to submit written questions for the witnesses are additional material for the record and the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.

>> what i have right here is a process plant that i cut down into sections that are the right length for hanging and then i took off all the big families and those are sent to the kitchens to make edibles. they have a small amount of thc so they get that for a really good price from us and then these little leaves here are the type trend meant that can be dried and made into joints or it can be sent to the places that make extractions and made into a hash and that sort of thing. and then right here we have a finished blood and this is sent over to tear and hang to dry and then cured in buckets for a couple of weeks before they sell it at the dispensary.

>> your argument argument next in case 13461 american broadcasting companies versus aereo. mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. aereo's business model is to enable thousands of strangers to watch live tv on line. aereo's legal argument is that it can make all that happen without publicly reforming it. congress passed a statute that squarely forecloses that

counterintuitive submission because although the internet in the thousands of many antennas are near the basic service the areas providing is not materially different from the service provided by the cable company before this court in 1969. >> why aren't they? >> everyone has been arguing this case is that for sure they are not that i look at the definition of the cable company and seems to fit. a facility located in any state. they have whatever they have a warehouse or a building. that receives signal transmissions or programs broadcast by television broadcast stations or if they are taking the signals. >> they are taking our signals. >> makes secondary transmissions by wires, cables or other communication channels. it seems to me that they little antenna with a dime fits that

definition, to subscribing members of the public who pay for such services. i read it and i say why aren't they a cable company? >> justice sotomayor first of all if you are argued that point you're probably understood that just like a cable company they are publicly performing a baby that qualifies a cable company and maybe they could qualify for a compulsory license that's available to cable companies under section 111 of the statute. >> do we have to go to all of those other questions if we find that they are cable company? we say they are a cable of company to get the license. they want to be a cable company. they have a footnote in the red brief that makes it clear. they don't want to be a cable company and it might potentially

get you into the compulsory license but it brings you within a lot of locations. >> that isn't the question. >> here's the other thing. >> the question is are they? >> that is a question to the federal communications act but here is why if i could i thank and mr. frederick will speak to this if you want them too but i think the reason they don't want to be a cable company is because they think their basic business bottle would not allow them to qualify for compulsory license anyway. >> i still like to know the answer to question the opinion and of course if you want a reason i will give you my resume. if you take public performance may be we run into it as a problem. what used to be called a phonograph record store sells phonograph records to 10,000 customers giving a public performance. it seems to fall within that definition.

if it is, there is snow for sale document and it's a big problem. so we could avoid that problem. that is why i am very interested in the answer. >> i don't think there are ultimately cable company and we could debate that question but it's not the question before you so maybe i could give you comfort that i don't need to decide that question. >> my reason for wanting to decided is what i said and

it's also recognizing the real world by the way the different services are structured. if you provide downloads of music you get is this ration or reproduction license. if you provide streaming of music were you also have a contemporaneous live performance venue also get a public performance license. >> feature definition i mean justice breyer has lost -- already said he is troubled about the photograph store and the drop box and the cloud.

i'm also worried about how to define your public performance or the performance of the work publicly which is the better way to do it according to you. how do i define that so that someone who sells coaxial cable to a resident of the building is not swept up as a participant in this or someone who gives passage storage -- passive storage advisers. what do i do to avoid, what do we do, not be but what does the court due to avoid a definition for an acceptance of the definition that might make those people viable? >> those are actually two different examples and i think the answer to both of them is somewhat different. the provider of co-axial cable if it's a simple sale of cable

is not performing at all and so i think if you are somebody that all you do is take a piece of hardware and you sell it once and for all to the user then the user may be performing with the equipment that you are out of the picture. that's different from an ongoing service that the cable company or aereo who still on cease facilities than they are providing through wire transmissions these performances on an ongoing basis. >> before you get to justice sotomayor second half of the question more along the lines of providing hardware. suppose accompanied gave the antenna and a hard drive. that is what they sold to the user and the user was able to use the antenna and the hard drive in her own house or apartment in order to get all these broadcast programs. would that be a performance? >> i think the end-user would be doing performance that it would be up early private performance and i'll think the person assaulted the hardware or anybody else if i understand

your hypothetical would be involved. this is something i may keep up on the fly. it's right there in the text of the statute. >> it does depend on where the hardware's. in other words at aereo has the hardware and its warehouse as opposed to aereo selling the hardware to the particular end-user that's going to make all the difference in the world as to whether we have the public performance or not a public performance. >> again that goes to what i was about to say. let's not because we like one better than the other. one of the ways the public performs. you start with the singer in a concert hall and they sold tickets but then they said wait it's also public performance if you take the singer's performance in transmitted. they are thinking airways and all sorts of other ways to be transmitted to the public in the definition of transmission is too communicated from one place to another. there's a geographical aspect of the wealth in the statute so if

you sell somebody hardware now they are doing is transmitting it to themselves that their home there is not going to be a transmission chargeable to the person who sold me the hardware but if you provide an ongoing service to promote. >> gets a performance but it's a private performance in the name of the hardware and it becomes a public performance. is that it? >> it becomes a public performance on behalf of the center but it would be the performance on behalf of the receiver and that's what's important to keep in mind that in the statute is the public performance right there's nothing particularly anomalous about a single transmission that from the perspective is a public performance and from the recipients perspective you have the cable company and they are taking a performance off of the airwaves in transmitting to the end-users.

the cable companies are performing to the public that the same transmission is allowing each end-user to turn on their television set. >> roku is playing -- paying a license for no reason? they sold me a piece of equipment. i don't know all the details of that particular piece of equipment. i'm not sure whether they are paying a license or not but if there was a transfer and there is nobody else providing transmission i don't think operating the hardware in the privacy of your own home is going to result in anything but a private performance. >> that is a slightly different situation. the ultimate statutory text that allows to differentiate a cloud locker storage from something something like area to assist the language to the public. i think in all sorts of places including the real-world there's a fundamental difference between the service that provides new content to all sorts of

end-users essentially anyone at a service that provides a locker and storage service. i think if of the one of real-world analogy off the internet the difference between a car dealer and a valet parking service. if you look at it from 30000 feet you might think both of these provide the cars to the public but if you look at more closely and understand if i show up at a car dealership without a car i'm going to be able to get a carpet if i show up at the valet parking service and i don't own a car it's not going to end well for me. >> i did not mean to interrupt. >> i think there's a fear -- very real way which he would say the car dealer is providing cars to the public and the valet services now. >> implies that like a public garage in your entourage x. if you park your your car in your own garage or parking a public garage you can go to radioshack and buy an antenna and a dvr or you can rent this facility

somewhere else from aereo. they will let you use it when you need it and record the stuff as well and picked it up when he needed. >> mr. chief justice that's exactly the way the district court looked at it. congress in 1976 decided there was going to look at it differently and is said that if you are providing a service even if your are providing a service that one could reconceptualize is renting out antennas that someone company on house the person provides a service on an ongoing basis and in the process exploits copyrighted works of others is engaged in a public performance. that is clearly what they were trying to do in the 1976 act by adding the transfer clause. >> the second circus -- circuit analogize this to maxim a deacon is going to me what is the difference in your view between wide aereo does and the remote storage dvr system. does the difference have to do in and the way in which the cable company that has the

remote storage dvr system versus aereo requires the program in the first place? does it have to do with the number of people who view this program that has been recorded? what is the difference? >> the potential difference i don't think this court has decided today. >> i don't find that very satisfying because i need to know how far the rationale that you want us to accept loko and i need to understand. i think what effects it will have on these other technologies -- next. >> assumed that cablevision is our president and i notice it but assume that it is. how would you distinguish the cablevision from your case? how was it applicable here? >> yeah justice kennedy would like to answer both questions knowing the result is right.

the reasoning of cablevision is profoundly wrong. the reason there's a fundamental difference between the rs dvr provision in what aereo provides us with justice alito alluded to is there such license to give the initial performance to the country so that i think appropriately the focus in the cablevision context becomes just a playback feature in the timeshifting enabled by that in that context if you focus only on that than the rs dvr looks a lot like a locker service. you have to commence the content content and you only get back the same content. here is what aereo is like. area was like cablevision. going forward we will dispense with all these licenses and we are just going to try to tell people we are just in the rs dvr. nevermind we don't have any ability to get the broadcast in the first instance and we are going to provide to individual users and will be because they

push buttons and not because we push buttons. i don't know how that wouldn't be the clearest violation. see. >> i'm hearing everyone having the same problem and for arguments sake i would assume if they were ever anything that should be held to fall within the public performance they should. i will assume that. i'm not saying it. within the problem is in the works that do that is we have to write words. are we somehow catching other things there really will change life and such as the cloud and you said as the governor says don't worry because that is a public performance and i read the definition and i don't see how to get up out of that. >> ultimately the words will be interpreted to the public.

>> for the public, separate at the same time for different time? separate or together? 1000 people stored in the cloud the same thing as could easily happen and come back at varying times of the day. if all they can do is just like the valet get back what they put up there i think we could easily say that is not to the public and that's not just me coming up with a clever distinction. that's a distinction that has been drawn in the real-world. there are some cloud computing services and technology to give new content to people that don't have it and they get licenses. there's another cloud computing that just has locker services and so i've not saying -- i think it's a profound implication. >> what if mr. clement is not so simple as a company that just allows you to yourself to put something up there? how about there are lots of companies where many thousands

or millions of people that things up there and then they share them in the company and some ice aggregates and sorts all that content. does that count? >> that justice kagan is precisely why and asking enough to conclude the cloud computing question all today. the details of that might matter. if i can take my valet parking service one more time. if they have is a car service on the side who will sneak the car? >> will rent it out to them. and if i could reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal. >> thank you counsel. >> mr. stewart. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. i would like to reinforce two points in mr. clement made. the first one is what aereo is doing me is the berlin of the

1976 act as a public performance. as the chief justice said one potential way of looking at this is that aereo and companies like it or not providing services. they are simply providing equipment that's does in a more sophisticated way with the viewers up to do. it's a possible way of looking at the world. congress acted to override that. cable services that used one antenna to pull broadcast signals out of the sky in regard to their subscribers those people were engaged in public performances and they have to beat paid world sees. the second thing that i would like to reinforce in mr. clement's presentation is that there is no reason to decision in this case should include locker services generally but as mr. clement pointed out. >> what about simple tv imagery

which is a hybrid? >> i'm not familiar enough with the precise details of the operation but let me say in general terms they are obviously services that provide television programming over the internet. some of them are licensed because they recognize they are publicly performing. in a particular company for instance recorded television programs and offering to string them to anyone who paid the fee offered to send them for a fee. that would be of public importance because those companies would provide content to people who don't have it. the basic distinction that defines the extremes is the distinction between the company whether it be internet-based or cable transmitter that provides content in the first instance and a company that provides consumers with access to content that they are to have. you have the cloud service somebody has bought a digital copy of the song or some other

source stores in a locker and ask it to be streamed back. the locker stores service is not providing the content. providing a mechanism for watching it. >> i will ask my same question to you that i asked him mr. clement. how about a company that allows sharing and aggregates all the content that the tool users put up and in some sense sorts and classifies the content in different ways? how about that? >> you would have to know the details of the service and you would have to be making a harder call about how to draw the line. i don't pretend there's a bright line between providing a service and providing access to equipment. look for instance at the extremes of a person putting a ref type antenna on his own home and everybody agrees the rooftop antenna manufactures not performing at all and the individual is engaged in the other extreme is the cable company one big antenna make's

transmissions for a lot of people. as a private performance. you can come up with hypotheticals that look more or less like one of the extremes are somewhere in the middle. i don't have a good answer fo for. >> how do we get out of the example? what words do i write to get out of this throwing into this clause a music score that this -- music store or the u.s. postal service or someone over-the-counter. this could reach 10,000 people. a copy which they will then take them play. they will have the same transmitted, something that will electronically make a performance of the music. so when they sell the record are they violating the display

clause? >> no because the definition up to transmit the sun to transmit a performance or display two communicated by any device or process whereby images or sounds are perceived beyond the plac place. >> in this case the sounds are perceived beyond the place. it requires a person to take the record, put it on the machine and then play it. >> there's a separate exclusive right in the copyright. >> that separate exclusive right has such thing as for-sale attacks that they also float here at this covers them which is why the paragraph i was quoted there is no for-sale and that has a lot of consequences. >> anyway if you haven't got something right there and you're not going to think about it. >> i have thought about it and i think the answer is the word

transmit is being used in a particular sense. you are correct that there are sub context in which we would say a person who sends cds or albums over the mail is transmitting does. that is not the sense in which the term transmitting is used here. causing the sights and sounds to be received transmission through radio waves or cable at veteran if there were any doubt about the word transmit remembers part of the definition of the word and ambiguities in the definition should be construed in light of the defined term. nobody would say that a person it transfers the copy of the record was performing. >> before you finish mr. clement in his brief made the point that if we took the position that dish network used in

compatibility with their international obligations, that is aereo's view of the public performance right is incompatible with allegations under the berne convention and under what is it? why? pages 44 to 45. he says aereo's view of what the public performance right is front straight up against their international obligations that aereo's view but the public performance right is run straight up against their international relations and he says this from the european court of justice and another piece. >> we have not made that argument. we believe existing copyright properly construed this fully sufficient to comply with their international obligations but that doesn't mean we think

whenever a court misconstrues the statute we will automatically be thrown into breach. it's certainly possible that this case were decided in aereo's they read some of our international trading partners might object but i'm not going to take the position that we can see those ads merit. the point that mr. clement was making about the phrase to the public, using the hicks example of a valet parking and the comparable example of the coat check room there are situations over time in which people place property momentarily at the disposal of another and retrieve it later and is distributed to them at that later date not in their capacity as members of the public but is the true owners of the property. i think some kind of distinction along those lines is essential and much more mundane

applications of the copyright act. for example if i invite 10 friends over to watch the super bowl that the private performance. that is not because my friends are not members of the public. they are and in some other capacities it would be important to regard them as such. if the theater down the street had a screening of casablanca to happen those 10 people were the only 10 people attended it would be a public performance because they would be there in their capacities as member -- capacity as member of the public so we are dealing with public performance distribution to the public. it's essential to ask not only are these individuals members of the public in some sense but are they acting in their capacities as such? if you have the pure cloud locker service that doesn't provide content and simply stores content and place it back at the user's request that service would be providing content to its true owner. >> how do you want us to deal with the cablevision and again

assume it's a binding precedent. >> my answer would be the same as mr. clement. if you really adhere to the idea that the only performance that counts is the individual transmission and asked us that go to more than one person then it's hard to see how you could rule in favor of our position here. as far as the bottom-line outcome is concerned you could accept the government's position and still say cablevision was decided the correct way because precisely because cablevision is supplemental rs dvr. we think the recording of those programs by the subscribers who are already entitled to view them in real time and the play braddock -- playback can be a private performance of their own content. >> thank you mr. stewart.

>> mr. frederick. >> thank you mr. chief justice and may it please the court. the three points i wanted to make our interpretations of the text that they offer absolutely threatened cloud computing and third this case is really of reproduction right case masquerading as a public performance case. now we are not a cable service. the reason we are not a cable services because cable takes all signals and pushes them down. there is a head in defined by statute in that particular its regulatory structure that deals with taking a lot of content and pushing it out to consumers. aereo is an equipment provider. nothing happens on aereo's turkoman until user initiates a system. the user initiates a system by logging on and pressing this is

the program that i want to watch. that intensity antenna activates their recording and the user is then able to play it back. >> iras thought and i try to be careful about it but not often enough and breach it like every other member of the publ public. if i take a photograph of a record and duplicate it a million times the way you are doing it and they then go out and sell each of those copies to the public, then i am violating the act. so why is it that you are not? and it's not logical to me that you could make these millions of copies and essentially sell them to the public because you are telling the public when they want to buy it they can pull it off and hear it so why aren't you?

>> if your hypothetical implicates the reproduction right that's the exclusive right of the coffee holder to restrict the numbers of copies it is made. that is not a public performance rights question. they abandoned their challenge in the preliminary injunction proceeding to the reproduction right issue because it runs right into the sony decision. in sony this court held consumers have a fair use right to take local over the air farce cast and make a copy of it. all aereo is doing is providing dvr set enable consumers to do what they can do at home and moving the equipment antennas on the dvr's to the internet. >> judge chain right when he said there's not technically sound reason to use these multiple antennas. the only reason for that was to

avoid the breach of the copy. instead of having one antenna to have these dime sized antennas. >> this is a very complex question and let me answer that multiple levels. there are technical reasons why the individual antennas provide the same utility at lower cost and functionality than one big antenna but there are practical concerns. as a start up business area was attempting to replicate on the cloud what they can do at home at lower cost with more efficiency. as a practical matter in judge chen had no basis in which to make this statement at all in his dissent because these are facts not in the record and efficiency is not a consideration of the copyright act. you can't do multiple channels over the internet anyway. you can only do a single video stream at the time so whether

you have one video antenna or what you have lots of little antennas you still have to could -- press the signal and open only one can go for the internet at a time however justice ginsburg as a startup business there is a real consideration for a wide alterable antennas make sense. if you are in new york city and you want to put an antenna on top of the building you have to get a building permit. if you want instructed you to get a construction permit. if you want to put it up there with a crane you have to get a subway permit before you can do other things to put a big antenna on a building in new york city to get broadcast signals. >> is there any reason you need 10,000 of them? if your model is correct can't you just put your antenna up? there is no technological reason to have 10,000 dime sized antennas other than to get around copyright laws. >> the point of the copyright laws your honor shouldn't turn on and prevent tetanus but the weather the person who is

receiving the signal that comes to the internet is privately performing by initiating a act of that antenna getting a data stream and having a signal compressor that can be streamed over the internet to a user specific user initiated copy. >> doesn't contradict the chief justice's question. you're just saying that by doing it this way you don't violate the copyright laws but is there any reason you did it other than not to violate the copyright laws? >> we understood and guess there is a reason justice kaliya. we wanted to tell consumers you can replicate the experience is very small cost. you know you are right to put an antenna on your roof and a tv in your living room. we can provide the same antenna or dvr for a fraction

you provide the service. they don't have a dedicated antenna in brooklyn. >> some of the consumers do and the record is clear that some are statically assigned to particular users but mr. chief justice that doesn't answer the statutory question which is as in cablevision is justice kennedy noted there is a user specific initiated copy that when viewed by the user as a private performance. that operation of the system works exactly the same way. in fact the cablevision is able to compress the signal to make them internet accessible to a single antenna and aereo chooses to do with the multiple antennas to provide all the hassles that go with having a big antenna should not matter for the copyright laws. we are we are still talking about renting equipment and consumers have the right to get

over-the-air signals that are free to the public using public spectrum that the government has allocated. >> has aereo offered this service so the viewer at home could press three different buttons that take only 45 seconds? aereo would have some way to screen out the advertising sacred watch entire game. >> that would probably violate the reproduction right justice kennedy. >> would aereo be a performer than? >> the question would be and this does go under the technical details and hear the position between the parties is quite stark. they say the facts don't matter. we have a well-developed factual record injustice can be the fact that would matter in your hypothetical is what the weather not the initiation of the advertiser had been somehow done by the consumer or the cloud.

>> who makes the choice? pushbutton one or button two? i don't understand why it's a performer in one case and not the other case. >> because the action of who is a performer turns under the statute on who is making or her acting to make the sequence of sounds and images receivable. where you are talking about taking out advertising what you are doing is altering the copy and abridging the reproduction right. that's not something you can do in the area of technology. i have no brief to defend that. that would be a reproduction right question but that doesn't matter in terms of who is exercising a private performance because that is being done in the home with the user initiated user specific product.

>> your client is just teasing us for local signals right now but if we approve that is there any reason it couldn't be used for distant signals as well? >> possibly. >> possibly why? there is possibly a reason or could possibly be used to? >> it can be used. >> what with a different. >> lexically take hbo and carried out without performing. >> know because hbo is not done over the airwaves is done through a private service that let me answer your hypothetical display. it does not implicate a private performance and public performance distinction because even if you were to take distant signals and make them available to the home it's still a user initiated user specific copy of distant programming. the question then becomes is there a fair use right to be able to do that? what sony said it is sony was

dealing with local over the air broadcasts and making a copy of over the air broadcast. it said consumers have a fair use way to make a copy of that. sony did not address the distant signal and the question then would become balancing the fair use factors weather was perfect for consumer to get access to that programming without being able to otherwise implicate -- the way congress has addressed that, congress has addressed that by saying that when there are distant signals that get pushed through a cable system there is a copyright royalty that gets paid. i want to make absolutely clear satellite cable do not pay copyright royalties for local over the air broadcast. why? the local over the air broadcast channels wanted it that way. they did want to be in a situation of having to figure out how to do via the copyright

royalties to the various holder so when they talk about how congress supposedly overruled in nightly what they ignore is that in section 11t and section 122c of the copyright act, congress said the retransmission of local over the air broadcast through satellite and cable shall be exempt on the copyright. so when they talk about the retransmission issue they are really trying to conflate these different regulatory systems. >> can you clarify that every other transmitter does pay a royalty may be a compulsive tory license and anywhere the only player so far that doesn't pay any world peace at any stage. >> justice ginsburg the person that sells an antenna to me at their local radioshack does not pay local copyright royalties

either and a rental service to put an antenna and my home does not pay copyright royalties either. the question that boils down in this case is how significant should it be how long the court is between the antenna and the dvr. >> the answers very significant and what the local antenna person doesn't do that you could apparently do this with the same kind of device picks up every television signal in the world and send it into a person's computer. that sounds so much like what the catv system does or what is satellite system does. it looks as if somehow you are escaping a constraint that is imposed upon them. that is what disturbs everyone and then what disturbs me on the other side is i don't understand what the decision for you or against you when i write it is going to do to all kinds of

other technologies. i've read the briefs fairly carefully and i'm still uncertain that i understand it well enough. that isn't your problem but them i turn out to be. [laughter] >> let me try to make it their problem. [laughter] i think the distant signal and you can reserve that case to say that my ways at different issue but on the facts here would not entitle the company to an injunction enjoining aereo for providing the service. with respect to the second aspect of this the reason why their interpretation of the transmit clause causes so much problem so many problems for the cloud computing industry is that it's twofold. number one they are conflating performance with word in the transmit clause. what they are saying is that so long as the work is always perceived in some fashion or a

performance that is privately done through the playback of a recording that because the initial work was disseminated to the public that implicates a public performance right. but that does is it means every time somebody score something in the cloud whether it's a song of video image or the like if it happens to be something that somebody else is stored in the cloud the act of one person initiating it in perceiving it is going to duplicate the public performance right. that is why the cloud computing industry has freaked out about this case because they have invested tens of billions of dollars on the notion that a user specific user initiated copy when perceived by that person is a private performance and not a public performance. the second thing that they do that is wrong with this statute if they aggregate performance is. instead of where the statue says transmit a performance they say

transmit performances. they acknowledge that the way the technology works for aereo is it's an individual user specific user initiated copy but they said no matter if you had enough of them together you can aggregate data become a public performance. >> just to make sure there is no reason that the user specific copy is it? it would be easier for you to make one copy. >> that is where the issue about replicating what happens in the hall matters mr. chief justice. if i'm in my home and i start the program two minutes in using aereo technology and missed the first two minutes and then never get to watch it. it happens to be when i push the button to initiate the copy just like if i'm at home watching my dvr the same principle. that copy will always be different because i have control over it he. >> surely you can make a programmer you have just one copy starting at a different

time. you don't need every viewer to have its own copy. >> but that is the key distinction between video-on-demand and the service for aereo provides. we don't have a brief to the fence the master copy because in the master copy situation that is indisputably public because there is no right to exclude anyone else. with a aereo's technology if i'm making a copy using aereo system no one else can look at it. even if you happen to have watched the same program you can't watch my copy. >> i'm just saying your copy is different than my copy but there's a reason to call them copies. because they are the same. [laughter] i'm not saying that's necessarily bad. i'm just saying your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don't want to comply with which is fine and lawyers do that but i'm just

wondering why whether you can give me any technological reason apart from compliance with the particular legal issue for your logical mind. >> it's much simpler to add modules when you are starting ramping up in what we are talking about in any cloud computing industry is who are starting with one group servers and then you add them almost like lego pieces as you are adding the number of people that you are using. that's a technological reason why the cloud works the ways it does mr. chief justice. aereo's antennas and dvr's about the length of the size of this counsel table here service tens of thousands of people in the new york area. we can provide the antennas and we can provide the dvr's and it's very compact small space. then if we expand and are able to continue to be in business and get more subscribers in brooklyn we might add another

road that would be the size of the counsel table spiny. that aspect of the technology goes to the modules that are used for cloud computing are you basically can add additional servicers additional disk space and when new consumers activate or let me just declare about this, when they sign-up their system is completely empty. there is no content being provided. there is equipment that's being provided. when they say i've want to watch the news at 6:00 they then start the process that fulfills their individually assign storage with the 6:00 news. until that happens there is no content being provided so the notion that they have heard over and over that we are somehow content provider would mean every one that provides an antenna or dpr somehow content provider and if that's true the implications for the equipment industry are obviously quite

massive then you can understand why that would frighten the cloud computing industry because that turns them into public performers whenever they are handling content. >> they get the subscriber who says you can get any of these things. is it's not as though the subscriber initiates it. you have choices and they are providing at these choices and those choices are content. >> it's no different justice ginsburg if i have a rabbit ears on my tv. >> from the user's perspective an additive bandage if i'm watching cable. you just have a different content selection but it looks the same to you. somebody else is providing you with a menu and you pick off that menu. >> the menu is what is ch