n down. this is a new area. it is unsurprising that after 10 years that the congress is having to consider revising a loss. this will not be the last time this committee will have to consider issues like this. >> thank you. . . @ @

some problems of the older players of the nfl. i must admit since i have been here, i have listened and -- and i have curious now about what i'm hearing. how are people stealing these live broadcasts, mr. miller. >> i would be glad to try to explain that. this is one way that we think it is happening. there are probably other ways.

the coaxial cable coming in your house, from your set box top to your tv. you would unscrew the end from the television set and screw this -- this tv stick into that end, here. and on the other end of the stick, is a -- a u.s.b. connecter, which is can be -- can be inserted into the front part of your computer, where there is a receiving connecter for that. the same place you would stick a flash memory stick and with drivers that would come with this device, the one we bought costs $70, you could more or less manipulate your personal computer as if it were a television. you could change channels on your computer. the next step is using a peer-to-peer service download, from a service in china that has

plagued us or through the instructions like a service like justin provides, you could take those signals which have already been converted and are being read by the computer through this device and route them, upload them to the public internet for worldwide viewing. >> mr. mellis, the device you just showed us that you could put on the cable and connect to your computer, it is a device that is legally sold in some retail outlets somewhere? >> yes, i believe these devices are widely available and it is not the only device that could be used to do this. there's a card that you could stick into the back of your personal computer, which would receive the ko axial cable into thebacks. and this nub on it. and the technology of the cardee

-- achieves the same function and the same purpose as -- of it. >> what other use would these devices have, other than the piracy actions you just described. >> i don't know much about them except how they're used with respect to the piracy of our game telecasts. >> and where are they sold? >> they're widely available. this can be bought online at am son. we bought this at a staple store. >> you don't know whether or not these devices could be used for a legitimate use? >> i think they could be. what i mean to say is i'm not familiar with how they are in fact used by people. they could be used to watch television programming on your personal computer. and then there's the next step whereby downloading the peer-to-peer service client from

a chinese service let's say, or -- following the instructions from a service like justin, that you would then take that cob converted signal. someone could, and upload it to the public internet for worldwide viewing. >> i see. well, mr. chairman, if i play -- may, it sounds as if we have a complicated issue before us. that -- must be given an awful lot of thought. i know thaw will lead this committee and trying to make sure that we correct the problems of piracy but as we do that, i'm also wanting to keep you focused on -- the nfl and -- and the thought that it has -- it has -- the power to -- to negotiate with all of these

entities and avoid the anti-trust laws of this country. and see if -- if when we solve the piracy problem we could also take away that exemption. >> and now -- i want you to rest assured that hank johnson's committee is going to hold hearings, i think in january, on this anti-trust exemption and the problem. and will that make you more comfortable? >> so long as we stay focused on that anti-trust exemption, i'm happy. >> okay. that's an easy assignment. and thank you very much. maxine waters. >> and we turn now to howard a distinguished senior member of the committee from north carolina and -- and invite him to question our witnesses. >> thank you and welcome to the

panelists who appear before us today. and gentlemen, i believe that streaming broadcasts is a global problem and i think that robust and effective american copyright laws are essential to content owner who is work to protect their works from being infringed by individuals in other countries. i think probably we all concur with that, do we not? and i'm -- i'm glad to hear that. mr. dorsal, i guess going to ask you about the decision not to of as a subscription product to broads band but i think you and the chairman pretty well covered that. let my ask you this. some have criticized the e.s.p. and 360.com mode as having the potential to drive up broadband subscription prices. is this criticism fairly leveled? >> well, thank you. i don't believe that it is.

we have heard that complaint before. two things to point out, if i may, one we watch the marketplace carefully to see the impact of our business in it and the retail world. we have not seen instances that we could identify where there was a direct correlation between -- our sell of the product and the impact on the retail pricing of the i.s.p.'s. that's their decision to make. we don't have anything to say about that. our requirement is if you do the deal with us, you must provide the service to everybody on your system. we think, we're helping consumers in that regard. and secondly, we looked at it from an economic standpoint. we got noted washington d.c. jeb highsen to look at the issue to see how they would analyze it from a economic standpoint. he put together a short paper which i'm happy to introduce in the record. his conclusion, was this. it is very expensive to build a

broadband platform and the costs of getting the first subscriber is very high. but if you could make your service popular, as you add more and more people to the service, the average cost of providing the service it each subscriber comes down. in that circumstance, you're actually putting downward pressure on retail pricing. we would be happy to submit that for your review. >> professor, your testimony, you, you refer to several technologies that play be employed to prevent infringement through rebroadcasting. which technologies in your opinion is the most realistic option for entities such as u.f.c. and professional sports leagues. >> when you see how piracy and other problems have been addressed on the internet in other contexts, it is rare to see one single strategy that is a sol lusion to everybody r everything. you generally see a layer of strategies. in this case you could see the

use of fingerprinting to screen out content in advance and perhaps asking the content provider instead of sending it out on live basis, on a near-live basis to allow the tech no one to work. you play see some form e -- may see man yum screening on the website and old-fashioned lawsuits which cannot prevent it up front but it'll -- it'll have a role in detering repeat offenses and identifying those people and giving them deterrents, but my guess is -- most security people will say, if you rely on one sol lusion, the minute that one is cracked i you have nothing and that you're in fact much better, instead of an egg shell, you're much better having a series of layers of protection which are more robust and can respond to different threats. >> thank you. thank you all for being with us. i yield back to the chairman.

>> thank you. hank johnson, subcommittee chair. former magistrate is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, if for some reason this microphone goes limp all the time, maybe -- maybe we could get it to, maybe with some -- with some viagra we could get it to -- get it to -- >> i hope nobody choose it is take your words down, mr. johnson. >> yes, what i would like to ask, mr. seibel, and -- by the way, i'm happy to know that you're -- your firm supports getting a handle on this kind of copyright infringement. but i got to ask you -- do you think it is -- it is -- it is --

morally right for your firm to continue to engage in -- in the use of copyrighted materials without the -- the owners consent? from a moral standpoint. i like you to answer that. is it right? is it fair? >> i think that when we -- when we look at this issue, our understanding and kind of as we look at our entire business, it is not the point, nor is it the goal of the tv to distribute copyrighted content. when you look at, we're -- why i.t.v. began, we started with the idea of broadcasting one person's life online. that was our cofounder justin kaun and the viewers of that original broadcast were is excited by the potential of live

video online that they too wanted to create their own hive content. they didn't want to broadcast their entire lives but they wanted to share live interesting events. >> that is is different from there's no need for consent and -- and payment for the use of that material, it is voluntarily put on -- on the web. i'm speaking of the -- of the this precise issue and if you could speak to that because i don't have a lot of time. >> certainly. so, when designing a site for anyone to keat and share live video, unfortunately, as in any user generated site, some people are going to do that to -- in a way that distributes unauthorized condent. and so, i want to be clear that

the goal is not to support that. i want to be clear, the business model is not based around supporting that. continued broadcasts of unauthorized content is not a way to run or start a business. so when you look at where we invested our time and energy on the front, it is a significant amount of time and energy to build out the copyright protection system and the live fingerprinting system and the goals are -- completely removed copy written content from the site. >> you're going far afield of my question. >> okay. >> but i will ask how do -- how does justin.tv make its money? >> so justin.tv, when we look at our business model, it is really three-fold. and the first aspect is an advertising supported model.

the second aspect is going to partners who want to distribute live content on our platform and charming in a metered format and the their aspect is going to partners when have premium content that they be they could charge a pay-per-viewer prescription fee for and to support that transaction. and get revenue from that transaction. when you look at our business model, justin.tv is a significantly more robust and viable company, as it works with copyright holders as opposed to the opposite. that's why i invested all of this time and energy in these solutions. in the long run -- i'm sorry, go ahead. >> you could keep going for -- you could fill buster for the remaining one minute or so of my time. and i'm just having fun with you, no disrespect. and -- what is the difference --

between this case and say nap ster? it was kind of -- i don't want to say forced to change its -- it was forced to change its methods of -- of -- of distribution of copyrighted music without that -- they were doing it without the -- the consent or payment of royalties or anything like that. and how does -- can somebody shed light on the -- on the napster case and how it would apply to this case? >> so i'm not a legal expert in terms of the legal part of the napster case. from the product perspective, napster was designed and built to distribute music content on the web. part and parcel of the product

was distribution of unauthorized content. in addition napster avoided working with content owners to help reduce or eliminate the copy written content that was distributed by that company. and justin.tv is different. first the system was never designed or conceived of to distribute unauthorized contend. second we actively work with over 150 copyright owners around the world and give them tools to remove the content in realtime from our site. anyone else? >> and napster intentionally pursued copyright infringement as a business strategy. and the case made very clear, that's a sufficient basis for liability by itself. and what the support left open is if you have an innocent website that did not intention my seek out copyright infringement as its business model but is none the less used for substantial infringement.

at some point it can become liable as contradictory infringer. the support did not clarify where that line is. and it is ambiguous and -- the sony case from 1984 rah the gloucester case had a chance to address it and chose not to. of the five justice that is opined on the proper standard, they split right down the middle. we're the -- the -- the business community is left with a great deal of legal ambiguity about the precise extent to which providers like justin.tv that are not actively fomenting infringement play be subject to liability. >> anyone else? >> yes, i have a comment, i'm in the an expert on the napster or gloucester case. one of the differences play be in the early days the music industry wasn't necessarily embracing technology to what the consumer wanted to do. they wanted to downhood music

onthe internet and there wasn't a system put in place. i think the difference here is we all sit up here on this panel and -- we're embracing technology. we want to be able to give consumers our product on any form mat they want. whether satellite, cable, broadband on their television, we of those products, all the way down the line. and i think that play be part of the difference. as far as how that, how that evolved. we're in a situation now where we of it on all of these various ways to watch it, yet it can be uploaded on to the internet and watched by literally hundreds of thousands of people for free, without having to pay for the copyrighted content. >> anyone else? >> and thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to -- some additional time for the answers to the -- to the questions. thank you. >> and you're more than welcome. >> ranking member from flort, tom ruiny.

>> thank you. >> as a freshman that sounds good. and mr. johnson asked most of the questions i wanted to ask and that's usually what happens when you're low man on the totem pole. >> was that including the viagra issue also? >> yes, sir. >> i warned you about that. >> that is my sign to to talk quickly here. and mr. uei i appreciate your testimony. it is incumbent on us, my predisposition is to protect the u.s. tradition of value of property rights and senly i -- e i understand what you're saying about the courts leaving it open to congress to fill in the fans here and obviously, mr. chairman i think that is our duty moving forward, is to make sure that -- it is our obligation to finish the work that has been started years ago, as technology and --

and things evolved that we -- we -- the court has punted it to us and now it is our opportunity to traci that situation as outlined in the gloucester case. my -- my question i apologize for sounding elementary in what i ask. specifically, mr. seibel, i'm trying to get my arms around exactly what justin.tv is. from the testimony here today, it sounds like that you have taken steps to try to work with the other entities but at the same time i can't get out of the back of my head this sort of notion that we have opportunities and obligations and the haw to act, if you act, or you fail to act, sometimes you could be just as culpable or liable. and it sounds to me that justin.tv has content on their website that is not permissible and failing to act for that,

until one of the content based companies come and say, please take it down is like -- going into a jewelry store and robbing it but not making a mess when you're in this. i mean, i don't know if that is -- a fair assessment but just because you -- just because you aren't actively seeking out content based material, but not doing anything about it and -- until one of these guys comes and says, you got to take it down. and -- in matters of law and fairness, it just doesn't to me seem right. what would you say in response to that? >> so i think the new technology of the finger other printing sol lusion is a comprehensive solution to this issue. what you're addressing here is -- you know, isn't there a manual solution that we could implement. i think what is most important to understand is that on

justin.tv, there are 1.9 million broadcasts a month. and we believe that any attempt to manually monitor the site would create an unfair expectation among copyright holders that we were going to be 100% or 90% or some reasonable percent effective. when we think about the solution that is we want to provide, we have beençó focusing on systemac and authmated solutions. that's why the live filter is so valuable. because we can insure to a copyright holder, that that solution is going to work. >> on that point. you said earlier in your testimony that -- that as soon as one of these guys calls you and says, take down whatever and that can happen quickly, what if you don't take it down? what happens to you? >> what could happen to you? do you know, legally? >> unfortunately i'm not an expert. >> does anybody? >> justin.tv would lose immunity under the copyright act to the extent to which they have made a

copy, they would be subject to copyright liability subject to statutory damages and any damages that could be proven, there's an open question about whether a soft copy is one that is only in the computer is copyright violation. there's cases on both sides of the question and it is another area that this congress could clear up. >> i'm running out of time already. when you say that you're entering into agreements, with some of these guys in the future. you mentioned the nfl. do you have the nfl games on your website now every week? >> in the context of the nfl. the nfl and nbc were look fg an automated solution to remove nbc's nfl games from the site and any game that play appear on justin.tv. so when we ran a test this past sunday, we were actually able to automatically identify and remove the majority of nfl games

that had appeared on the site during that time period. >> you don't have an agreement with the nfl to put the games on your website. they're on there and if they say take them down, they take them down. >> as to all of the content sites, it is the same issue. when a user is putting someone else's content on your site and using your site to district someone else's content, how do you work with copyright holders to address that and remove that content and remove that user from the site. so we approach it like every other type. >> i have a question. >> we do have to vote. >> very quickly. you mentioned with regard to -- to maybe precluding these things even getting on a site before and you talked about what we could do as a congress to actively do that rather than just reacting. how could we be proactive and i think that you mentioned, that we need to make consequences for

repeat offenders. and i believe that you said that one of the ways to do that is to swear under penalty that you know that these rights aren't theirs and they could get in trouble for doing that. is that specifically what you're talking about with regard to us making a law that would provide consequences for repeat offenders, or is there some more specific solution you have with that. >> i think, a repeat offender law is advancing in the u.k. and end users pirating and posting is a about terrible solution. the question, though, was asked specifically was what about erroneous takedown notices that people are using competitively to say take down the content, even though it doesn't belong to them. any aspect cob abused and it is relatively easy with corporations who are repeat offenders to identify them. and the real problem is the end users who are extremely hard to find and track down and extremely hard to enforce rights

against. and i think they're doing -- doing in the u.k. is an interesting solution, assuming it is not appropriate. you get two warnings, and make sure you know it is illegal. if the end user persists, it is an end realm that i the i.s.p. ann has an obligation to disconnect them altogether, that's an option the congress could consider. >> thank you. >> i'm going to yield myself five minutes, my five minutes and then we -- we will make further determinations about the questioning. let me welcome the witnesses and thank you very much for your presence here today. sorry that we're interrupted by votes. i just have a nonlegal question. mr. fratina, do you have relatives in texas? >> yes. >> my goodness. i obviously run into them on several occasions.

it won't bias my questions and i will recuse myself. in any vent, i hope you have the opportunity to visit, it is a great state. i am first of all want to thank mr. seibel for his genius and creativity andee -- and i hope that our questions don't disregard the uniqueness of your efforts. but i'm going to -- to try to be pointed in my questions and -- and particularly site language that deals with the -- with the -- with the case. and as i understand it, that case the gloucester case, establishes peer-to-peer activity with copyright infringement that provides for the sdaket shun of music files on the web. it is a narrow decision and if i can -- profess, yes or no. is it a narrowly drawn decision?

>> yes. but it has implications beyond music. >> it is a nare low drawn decision in if we look at it, it pertains to music, of course it can be used and cited in someone's brief but it'll be up to the courts to interpret it more broad by. >> the copyright law does not decide anything aside from music. >> there's the possibility we would legislatively act or this would have to be an ongoing court proceeding or action that is individuals who felt that they were agrieved would take into court is that correct? >> yes. >> and then, let me indicate that though we don't often site our work, i think that the judiciary committee has been a champion on job creation. it has done so because we have taken to task the whole question of copyright infringement, as i understand it, when you have a product content, you also have

jobs. and you have the institution that depends on condent. and i just want to cite for the record, some deals that have been -- put forward, espn has in recent years signed several high-priced deals with leagues for broadcasting rights, including an 8. billion dollar deal with the nfl, a 2.4 billion dollar deal with the major league and major league baseball and 2.1 billion dollars deal with nascar. and that's a lot of money. and -- and i assume the intent behind that is that those games generate dollars, and that means that people are em moied, in that particular industry, not necessarily and it play mean that football teams can stay open as well, because i understand part of their revenue stream is the dollars that they get. so when we talk about copyright protection, i like it to be beyond the nuances of those of us who enjoy that kind of debate. intellectual property.

it really has to be a mainstay of the survival of the genius of america. this committee has been in the forefront of trying to protect the genies of america. we done so on a number of cags. and to our chagrin, we have not been the most popular committee here. we talked about performers and others. we have not been popular. so my quick question is, and i think i'm under five minutes. five minutes, on the floor? anybody have that time frame? just to ask each of you quickly, how this -- this present structure of the potential piracy would impact your bottom line and jobs. and mr. mellis, am i asking the right -- you're in major league baseball? >> yes. >> quickly. >> right now with respect to the piracy as we have been experiencing and observing it for several years, it is very difficult to -- to quantify the

impact. because -- most of it is occurringñi offshore through roe sights and services where we don't know much. we don't know how many piracy incidents there are. >> you do know if piracy continue ast your product depleats in value, the potential that you play lose jobs. can you answer joran? >> yes. >> thank you. mr. fratina. >> i'm sure this is an important issue for the members of the panel. this is the most important issue for our company. and we have created thousands of jobs, we have built a company with our content. and -- and pay-per-view represents over half of our revenues, half of the total revenues. when people can choose just to log on to the internet, on justin.tv and get it for free, it certainly impacts our ability to run our business. >> thank you. >> and we have 6,000 people worldwide supporting the work of

espn and our incentive to grow that asset would be impacted. >> how many em miees? >> 6,000. >> does that impact your bottom line? >> unquestionably. >> professor, do you see this as an economic issue? >> i see it as an economic issue. jobs are at stake. i taught in nashville, the music industry was behind the curve and they have been losing jobs likeçó crazy. the television industry wants to get in front of it. >> and mr. seibel, do you want to work with us, your business, obviously provides income, do you see the value of trying to get a good road map so you could exist and that we can prevent piracy on the intersunset net? >> definitely. >> we're going to adjourn this hearing and mr. chairman, wants to come back. the chairman wants to come back. we're going to adjourn this hearing and this hearing is in adjournment and the witnesses -- recess and, consume. what ra we doing, we adjourning

or recessing. and excuse me. and let me pull that back. and we're going to reset this hearing and we ask that the witnesses remain available. it should be about 10 minutes and maybe a little long herb but we need you to stand by. thank you so much, this meeting, this hearing is in recess. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captions performed by the national captioning institute]

>> okay. the hearing will come to order and let me recognize my colleague from california, mr. icer if as much time as he play consume. >> thank you. and this is a very interesting hearing because i think it has gone beyond perhaps the ib, just that you're -- your organizations are dealing with. let me go to a couple of questions. first of all, mr. mellis. would you concur that over the air broadcast becomes the right of anyone who can receive it to -- to have it, to time shift it and to watch it wherever they want to watch it?

>> beyond the television set in the home? >> beyond the supreme court decision. in your own words, the supreme court held that we have in the sony beta max, we have a right on a broadcast to store and -- because it was removable device in the case, to store forward. and i could take my v.h.s. tape out and take it to grandmas house and wave it there. that was all codified in sony beta max. do you agree? >> i do. >> the question for you is recognizing that that's not a commercial use, that's not a dissemination or performance or broadcast to others. you say it very well at the start and end of baseball and football and all of the major leagues that rebroadcast is prohibited. we're in the having that discussion here and that play be today's subject, let me just go through a scenario. and i'm in san diego, san diego chargers are playing there. and let's just say, that it is

not being -- i don't have it available where i am. and would you say that as an owner of seven tv's in oceanside in san diego, california and vista, california that i could watch it there and i could record it on a -- equivalent today of the beta max. >> yes. >> and if i have the ability to do that and have the ability to forward it to myself, i'm well within my rights. >> well. i think, from a strictly legal context, that question -- hasn't been decided by a court, although there is a technology available to do that. but -- >> the sling box and other similar devices. >> right. what we're talking about here is the uploading of that -- game telecast for worldwide viewing. >> one of the reasons i'm pursuing this line of questioning is i don't get you all in front of me often. i happen to believe that your right to go to the audience that

you originally broadcasted to and wherever they play be, including the store in forward i mentioned is -- really what we should be talking about today. but i ask this to lead you down a road of a question that is to today. and if in fact i were to pay a service to capture in my home whether it is a sling box i own or a commercial equivalent, pay so i play watch that -- on my blackberry. because in fact i'm away from my house now and i'm downtown and i want to watch it. as long as i am a broadcast recipient, would you say that i have the reasonable right to have that delivered to me? >> on your blackberry. >> let's say on my blackberry. >> it is a service that you subscribe from your blackberry or from your television to your blackberry? >> let's go back to the sling box, that play be a better one. my ability to deliver to my

washington home from my san diego home, a san diego charger game, or a appeared game, would you say that was reasonably consistent with existing law and your interpretation of it? >> my view under the copyright act is there are two copyright rights implicated. there's the platform shifting, using not copyright terms but platform shifting, and -- and the play shifting. and those -- >> time and space. >> right. those are the issues. so the question is, whether or in the doing that in the context you describe for your own personal use having paid for it already, whether that is a fair use. and that hasn't been decided by any court that i know of. >> okay. i'm going to go down the aisle quickly, because i happen to be of the opinion, thank goodness i'm not a judge but i'm of the opinion that simi broadly saying i'm going to capture everybody's football games and baseball games and boxing matches and then make it available on a

service is way outside of the intent of existing law or copyright interpretations. but as to the description i made that whether it is through a service that is literally in my home or a service i contract, how many would you believe that with existing law we should feel comfortable that -- that the -- that the owner of a san diego home who wants to receive something from san diego in their home in washington d.c. around their plaque berry should be rabel to. and let's assume it is a sling box for now so that the technology is pretty understood. >> i don't have a legal background, i'm not a legal expert. and my opinion is if you pay for my product and you use it for your own personal use, and you paid two it that's fine. >> mr. seibel? >> yeah. and to be honest, i think this calls for a legal

interpretation. i'm in the qual guide to provide. as a consumer, that sounds reasonable. >> and once upon a time, i used to be a practicing lawyer but not anymore. >> fortunately you were probably practicing when beta was designed. >> long time ago. but you know, someone who produces and distributes content, i think it is -- as mike said, it is unanswered question. i don't know the courts haven't really addressed it and how that plays out and i don't know. there are legitimate concerns about the scope of geography and rights we buy in terms of baseball and protecting markets and the like. it is complicated. >> back to the original premise. if i can record on a sony beta max set and i remove the cartridge and move it here to california and play it at my home here and that is codified in law, then wouldn't you agree that the equivalent would be reasonably anticipated by the supreme court decision?

>> i don't know that it would be. honestly. >> okay. this is something where you don't consider it settled law when we go digital, we go over the internet. we go to something other than a sony version of a videotape recorder. >> i think additional questions come into play. >> professor, you get the end on this. because for us on the day yass, at least many of us, that's the question. i happen to come from a consumer electronics background and i come from that industry that thought it was settled law that the noncommercial rebroadcast by the owner of something for purposes of time shifting or -- or place shifting or even product shifting, in your own words recorded on this machine, played on another one with a different tv, were all pretty much settled law. how would you view that professor? >> i don't believe it is settled law. inl that for example we have for broadcast, retransmission of broadcast signals over cable had

to require -- acquired a statute for consent. rebroadcast of radio signals over the internet required a separate statute. if it was simi true that if you could receive a radio signal. >> rebroadcast but not the owner recipient who has stored pursuant to a very hard fought battle in the sony beta max case. >> or motion picture association versus beta max. >> that case left questions unanswered. time shifting is clearly within the pale, what is clearly suggested by other decisions, building a library is probably outside the pale if you're going to build it on a depurrable basis. and space and device shifting is much harder to do, thee -- the couple of examples, people by activity for programming properties internationally and in states and there are state blackout laws if for some reason

your chargers did not sell out the stadium, you would be blacked out in san diego, theoretically a person could be washington d.c. and getting the feed and retransmit it back in ways that could silent late the law. >> i'm closing with a small statement, that i'm taking from the chairman, partially. our problem on the dies a is we paced laws or observed interpretations by the courts as part of promoting commerce and protecting intellectual property and recognizing that -- that laws are only effective if they're one, supported by the masses and two, enforceable. >> what i'm hearing here today is potentially we would reinterpret a law, my question to all of you in the abstract here, hypothesis kel is. how would we enforce, you could do this, but you can't library it. well, sony, the sony product was

a durable product and it was portable and it met a bunch of requirements. from this side, or from the men and women in robes across the street, how in the world would we one, enforce it and two, why would it be the burden of the federal government to bring about that very expensive enforcement of finding out whether someone is storing something in their home and whether they're forwarding and whether it is durable. we been asked over the years to buy into -- you play remember the copyright act and buy into schemes that were going to empower others it primarily do it. and each time when it failed, you have come back to us. so i'm going to leave that as rhetorical question. it is beyond the scope of this hearing. i think with the chairman, we're very interested in figuring out whether or not what is wrought to us is in fact something that if we dealt with it, we could be effective. the chairman yields back.

>> and thank you. >> i obviously, i think that the -- that the, that the sentiment here, on -- on this side is to insure that the -- the creative community is protected and continues to operate and function in a way that produces the kind of products that the united states is -- has a lead or advantage on. i believe that to be unanimous. i think the enforcement and compliance issues are the real ones here. as suggested by my friend from california. and i'm always struck being a

farmer -- state's attorney by the imposition of -- very long prison sentences. and often cases mandatory, ones. and -- and on juvenile or some adult, maybe for legal purposes but maybe 19 years old, that goes in and robs the convenience store and comes out with around $30 in cash and ends up doing eight 010 in a mks mum security prison. and yet, he -- here we are today, and we're talking about concern that is are legitimate. and where, i'm confident that -- that, the -- that the in the aggregate, the losses are substantial. and maybe -- maybe -- does anyone on the panel that can describe our -- or estimate what the losses are, i would be interested in hearing from any

panelist, mr. -- >> i can give you an idea just based on our experience. we operate the ultimate fighting championship, which is the largest pay-per-view provider of sports in the world. and one of our recent events was held back in november, we were just -- our team of people that were trying it find pirated extremes found 271 broadcasts in over 160,000 views. of just that one night. and as i mentioned in previous testimony, it is important for us, because as a live supporting event that we charge money for, it is ext1e perishable. once it is over, it is not worth what it was once it started. once somebody knows the outcome of what happened in that. revenues generated represent half of the revenues of our overall company. and just that number of screens representing probably in the neighborhood of 40% of the total amount of business. >> give me a number. >> well, pay-per-view, we charge

44.99 and if there was 160,000 people watching that night, that is potentially 160,000 people that were paying $44.99. >> what is that? >> $8 million. >> and thank you for the -- >> that's what we found. >> less delivery costs. 8 million. compare that. you know, what is it in terms of the order of magnitude as far as the -- the balance of payments issues. and what is in in terms of loss to the economy? and what is -- does anyone know here? what is the longest prison term that has been served by a pirate? professor? >> i don't know. >> and mr. seibel? >> i don't know. >> so no one knows? >> there's a famous case of someone violating the d.c.m.a.

who recently went to jail, he was the first person to go to jail for creating technology in allowing this form of piracy. i don't know, it is well over -- it is in years, i think i'm talking about on the 10-year range but the sentences are on that order. it is rare. >> i guess what i'm saying, until -- until there are cyr sanctions because we can have these very arrow diet and arcane discussions about dealing -- with the concerns that -- that you're expressing, but until we have -- have, enforcement, and -- and appropriate sanctions, by courts, meaven of my friends on the other side support the concept of mandatory sentences. i happen to disagree. but -- once that happens, this is -- this is theft.

this is granged larceny. and until we get serious about enforcement and prosecution, we're going to continue to have -- wire going to continue to have interesting hearings such as this and -- and i dare say, we're not going to make a lot of progress. now, you know, professor, i'm sure that you could provide us guidance and -- and -- and counsel in terms of how the law needs to be changed. i'm sure our own staff can do that. i'm sure there are technologies that are out there and we should have -- as -- as bob indicated earlier, continuing to have meetings, et cetera. somebody has to get serious about enforcement. and you know, at one point in time, i know that, we -- implored the department of justice to create a task force,

to do this. and i don't know whether it still exists, maybe we need some sort of oversight hearing but if someone is going to steal $8 million from you know one particular outlet, and there's no consequence, -- there's a difference between a young male, 18 or 19 years old, who robs a convenience store and does eight to 10, it doesn't exist in the majority of cases because that young male is not -- doesn't have in his back pocket, the -- the -- the united states criminal code. and he has in the done an analysis of what the potential sanction play be. believe me. that's the case. based on my own experience. the concept of deterrence, it doesn't play. and whoever is doing the $8

million hit to the company and to our overall economy, i'm sure that he has a battery of lawyers that are going to raise all of the issues that i -- i heard being discussed here today, contributory infringement and all of the -- of the concepts that are -- are you know, freedom of free speech and -- and the marketplace and -- and it is -- but until there is a serious consequence and i think it is incumbent upon people who are in the industry working with the congress, working with the executive branch, to say, if you're a thief, you go to jail. if you're stealing, and it is -- you know, you could establish it-yard -- it beyond a reasonable doubt, let's impose harsh severe sanctions because it is not just the individual sport. it is not just the individual

company that is being victimized here but it is all of us. this is an important aspect of the -- of the american economy in a gleble economy today. and any comments? couldn't agree with you more. >> well, i been given questions to ask you. so -- all right. mr. seibel, could you comment, and respond to the document that was introduced into the record? >> yeah, thank you for the opportunity to do that. for a second i want you to excuse the title of the document and consider the text. what is clear is that -- this is a guide for broadcasting video from a video game console, to justin.tv which is an extremely popular practice. you consider the second sentence, this is a popular

quest among broadcasters who see clanls like four player podcasts and they screen capture a video you could look at the second instruction, a way to send a video from your console to your television. the third instruction, most plug their console into their tv using composite tables and use other sets of cables to send audio. if you were to follow this guide on justin.tv, you would not see television showing up on your channel, you would see a video game from an xbox or playstation 3. i want to make that clear and i do apologize for -- for the -- for the header and the title text, because i do believe that is slightly misleading. that's something that we will certainly correct. >> thank you. i want to thank all of the witnesses for the testimony. and -- without objection, members will have five legislative days to submit written questions to you which we will forward and ask you answer as promptly as you can to

be made part of the record. the record will remain open for five legislative days, but the submission of any additional materials, thank you again and the hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captions performed by the national captioning institute]

>> next ben nelson will face reporters about his decision. this is 25 minutes. >> since i didn't get a chance to do this on the floor, this morning, i really want to make the statement right from the podium here and then i'll try to answer questions. when i answer the questions, it is not going to be about the

manager's package but about the things that -- that -- that i worked on, that -- that i think are important and -- and try to keep my focus there because they're still doing a manager's package in this and i am not going to be the one to make the announcements about it. let me say that the -- at the outset, change is never easy. but change is what is necessary in america today. that's why i intend to vote for poacher and vote for health care reform. and on the floor of the senate in town hall meetings throughout our states and in one-on-one meetings with our constituents, we have all heard heart-wrenching stories of people who have been left behind or forced into bankruptcy or caught in the grip of a health care system that just didn't work as well as it should have. and while each of my col leagues play differ on how to fix the ,

i know of no members who are suggesting that the current system is satisfy. i know of no member who doesn't think that we need to change our health care system. and where we differ and i say so with great respect to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle is in the way we fix our health care system. . . colleagues 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,@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ i if i had my druthers, i've said earlier, i would have done it incrementally and dealt with the cost first. but you have to take the process that's in front of you and try to improve it and that's what i've tried to do, both constructively and productively with this legislation so that i can support it. with the caveat, we have to deal with it with a very limited conference. don't want any wholesale or

material changes because my support is conditional. >> so that provision, how was the bill able to give you that? >> well, i don't know. let's put it this way. >> 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. every part of this bill has been fair to say an enormous undertaking. we wouldn't be in this position today without partners that i've had in this whole process. baucus, dodd -- i just want to say a short word about senator harken. -- harkin. most of the work done in this

of course was done in the committees. the health committee met for weeks. you all saw that. the finance committee went for months. you all saw that. senator kennedy died. we had a new chairman of the health committee. we have a lot of people in this senate and that's the way it should be who have very large egos. senator harkin, who worked on that committee his entire career in the senate, became chairman, as we know. 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 > @@@@@@@ @ hm , @ @ @ d @ @ @ @ @h one of the senators on the caucus said i want a separate chart, all the tax incentives and tax credits in this bill. we're requesting to that. it's almost $500 billion worth. throughout the many twists and turns of this process while many have tried to knock us off course, we've stayed true to these principles and that's why we have succeeded and will continue to succeed. we're going to take a few questions when my colleagues finish their statements but at 1:00 today you're all going to

have a detailed briefing by our staffs, so save a lot of your questions for that. this is baucus, dodd, and harkin. >> thank you. leader. we came to the floor with a good bill. it's a product of years of hard work, study, and debated -- debate in both the finance can the and health committee and also among many other people who have spent a lot of time trying to help us get a much better health care system. 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.

. . . a short time later senator mitch mcconnell held his own briefing on health care and answered why he is opposed. this is 15 minutes. @@@@@@

i have a rugged commute. i live a half block from the hart building. i left the suburbs 20 years ago. i can't take it. so the party's at your house at 6:00? >> yeah. right. i'm not eeb -- even sure the pizza store is going to be able to deliver tonight. is everybody all set? let me just say in the beginning in -- that if they were proud of this bill they wouldn't be doing it this way, jamming it through in the middle of the night on the last weekend before christmas. that's really sums up what we've seen on full display here as they try to bob and weave and hide from the american people who have made it abunt antly -- abundantly clear they

do not support what they know about this bill. as you know they've got an expanded version of it now. it's important that they have it read so we can figure out like 300 million other americans and all of you what's in it. so i'm here 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 on the american people that will have a profound impact on our nation. this is not renaming a post office. and the democrats are counting on the fact that the american people are preoccupied with christmas and not paying much attention to what they're

doing. the reason we know that is all the survey data show that americans are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill. this bill is a legislative train wreck of historic proportions but they're so eager to claim a victory, so eager to claim a victory they'll simply do anything to jam it through in the next few days. now, we're in the process of reading this bill, like a lot of other people. but here's a few of the things that americans need to know. in medicare of course we know that the bill slashesçó hundred of billions of dollars from medicare to fund a massive new government bureaucracy. we know there are cuts to hospitals. we know there are cuts to nursing homes. we know there are cuts to home health care and we know there are cuts to hospice. with regard to taxes, the bill includes massive tax increases

on american families and on american businesses. doing that at a time of double-digit unemployment, taxes will make it much harder to create jobs as we try to come out of this economic slowdown. there are taxes on health insurance. there are taxes on medical devices. there are taxes on medicine. and there are taxes on working families with very high medical expenses. abortion -- the bill includes perm missive language on government-funded abortions, language that would lead the federal government to violate longstanding policies on abortion funding. the class act, referred to earlier this year by the chairman of the budget committee as a ponzi scheme, is

in the bill. medicaid. this is particularly interesting. the bill imposes massive burdens on states that are already struggling under the weight of the costs of medicaid. at the same time, however, it gives special sweetheart deals to a select few states. interestingly enough, two soñi what is the upshot of this for taxpayers elsewhere? taxpayers in kentucky and even in nevada and ohio and virginia and new york and michigan? end up in effect paying more so that nebraska and vermont can get a special deal.

so our conclusion would be this based on what we know so far about the bill still being read and analyzed not only by my office but everybody else in the senate who hasn't seen it and all of you. our friends on the other side like to talk about making history. about the historic steps that they're taking. the history that's being made here, make no mistake about it, the history that's being made here is the ignoring of the will of the american people. the history that's being made is that a bill that was sold as helping a major problem in our nation actually makes the problem worse. because independent nonpartisan scorekeepers tell us that premiums, taxes, and overall

health care spending will actually go up under this bill. america, if this was a good bill with bipartisan support, i assure you they would not be trying to pass this the weekend before christmas and in the middle of the night. and the reason i say the middle of the night, the next vote literally will be in the middle of the night. it will be at 1:00 a.m. monday morning. the presumption of course is that no one will be watching. if this was a good bill with bipartisan support, if we had followed senator snowe's advice several weeks ago to sit down and write this bill in a way that it could pass the senate with 80 votes, we wouldn't be doing what we're doing. this is an absolute outrage that's being perpetrated on the

american people. an absolute outrage. americans need to know what's going on and we're going to give them every opportunity to learn as much as we can and they can about this as the process moves forward. take a few questions if there are any. >> in addition to having the bill read which is going on now and insisting on all of your rights post cloture, do you plan to use any other tactics to try and make sure this bill does not pass by christmas? >> well, you know it's been my pattern not to announce in advance what kind of parliamentary moves we make. i think the important thing here is for the american people to understand that they're being jammed. there is an effort to pass this bill on a purey partisan basis at a time when their hope is that because of the preoccupation with the

christmas holidays nobody will notice. well, i don't think that's going to work. this issue is pretty darn big. all the surveys indicate that people are paying attention, they have -- they are concerned about it. as i said, this is not a postseason bill, this is health care and regardless of how old you are, every one of the 300 million americans care about this bill. >> senator, democrats are hoping that on similar lines, they're hoping that you guys will agree to yield back some time once, if they get cloture monday that it will be over and you guys will go -- >> i don't want to go down in the weeds on procedure today. i want to talk about the outrage that has occurred here. this effort to jam a -- and dedeceive the american people on the weekend before christmas on an issue of extraordinary magnitude and i think that people are rightly outraged.

>> senator mcconnell, on your side tv, what is the obsession with christmas? what would magically happen if the senate democrats went home for a week and came back and voted? it seems pretty clear -- we'd be happy to two home tomorrow and deal with this bill next year. i think that would be fine. we'd have an opportunity for people to get thoroughly familiar with what's in it. >> senator, can you say what's objectionable to you about the abortion language, the compromise that was reached? why do you think it's perm isive? >> well, we're still analyzing it but the early valuation of the -- evaluation of the language is, and as i said, the bill is still being read for the first time by -- the first time most senators have had a chance to gow -- look at it. staff is still going through it. i can't give you the final definitive take but i gave you the indications, the early

indications that the abortion language is not adequate. >> they talked about how the g.o.p. was outraged a couple days ago because you were debating a bill, a parliamentary move to have the senator's amendment done, read on the floor. can you talk about that? >> well, no one has seen it before today except for maybe harry and a few people you could fit in a phone booth. so i think it was important to give everybody an opportunity to read it. and to understand it. my staff is literally going through it now and what i'm giving you today is a kind of preliminary take on what's in there. we know the klass act is in there and the chairman of the been cht -- committee called that a ponzi scheme. we know medicaid is plused uping in nebraska and vermont,

interesting place to plus up and that taxpayers everywhere else will be paying for that. we're still taking a look at it and trying to evaluate what other special deals and a certions this have been behind closed doors over the last few weeks. >> can you talk about the democrats using their 60 votes this way and the acrimony. what does that mean for the year? you have one more year at least with them in this position. >> you know, this is not about amrimony. this is about policy. this bill is a monday atrocity, a 2,100-page monstrosity full of special deals for people who are willing to vote for it and they're playing these kind of games with the nation's health care. this is an out rage and needs to be called that. so we're upset about it, but it's not a personal thing. acrimony assumes that we're

throwing things at each other. i know you all like to write that but it's not the case. it's not a comity problem, it's a policy problem. anyone else? ok. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> following senator mcconnell's remarks other republican senators met with reporters to offer their reaction to the announcements of senator nelson and the health care bill in general. this is about 25 minutes. >> well, i know you all haven't

had anything to do this morning. we've been going back-to-back on this. as someone who has delivered thousands of babies, the claim that this is a pro-life rider in this bill is absolutely fictitious. for the first time in the history of the country in this bill, federal tax dollars will be used to pay for abortions. the negotiations, whoever did them, threw unborn babies under the bus. and let me detail with you specifically. this, if you read the language, it's circumvents and violates the clear intent of the hyde, the stupak and the nelson amendments. and what will happen is federal funds throughout the country even with the opt-out, will be used to provide abortions. that is a drastic change in policy in this country. there is no prohibition on

abortion coverage in federally subsidized health care exchanges. the state opt-out still requires each state's tax dollars to pay for elective abortions. the new office managed by the public office of o.p.m. will cover abortions. the bill approves re-authorization of the amendment without the hydeament -- amendment. this is far worse than the casey proposal. far worse than the capps proposal and in fact will eventually in my opinion eliminate through the harts -- courts the hyde amendment. kaye bailey? >> well, i think the hyde amendment has been the law of our country since 1977 and it has been very bipartisan in its support. today i think we have the first time that the hyde amendment is

really going to be watered down and no longer existent at all. i think that the house clearly voted in a bipartisan way to protect the hyde amendment. the fact that we would not have subsidized abortions in this country because so many people feel so strongly about it and i am in absolute support of the hyde amendment and i believe watering it down should defeat this bill. i think the rest of the things that we are learning about this bill that were in the original underlying bill should also be recommended for the rejection of it. and that is all much the tax cuts that are going to start just in two weeks and the bill does not become implemented for four years. so you're asking people to pay taxes for four years, higher

premiums on their insurance policies if they're covered, higher prescription drug costs and higher medical device equipment costs because of the higher taxes on those companies that start right away and yet there is no bill that anyone can sign up for for four years. it's unconscionable for the united states senate to pass this bill. . >> 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 at the end of the day, i hope president obama will keep up 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 it is funding abortion with

it is funding abortions with federal tax dollars that will go through established insurance plans or proposals. that is morally reprehensible. it is fiscally irresponsible, but we do not have the money or wherewithal to do this. 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. @@@@@@ >> are they trying to segment private money. >> the hyde language is gone. we will on indian reservations use federal government money to pay for abortions. how do you segment the money? how the segment federal tax dollars? that is like saying we're not going to let social security money be spent on other stuff. you are saying that we will have a lock box when there is not one there. 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.

>> tomorrow, the senate continues debate on health care debate. they will gavin -- gavel in at 1:00 p.m. eastern and are expected be in session until 11:00 p.m.. there will be a key vote scheduled for monday morning at 1:00 a.m. and we will have coverage of the senate on c-span2. >> this afternoon, president obama spoke with reporters at the white house, not long after they provided ben nelson with the 60th and 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 on finally covered with snow, i am starting to feel at home. i am sorry to drag you guys out in this weather, but i want to speak briefly to you about the significant progress we have made on the two major challenges facing the american people, the crushing cost of health care and are dangerous dependency on fossil fuels. when health care, with today's developments, it appears the american people have the votes they deserve on genuine reform that offer security to those who have health insurance and affordable options for those who did not predict -- who don't. there is still much work to be done with not a lot of time left to do it, but today is a major

step forward for the american people. after nearly a century long struggle, we are on the cusp of making health care reform reality in the united states of america. as with any legislation, compromise is part of the process, but i am pleased that recently added amendments have made this landmark bill stronger. between the time the bill passes and the time the insurance exchange gets up and running, there will be penalties for health insurance companies that jack up rates on consumers. and those who deny coverage on pre-existing conditions. meantime, there will be a high risk pool where people with pre- existing conditions can purchase affordable coverage. a recent amendment has made these protections stronger. the insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage to children and immediately after this bill passes. there is also explicit language that will protect a patient's choice of doctor.

small business will get additional assistance as well. these protections are in addition to the ones we have been talking up -- talking about sometime. it will not be able to drop coverage if you become six, no longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your pocket for treatments that you need. under this bill, a family will save on their premiums, businesses will see their costs rise if we did 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 it gets rid of waste and inefficiency and health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade. we just learned from the congressional budget office this bill will reduce our deficit by $132 billion of 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 did not have it. over 30 million americans. these are not small changes. these are big changes. they are fundamental reforms. they will save money, lives, and i look forward to working with the senate and house to finish the work that remains so we make this reform to reality for the american people. i also want to briefly mention the progress made in copenhagen yesterday. for the first time in history, all of the major world economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change. after extremely difficult and complex negotiations, this important breakthrough lays the foundation for international action in the years to come. this progress to not come easily and we know that progress on this particular aspect of climate change negotiation is not enough. going forward, we will have to build on the momentum we have

established in copenhagen to ensure international action will significantly reduce emissions and be sustained insufficient over time. at home that means continuing our efforts to build the clean energy economy that has the potential to create millions of new jobs and industries, and 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've accomplished a great deal the last few days and i want america to continue to lead on this journey. because if america leads in developing clean energy, we will lead in growing our economy and putting our people back to work and leading to a stronger more secure country to our children. that is what i want to copenhagen yesterday and that is why i will consist in these efforts in the weeks and months to come. thank you very much, everybody.

>> the senate continues work on the health care bill. follow the debate by watching live gavel-to-gavel on at it and commercial free only on c-span2. listen to the highlights on c- span radio. review the debate at our health care of with live streaming video from the senate floor, complete the deal archives including a debate on the bill and amendment, briefings from leadership and other key senators, and the latest from the reporters and editors of the roll call corporate -- roll-call group. all the health care debate with a new c-span iphone application. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> up next, supreme court journalists identify significant oral arguments. then a discussion on the future

of the u.s. automobile industry. after that, a hearing on how security leaks at the tsa. tomorrow on the washington journal," drew armstrong updates on the continuing health care debate. our political roundtable on the news of the week with jill lawrence and chris stirewalt. the vice president of the american foreign policy council on iran discusses iran's nuclear program. "washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> he was not an imposing figure. he was not a giant of his time. yet he emerged as an nominee at a time when his party was populated by big figures. >> his mark on history includes manifest destiny. and in his new biography of

paul, robert merry looks at the life and times of our 11th president, james polk. next a discussion on the book, "a good coral." speakers include legal times editor, and several others. the each wrote an essay on the case for the book.

at the georgetown law center hosted this discussion in washington, d.c., earlier this year. >> welcome and thank you for coming today for our discussion of the book recently released by the university of michigan press on oral argument to the supreme court. i will moderate the discussion of a good quarrel. this book is a unique volume. the editors and assembled a series of essays written by journalists who have covered the supreme court. each essay focuses on oral argument and a case before the supreme court and offers lessons on the role of oral arguments. as you know, the supreme court's decision making process is a uniquely closed process to the public. virtually all of the court's deliberations occur behind closed doors. one of the only exceptions to this secrecy is oral argument,

with a court spends an hour in public discussion of the case. it represents a unique window of the supreme court and its decision making. the panelists have observed countless cases of were argument, having had the unique opportunity to observe what the court does in oral argument. the experience gives us interesting perspective on this public face of the supreme court. on our panel today, one of the editors, tim johnson, the university of minnesota political science and law school and the authors of four essays. charles, who served as cnn senior washington correspondent

and now serves at the university of south carolina. ibut me say a word about the process that will follow today. we will proceed by asking tim johnson to describe how this book idea came about and what he and jerry goldman hope to accomplish about it. we will turn of the panelists and discuss the cases. they will tell us why they selected that particular case and explain what we can learn about oral argument from the case. then we will open the discussion to broad questions about oral arguments. >> thank you all for being here today. the project was the brainchild of jerry goldman, the founder and continuing controller of the website online which holds hundreds of hours of supreme court's audio. when the project is complete, it

will hold all audio ever released by the u.s. supreme court. as we begin working in early 2000 together to start -- to study the oral argument, something we both have a passion for, we thought it would be good to try to bring this process to many more people. you could go to the supreme court to hear the arguments, but seating is limited. you could go in and hear an entire session of oral argument that is usually reserved for less than 25 people. you can sometimes sit in line in the back row just a few minutes to catch a glimpse of the justices sparring with some of the best attorneys. we thought it would be great to open this process to more people. with the audio on line, that was one way to do it. we both have an academic understanding of the oral argument process, and that is how we thought about the process

for a number of years. we thought it would be great to bring the public a much more insider perspective. who better to bring that perspective than those who are at the court day in and out from the first monday in october until the end of june every term, to tell us, the readers of this country, those who are interested in law and are interested in learning about the u.s. supreme court, what goes on in these proceedings and what they mean. there is another part of this book that was always in the back of our minds, which is making a unique booked not only of the written word, but allowing them to go in and point you not to the written transcript on the transcript. as you read this book, you could actually hear the attorneys

arguing with the justices, hear the questions from the bench and how the attorneys deal with those questions. with this book, it melds they're wonderful analysis with what your ability to go on line while reading the book and listen to a particular clip of that argument or to listen to the entire hour-long oral argument. what we have for you today is a synopsis of four chapters, and hopefully as a our esteemed authors go through their description of the chapter, you hear audio as well that they thought maybe the most telling from those chapters. >> thank you for having me. it is an honor to be in this company.

i picked my it chapter as a slight act of rebellion. if you have ever read, you would not be surprised, but i thought and have noted and i think everyone on the panel has noted there has been is increasingly professionalized supreme court's fodder. a couple of years ago i really looked at the supreme court attorneys who really limit the process and supreme court argument. i dubbed them the harlem globetrotters because they're so perfect, never missed a shot. more and more there is a sensibility that if you to prevail in oral argument, you just need to hire one of these top guns. that was not always the case. it is just not that interesting sometimes. i thought i would pick for my chapter in oral argument done by

a rank amateur, someone who had never set foot in the supreme court, who had only benefit, it was a surgeon by training, and really should not have any place there at all. which was the oral argument you'll probably remember several years back, the gentleman who is challenging the assertion of under god in the pledge of allegiance. he was challenging it on behalf of his daughter, who he thought should not have to be compelled to say the word god. i think we all thought going into the oral argument that this was going to be a debacle. for those of us who have followed him a little bit or heard him before, he had that quality of being just the absolute wrong person to argue a case at the court. he was incredibly brilliant, but very smug, angry, personal.

he wanted to talk about the custody problem he was having with his daughter more than the pledge. i think going into oral argument we thought this would be a bloodbath. that he is too personal, to invest it, too angry. having watched the harlem globetrotters, i had acquired a sense of certain rules of how to conduct one's self. a more dispassionate and emotionless and professional, the better. any attempt to humanize the case or appeal to the justice's humanity were to say you had a personal stake in the case was sure to backfire, their faces would go on a screen saver. we probably all thought this was going to be a debacle and he was going to talk about his

daughter. and he did do all of those things. maybe we can hear a little bit of his opening? >> i apologize. it was working before. this is what we thought would happen. it was working when we started this process. let me try one more time. i apologize. no, i guess you are going to need to read to begin.

as compared to any other opening that i had ever heard of the court, michael started this way. every morning and an expert community school district, government teachers had issued in stand-up, including my daughter, face the flag of the united states of america, police there and over their heart and a firm that ours was a nation under some particular entity, which is not accepted by numerous people such as myself. i am an atheist. i did not believe in god. every day my child is asked to put her hand over heart and say that her father is wrong. it was the most personal, a motive, and fast it emotional thing i had ever seen. the reason i decided to do my chapter on this is it was not a train wreck. it was one of the truly persuasive, interesting oral arguments that i have ever seen

it in the court. i chose it because even though i laid out in my chapter the oral argument, he was ignoring all of this, personalizing, acting like he was smarter than them, talking back, all the things you would never see them do. he was really good. so i wrote about how good he was and persuasive. they became very and vested in custodial relationships with his daughter. they became interested in her feelings. the flu and the face of everything we think we know and how the parties are not really people, they're just on paper. i think i'll just out there. my chapter is a lesson in how

your not going to play by the rules, sometimes if you are the little guy like the bad news bears and break all the rules and somehow win. he lost on a standing issue, but i think it was still one of the most impressive forceful oral advocates i've ever seen. it made me think we should have more beginners' try out just for fun. >> the tech people had audio working before we get started. hopefully we will get it running. i apologize. it was all good. something has happened. thank you for putting on this show to promote the book and draw the public more into the internal workings of the supreme court. i chose the casey decision that was decided in 1992. i did so for what is for me at

least obvious reasons. beginning with justice o'connor's ascension to the bench in 1981, it was very clear that roe vs. wade establishing any woman's right to abortion was under siege. each time a new opinion came out on the court, the court appeared to be less committed to sustaining the right to terminate, abortion, and finally got to the point where the majority was down to 5-4. there had been indication in 1989 that conner might provide a vote to overturn roe vs. wade. indeed, the reagan administration had tried several times to persuade the court. i chose this case because of the

audacity of the council who argued in favor of maintaining roe. the women's rights movement, fearing it was in jeopardy had to shape this case to be a genuine test case. we often talk about test cases as if they do not always passed. this was put together as a fundamental test over whether it was still viable. when the justice put together the committee with her colleagues that ask one simple question. is entirely unlike any other argument you'll see in front of the supreme court. it has the supreme court overruled roe vs. wade. the supreme court overruled

roe vs. wade? if you put that as a factual statement, the answer clearly was no, it if you put that as a factual statement, the answer clearly was no, it has not overrule roe vs. wade. but it was very clear that the women's rights movement of the was a risk that the courts, when it address the issue, would overturn roe vs. work. they also had in mind the fact that in 1992 it was a presidential election year, and they were determined to turn this lawsuit and the supreme court case into a political campaign issue, to try primarily to help bill clinton win the white house. in fact there is some evidence from the political world that this case and the of, this case did help. but there is another aspect of catherine coleman's argument which i think really enticed me to writing about it. the hardest thing is that a

lawyer appearing before the supreme court has to do is to keep control of the argument that they want to make, because there are nine justices, eight usually because justice thomas does not often participate in oral argument. but there are at least nine very smart people who have already done some thinking about the case and are coming to the argument completely prepared to befuddle you and to drive the argument in the direction that they would very much like to do. that the supreme court justices do not talk much about the case before they go into oral argument. so ñrit really does shake at least the opening of the conversation that the justices will have when they go back behind the curtains and decide how they are going to vote initially on this case. so a lawyer who really wants to shape that argument, who wants to push some control on the

first argument the justices will have among themselves must keep control of their argument. it was very apparent from the early point of the argument, and the book has an excerpt from justice o'connor saying i don't want you to talk about the standard, i wanted to talk about the specific issues before us involving the specific pennsylvania law that is under review here. >> we are born to make sure the audio is turn on and we will play that clip -- we are going to make sure the audio is turned on and we will play that. >> try it now.

[inaudible] [inaudible] >> you can hear in that exchange the tension that was evident in the courtroom on that day.

o'connor is a very precise kind of judge, and the court in fact, in granting review, had to rephrase the question that it was going to answer in the case , as to whether or not this specific pennsylvania statute was constitutionally valid. o'connor was pushingñi and juste kennedy was alsoçó pushing, buts you can hear in a rather deft way when catherine colbert -- katherine coleman said i will get to your point, but i want to get backed to the standard. the argument went that way throughoutñr, and justice kenney also jumped in with a similar kind of attempt to push colbert

back on to the specifics. [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> the statutory provisions are not necessarily undercut in roe vs. wade. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> i am suggesting to you that that is not the only logical possibility. >> the pattern that was set earlier continue. i should mention that there were two other lawyers arguing this case, and the chapter that i wrote deal briefly with them, but the performance of catherine colbert ultimately proved the worst of her choice, because she did shake the conversation that

thereafter occurred among the justices. in the end, justices kennedy, o'connor, and david souter got together and fashioned a way by which the court could sustainçó> roe vs. wade, at least in substantial part, and they did indeed strike down only that one çiñiñipart, the requirement tha womanjf contemplating abortion notify her husband that she was doing so. to my mind, it is a classic demonstration of deciding what you want to argue, going in to make that argument, and no matter how hard the resistance is to you making your argument, to holding to it, sticking to it until the bitter end, and then hoping for the best. it was a very classical performance by really talented lawyer, and to this day, a good

many years later, roe still survives in the form that emerged as a direct consequence of catherine colbert's argument. thank you for including me in thisçó project. the year 2000 was also a presidential election year, so it was not terribly tough to select bush vs. gore 2000 as one of the cases to write about for this collection. indeed, it was a case unique in the history of the country, for starters, in american politics, and in the circumstances of the supreme court. ñiobviously thisñr was of great importance. one might eveéó suggest as a political reporter, which was part of my responsibility in addition to covering the court, that the best five weeks of the 2000 election campaign were those five weeks between

election day and december 12 when the court handed down its opinion in bush vs. court. then we sell laid out in front of us and without the bamboozlement of a lot of political advertising what the courts were going to do both here in washington and in the state of florida. we were commuting, figuratively if not literally, between the courts in tallahassee and other places in florida and the supreme court. in the span of 10 days, the u.s. supreme court heard arguments related to the election not once but twice. that in and of itself is extraordinary, and this was not something that had been ripening for five or 10 or the teen years in lower courts, but was festering on the political scene only days after the election, so that not only were the public,

the world at large, but the lawyers who had to deal with that and the justices who had to decide on it, all dealing in a very contemporary setting of uncertainty. what actually happened? what did those ballots that we saw people looking through represent, and what were the kinds of things that had to be judge here in the u.s. supreme court itself? added to that from broadcasters perspective was the opportunity to not just sit in the court but then to run out in front of the court and have those tapes played back on the air, the audio. the audio was released as soon as the arguments were concluded, so no sooner had justice rehnquist uttered the words ago the case is submitted," that in moments we were able to turn around in here justice rehnquist's say "will now hear arguments in the case of bush

ñrvs. gore 2000." so that unfolded and people got a chance to hear what was happening in the court. what they heard from my judgment was two extremely competent attorneys arguing, ted olson on behalf of the bush campaign and davidñi boise on behalf of the gore campaign. these were extremely accomplished, familiar faces, once previously at the u.s. supreme court. he had been handling the arguments of the florida courts and was probably as familiar as anyone with florida law as it unfolded. what the uncounted -- what he encountered was what had become a bit of a two-track possibility in the way the court was going

gore. it was either going to be an article to issue as to whether the court in florida had adhered to constitutional provisions, really a structural approach as to whether the court in florida was respecting the desires, the wishes of the florida legislature in terms of how the electors would be chosen for the vote on the presidency, or whether there was an equal protection issue in the way everyone who cast a vote within the state of florida, but particularly in four other counties, was being judged, whether each ballot was being given that same scrutiny, the same quality of potential for being counted, because we were dealing not only with ballots that had hanging chad and dimpled chad's and pregnant

chads. some balance did not have any working for the president and some might have had two. ahold variety of different ways in which the ballots were constructed from county to county, one of which was known as a butterfly ballot. what became interesting in terms of the argument was which was the court going to go? one of the clips i would like to play is david boyce representing al gore and the democratic campaign, and as quickly as he set out to try and make an argument and one point, he was diverted by justice kennedy. >> i think