to cameras, there will not be any cameras. chief justice roberts is not that absolute about it, but is not particularly in favor of it. then you have others who say it would just cut me up into six second sound bites and lose all the context of the argument. we do that in quotations and in graphics and headlines. if you have the completeness of it, perhaps that particular justice might not grumble as much. i personally think c-span would be an ideal place to do it. at least that is my argument. . .

>> he sure that that would be a product of putting their faces were regularly on television -- regularly on television. myçó>>xdç that works if you are in colombia putting drug dealers behind bars. x$(>> it is an argument that hs been persuasive with his colleagues. i am not sure that i am

persuaded, myself. as a matter of fact,xdç my own sense is that if there is a constitutional right of public access to publicçfjç proceedin, you cannot say that that right ofxlç access depends upon what u will do with the information that you give them. there should be a constitutional right of access to sit in on court proceedings. my sense is that that includes"a recording device and to reproduce the argument elsewhere. w3>>bçíç justxd to add one more. that the justices like to be able toñr -- they do not want cameras because they can still say no. there are not many other institutions that have that choice anymore. çw3i think that the momentum e

qzvh%lzinteréet, congress is geg impatient, the direction is in 3ç7'nñymñwmo court and eventually they will have to say yes. inç fact, justice souter unwittingly gave support to this momentum inñ7 his victory speech that heç gave not very r from here were he said that the public knowledge about the structure of government is abysmal and we have toç improve civic education for this new generation. xdçwhat better way than to lean about the supreme court and to allow cameras to cover the proceedings. >> if you've got a case that involved a question of womenç can a plan administrator for benefits su and under what conditions can that

administrator be sued, i am not sure that anybody will stay up late and watch this. >>nbxd1+lg#w2;w( ç]@!ñóob0ee y$ú"jájjt about audio, even more bizarre than the court's power to say noç overall videos the court's policy on when they allow audio. one of the things that has been driving me insane is that the only times that the public gets access to audio are in the opposite of that case. the court, by some a trick that is not known to humankind, they decide toc'ków3çç buyç args z;[idea of treatment. cases, affirmative action cases and cases that make people

insane and the justices act out. if you're going to allow only selective audio, alamy audio tht is representativeqi]ç of what f the court's docket is. çói]w3-- allow audio that is representative of 19% of the court's docket is. -- 90 percent of the court's docketgob isçxdçqmsóm -- 90%'s docket isç. çñrçokg&dythis policy is abse opposite of what is good for the court. >> can i ask you a question that a lawyer that has done a kç job wins the case. çwmzz(ççñrççxañçoo3çq client and saying that they did it again. there is no market for quality

of argument or orientation. couldn't the justices just sweep by the fall to arguments? çç>>ç çñrçççi think thatl action could lose the case in oral argument. there was a report on a case where the oral argument may have lost. they may have slipped one vote. overall, i think the point is that there have been many instances when there have been hundreds of where there has been poor oral argumentíkw7ñrçkwo

point. oral argument does matter. >> i was once told that it made a difference about half the time. you can go into the oral argument, having discussed it with clerks and listened to the argument. about half the time, he second- guess himself and did not go the other way entirely. he at least is willing to reconsider going into the argument. i am discussing my own chapter. the purpose of oral argument is the justices are going to have. i do notç?yç know of the public knows this, but they cast their

first vote very quickly afterwards. the cases that orçz( heard on a .whdp6odíoy cast theirçó votes on wednesday afternoon. ççqt(çççóçt(çthe court isn ow;#ñpçm=i½ujuçfáeb itself÷q%l impression of where we are going to go. iq discussion, but it is a it will decideqxdçók;ççt,óoyç opinion. i thinkt(w3 that is why theç ct will never dispense with it.

this could have been many years cases, -- the core disposes of some cases, they will do it -- court disposes of some cases, they will do so without oral argument. the court is capable of doing away with oral argument if it wants to. enough of the justices think it is valuable. what i would just add took that. a number of justicesç such as íiuzççw3oj[okwmn two numerous times -- tw3w3ççç numerous times

the court affirmed a lower court's 7-2. 'yfá-nd%qqwoñrçh' court has been affirmed or reversed. the case is not about this. it is about the substantive law. ÷myxd mñ. . mdok

>> it is examined by one clerk. what that means is that the group of seven that is in that is going to see a clerks' memo on hearing the case or not during the case. what it does is remove the judges even further from an intimacy with with the case -- with the case. they have already -- but did not talk about it that much.

that contributes to the sense that this is an interesting case that we are encountering for the first time. that a good quarrel might be what the justices are looking w3they certainly choose the cass based on the facts. they are more engaged when they ydqçknowçççç who is argui. gore is the dialogue is nothing short of justice thomas. t(çççeven in my own case, asa reporter covering it, then had an interesting and effective attorney arguing it. >> i think it is worth adding

that different justices argue world argument in different ways. ok

winning funding among other things. next, he speaks with reporters about his decision. this is about 25 minutes. >> i want to make my comments at

the podium. when i answer questions, it will be about that i worked on -- about things that i work from -- worked on. let me say at the helm said that changes never easy. -- at the outset that change is never easy. i intend to vote for cloture and vote for health care reform. on the floor of the senate, in town hall meetings throughout our states and in one on one meetings, we have all heard heart wrenching stories of people who have been left behind, were forced into bankruptcy or caught in the grip of a health care system that just did not work as well as it should have. while each of my colleagues may differ on how to fix the system,

i know of no members that would suggest that we don't need to change our health-care system. where we differ, and i say so with great respect to all of my colleagues is in the way, we fix our system. i believe in the free marketplace and that it is the free -- foundation and should drive our debate. that is why i opposed to the public option yet supported the bill. this will lower costs and provide better health care for the american people. i'd like to touch on the issue of abortion. as you know, i have strongly held views on the subject and i fought hard to prevent tax

dollars to subsidize abortions. that is 30 years of federal law. i believe we have accomplished that goal. i have also fought hard to protect the right of states to regulate the kind of insurance that is offered and to provide health insurance options in every state that did not provide coverage for abortion. -- that do not provide coverage for abortion. i know that this is hard for some of my colleagues two except. i would not have voted for this bill and i would not vote for this bill without those provisions. -- some of my colleagues to accept. perhaps the most remarkable of all has been the leadership of majority leader senator reid. to craft this landmark legislation and to shepherd it through the legislative process

and to deal with everything associated with this legislation and acquire the necessary votes to end a filibuster is an accomplishment of historic proportions. i believe the legislation will stand the test of time and will be noted as the major reform of the 21st century. much like civil-rights legislation was a milestone of the 20th century. the lives of millions of americans will be improved. lyons will be saved and our health care system -- lives will be saved in the health-care system will be better. i would like to talk to something that will likely fall on deaf ears. the debate has been passionate and it has been good for the country in many ways.

the american people have voiced their opinion. that is good. that is part of our democracy. what has been disheartening about this debate are the bread cools and ludicrous claims that have been hurled at one another from -- are the reckless and ludicrous claims that have been hurled at one another from each party. supporters would not be standing here today if, for a moment, they thought this legislation would cause harm to the american people. if you turn to the news and read some of the statements and listen to others coming from both sides of the debate, you would think otherwise. the quality of this debate has not always measured up to the quality of the american people. there is still much work to be done before this legislation becomes a reality. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of

the aisle to make it an even better bill. without, in any way, attempting to be threatening, to be more in the mode of promising, let me be clear. this cloture vote is based on the full understanding that there will be a limited conference between the senate and house. if there are material changes in that conference report different from this bill that adversely affect the agreement, i reserve the right to vote against the next cloture vote. let me repeat that. i reserve the right to vote against the next cloture vote if there are material changes in the conference report. and i will vote against it if that is the case i know that it is the case. i know that it is hard for some

of my colleagues, but it is clear that i would not have voted for this bill without these provisions. >> how are the other concerns some up? >>-- sewn up? >> what is in it for me is what is in it for the people of nebraska. i did not believe that the expansion or the body and on medicare was inappropriate way because that was more of a public plan by the then letting the -- rather than letting the public market work. let me refer to a few things.

i was concerned about the flexible spending account gap, but that will be dealt with. i was worried about both the rural hospitals and home health care and nursing homes. i believe that is being addressed. these are all issues that affect not only my state, but every other state. from my experience, i've requested changes that will be announced. i was concerned about medicaid and the fact that that becomes an underfunded federal mandate, i believe that will be addressed i think that there needs to be further work done on

the so-called mandate to find a way, in the world of insurance, to have open enrollment and closed immelman rather than financial penalties to get people into the system to avoid the problem you get with adverse selection if everybody is not in the insurance package. you have eliminated the existence of pre-existing conditions. the concern about medical malpractice. this is based on certainçó stati

>> on medicaid, -- certain states. >> on medicaid [unintelligible] but i will leave it up to the leader to comment on that. i will leave it up to him. i am comparable that it is taken care of in the best way that a kendeigh -- i am comfortable that it is taking care of in the best way that it can be -- taken care of in the best way that it can be. >> whathis bill has been movingg

every step of the way and changing. now, we need to see how people respond to the managers package and the modifications. there is opposition to the public plans because that is what i heard in my town hall meetings. that is what i see. there are people opposed to doing anything. you are not going to change their minds by doing something. that is something that has to do -- be dealt with. the plan of the third together, we have an agreement on. it makes certain that the plans do not use federal dollars to fundñr abortionsñrñi.

they may have some different opinions about the package. i do not think the well is poisoned. there have been efforts to poison it, but people will take a close look at what the plan is today. from my perspective, i think that is what will happen. >> there are a number of changes to the abortion provision. >> the fact that the requirement is that -- first of all, there are 12 states that ban abortions in public lands and five that banned in both public and private plans. we want to make sure in this legislation that there is no pre-emption for the right of states to choose those bands if they choose to do so. -- a bbans if they choose to do

so. we were concerned that if it was not addressed, it must be the intent to appeal. each exchange will have toñi hae at least one plan that does not offer abortion, that does not require the exchanges to offer plans with abortion, but if they do, then the premium is calculated as follows. let's say that my subsidy is 50% of the premium. that is the underlying premium for the basic benefits, not including abortion. the second 50% of that coverage, i would write a separate transaction for the portion of abortion coverage and the

premium for that. >> so you have to specifically choose? >> yes, you get your choice between a plan that doesn't have that and a plan that has it. it is not about writerriders. >> is it your understanding that states can ban private insurers even if some of their customers do not give federal subsidies? >> they can do it right now. it does not change. the current situation is the same. >> kendeigh purchasers sending a single check and the insurance company keep the check or do people -- [inaudible] >> it makes it clear.

the insurers will account for accounting winds. -- for its accounting winse. >>if they have an exchange, they have to provide it least one plan that does not provide abortion. that way, you avoid the of doubt. >> what does congressman's tupac think? >> -- congressman stupac think? >> mrs different. -- this is different. the clause will be included. there will be up to $250 million over 10 years 14 pregnancies and

people who want to continue their pregnancy and to move away from putting people in a position where they believe they have to have an abortion to continue their lives. economically, this would help with that. in addition, the adoption credit has been increased and it has been made as a refundable tax credit so that lower income people -- adoption is getting more and more expensive. not like when i adopted. this means that lower income people would have the opportunity for adoption as well. when we put this package together, this is the package we ought to have to deal with this. >> over the last weeks and months, there were a lot of things in this bill that you lobbied and assisted come out

-- and insisted come out. now that you have gotten an agreement, do you think that this bill fulfills what the leadership wants? >> i think it is good enough for us to move forward. if i referred, i would've done with it incrementally. -- if i prefer, i would have been dealt with it incrementally. that is what i have attempted to do, both constructively and productively to improve this legislation to a point where i can supported with a caveat. we will see what happens with a very limited conference because we do not want any postal subsidies -- substantive or material changes.

>> to that provision, [inaudible] >> i do not know. i told the leader about my concerns and made it clear where i am and he understood it. i am sure that he will find a way to make that happen. >> could you possibly use some of the more liberal senators from the actual bill itself? >> now that i am aware of. -- not that i am aware of. no one has walked away from the bill. i do not know about a final vote tally. >> did you tell us about the conversations that you have had? >> -- can you tell us about the

conversations that you have had? >> what i have done is i have outlined to them what this bill is. i am not seeking approval. i am just informing them what it is and how we have gone about doing thait. it is not only the best way, it is more than good enough. but they are looking at it. there is a point in time where you have to move forward. you always keep your mind open. i believe that this handles the whole question of london abortion -- banning the funding of abortion both directly or

indirectly. >> there was a round of applause at the beginning. what was said? >> it might have been one i walked out the door. [laughter] what i think it was for the leader when he came in. i cannot emphasize enough -- >> i think it was for the leader when he came in. i cannot emphasize enough that senator reid has been working with many groups. i know, i have my own views that i hold tight. i find ways to find modifications if it does not involve bending or ignoring principle. >> you have been in a number of

meetings with senators know. what does that mean? >> every major piece of landmark legislation has had some bipartisan support. social security and clearly civil rights. at the challengee is, if you can't reach what they're after, you cannot make it happen. the voice levels have risen so high that the price of doing anything has gotten very high. it is easier to do nothing that is to do something, but it is not always better. -- that is to do something, but it is not always better. -- than it is to do something,

but it is not always better. i thought the president was right. i opposed when i thought the president was long -- were wrong -- was wrong. i sought to do that been an icy to do that now. >>-- i seek to do that now. i wish i could remember exactly how that occurred. i would like to say that this was an evolving process where, if this proposal did not work, then there were efforts to see how you would modify it to try to find another way of getting

the same result. there is usually more than one way to get to something. the problem is, you had those that were opposed to either one or both. on abortion, that is what i'm talking about. if it is a matter of choice, of having options, having won policy that does and potentially one that does not, people can make up their own minds. if you already have states that have spoken about it by saying no, then you do not want to disturb their local public policies. i am still jeffersonian when it comes to recognizing and respecting the rights of states to make many decisions.

it is one of the reasons why i thought the public auction created a gigantic insurance option. i could not have moved in that direction. as a matter of fact, one of the major concerns that people had during the town hall meetings was that very thing. they did not want washington telling them to take more of the insurance business and tell them what to do from washington. i heard them loudly and clearly. >> [inaudible] are you convinced that it will be affordable? >> it is up to the opm negotiate the best that they can. we trust them to negotiate our plan, i guess we should trust

them to negotiate that there. we cannot try to shave this -- shade this. opm has administrative interest here. >> [inaudible] >> then i will be watching for santa claus to come down by jimmy back here. i hope to be home as soon as i can possibly be home. thank you, everybody. thank you. i think that what happened was that my chief of staff and by had this idea that people could opt in or people could opt out, let's offer a choice between

this plan and that plan. they do not have to explain anything. we already agreed on how to account for the money. finding the mechanism-the coverage -- mechanism -- the coverage, was a way to do that. >> did you say you have to sleep on it? >> we said that we had to see the language. we shook hands on concepts. >> after the announcement by senator maulson, other senate democrats spoke with reporters about the health care bill. speaking first was democratic

leader harry reid for about 20 minutes. >> what day is it? >[laughter] >> every part of this process, from passing to very carefully crafted bills into one comprehensive bill, to reaching a final consensus, has been an enormous undertaking. senators baucus and dodd, i just want to say a short word about senator harkin. most of the work done was done

in the committees. the committee met four weeks. you all saw that. the finance committee met for months. you all saw that. senator kennedy died and we had a new chairman of the health committee. we have very large egos. senator harkin, who worked on that committee his entire career in the senate, became chairman as we know. he has been so helpful to us, never wanted in the limelight for in the spotlight and stayed out of the way because he knew the work had been done. tom harkin, thank you very much. from the very beginning, we knew we had to save lives, save money and save medicare.

we did that. we knew we had to stabilize insurance for everyone who hasn't, helped secure for millions who didn't -- and help secure its 4,000,002 didn't. -- and helped secure it for millions of americans who didn't. some of the new elements are new programs to further rein in health-care costs. make care more affordable by expanding small business tax credits. we did a lot in the last few weeks in that regard. we kept in mind, as we were doing this legislation, where we could, what the market control what takes place. we also have all lot of controls

to make sure that the insurance industry doesn't go wild like they have with costs to people who have insurance policies. all of these things will help lower the costs. some who are progressives, they feel that this bill does not go far enough. there are others that say, "why didn't we get a public auction?" -- public option?" this will do so many good things for so many people and we explained that in some detail but just a few minutes ago. something this bill goes too far and they want it stopped. to them, i say that you are

being -- you have a lack of understanding what the problems in america are today. spend a couple of days reading our mail. i've got a letter last week where a man said he did not know whether to parade to die or parade touse they alive for his boy who has diabetes and has addison's disease. i say to those people who want this thing stopped, they need to read our mail. the broken system cannot continue and it will not continue. when president obama signs this bill into law, insurance -- the

line > the american people know that inaction is not an option. this bill is about providing quality, affordable care and making hard choices that are necessary to do what is right. one of the centers in the caucus said that he wanted a separate chart all the tax incentives and tax credits in this bill. we will do that. it is almost $500 billion worth. throughout the many twists and turns in this process, many have tried to knock us off course, but we stayed true to these principles. at 1:00 p.m. today, you have a

detailed briefing by our staffs, so said a lot of your questions for that. senators bob this, dodd and harkin -- bacchu >> our bill is fully paid for. it will reduce the national debt. it will protect consumers from harmful insurance company practices. it will provide billions in tax cuts to help working families and small businesses afford quality health insurance. it is the largest tax cut since the year 2001. it will extend insurance

coverage to more than 30 million americans. no small item. it will drive down premium costs for all of us. an amendment produced today makes this good bill even better. it will provide even more consumer protections against harmful insurance industry practices. it will hold companies accountable for excessive increases in premium rates. it will impose tighter restrictions on annual benefits and ensure that companies cannot discriminate against children. that does into effect right away. it will provide tax credits to small businesses right away. that is a big improvement. it will provide more health

insurance choices for a nubile by state option double offer the same health insurance that congress has today and insure even more access to quality health care for america's children and seniors. we look forward to a healthy discussion about this amendment. >> let me begin by thanking our leader, harry reid. a lot of people have been involved in this issue for a long time, but you have to have a team captain that brings everybody together. we are blessed to have harry reid with us. this is the most difficult task. -- a most difficult task.

this product will move from the senate and to the conference with the house of representatives. today, we stand ready to pass a bill into law but finally makes access to quality health care a right for every american, not a privilege for a fortunate few in our country. this year, many years ago, franklin delano roosevelt spoke of four religions -- for freedoms. one of the great fears that americans live with is that they would be hit with an illness for which they would not receive treatment because they could not afford it. this bill does not guarantee that you'll never get sick. it does not guarantee that you will not die. all the guarantees is that you are a citizen and you are struck with illness, you will never

have that fear that you'll end up losing your home, your job, your retirement, your life savings, because you have been afflicted by an illness. we are dealing with a freedom that all americans have, that one day they will suffer the indignity to not be able to afford health care. the bill frees americans from the fear that if they get sick, they will not be able to afford the treatment that they need. it frees americans from the fear that one accident could cost them everything. if a nation founded on freedom -- in a nation founded on freedom, this bill is critically important. our path has been eliminated by

a torch lit a long time ago and sustained for decades by good men and women who believed in fdr's vision of freedom. the man who carried this torch belong this is with us only in spirit. -- supports the longest is with us only in spirit -- torch of the longest -- torched the longes the longest is only a-in spirit -- only with us in spirit. with every step forward and every step back, ted kennedy never stopped believing that in the wealthiest country in history, everyone should be

guaranteed access to decent health care and he never stopped believing that in the freest country in history that it would someday come to pass. that some day is upon us. -- that sundaomeday is upon us. these moments do not come often. we will not and we must not let it slip through our hands. >> let me think our leader, senator reid. every team has a quarterback and he has been our quarterback. he has called the plays and now we have the goal in sight and we are going to go over that goal very shortly. if you want to know anything about harry reid, you should read a couple books, 1st.

i have said this before. he will have to have a revised edition and add another chapter on toto "the good fight." to max baucus who bent over backwards and not only went the extra mile but the extra hundred miles to involve the minority. to my great friend, chris dodd, who did a masterful job of leading our committee and getting the bill through and doing a masterful job. kriz and max and i are all classmates together. we were all sworn and the same day.

-- as one in on the same day. -- sworn in on the same day. this is a starter home. it has a great foundation. we are expanding health-care coverage to 31 million americans. it has a protective rules -- were roof. this is not the end of health care reform, this is the beginning of health care reform. i am just proud to join my fellow senators and doing whatever i can to make sure we get over the goal in the next few days and have the president signed into law as soon as

possible after the first of the year -- president sign it into law as soon as possible after the first of the year. >> [inaudible] >> i work with -- i worked with every democratic senator and many republican senators to come up with the merged bill and the amendment to that bill. negotiations took place with the people up here at the podium and sometimes individually and he was just like the rest of them. we worked with him over a period of many weeks. we have -- as you look through

this bill, you will see that there are a number of different interests that different senators have and you will see that in the merged bill and the managers package. >> [inaudible] can use a one that was done? >> the doctors fix it was done because the doctors felt that was the best way to move forward. we all believe that it should be permanent. we need to do that. we had a one year fix. they are entitled to more than that and we agreed. we will work on that as soon as we get back after the holiday.

>> the reaction is that that is the one state that gets 100% coverage forever. >> i would say this. if you read the bill, which i am sure you will, you will see that a number of states are treated differently than other states. that is what legislation is all about. it is compromise. but we work on a number of things to get a number of people's votes. there are many things that you will look at in this legislation and you'll wonder why that happened. a lot of times, you will think that something was done that was -- most of the time that is not true. with senator maulson, that was a minor part of the issue. we started working on that weeks

ago. >> just to confirm, do you have 60 votes? >> it seems that way. thank you very much. >> and to everybody. -- thank you everybody. >> max, thanks. >> you are way ahead of me.

. . .

>> good morning, everybody. i hope you live on the hill. incredible day. it is still coming down.

senator, by the way. >>i have a rugged commute. i live about a half block from the hart building. i cannot take it. i am not even sure that a pizza stores are going to be able to deliver tonight. let me just say in the beginning that if they were proud of this bill, they would not be doing it this way, jamming it through in the middle of the night in the last weekend before christmas, and that sums up, i think, but we have seen on display here as they try to bob and weave and hide from the american people who have made it abundantly clear they do not support what they know about this bill. now we have got an expanded version now, and it is important we're having it read so we can figure out like 300 million other americans and all of you what is in it. so i am sure with a message for the american people. this morning, democratic leaders in washington stood on the senate floor and sprung a new piece of legislation. it will have a profound impact on our nation. office. make no mistake, this bill will reshape our nation, our lives. democrats are forcing a vote on it over the weekend, as i indicated, counting on the fact that american people are preoccupied with christmas and not paying much attention to what they are doing. and the reason for that, obviously, is we know for all the survey data that americans are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill. this bill is a legislative train wreck of historic proportions. but they are so eager to claim a victory that they will do anything to jam it through in the next few days. we are in the process of reading this bill, like so many otherbut

here are a few things americans need to know. in medicare, we know that the bill slashes hundreds of billions of dollars from medicare to fund a massive new government bureaucracy. we know there are hospitals and nursing homes, cuts to home health care, cuts to hospice. with regard to taxes, the bill includes massive increases on american families and businesses. doing that at a time of double digit unemployment, taxes will make it much harder to create jobs coming out of the slowdown. there are taxes on health insurance and on medical devices. there are taxes on medicines. there are taxes on working families with very high medical expenses. abortion. the bill includes permissive language of government-funded abortion, language that would lead the federal government to violate longstanding policies on abortion funding. a ponzi scheme is in the bill. medicaid is particularly interesting.

it proposes massive burdens on the states that are already struggling. under the weight of the cost of medicaid. at the same time, it gives special sweetheart deals to a select few states. interestingly enough, two states standing out our nebraska and vermont. what is the upshot of this for taxpayers everywhere? in kentucky and ohio and new york and michigan, they end up paying more so that nebraska and vermont can get a special deal. our conclusion would be this, based on what we know so far about the bill being read and

analyzed, not only by my office, but by everyone in the senate and you. our friends like to talk about making history, about the historic steps they are still taking. the history being made here, make no mistake about it, the history made here is the ignoring of the will of the american people. the history being made is that a bill sold as helping a major problem in our nation actually made the problem worse. because independent nonpartisan scorekeepers tell us that premiums, taxes, and overall health care spending will go up under this bill.

america, if this was a good bill with bipartisan support, i assure you that they would not be trying to pass this the weekend before christmas in the middle of the night. and the reason i say the middle of the night is that the next vote will literally be at 1:00 a.m. monday morning. and the presumption is that no one will be watching. this is a good bill with bipartisan support. if we had followed senator snowe's advice several weeksñi ago to sit down and write this bill and a way that could pass the senate with 80 votes, we would not be doing what we are doing. this is an absolute outrage perpetrated on the american people, an absolute outrage. americans need to know what is

uój&l give them every opportunity to do as much as we can get the process moving forward. >> [inaudible] ñido you plan to use other tactics if it does not work by christmas? çó>> they are being jammed. there is an effort to deceive them and use this bill at a time when there is preoccupation with christmas holidays, nobody will notice. i do not think that is going to work. all the surveys indicate people

are paying attention, theyçó are this is not a post office bill. this is health care. regardless of how old you are, every one of 300 million americans care about this bill. >> senator, democrats are hoping along the lines of this bill that if the get cloture monday, it will be over, and you can go back without telegraphing. >> i want to talk about the outrage of deceiving the american people will for christmas on an issue of extraordinary magnitude. >> what is the obsession with christmas? what would magically happen if

they had to wait a week before voting? >> i think it would be fine. we would have an opportunity for people to get thoroughly familiar with what is in it. >> what is objectionable to you about the compromise? why do you think it is permissive? çwixd>> as you know, the bill is still being read, the first time most senators have had a chance to look at it. staff is still going through it. i cannot give you the definitive take, but i earlier gave you what the indications are that the abortion language is not adequate. >> i heard about howêuuñr was outraged.

you were debating a decoy bill, to have an amendment fromçó the floor. çócan you talk about that? >> nobody had seen it before people you could put in añrçó pe booth. so it is important to give people an opportunity to read and understand it. what i have given you today is a preliminary take. we know that medicaid has been plussef in nebraska and vermont, and people will have to pay for that. we are trying to a valley with

what kind of special deals and interesting insertions there have been behind closed doors over the next few weeks. >> the democrats are using the votes this way, and the acrimony, what does it mean for the year? >> this is not about acrimony. it is about policy. this bill is a 2100 page monstrosity full of special deals for people willing to vote for it. they are playing games with the nation's health care. this is an outrage, and it needs to be called that. but it is not personal. that is not the case. it is a policy problem.

anyone else? ok, thank you. ñi>> this is about 25 minutes. >> the snow is beautiful this

morning, and you have been going back to back on this. as somebody who has delivered babies, the writer of this bill, this is a fictitious. for the first time, federal tax dollars will be used to pñiif yt violates a clear intent of the hyde, sei-willçóthat is a drasn policy. there is no prohibition on coverage in federal

the new public option managed by the office of personnel management will cover abortions, the manager's amendmentñi includes reauthorization of the health care improvement act. the amendment rejects compromise proposal on abortions. this is far worse than the casey proposal, the cash proposal, and it will eventually have a negative result. >> the hyde amendment has been part of our law since 1977, and been bipartisan in its support. today we have the first time that that amendment is going to be watered down and no longer exist at all.

the house clearly voted in a bipartisan way to protect the amendment, and the fact that we would not have subsidize abortions in this country because so many people feel so strongly about it, i am in absolute support of the hyde amendment and believe that watering it down should defeat this bill. the rest of the things we are learning about this bill that were in the underlying bill should also be recommended for the rejection of it. all of the tax cuts that are going to start in two weeks. the bill does not become implemented for four years. so you are asking people to pay taxes for four years,ó[ hamer insurance premiums on policies if they are covered, hired prescription drug costs, and hired a vice equipment costs

because of higher taxes, and yet there is no bill that anyone can sign up for or four years. >> i was hoping we could give the american people a process. it has a three energy-something page amendment being read. at the end of the day, i hope president obama will keep up to his campaign promises of changing the way we will do business. he said that everyone will have a seat at the table, health care will be transparent, on c- span, and you will have access. maybe i do not have the

channel, because i do not see that on tv. what about the conference of bishops? there are opposing the compromise. but if you're wondering if this is a partisan measure, i would argue that the catholic church is not part of the republican or democratic party. they care about the unborn. if i was making an important

choice, people would have been standing behind me. that is all about this bill. you could not find one group to stand behind and validate what he was saying. at the end of the day, this reinforces everything that the american people hate about congress. and the price tag has not changed one bit with the better. this new entitlement program for long-term health care has not changed at all. they will create a new entitlement, beginning in 2011, creating $72 billion. the class act was a ponzi scheme of the first order. 11 senators wrote to the democratic party saying the class act is fiscallyñi

irresponsible, and millions of americans are dying to have congress act responsibly. as we go forward between now and christmas, a democratic colleague said we have the votes, why can't we go home? we are not going home. why couldn't we wait until after christmas to pass the bill? it was in their interest to pass it through. they have rounded up the 60th vote and they are applauding themselves when there is nothing to applaud. so we are going to talk about this until christmas, waiting until people not want to know the truth. the question is not why people can't go home, it is why can we do with the american people expect a bus and be responsible when it comes to legislation? á÷>> i think that this bill is

clearly irresponsible and morally reprehensible. the abortion language in this bill funds abortion for the first time since 1977. the last time the federal government funded abortion, the numbers funded 300,000 a year. it is funding abortion with federal taxpayer dollars and premiums that will go through federal taxpayer established

insurance plans or proposals. that is morally reprehensible, fiscally irresponsible, and we do not have the money to do this with. here we are on saturday morning, getting the bill, and people are saying what is in it, what is not in it, and rushing to pass it. if it were a traditional bill, it would be one that would work through the process that everybody has a chance to look at and at the end of the day we would have somewhere between 70 votes and 80 votes. but this hide the ball process, throwing it out at the last+ minute, is the process that people hate and that we hate seeing take place. it should not happen. it should be put off until christmas. instead of being done at the dark of night.

>> this is not about the difference between republicans and democrats. this is about members exercising their ability to get special treatment for their state when others will not pay for it. i agree with everything that has been said. i could go forward and to go further on the abortion language. the original language is better than what was negotiated, but you have to compliment them for playing the price is right.

the agreement for nebraska puts the federal government on the hook forever. not for six years, not for 10 years. this is not the louisiana purchase. this is the nebraska windfall agreement. it means that if you are a virginia taxpayer, you will pay taxes to make sure nebraska residents do not have to pay any portion in the future. this is not what the american people sign up for. we're supposed to tax equally and apply equally. but we are into something now that is a continuation of what has been so awful the last 12 months, picking winners and losers.

harry reid only allowed some to win and others to lose. but in this process, the american people lose. this bill will be incredibly expensive, cost jobs in this country, and as has been proven, it does not reform health care, it raises taxes too high, spends too much money. the american people lose in an agreement like this. >>quickly, what this provision does is set up a supreme court challenge. roe versus wade is clear on funding for abortion, and now we are seeing that what that was laid down years ago is thrown up in the air, and it is

obvious that things have been -- votes have been bought. what ever it takes to get a vote, that is what the leader did. taxpayers are sending money to nebraska. the list goes on and on. is that the way that the election nears envisioned the change that ought to come to america that they expressed in the last election? this is not business as usual. it is far worse than usual. it has been negotiated for 26 years by individuals. i know little bit about the

subjects, and if this is what negotiation is all about, it is a poor way of doing business and a poor way of negotiating. >> i would make one final statement. the crisis of confidence in this country is at an apex and has not seen in 150 years. and that lack confidence undermines the ability of legitimate government. we need to be paying attention to that, because a lot of people out there today through this process, not just the bill, but the process, will give up on government, and rightly so. questions? >> help me out a little bit on your position, on how this is worse.

çóñi>> i understand this is not explicitly say no abortion, but the position is that you are segregating the parts of the exchange that are private. >> it is federal dollars. it is the policy in the country today under no taxpayers' dollars, or the use to pay for abortion. it has been that way for 34 years, but it changes with this bill. as soon as five states opt out, there will be a challenge using the president to say they cannot do that. consequently, we will have to hide language stripped forever, and you will be as a taxpayer, whether you believe in abortion

or not, they will be paying for it. there is also no conscience protection in this. so we will be going after those in terms of training systems when they may not want to offer that. >> [unintelligible] >> we can't find it yet, and that goes back to the other point. we are going to vote on this at 11 on monday morning. that is ours from when we first looking at the amendment. you can see what people in thisi country don't have any confidence. the average bill is less than 400 pages. we have had 10 republicans amendments voted on -- well, now we have no bill.

so description by our leader saying that this is a jam is exactly right. they do not want the american people to know absolutely what is in this bill. >> it is the worst crisis of confidence in 150 years. do you think we are on the brink of civil war? >> there was no reference. but what i hear from -- and i just picked 150 years. but what i hear from constituents everywhere i travel, you represent what is in the best long-term interest of our country. and people are not having confidence to govern. when you lose confidence, you lose the ability to govern. and we're thinking about long- term prospects, rather than how

we benefit otherwise our own. >> trying to segment private money? >> there's no segmentation in the health care improvement act. the hyde language is gone. so we will use federal government money to pay for abortions on indian reservations. how to use segment the money? you cannot segment the money. that is like saying we're not going to let social security money be spent on other things. you are saying we are going to have a lock box, when there is no lock box. >> this is caps redone. they have just try to say, ok, we will set another category, but it is the same sort of segment, and we went through that debate earlier and everyone said this is not funding for abortion because we're segmenting, but this is

federal dollars, you artist putting them in a different pocket. so that is funding of abortion. and in the exchange, you will have one that will fund abortion. and we have never done that. it is still federal money. >> if barbara boxer is ok with this language, nobody in the right-to-life community can be ok with it, because her position is well-known, and she thinks the federal government ought to spend money on abortion. >> i heard the explanation today about writing two checks. that is what was just alluded to. this is federal money. it is like social security money going in the general fund. the money will be mixed with federal money. i do not care whether there is

additional separate premium or not, it's still is mixed with federal money, and that is what pays for abortion. so they are disingenuous when they say that there is going to be segregation among the funding for abortion versus non- abortion policies. >> in your statement, at least what i grabbed, you seem to provide that center nelson used the abortion as a bargaining chip and wound up with worse language than the first place, but effectively used abortion to get a better deal for nebraska. >> you received it correctly, and i think that it shows a tremendous willingness to allow some in this country to win and many to lose by one member of the senate, and i think that is

wrong. >> you cannot get one republican vote change in 1/6 of the economy. that says a lot about the republican party and the process. i am one republican who does not mind trying to find common ground on tough issues. i am going to try it on energy policy, i have done it in the past and will do it again, but it is virtually impossible for any republican to have a meaningful say. senator collins and senator snowe are not on board. the class act is a devastating program that will create long- term financial problems. senator nelson may have helped on medicaid, but has not helped nebraska with medicare cuts. at the end of the day, i hope the people realize it is not over.

this is a long way from being done. if you want to change, speak up. let people know. the cuts are going to affect people in nebraska, and tax increases will affect people in nebraska, and this abortion language, the conference of bishops understands the difference between stupac language and this language, and they have decided to oppose the bill. that's as all i need to know about the pro-life issue, when the conference of catholic bishops say they oppose the language and opposed the bill because of language. that is all you need to know from my point of view. i do not always agree with the catholic church, particularly on the death penalty, but i agree with them on right-to-life issue.

they have just got to pass the bill, because the democratic party features, that is the with a look at this thing. they go from reforming health care to worry about the future of the democratic party. whatever it took to get the last boat,that is what they did. they had nothing to do with the overall best interest of the country, and that can happen to both parties, i guess. but this is not about health care reform, it is about the democratic party trying to save themselves.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> shortly later, of vermont independent senator bernie sanders offered his thoughts on the project of the debate. he spoke for just over five minutes from the radio and tv gallery. >> and now, vt. independent senator bernie sanders. this is just under 10 minutes. >> thank you very much. i'm here with the senator from maryland, who wanted to say a few words on one aspect of this legislation. in the midst of the overall crisis in america, there is one crisis focused on, the crisis in primary health care. that means some 60 million americans today do not have access to a doctor on a regular basis. what that and that meaning is that when people get sick, they end up in the emergency room. or they become sicker than they should have banned and end up in the hospital, a great personal suffering and pain, and

somehow even death. we supported by a thousand americans who died because we do not get to it got them on a regular basis. what this manages to do is add $10 billion more over a five- year time into community health centers. what that means is that an additional 25 million americans will also have access to federally qualified health centers, meaning high quality health care, low-cost drugs, and health counseling. it also means because of a significant increase in health services, we will be forgiving debts for students going into primary care.

in recent years, it has had a -- 20,000 more doctors, teachers, and nurses will be created. i can tell you that in my state, in recent years, we have significantly increased centers. it has had a profound impact on the health and well-being of people, and at the end of the day, studies indicate medicaid saved money because we keep people out of expensive emergency health rooms and hospitals. so this is a win-win proposition. we have $10 billion now in the senate bill. they have $14 billion in the house bill. we believe the final number will probably be $14 billion. if that happens, there will be a revolution in primary health care in america, with millions more having access to mental health counseling.

let me introduce senator kardin. >> i have sat for many caucus meetings were bernie sanders has raised this issue over and over again. let me try to underscore how important this is. we know we have a shortage of professionals. we also know we do not have enough facilities in our community to handle all our population want to receive health care. we have been fighting for many years for coverage. this bill does a great service to america in getting a lot more people insured. 31 million is what the congressional budget office has said. we hope there will be even more. the question is, where will they get their needs met? we do not have enough primary- care physicians today, we do

not have enough space and our clinics. i have visited a community health centers in maryland. they have one thing in common. they all need more capacity. they already are stretched as to what they can handle. we need more locations in rural areas people have a hard time finding primary-care help, and we need more capacity generally throughout the nation. i had a chance to talk to one of the leaders of johns hopkins hospital in baltimore. ñra colleague believes we should have affordable access to health insurance. he told me if we do not do something to produce more primary care professionals, and if we do not provide more community health center capacity, we are not going to be able to provide care in the most cost-effective way. the bill that we had on the

floor of the united states senate needed to be improved, and senator sanders has accomplished that. i know that was a focus on major issues, but our objective was to find that every american have affordable have access to health care, and the initiative will help 25 more million americans reach that goal. congratulations on that. >> they talked about certain special favors and the bill. >> i did not have all the details. but vermont has been very aggressive in making sure that all of our low-income kids and others have access to health care. we were there, doing the right thing.

with many of us in vermont and around the country, we felt it was wrong to penalize a state that had done a better job than perhaps all of us. massachusetts was up there as well. you do not penalize states because they come up with money to do the right thing. thank you for taking care of more people, and we will penalize you for doing that. that is saying that we're not going to penalize states that have done the right thing. we are proud in vermont that we have done the right thing. but taxpayers should not be penalized. the bottom line for me isñi that if you expand medicaid and health insurance in general, that is important. but at the end of the day, it does not mean much if people cannot find a doctor or a dentist, and we have at

expanded to 10,000 communities in america as a result of the legislation. they will now have access to community health centers. 10,000 more. çó20,000 more primary health cae physicians. and that is what is going to help revolutionize primary n america, anonize primary important step forward. ok? thank you very much. >> tomorrow of the senate continues debate on health care

bill. the senate will gavel in at 1:00 p.m. eastern and is expected to be in session until 11:30 p.m.. in the senate will adjourn and go back into session at 12 01 a m for a vote scheduled for monday morning at 1:00 a.m.. live coverage of the senate on c-span2. >> this afternoon, president obama spoke with reporters at the white house. not long after senate democratic leaders secured the support of nebraska's been nelson for the deciding vote on health care legislation. he also talked about global climate change. this is about five minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. you know that i am from chicago, so let me first say that with the place where i live covered with snow, i am finally starting to feel like home. i am sorry to drag you guys out

in this weather, but i want to speak briefly to you about the significant progress that we haveñi made it onto the major challenges facing the american people. health care and are dangerous dependence on fossil fuels. on health care, with today's developments it now appears the american people will have the votes they deserve a genuine reform that offer security to those who have health insurance and affordable options to those who did not. so i want to thank senator harry reid and every senator who has been working around the clock to make this happen. there is still much work left to be done, with not a lot of time left to do it, but today's major step forward for the american people. after nearly a century long struggle, we are on the cusp of making health care reform a reality in the united states of america. as with any legislation, compromise is part of the

process. recently added amendments have made this landmark bill even stronger. between the time the bill passes and the time the insurance exchange gets up and running, and there are not now be penalties for insurance companies that arbitrarily jack up rates on consumers. all insurance coverages will be prevented from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions, once the exchange's open, in the meantime, there will be a high-risk pool where people with pre-existing conditions can purchase a portable coverage. a recent amendment has made these protections even stronger. insurance companies will now be prohibited from denying coverage to children immediately after this bill passes. there is also explicit language in this bill that would protect a patient's choice of doctor, and small businesses will get additional assistance as well. these protections are in addition to the ones we have been talking about for some time. no longer will insurance companies be able to drop coverage if you become sick, and no longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your

own pocket for treatments that you need. of this bill, a familyxd will se on their premiums. businesses will see their costs rise if we do not act will save money now and in the future. this bill will strengthen medicare and extend the life of the program. because it is paid for and gets rid of waste and inefficiency in our healthcare system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade. we just learned from the congressional budget office that this bill will reduce our deficit by $132 billion over the first decade of the program and more than one trillion dollars in the decade after that. finally, this reform will make coverage affordable for over 30 million americans who do not have it, over 30 million americans. as i said before, these are not small changes. these are big changes. they are fundamental reforms that will save money. that will save lives, and i look

forward to working with the senate and house to finish the work that remains so that we can make this reform a reality for the american people. i also want to briefly mention the progress we made in copenhagen yesterday. for the first time in history, all of the major economies of the world have come together to accept the responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change. after extremely difficult and complex negotiations, this important breakthrough laid the foundation for international action in the years to come. this progress did not come easily, and we know that progress on this particular aspect of climate change in negotiations is not enough. going forward, we will have to build on the momentum we established in copenhagen to ensure that international action to significantly reduce emissions is sustained and sufficient over time. at home, that means continuing our efforts to build a clean energy economy that has the potential to create millions of new jobs and new industries.

it means passing legislation that will create the incentives necessary to spark is clean energy revolution. so even though we have a long way to go, there is no question we have accomplished a great deal over the last few days. i want america to continue to lead on this journey. if america leads in developing clean energy, we will leave in growing our economy and putting our people back to work, and leading up a stronger and more secure country to our children. that is why i went to copenhagen yesterday and why i will continue in these efforts in the weeks and months to come. thank you very much, everybody. >> the senate continues work on health care bill, and here is how you can follow the debate. watch and edited and commercial

free, only on c-span2. listen to the highlights on c- span radio, and review the debate at our healthcare hub with like, streaming video from the senate floor. complete video archives including debate on the bill and amendments, and the latest from reporters and editors of the roll call group. now you can follow the health care debate with a new c-span radio iphone app. >> up next, a house hearing on internet piracy of sports broadcasts. then the latest from the senate concerning health care legislation, beginning with nebraska senator ben nelson's announcement, followed by reaction from democratic and republican senators. in remarks by president obama.

tomorrow on "washington journal ," drew armstrong update on the continuing health care debate in the senate. a political roundtable on the news of the week with jill lawrence and chris stirlwalt. the vice-president of the foreign-policy council on iran examines the latest developments on iran's nuclear program. "washington journal," live starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> he was not an imposing figure. he emerged as a nominee at a time when the party was populated by big figures. >> his mark on history includes manifest destiny, and in his new biography of james k. polk, robert merry looks at the life

and times of our 11th president. >> sports executives and broadcasters told a house panel on thursday that the piracy of live sports broadcasts over the internet is rapidly growing problem and global in nature. during this two-hour hearing, the house judiciary committee hears from officials with major league baseball, espn, and ultimate fighting championship. also testifying, a representative from a website that allows its users to broadcast and share video online. >> this is a hearing on piracy of live sports broadcasting over the internet. the purpose of the hearing is to examine how the piracy of live sporting events over the internet impact sports leagues, consumers, broadcasters, and the

unique challenges copyright owners space in attempting to enforce their rights on the web page. challenges copyright owners face in attempting to enforce their rights on the web page. more and more of our media, the music, the tv shows and sports is moving to the internet. piracy has increased, has increasingly injured artists and intellectual property owners as individual consumers have access to faster, more powerful internet connections.

>> i look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how this can negatively affect consumers and what we may want to do about it. i am pleased now to recognize my friend from texas, lamar smith, the ranking member. >> the programming produced by the ultimate fighting

championship and the national collegiate athletic association is among the most popular and unfortunately the most pirated programming in the world. sports leagues are investing significant amounts to monitor the piracy of their property and provide notices to internet service providers and website operators to take down illegally posted content. the cost of these efforts are then passed on to sports fans and consumers when they purchase tickets or subscribe to sports networks. leagues spend millions of dollars annually to build and market their brands. how or more of their revenue is generally derive from exclusive television deals, pay-per-view sales, and licensed internet distribution. the unauthorized distribution of all forms of live and reproduce video programming is widely and readily available via the web. an example of this has -- is when pirated movies become

available on the internet before they are released in movie theaters. there is an old expression that applies, why by the couch when you can get the milk for free? why buy a sporting event when you can watch it on line for free? the wider adoption of broadband technologies, and the global nature of the internet together's enormous challenges to rights holders. the organization for economic cooperation and development has declared the use of networks for live piracy has become a significant threats to the sports broadcasting industry. the united states treasury represented has noticed that china, which today has more internet users than any other nation, is a nation of particular concern when it comes to internet piracy. internet piracy, particularly adept of live programming, has increased dramatically in recent years.

it is clear we need to assess the state of the law and technology and begin consideration of the steps that ought to be taken domestically and internationally to respond to this new and damaging form of piracy. mr. chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and i will yield back my time. >> thank you very much. did any other member want to bring greetings? and notice the chairman of the subcommittee has indicated an affirmative, and the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this very important hearing on a very important development in the annals of history of communication. iris comes in many forms, and no

content provider -- piracy comes in many corners and a content provider is immune. we will examine the impact and unique challenges copyright owners face in enforcing their rights. specifically, we will hear about how streams are distributed over the internet in a conference of the digital millennium copyright act, which is intended to protect copyrighted works in the digital environment. . .

pirating sports events has a negative impact on the sports. it -- were funds are received from the sale of the broadcasting rights, then fewer funds will be available to of invest back in the sport. i think the chairman for holding this hearing, and i look forward to hearing from the witness is today, oliver sto all of whom ir being here today. >> we welcome the panelists, a very distinguished group of men

and women. mr. ed dorso, michael siebolt, ferenzo vertida, michael mellis, who will start us off. i just want to say this about him, i would rather stay up later than my that time to read law review articles, the u.s. was very fascinating. i want to compliment you for it.

an interactive company, a major league baseball, founded in 2006, the coalition against online video piracy. prior to that he was deputy general counsel for "newsmedia." without diminishing any of his reputation, he graduated with honors from harvard law school. we include all of your statements in the record, and we welcome you to this proceeding.

you have to turn the microphone on. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate the kind words you just said. good morning, everyone. on behalf of major league baseball, i would like to thank you for the privilege of addressing you this morning. i am a senior vice president and general counsel of mlb advanced media. under the leadership of commissioner alan, we have developed highly successful, the reverse, and innovative sports media business. we are televised nationally.

locally through broadcast television stations and regional sports networks and internationally to over 200 countries and territories and the u.s. armed forces overseas. on the internet we have been a pioneer in distributing live sports. the first live web cast occurred in 2002. an innovation to better serve fans and a pioneering tradition of the first broadcast of one of the games in 1921 in the first television broadcast of one in 1939. today, mlb.tv is the most comprehensive live service on the internet distributing thousands of games like each season to a local audience of baseball plans using personal computers and iphones. right now there is an emerging

title. on albright's screaming -- unauthorized streaming. they are believed to be located in many nations, including the people's republic of china and the united states. many are open doors, permitting any type of television to be strained live on without authorization from copyright owners. this addresses the global televise media sector. although there is much that remains unknown about this problem, particularly with respect to the offshore aspects, it is clear that on an annual basis, tens of thousands of hours of live television programming for networks around the world are being pirated, included is significant piracy of blood sports. -- of live sports.

the dominant pattern we have seen is piracy occurring through streaming over years' service is based in china. late last year we observed in your pattern involving light streaming user generated content sites, sometimes -- most of which located in the united states. we have also seen that when operators of sites and services decide to take affirmative steps to prevent core bloc of moderates screaming, this can be substantially mitigated. are copyright law is clear -- our copyright laws are clear. the piracy is global, often in fighting sivolving sites that of

shore. 75% have occurred through offsithore sites. under these circumstances, there are remedial steps available to the private sector. we therefore believe that international cooperation about this problem must be improved. most nations are exporters and importers of television programs so we seek common ground in terms of shared economic interests in shared obligations for the u.s. and trading partners to work cooperatively. in conclusion, this emerging breed of piracy is international in scope and has demonstrated growth characteristics.

the threat of this must be taken seriously. we believe it is prudent to move proactively against this threat now and we commend the committee for shining a spotlight on it today through this hearing. as we develop more experience in this area, we look forward to the opportunity to make additional recommendations to you. once again, thank you for your interest in the matter and the privilege of addressing you this morning. >> thank you. altman fighting championship has been the main activity of our next witness. -- ultimate fighting tooth and ship has been the main activity of our next witness. he has degrees from the san francisco university. and welcome to our hearing,

serv. >> thank you. i'd like to thank you for inviting me to appear to discuss the of mainstreaminonline strea unsolicited works. this is illegal and kills jobs. in 2001, my brother and i purchase the nearly bankrupt ufc. we saw great potential when many thought we were crazy. we took a great risk, but today it is a great success. it creates thousands of jobs. that success is threatened by the death and grief transmission of our live pay-per-view events, which account for nearly half of the revenues. -- that success is threatened by

inhothe piracy of our live pay-- view events, which account for nearly half of the revenues. it's copyrighted works are allowed to be pirated, the potential effects on u.s. producers of entertainment programming including the thousands of jobs they create will be disastrous. the ufc is potentially losing tens of millions of dollars per year from this. here is how it occurs -- as simple adapter purchase from electronics store, someone with access to a local event reproduces it over the internet. the site allows any user to view the programming without authorization or payment. these viewers watched the live event just like those who

lawfully purchase the content through pay-per-view. just last month, the broadcast had over 271 of unauthorizeunaus treamings. we do our best to remove the contents from the web sites. we have a technician scanning the web sites. we also have hired several private vendors to help us in this. even if after our request the streaming website takes down the content, it is it usually too late because the value of the content is a seemingly -- is extremely perishable. i would like to emphasize that as a business on triple -- business owner, and i

encourage innovative ways with new technology. we had in no way want to discourage the development and use of legitimate methods of distribution. however, the use of technology to circumvent our intellectual property laws and aid the piracy of content is something that we could not and should not tolerate. many of these new web sites are making the content available through the website. they cannot deny that lewatching of blood peewee football game will generate much interest. -- they cannot deny that watching a live peewee football

game will generate much interest. it often and struck users on how to up load lead content. i submit that they have deliberately chosen not to take reasonable precautions to prevent infringement on their site. as the committee examines this important issue, we believe there are steps that can be taken to help alleviate the problems. web site operators are in the best position to stop this. for example, they should not permit content unless they received confirmation that they are authorized to do so. they should take steps to disable instantly. they should also institute strict limits on the number of u.s. that can see a particular stream. the site should preserve the identifying information about users and require such information to their streaming

technology website. finally, they should incorporate the latest technologies, perhaps electronic fingerprinting to prevent piracy the arkwright -- they are currently meeting. it is critical that our courts and policy makers set an unambiguous signal. it this is allowed to continue, it threatens the financial viability of many businesses that rely on the many broadcast. i want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to testify today. we will be pleased to assist the committee in any way. >> thank you. the next witness is michael sivol.

he is the co-founder of the largest live video website on the web with more than 30 million visitors each month. before that he was a campaign director for my former colleague, and we recognized his talent because he is a political science graduate at the university. welcome to the hearing. >> thank you for allowing me to testify today. we are privately owned technology company. we have reached capital from some of the investors and engineers behind >> , google, skype, mail, and many other well-known technology companies.

our side is the modern equipment of the town square, but instead of standing on a soapbox to be hurt, a user can broadcast their message to the world. the time of traditional media consolidation is important alternative platform for the distribution of live video content. in addition to providing everyday activity with a large access to a large audience, we have worked with contractors, entertainers to help increase awareness. in 2009 alone, comcast utilized coverage of the largest video game conference in america. microscopic produce a show on the site attracting over 2 million new customers. the jonas others are broadcast

live -- the jonas brothers broadcast live. because we provide content 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it is impossible for us to monitor. we comply with dmca. we work with copyright holders to go above and beyond them in order to ensure that unauthorized content does not appear on the site. one example is the copyright protection system, an online

tool that allows copywriter's to remove content from their site. another is the recent partnership to implement light filtering through which occur operate under its contents is prepared to constance streaming in real time. -- is compared to streaming in real time. on sunday we tested the system for the sunday night football game. allies filter was successful in removing the majority of infringing channels automatically. at this point, it is clear. among the hundreds of organizations that take advantage of one or more of the solutions referenced above are the nfl, nba, and then be, esml.

we believe strongly in the value of providing copyright owners with the resources to protect their rights and have invested time and money in developing such resources. we are sensitive to the concerns of the professional sports industry. we're actively negotiating similar agreements with the goal of finalizing the agreement before the new year. the goal is to democratize the power of live video. we trust that this committee and congress will recognize and protect the legitimate interests of technology companies and provide citizens with the tools to share their voices with the world will also considering the concerns of copyright owners. we are available to assist the committee as they explored the issues and are happy to answer

your questions. >> edmond enderso. ed is espn. ed develop the magazine as well. previously he served in a number of leadership roles and office of the commissioner of major league baseball uphol, and he ia graduate with honors of harvard university. we are glad to have you here. >> thank you. mr. chairman, ranking member smith and other members of the committee, but like to begin by commending you for having this hearing and in particular for your focus on emerging forms of internet piracy. in today's economy we cannot afford to let the theft of u.s. intellectual property undermined the vitality of what should be among the most promising

economic assets. we're here today because sports is not immune from piracy. we hear this on the increasing number of internet sites that are the focus of today's hearing. these enable the real-time deat theft of sports programmin. let me highlight a few points. it is important to recognize that this is problem not only with just sports in general. these sites available aha make real time streaming on many other types of television. this affects the entire global media sector. this is heavily international in scope and impact. in many cases, at this streaming

isites are set up offshore. half who we regulawe regularly s available in real time without authorization. espn has been a pioneer in expanding legitimate access to large sporting events through a broadband services. espn 360.com is our signature website. through our investment and technology, these events are available to over 50 million households.

we also provide the programming to u.s. college students and all its u.s.-based military personnel by a campus in military broadband networks. these efforts have yielded tremendous benefits to consumers. many of the households served would not have legitimate access to these events, but for our investment. many of these appear routinely without authorization. fourth and finally, while the challenges we see our new and the process of devising a solution is still ongoing, we can learn something from what we experience when besides first came on line.

we saw the new media on my distribution platform with interesting possibilities to promote legitimate, user- generated activity, but we also saw the possibilities completely overrun by piracy. google disney company was one of several that led the way to develop a set of principles for user-generated content services. participating services and content providers agreed on a set of objectives that included the elimination of infringement on services and the encouragement of of blood of original and authorized user- generated contents. while we considered what did these measures would be effective, at those sites that claimed their committed to voting a legitimate, user- driven environment should embrace the objective of eliminating piracy on their

site. that commitment is important not only to protect the rights to creators and legitimate distributors of content, but also key to driving the development of robust, a trusted, and content-rich legitimate streaming environment. i want to thank you for your attention to this important issue and the opportunity to appear before you. i look forward to your questions. >> think you, sir. -- thank you,s ir. sir. we now conclude with christopher yue. he has clerked for justice anthony kennedy and has taught

at vanderbilt university law school, and as usual, he is a harvard university law graduate. we welcome you today. >> thank you. i am grateful for the opportunity to testify today on the subject of piracy of blood sports broadcasting. today most of the attention has been focused on pre-recorded television. today's hearing provides welcome the attention on the unique problems and challenges posed by piracy of live television. a wide range of companies offer devices that take advantages of what is known as that analog hole.

because these ports have data and an analog format that lack the sophisticated copyright protection built into the digital format, once live television program has and captured and stored on the computer, the person must find a way to distribute it. one plate of doing so is streaming video, in which the copier establishes an internet connection. those making unauthorized copies of live television program have increasingly used this method. the content is saved in a file that is sent to and stored by multiple and users throughout the network. because the systems require programs be recorded and then stored and access, they have

historically imposed delays that would render them unsuitable for distributing live television programming. for recently, they have been sitting like programming in short segments of approximately 10 seconds. this has enabled those making unauthorized copies to distribute the content without having to wait until the end of the program. it has also enabled u.s. to view the program on in your live basis simply by accessing a series of small files instead of one large one. preventing the dissemination of all unauthorized copies of video content prose is more difficult challenges for live television been pre-recorded television. one of the disaffected means is fingerprinting. -- one of the most effective means is fingerprinting.

the problem is that ascertaining and disseminating the fingerprints requires a certain amount of time. the delay in the fingerprint based solutions limit their effectiveness with live video programming iis involved. the result is an endless cat and mouse game in which both sides spent significant resources. technical measures to prevent piracy can be supplemented with legal measures. the distributive nature of the content makes it difficult and costly to target private individuals. consequently, a legal response is generally focus on commercial actors that facilitate cpiracy.

for example, manufacturers the devices may be subject to liability and is a digital millennium copyright act. in addition, plebiscites that serve as focal points for where to find these and may be subjected to piracy mandates. lastly, it declines of the cost of filtering technologies have 'qñlet some -- have led some jurisdictions to consider filtering the content they kerry whether it is infringement of copyright law. -- have led some jurisdictions to consider still touring the content they carry for whether

it is infringement of copyright law. the nature of the problem makes it harder for the industry to find common ground. this hearing represents an important first step to address significant problems posed by piracy. i appreciate the opportunity to address the committee. i will be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, professor. we welcome maxine waters and bill delahunt. i thank all of you.

the two questions of kirk -- what are possible legal remedies and how good are the techniques we have heard from both of you about fingerprinting and cutting off all repeat subscribers in britain and france? nobody suggested any legal remedies. that is why we may have to hold others hearings. i am just jumping to what we're going to do after this hearing today when everyone is alerted and a nose and think of bad debt -- and they know something

about it. where do we go from here? >> we do not believe there is a solar bullet to stop this problem. -- silver bullet to stop this problem. we do believe international cooperation needs to be improved and standards and practices and other countries need to be brought up to ours. we know piracy in the united states is copyright infringement but in other places like china at the situation is unclear and enforcement of slacks.

-- and enforcement is lax. we think we need improved cooperation with trading partners and otherwise. the government and agencies and the united states government are involved in intellectual property rights in many ways. i think it will be imported to prioritize this issue among all of the important and hard work they're doing. second, i would say, if we can bring the u.s. site to services up to best practices, then we have of guadalajara model we cao say this is how it can work. this is how on the one hand of the sites and services can do legitimate things that they offered and at the same time protect copyrighted works.

>> thank you. after watching our president, global solutions seem hard to come by these days. does the u.n. have all role in this? we have very creative lawyers here. >> there are a number of them that have established minimum treatment. that is an area that i agree should be pursued it, but it

will need having signatories to the treaties and the treaties are already clear in our view that this type of piracy is violating. >> wait until the ambassadors years about this. -- ambassador hears about this at the u.n. >> i am not an expert in technology are law. -- or law. i thought of business -- i bought a business that was nearly bankrupt and have grown it into an international media company.

>> i am proud of you but that is not why i brought you here today. >> i understand. looking at this from our perspective, i note that the dmca was put in place but i am not sure that constituted live streaming events. there is an issue of notice and take down and what is the amount of time it should take to take that down. the amount of damage within 24 or 48 hours is significantly different than it is for one of our offense, a live pay-per- view. the value of the product goes down significantly. it is very perishable every minute that goes by. >> ok. what did you want to add to your contribution? you first brought up

fingerprinting. >> i do not think i am qualified to discuss international remedies for the solution. i do not believe i am qualified to discuss the international solutions or the legal solutions. i do agree with mr. millis that we're very interested in creating a standard in the united states for house sites that allow individuals to create and share life videos can also work with copyright holders to protect their rights. we believe that there are copyright protection systems and through the new filtering system that we have been able to build, those are affirmative steps that we believe can certainly address this concern in the united states. in terms of an internationally, unfortunately i do not have much to contribute on that front.

>> you have been very helpful. you have introduced the whole topic of fingerprinting. >> i do want to echo what has been said before in points out that we really need the power of persuasion and the pressure of this committee to keep the pressure on individuals to do the right thing. if you look at what is happening, you cannot traversed down the index page and see a stream after stream of high- quality espn and not say there is something wrong here. we are doing what we can, but you actively describe how difficult of a process that is. we made a decision eight years ago to launch the product and service.

-- we made a decision eight years ago to launch the broadband service. it is a terrific product. we had a business model. today we are in more than 50 million homes and providing a lot more product to a lot more people. now we are contemplating launching the service. i might look around and say this is crazy. there is not an environment in which this can take hold. it is the package, it will produce and provide a significant part of the landscape of what people like us will want to do in terms of deciding to invest. >> tell me how espn -- you

mentioned incentives unitq from other web sites and why you chose not to offer it as a subscription product to broadband-connected consumers. >> we have addressed any new opportunity that has come along. we look to try to figure out ways with the espn brienz -- 3 and where we think there can be returned. -- with the espn brand where we think there can be returns. if we can produce a product with the espn brand on a, would that be helpful to you? the answer we got was yes.

an analogy might be back in the early 1990's we will the first to significant caucudistributiof hd. that is a similar circumstance. we look to build successful products that can work in an environment, but we're making an investment in working with distributors to provide something that we think benefits consumers. >> you did not think it was an economically-wise decision.

you did not think it was viable? >> we saw an opportunity to get on board a train we thought was leaving, that was called a broad band. -- called broadband. ñrwe're not just putting all but the eggs in one basket. we have a tremendous amount of three products. we offer a product called espn insider, which is a subscription base. we are participating in a number of different approaches. we thought this was a good opportunity. >> ok.

professor, you have already made a couple of good suggestions. what about the legal basis? these are technical. how do we prosecute these guys? not everyone agrees that what we're complaining about is illegal. there should be a lot. -- be a law. >> i have concrete suggestions in ways the law might be changed. the digital millennium copyright act was really envisioned -- content owner said dingell website address to a website and forcing them to take it down. that has created part of the moucat and mouse game.

one example might be you give the website at fingerprints instead of the website address and ask for them to screen everything that contains the pingree print. -- that contains the fingerprint. the dmca notice the requirement could be changed, particularly for flood of sense. -- for live events. another ambiguity is an infringement, which is addressed by the supreme court.

the case is really instead of addressing one of the 62 questions about how substantial does the infringement have to be before it triggers infringement -- they left that issue and salt. -- insults. -- unsolved. the perfect area where there is an ambiguity at the law, where congress can step in and provide the much-needed clarity in ways that it would make it easier to curb the kind of a legal piracy we're talking about today. lastly, industry got together in found solutions for pre- recorded contents in ways that did not involve so much legal involvement and suggested a different role that congress might play, which is holding

hearings like the one we're having today to encourage players to come to the table and find the ways to find common ground. everyone has to recognize no one wins unless the content is provided in which the content is protected. when no one can make money unless the programs are provided in a way that generates revenue. i think the hearings like the one we're having today can be an important part of that process. >> i think all of you. -- thank all of you. i am pleased to recognize bachus bob goodlat. >> think you for holding this hearing. i can remember very well going

back more than 10 years ago when we wrote the legislation i was asked by the chairman to sit in your room with representatives of the content industry, the internet service provider industry come at the universities and other users of internet content and try to manage and negotiation of this notice and take down issue. we came a was something we thought was very good at the time and was well-received by people on every side of this issue, but it requires that the expeditiously produce -- that they expeditiously removed products. i suppose said expeditiously has to change -- i suppose that expeditiously has to change.

i would like to ask mr. stabl ibillis, what is the typical amount of time that a internet service provider takes to remove infringing content once the notice is received? >> the system for implementing dmca takdowedown transfers the typical take an e-mail notice into an online form. as a result, the ability to remove content once we have been notified is extremely fast.

because we have been able to push this from the letter and the email boaworld, as soon as e are notified our system can go about removing the contents. >> i would guess that the others would say in the environment of blood streaming, particularly where it is broken down into 10 seconds anchorman's, if they are going to protect their copyright material, they have to get a notice to someone very quickly and they have to respond to a virtually immediately, which is what different from what we tald about 10 years ago. i guess they can see coming the fact that they are going to have these programs on the air and can be on the lookout, but i do

not know if they can be on the lookout for thousands of people who might stream and use or service to stream. you may have the capability of very quickly taking them all down, but what has been your experience with this thus far? >> the reasons why we have developed both a copyright protection system and a light filtering system is to address specific issues that you bring up. essentially what we want to provide is both a system whereby people can look at the site, identified their content and have it removed immediately, but also a system by people providing us with the fingerprint. hip-howe are really trying to encompass both issues, both how we can make sure that the content is removed very quickly and how we can confronted the

issue of identifying the contents in a more automated fashion. >> the other side of the issue is that the user of your service or other internet sites or the people who may have a web site on which they are placing some material that may or may not be cooperated upheave -- copyrighted, and i have received complaints from people saying they're content was taken down and appropriately. are you able to judge quickly enough and accurately enough that the content you are taking down is indeed copyrighted material that is entitled to the protection? >> our understanding is that once we receive a take down notice, regardless of the facility -- fidelity -- validity, we are required to

take it down. in our experience, however, copyright owners have been extremely good in identifying their content as opposed to -- >> in a recent submission to the new zealand government regarding a copyright law very, google alleged that 57% of the takedown notices they have received in the united states were sent by business is targeting competitors, which certainly is a legitimate thing to do, but they also alleged that 37% of the notices were not valid copyright claims. you have indicated that you have not experienced those kind of abuses, but i want to direct to some of the content owners. if these numbers are true, does the fact that 37% of the notices are in error a large nealarm yo?

that is the complaint we are getting from some consumers and some users of various internet web sites that have been subject to a notice of take down and have a hard time getting back up. do you want to respond to that? >> i am not personally aware of that. i can share with tyou a belt the frustrationñi ofñr operating ine current system. it is very quick. >> the decision has to be made quickly. >> i do not think that anyone who goes on and looks through the index page will be at all confused about whether or not

spence -- sports center is the sports center from espn. it is. it is frustrating for us to have to play the cat and mouse game in taking that down. it has been a difficult time for us in this respect. " we're looking for our tom commitment to save this is wrong and we will work tirelessly to fix this for you. xd3eóñiçósomeone isçó looking e notion that there is so much out there that we cannot figure out what is going on,çóçóñrñr -- w we will help you find what you're looking for. someone has to be doing that. >> i agree. that is what other space or there will be some kind of a major change in the law that will make this wonderful

availability more difficult. any comments? >> relative to what you're talking about with new zealand, -- >> they were talking about the united states. >> was that our guide our live content? -- archived or live content? >> that is a good question. i do not know the answer. >> they provide exact details on how to upload contents from your television. content coming from the television, my guess is that 99% of it would be copyrighted material. in some ways they are encouraging this. that is part of the problem we have. we have to ended 71 streams. -- have 271 streams.

>> you have heard this discussion about notice of takedown. what can be done to make sure content owners are doing their due diligence to make sure the claims they allege are valid? we have heard about things to make sure their contents stronger, but what can we do to make sure that people do not use this in an abusive way? i can understand why a competitor as many reasons to ask another competitor to take something down that may be copyrighted material but they also might have the ability to disrupt something on the internet that they should not be taking down. what can we do to change this?

>> clearly congress can impose consequences. unlike people pirating like content, they are easy to find. i would not want to put on content owners the burden to be perfectly correct all the time. on the other hand, you are talking about a repetitive basis. i can see congress enact a law that any person doing this on a repetitive basis to pull all content they did not own or try to use it in a competitive manner, you can base that on liability. you can make them swear that they hold the ballot copyright in the content they are asking.