Skip to main content

tv   C-SPAN Weekend  CSPAN  March 13, 2010 2:00pm-6:15pm EST

2:00 pm
you know, can we envision a more bipartisan place or a more moderate place or is that just not realistic to be thinking about? >> right. we dream a dream that someday, things can happen. you know, you always wonder what would have, could have, should have. would things have been as polarized if the president did this or pelosi did that. but look, if you think about the kinds of people that can be coming into the senate specifically because the house is always going to be incredibly polarized. i don't know that you're ever going to get to a place where you're going to see lots of crossover and this has been going on for quite some time and i think the way that districts are drawn and, et cetera, leads to that the way that primaries occur which is, you know, if you think about it, we talked about
2:01 pm
the fact that very few people show up in a midterm election. now, talk about a midterm election primary. right? where you have like 27 people come in and turn out to vote. but those people if in a republican primary are really conservative and those people in the democratic prime are a really liberal. .
2:02 pm
that means that there will be moderate republicans in there. when you look at the folks coming in right now, of my becoming a in -- mike castle, delaware. moderate republican. hoff fox has very likely to succeed in a senate race. one more moderate to sit down at the table. in illinois, mark kirk. very moderate republican, there you go.
2:03 pm
scott brown, for all the talk that he was no. 41, the villager -- refers major vote was to support any cloture on the jobs bill. if he wants to stick around -- you do not win as a republican in massachusetts by voting with mitch mcconnell and having a voting record that looks more like kentucky that it does massachusetts. there are three more people at the table, potentially, then were there before. by itself, that can help to foster a different environment. is harry reid going to be back? if he loses the reelection, there's a fight for leadership there. chuck schumer? determined? that will create a different
2:04 pm
environment. some people look back and say that the best thing that ever happened to bill clinton was losing the house and senate in 1994. then he was able to triangulate and win reelection. the president has already done a pretty good job of that so far. he is setting up to rise above congress, his approval ratings are higher than congress. every time he sits down like he did at blair house, saying that we can work it out, letting nancy pelosi and harry reid be the lightning rods, he is a bit able to rise above it.
2:05 pm
that may help him as he sets up for 2012. what happened in the second half of the second term of president clinton was that we would not do any big, bold stuff. >> we have one last question. >> good morning. i am on the french supreme court, which share the concerns that the american people and insurers have with health care. my question is about the health care system. do you think that the american people care about the way that health care is organized in europe ahead of half also other countries? what is the impact of the issue
2:06 pm
of the polls that you mentioned? >> no offense, but one of the easiest way to kill a reform and to say that it will be european style. [laughter] from canada or france in there, it will be dead. have i think where the president came from in the beginning was to say that that is not where we are going. we are simply going to alter the way -- we are going to bring more people into the process.
2:07 pm
rather than blowing up the system and starting from scratch. the problem is -- the american psyche asks where it goes eventually. is this unsustainable? the way that things are going right now, do we assume that we will ultimately wind up back here? where this goes in the next few weeks is not clear, but fundamentally that issue is always going to be shooting at any kind of reform. choice, the things that americans prize the most, and
2:08 pm
the quality of care. anytime you are restricting, americans feel that you are restricting the choices in front of them, for whatever reason, there is tremendous backlash. one more? >> is there one more? thank you, amy, for giving us a great perspective. [applause] we will begin the next session at 9:15 a.m., please complete your conference evaluation at the desk. especially your evaluation on this session. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
2:09 pm
>> a schedule concerning the health care legislation process was discussed as the house was wrapping up business on friday. steny hoyer and eric cantor, this is about 30 minutes. dam speaker, i think it's been well reported that the majority plans to try and use the reconciliation process to ram through a health care bill through this house and the one across the capitol, and we also know from the reports that it is imperative that this house and the house majority, the members of the majority must first pass the senate health care bill before any other action on a reconciliation measure is taken. the gentleman has announced, madam speaker, that all this will take place next week. and i'd wonder if the gentleman could give us a little bit more clarity as to the schedule and
2:10 pm
perhaps the need for members to keep their schedules flexible through the weekend and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first, let me say, no matter how often the gentleman and his colleagues want to say so, we are going to ram through something, no matter how many times the press and public may be misled by that assertion, we're not ramming through anything, i tell my friend. we are following the rules of the house and following the rules of the senate that have been decades in existence. which have been used when they've been used 72% of the time they've been used, 72% of the time they've been used, i tell my friend. your party used them. they are the rules. we're going to follow the rules. both bills that are pending before the congress of the united states have been passed with over a majority. and in fact, the senate by was
2:11 pm
passed by a 60% majority, i tell my friend, not ram through. after a full year of debate and discussion, scores of hearings, hundreds of witnesses, thousands of hours of consideration. i tell my friend that you can say we are ramming something through as much as you want and it will not make it through. no matter how often it is said by your side of the aisle who in my opinion want simply to stop the legislation in its tracks. i tell my friend that we're going to be in the regular order as we have been on these bills since they were introduced. we're going to be in the regular order in terms of considering the passage of bills that was received in both houses. and as i say again, the senate bill has received a 60% majority in its house.
2:12 pm
now, the american people frankly expect when we vote on bills they expect things to pass by a majority vote. they do here. they unfortunately don't in the other body. so you are going to have 69% to give children health care and children don't get health care. so i say to my friend, we're going to, as i said, the expectation is we'll consider passing health care legislation this coming week. we think it's long overdue. we expect the budget committee to mark up a reconciliation bill as the committee did when the republicans were in charge on 16 occasions out of the 22 that reconciliation has been used. 72% of the time, as i want to reiterate, because i frankly get a little impatient with this assertion that somehow a
2:13 pm
process that you utilized 72% of the times been utilized, which means we used it 28%, that somehow when we're using it it is somehow now not consistent with the rule. my friend knows it is consistent with the rules and we are pursuing that process. the committee, i suspect, will mark up on monday. i expect them thereafter the rules committee to meet as is consistent with the rules to prepare a reconciliation bill to report it to this floor. i expect them to report a rule, to consider that reconciliation bill, and i expect that reconciliation bill to be considered. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, all i asked was whether the members should be prepared to be here over the weekend, and i yield. mr. hoyer: you said a number of things before that which is what i was responding to. but, yes, members should be prepared to be here next weekend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. and, madam speaker, without having to delve back into the
2:14 pm
debate on what makes this health care different, health care bill different than the other times reconciliation was used, i think the american people are those that see the obvious. but i would ask the gentleman, since he says we will be employing regular order here, in response to the president's request that there be an up or down vote in the house, could the gentleman give us some enlightenment as to the suggestions surrounding something called the slaughter solution and whether in fact members can have an up or down vote, a clean up or down vote on this bill or whether there will be some procedural maneuvering, self-executing rule deeming the senate bill passed, if he could give us some indication of what we may be able to expect next week, and i yield?
2:15 pm
mr. hoyer: well, of course, as the gentleman knows, the gentleman's party has used that process as well, as i'm sure the gentleman knows. but in any event, we will follow the rules. we will have a vote on the@@@@@ i have not spoken to the chairwoman of the rules committee at this point in time. so, i cannot give you a specific response and have not -- this is the first i have heard this referred in those terms. but we will provide a will for consideration in the senate for reconciliation. the process of doing so will be consistent with the rules. >> madam speaker, i would like p or down vote on istent the senate bill itself, can we expect an up or down vote on the senate bill itself, and i
2:16 pm
yield? mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. what the president was referring to, of course, an up or down vote was the majority vote. one of the problems we've had in the senate, as the gentleman knows, and experienced as well when his party was in the majority, it's difficult to get an up or down vote when the majority of the senate is for something. they got together an extraordinary majority, some 60 votes, before they can bring a bill to the floor. that process, obviously, thwarts, does not facilitate a vote by the majority. in fact a minority in the senate on a regular basis thwarts the will of the majority. that's what the president was referring to. that he wanted an up or down vote on that, and i expect we are going to get an up or down vote in the senate. why? because in the senate they have rules that we are going to follow, as did you in 16 out of the 22 times, that allow for an up or down majority vote in the united states senate. we have to have, as you know, a
2:17 pm
majority vote in the house, and we consistently do have measures that can fail or succeed, depending upon the will of the majority as opposed to the thwarting by the minority. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, madam speaker. and i know the gentleman would like to speak to the senate. we're trying to focus on the house here and what the vote will look like. and since the gentleman has indicated that the president and he and all of america would like to see a vote up or down in this house as well, i'd ask the gentleman whether we can expect an up or down vote on the health care bill itself or not and i yield. mr. hoyer: i tell the gentleman that nothing will pass here without a majority vote. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i take that to mean that there's a likelihood that we will not see an up or down vote on the senate bill itself and that perhaps these reports of a
2:18 pm
concept called the slaughter solution in which the majority will deem passed the senate bill in some type of procedural move that maybe the public can expect that to happen. i know that the gentleman does not think that that represents the kind of vote that the american people expect, but i take that to mean that certainly is a possibility. madam speaker, i'd ask the gentleman whether he expects the house to have 72 hours to review whatever legislation comes to the floor next week, and i yield. mr. hoyer: i expect the house to have very significant time to consider the proposals that will come out of the budget committee and/or the rules committee. and this bill, of course, has been -- either bill, the house bill or senate bill, as proposed, has been on the -- online for some 2 1/2 months.
2:19 pm
otherwise known about 75 days. so there's been ample time to review the bill. whether it's the senate bill or the house bill. so my friend is well aware of what's in the senate bill or the house bill. as well, the president put online his proposed compromises between the house and the senate which have been the subject of great discussion, including the bipartisan meeting that the gentleman and i attended at the white house, an extraordinary, historical meeting which the president invited leaders from both parties and both houses to come and discuss what he believed to be an historic opportunity to provide health care for -- accessibility for all americans. so i say to my friend that we will certainly give as much notice as possible, but i'm not
2:20 pm
going to say that 72 hours is going to be the litmus test, per se, because that which we have voted on already in the house and the senate have given members months' notice, and the american public months of notice on the substance of the propositions that are pending before us. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. again, i'm a little bit taken aback that now the 72-hour rule has been completely cast aside since nobody in the house has seen what's in the reconciliation bill. at least i speak to the members on our side of the aisle that have had not an opportunity to see what's in the reconciliation bill and i would nadge would have some of the provisions that -- imagine would have some of the provisions in the president's plan put up online prior to the blair house meeting. again, it's rather disturbing, madam speaker, that the 72-hour rule has now been completely cast aside -- mr. hoyer: will my friend
2:21 pm
yield? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. first of all, the 72-hour rule, i didn't say that we were casting aside any rule. nor did i say that we may not have more than 72 hours' notice. you may well have more than 72 hours' notice. what i said was i am not going to commit myself and then have a 70 hours as opposed to 72 hours and think i violated some representation i made. we want to give as much notice as we possibly can. this has been a very difficult discussion, as you well know, members on your side of the aisle in the other body have indicated they're going to do everything in their power to stop passage of this legislation. so we need to get about this business and engage, if you will. mr. cantor: well, i thank the gentleman. i guess the gentleman may begin to understand why it is that some on our side of the aisle,
2:22 pm
including yours truly, depicted this ramming the bill through. i mean, if we can't even get a commitment that he -- that the gentleman as well as the speaker had indicated prior that we would have 72 hours to review -- mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: legislation to come to the floor. i think that's consistent to the depiction that there is a ramming through going on. i yield. mr. hoyer: the gentleman had 72 days, i tell him, to review the bill that he refers to. 72 days, not 72 hours, 72 days in final form to review the bill. now, you can keep saying this, you can keep telling the american public that somehow we're ramming something through. you have had, i tell the gentleman, and you know you've had 72 days at least to review the bill as it stands today. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i tell the gentleman again, we are expecting, as he has said, to see a new bill, a
2:23 pm
reconciliation bill on the floor next week. that bill no one on our side of the aisle has had an opportunity to see. perhaps the congressional budget office has had 72 hours to see it but we haven't. no one, i believe, has had 72 hours in this body to see the reconciliation bill. that is the bill that i'm speaking to. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank you. let me repeat the process that i'm sure the gentleman knows well. the budget committee will meet. they will report out the bills that are to be reconciled. the rules committee will then take them under consideration shortly thereafter and will present a reconciliation bill. we will all see it at that point in time. it will obviously do exactly what the instructions that we adopted in the budget a year ago instructed it to do and that is to reconcile these bills and we'll have a fiscal
2:24 pm
positive effect, in my view. i haven't seen it finally, but my expectation will have a positive fiscal impact and we will all see that, but it will simply will be following the instructions that the budget committee in which the budget passed -- a majority of the house did vote for it. i know that the other body doesn't like the majority will. maybe that's not the case here, but i will tell the gentleman that, yes, he's going to see the reconciliation bill. and as i said, the reconciliation bill, which will be drafted by the rules committee after the budget committee reports to it the process that you followed on a regular basis when you utilized reconciliation, we will hope to have as much notice of that particular piece of legislation as possible. but i tell my friend again, when he refers to the health care bill, the senate bill or the house bill, you have had months to review the substance
2:25 pm
of that bill. you don't like it. we understand that. you're going to oppose it. we understand that as well. but the fact of the matter is you cannot say that you have not had notice of each and every one of its provisions for over two months. . mr. cantor: i thank jt, madam speaker. again it seems as if we are not going to get an up or down vote on the senate bill in the house, but we will be voting on reconciliation measure. and the instruckses that were included in the budget -- in the budget bill are not legislative text. that is my point, madam speaker. since we are not going to -- since we cannot be guaranteed of a 72-hour period for review, madam speaker, nor can the american people realize their right to know during the 72-hour period, i would ask the gentleman whether the reconciliation package will contain the house language referred to as the stupak-pitts lang wadge. i yield. -- language.
2:26 pm
mr. hoyer: i don't have knowledge of that at this time. as my friend does know that that language or any other alternative language may not qualify for reconciliation. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would just like, madam speaker, read a recently reported statement by the gentleman that -- in which he said it is clear that the matter of abortion cannot be dealt with, per se, in the reconciliation bill. so we are pretty much going to have to deal with it as is at this point in time. i ask the gentleman if that is a correct translation of his remarks having said today. i yield. mr. hoyer: it wasn't a translation. it was an accurate reporting of what i said. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i take that to mean the stupak-pitts language will not be in the reconciliation package. i yield. mr. hoyer: as i said we don't believe any change in that
2:27 pm
language because the gentleman is well aware reconciliation needs to deal with budgetary impact. we don't believe that that can be dealt with in reconciliation. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would say to the gentleman that there was, and i'm sure he has seen a letter that has been signed by 41 senate republicans in which they indicated they would oppose any effort to waive the so-called byrd rule during the senate's consideration of the reconciliation bill which means to me, madam speaker, it is far from certain that the senate will actually pass the bill when the house sends it to the senate. and in fact call that to the gentleman's attention that we stand ready to continue to work in another direction, but it seems to me very much in doubt. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i'm glad you brought
2:28 pm
it up because you brought it up in juxtaposition of the issue of the stupak amendment. what the letter said even if you send over the stupak language, we agree with the stupak language, we will not waive the byrd rule. even though they agree with the polcy, they won't waive the byrd rule, why? they want to defeat the bill. we understand that. that's what the letter said. i think americans probably if they knew enough about the process and can't take the time to do what you and i do, follow this very closely, they know what's going on. and very frankly it's ironic that 41 senators would say notwithstanding the fact that they may agree with the proposition that we put in the bill and send it over to them, that they would not waive the rule to adopt the proposition with which they agree for procedural purposes of defeating the bill. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman. i would indicate that in that letter there is no specific language that directly relates
2:29 pm
to an abortion provision or any other. and the gentleman i know agrees that this country has had a long-standing tradition of denying government funding for abortion services. that is the very important issue behind the stupak-pitts language and in fact 45 senators voted in favor of that language. just as a majority of this house voted for that language, which is why it is so important, i think, that the members as well as their constituents understand that you will not be including the stupak-pits -- stupak-pitts language, the protection that will guarantee no government money goes towards abortion services. which is why i bring the point which is why i bring the point up. i think the gentleman for yielding, as the gentleman knows, the language in the senate bill specifically provides for no government funding i know that there is a
2:30 pm
dispute because there is a contribution towards politics. as you know, the senate went through the language very carefully to ensure that no public funds were spent for in participating insurance for abortion services. as the gentleman well knows, the language specifically provide that if those protections are going to be purchased, they must be purchased by separate payment with non-subsidy dollars or non-government dollars, they must be spent out of an individual's personal pocket. >> madam speaker, i would say to the gentleman that if that is his interpretation and belief of the language in the bill, that maybe. however, the u.s. catholic
2:31 pm
bishops, as well as the right to life have strongly opposed the language in the senate bill as not having the adequate safeguards. >> will my friend yield? >> high yield. >> this is an extraordinarily difficult issue for americans generally and for individuals. there is a dispute on this language, he is correct. as he knows, neither side likes the language in the senate bill. e side simplification, believes that the language goes beyond the hyde language. the catholic bishops believe it is short of the hyde language. there is a difference of opinion on that. i think the gentleman
2:32 pm
understands that. there are other groups which believe that in fact the language that is in the senate bill does, in fact, do as i have projected it does, precludes any public dollars from being spent which is consistent with the hyde language. i tell my friend that from our perspective on this side of the aisle there is no intent nor objective of changing the hyde language in any health care legislation that is adopted. the president's indicated that's his intent, that's our intent. and that's where -- why we are proceeding in the mapper we are. -- manner we are. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for the clarification of his intent. i would say again the catholic bishops as well as the right to life organizations seem very much in opposition to this language. i stand with them. i would ask the gentleman, madam speaker, that the
2:33 pm
parliamentarian in the senate has ruled that the senate cannot take up the reconciliation package until the senate-passed health care bill is signed into law. that is the bill, madam speaker, that contains provisions such as the cornhusker kickback. i would ask the gentleman if it is his position that that would be the case, that this house must pass the senate bill first, it must be signed into law before the senate can even take up the reconciliation package? i yield. mr. hoyer: i think the gentleman correctly states the senate parliamentarian's position. and therefore i think the gentleman is correct. on that observation. i might say to him that while i do not know the entire thrust of the reconciliation bill, i can guarantee him this, the reconciliation bill will take out that nebraska provision which offended him, offended me, and i think offended people
2:34 pm
across america. not because it advantaged nebraska but because it advantaged nebraska unequally. i think the gentleman's going to be pleased that nebraska will be treated like every other state, and in fact every other state will be advantaged to the same extent that the senator wanted to make sure that nebraska was advantaged. but the nebraska provision to which the gentleman speaks and which all of us felt was inappropriate will be changed. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. in closing, madam speaker, i look forward to working with the gentleman in trying to refocus the issue of this house on getting americans back to work. and the gentleman did indicate that there will be further action in what he is calling a jobs agenda. certainly that didn't happen today as we are here already having finished the legislative business of the day and only having considered a bill dealing with algae.
2:35 pm
i only mention this because 52% of americans do think that jobs and the economy are the nation's top issue. and by contrast, only 13% of americans think that health care is our nation's top priority. this was according to a cbs/"new york times" poll. i do thank the gentleman for his willingness, hopefully, to get back to the question of how we get america back to work. i yield back. i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yield. first of all let me say to the gentleman from virginia that maryland and virginia and a lot of other states think the bill we passed through this house on algae is critically important for the health of the chesapeake bay. i'm sure the gentleman shares that view with me. critically important bill for the health of our bay and its estuaries. i happen to live on a river. the gentleman's state feels the
2:36 pm
chesapeake bay is a major asset of his as well. so i know that he's pleased we passed that bill. it was an important bill. we are here trying to make sure that we have the time to get ready to pass a major, historic piece of legislation that teddy roosevelt set us on the path to accomplish. over a century ago. so that we have accomplished, i think, a significant piece of legislation today. let me say that in addition to that we believe the jobs agenda is very important. we passed a bill through here last week, the senate passed a bill over to us. we are in the process of considering those bills. and i want to say to the gentleman that i share his view, that we look forward to working together to try to get americans back to work. i won't go through a litany of how we got here. the gentleman has heard it
2:37 pm
before. but i will tell the gentleman this part of it, that -- in the four months of the last administration, he well knows, we lost over 700,000 jobs per month. during the last four months here we lost 27,000 jobs per month. that's a 95% reduction in the loss of jobs. surely anybody who is fair-minded would say that's progress. it is not success. we need to create jobs. we have lost eight million jobs over the last two years. people are hurting in america. families are hurting in america. we need to get people back to work. we are going to keep continuing to make sure that when they can't find a job because they are not available, that they don't go hugery -- hungry. that they can support themselves and their families not to the level that they would have if he were working
2:38 pm
but certainly support themselves in a way we think is humanitarian. so those are included in those bills as the gentleman knows. but i will tell the gentleman that we feel keenly that the pain of the american public confronting this historic, great recession, the deepest recession we have seen in 75 years, the gentleman knows that in the decade of the 1990's we saw the best economy that you and i have seen in our lifetime. and i of course am very substantially older than you are. that's an admission against interest but nevertheless it's true. so i yield back to the gentleman saying we share your view. we want to continue to work on this jobs agenda. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for the his -- his view of history. i also would like to say to the gentleman, madam speaker, i share his commitment to the preservation of the chesapeake bay. i do, however, think that the american people are most interested in seeing us get
2:39 pm
back on to the business of focusing on the economy. that is why i raise the issue of our being here today not doing anything today to promote job creation. as far as any karl we may have with history and why we got or how we got where we are today, i would just like to quote to the gentleman in closing, winston churchill's speech to the house of commons, june 18, 1940, he said, of this i am quite sure, that if we open a karl -- quarrel between the past and present we shall find past and present we shall find we have lost our future. >> the budget meeting is a part
2:40 pm
of an effort to put the matter to a vote by march 18. democrats want approved under expedited reconciliation procedures. the rules committee will meet on wednesday to work out the structure. nancy pelosi says that she hopes to start debate on thursday with votes possible later in the week. stay tuned for the latest on health care debate and visit the health care hub. read the legislation, see what members of congress are saying, and join in the conversation yourself on twitter. you can find cost estimates for the bills and hundreds of hours of video from the floor debate, committee hearings, and other events. c-span.org/healthcare. next week, president obama submits his education plan to
2:41 pm
congress, replacing the no child left behind laws. he talked about this in his weekly online address. scott brown of massachusetts criticized the democratic plan to overhaul the health-care system. >> there was a headline last week that should be a concern for every american. other nations are passing us in education. what matters to you, what matters to our country, is not what happens in the next election, but what we do to lift up the next generation. few issues speak more directly to our long term success than the issue of education for our children. fuelled by a system that helps to grow the middle class and
2:42 pm
unleashes the talents of our people more fully than any time in our history. we helped a generation of veterans go to college, leading the world in producing college graduates and producing ground breaking technologies and scientific discoveries bed status of heart. of course, other nations recognize this and are looking to gain an edge in the global marketplace by committing to clear standards to create competitive schools. competitors understand that the nation that does better in education will do better tomorrow. our debate over the public education system is mired. as a result, we have lost ground.
2:43 pm
american 15-year-old are no longer even near the top in math and science. we have now fallen behind most wealthy countries in high school graduation rates. when we once led the world, today we no longer do. this can find millions -- and finds millions of americans to a lesser future. the education that we create is a predictor of the income that a person will earn. economic statistics are less tangible -- less tangible but no less real. unless we set up, cal was children will never realize their true talent. i do not accept that future for those children or for the united states of america. we are engaged in a historic effort to redeem our public
2:44 pm
schools. to recognize and improve excellence, giving our kids the best chance to succeed in this changing world. under the leadership of an outstanding education secretary, we launched a race to the top where we committed to changing standards, raising them, supporting good teaching, measuring results, and emphasizing math and science. on monday we will send to congress our blueprint for an updated education act to overhaul no child left behind. while the federal government can play a leading role in encouraging reforms that we need, the impetus will come from the states and local schools and school districts. yes, we set a high bar, but we
2:45 pm
have provided the flexibility to -- as well. schools that achieve will be rewarded. local districts will be encouraged to change. for the majority of schools in between, doing well but could do better, we will encourage continuous improvement to keep our young people contract. because the most important factor in a child's success are teachers, we will better support and encourage them to stay in the field. we will treat them like the professionals that they are. through this plan we are setting ambitious goals. all students to graduate from high school ready for a career. no matter who they are or where they come from. this will require the skills,
2:46 pm
talent, and the dedication of many. this effort is essential for our children and our country. at our best we know that america has always risen to the challenges before us, and this is no different. as a nation we are engaged in many important endeavors. encouraging innovation, reforming the health-care system, the growth industries of the 21st century. our success in these efforts and success in the future as a people will depend on what happens long before a nurse walks the rounds and a scientist stepped in to her laboratory. future is determined every day, where children have a classroom and have promised.
2:47 pm
>> thank you so much. -scott brown from the commonwealth of massachusetts. -- my name is scott brown, senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts. my voters told washington to get their priority right. from my travels in conversations with people around the country, they want their president and congress to focus on creating jobs in reviving the economy. for more than one year we have seen a drive to transform the economic system -- reform the health-care system. our economy was hurting badly, but early in the term of president obama he and the democratic leadership made takeover of health care their first priority. today, times are even tougher when it comes to the economy. one out of 10 americans are
2:48 pm
still out of work. still, the president and congress are focused on pushing through the health care bill, whatever the cost. perhaps you remember his promise from the state of the union, focusing on jobs in the economy. i applaud him for that. but it is almost spring and what is he talking about? health care legislation. so, an entire year has gone to waste. if millions of americans have lost their jobs and many more are in danger. the president still has not gotten a message. their attitude shows that washington at its worst as the presumption that they know best
2:49 pm
and that they will get their way whether the american people like it or not. when politicians think like that, they do not let anything get in their way. they pledged transparency, instead we have a health care bill that conceals costs and is full of back room deals. -- the american people expect more. they pledged a bipartisan effort, but instead they bend the rules panel looking to seize control of health care in america. in speech after speech the president has tried to convince us that what he is proposing will be good for america. how can it be good for america if it raises taxes by half a trillion dollars? in addition, how can it be good
2:50 pm
if it takes another have a trillion dollars from seniors on medicare? well, for the past year or more, the newest album and in washington has tried again and again to sell this plan to the american people, but the americans are not buying it, for good reason. what is going on now is a desperate power play. they told us that passing the bill is necessary if only to prove that something can be done in washington. i have not been here very long, but nothing has disrupted the attention and energy of the nation's capital more than this disaster. the surest way to return to the people's business is to listen to the people themselves. we need to drop this scheme of federally controlled health care, start over, and have new reforms that will contain costs and will not leave america trillions of dollars deeper in debt.
2:51 pm
above all, this was the message thatç(the people of my state st to the president and congress last month. and he follows the and others are handing down marching orders, telling them a bath where this bill no matter what. they are so intent on the fighting the public will for many members in congress, the time for choosing is near. do what the leadership demands or do what the people say. i suggest going with the will of the people. from the beginning the american people have called it correctly, every part of this country, republicans and democrats, have agreed on serious, straightforward, common-sense health care reform. they expect congress to do the
2:52 pm
same, staying focused on the need to make the american economy as strong as it can be. that is the business that brought me on an unexpected journey to washington. i challenge my colleagues in the president to do better. thank you very much for listening. >> obama and his socialistic ideas, the siting our salaries, this is a life lesson in progress right now for conservatives. >> sunday, michele easton. on her work to promote conservative women in leadership roles. sunday night on "q&a." now, ruth later ginsberg and sonia sotomayor, as well as brenda marjorie hale, discussing the role of women in
2:53 pm
the judiciary. this is about one hour and 20 minutes. [applause] >> the evening. i am the president of the national women's association of judges. welcome to this opening event of our mid-year meeting and leadership conference. it is particularly fitting that our conference falls during winters -- women's history month and that we are here at the beautiful museum of women in the arts. this conference would not be possible without the help and support of so many of you. particularly i would like to thank the planning committee cochairs.
2:54 pm
[applause] >> our host committee cochairs. [applause] our mini conference sponsors, and not least of all, our small but mighty staff. marie, will you stand up? [applause] jeff, our chief operating officer? [applause] levinia cousin, our program and operation manager. [applause] i would also like to welcome
2:55 pm
justice [unintelligible] the highest ranking woman judge in korea. the first to be appointed to the supreme court of korea, the first of 13. the second was not appointed for another two years. if you could stand up, please? [applause] we also have with us from the trial court in korea, judge [unintelligible] right here in front, lesley alden president, the international coalition of women judges. i am pleased to have them join tonight giving e.f. coming conference in korea in may. in my home state of alaska we revere the pioneer spirit.
2:56 pm
our great sled dog race started last weekend. my husband and i were there were they started on their 1,100 mile journey through snow and ice. i am so delighted you are here to share this wonderful moment where we honor three pioneering women dressed. but we take a moment to introduce them to you. routes later ginsberg has served as associate justice -- ifruth bader -- ruth bader ginsburg was the first woman to be on the harvard and columbia law review. she graduated first in her class at columbia and rutgers, where she co-founded the first law journal in the country to focus exclusively on women's rights.
2:57 pm
at columbia she became the first tenured women professor. she served at the american civil liberties union project, arguing many cases before the u.s. he was nominated to the district of columbia circuit until 1980, until she was promoted to the supreme court by president clinton. she has been a dear friend throughout her years on the court, participating many times that our regional conferences. we have established a scholarship in her honor that will be presented later tonight. please join me in welcoming justice ginsberg. [applause]
2:58 pm
last year, justice sonia sotomayor was promoted by president obama as the third woman and first hispanic justice to serve on the supreme court. she earned her bachelor's degree at current -- princeton, her law degree from yale where she was the editor of the yale law journal. after graduation she worked as an assistant district attorney in new york before entering private practice. she has taught at nyu and colombia. she was nominated to the united states district court by president age of the bush and to the court of appeals by president clinton, where she served until her nomination by president obama to the supreme court.
2:59 pm
she has been a longtime member of the national association of women judges. last fall she was awarded our jones client honoree of the year award. he's telling me in welcoming her. -- please join me in welcoming her. [applause] the right hon. baronet's hail of richmond is a justice -- barron ess hale of richmond is the only woman ever to have been appointed to her position. she served as a law lord until 2009 until she and the others
3:00 pm
transferred to the new supreme court of the united kingdom. she graduated from cambridge with a star first at the top of her class. a professor of law, remaining in academia where she works part- time as a barrister. she was the youngest person to be appointed to the law commission, overseeing important reforms in family law. she also became a queen's counsel. she became a judge in the family division of the high court before being appointed as only the second woman ever to serve as the court of appeal for england and wales. the second most senior court in english legal system. while she served on the court of appeals i had the opportunity to visit her in london in the summer of 2003. she invited me to sit next to her as she heard arguments on emotion. quite an experience.
3:01 pm
she is the incoming president of the international association of women judges. she will take over at the upcoming conference in korea in may. please join me in welcoming baroness hale. [applause] .
3:02 pm
and the international association of women judges. she serves as the co-chair of the national association of women judges' judicious academic network. she is a trustee of the international association of women judges. please welcome judith resnik. [applause] as you can see, we have a dazzling evening ahead of us. i started by talking about the idea to rob sled dog race. a record number of women have -- iditarod sled dog race. a record number of women have
3:03 pm
entered the race. one woman in this race has come in second twice. an interesting fact about that race is that many of the most talented and accomplished lead dogs are female. [laughter] [applause] in fact, the winning musher of the last three races depends on his lead dog, named "girlfriend." she leads the way. as you can see, we have three trailblazers with us tonight. let's listen in as they discuss their lives on the court. [applause] >> thanks go to the justice and to the staff of the nawj to
3:04 pm
hosting us so well -- for hosting us so well. we are glad to be here. we are an interim-generational conversation and i wanted to begin with a question to justice ginsberg, who wrote that when she joined the bench in 1993, she was welcomed by justice o'connor, who gave her a great deal of advice. "justice o'connor -- justice o'connor "told you what you needed to know when you came on board." my question is whether you have given the same advice to justice sotomayor or whether the advice has changed. >> i say first that it is exhilarating to look out at this audience. how many of you here were at the meeting in the spring of 1980 at the lovely home in georgetown?
3:05 pm
how many were we? maybe 30? see how this organization has grown and flourished over the years. it is something wonderful. about advice, i will have to ask sonia, but the greatest gift that i received did not come from justice o'connor. it came from my predecessor, byron wet. he sent over to the d.c. circuit a packet. -- byron white. he sent over to the d.c. circuit attack. he said, don't look at this now, but after the process is over, you might find it useful. it was his chambers manual. how things were handled in his chambers. i have held onto that over the years. it has more electronic things in
3:06 pm
it. sonia, i hope that you got that on day one. for sandra, she had a rather close relationship with the chief. there was a rumor she dated him. she had a certain rapport with her. she said when you deal with the chief and he asks you to do something, even though you think that it is an assignment you probably would not have come and you accept it. you just do it. that is the way sandra is about everything. sonia really doesn't need
3:07 pm
advice. she has done everything that anyone could do, prosecutor, commercial practice, district court, court of appeals. i think she knows that my door is always open, and i welcome the times that we have. it is a very hard job. it is the best job in the world for lawyer. whenever we do get together to talk, it is always a great pleasure for me. >> let me turn to justice sotomayor. as halfway in to the first year, do you have reflections? what about the job has surprised you? how is it different from sitting at the court of appeals best? -- desk? >> i am going to digress for a moment and tell you how excited i am, and to say that justice
3:08 pm
ginsburg has understated her welcome. two days after my announcements, i received a package. [laughter] in the package, instead of her manual, which did arrive, i think within the hour of my getting to my chambers, was a caller with a note from her saying, i hope you will have use for this soon. i cannot tell you how uplifting that gift was. i was embarked in a process when i had no idea what was coming, and knowing that she was there at the end of that process if i happened to survive it was
3:09 pm
comforting, indeed. she has offered great wisdom and much fellowship. i am eternally grateful to her and i am happy you have given me a chance to say thank you. [applause] there were two questions in your one question. what is surprising the most and how was it different? for those of you who have had the pleasure of the process, you understand the demands. it is hard enough if you are an appellate judge dealing with panels of three or five. when you get to nine people, it is an interesting process. but, to be more concrete, there
3:10 pm
are perhaps three things that have surprised me greatly. the first is the affection among the justices in the court. one would not necessarily come to that conclusion from reading this spirited exchanges in some of the court's opinions. i have heard talk in the past of conferences where she has talked about their fellowship. i was always a little bit dubious. i no longer dirham. -- no longer am. these justices truly care about each other. most importantly, they respect each other. they disagree, but they respect each other. that can make, and it does make, the exchange, for me, quite,
3:11 pm
quite meaningful, engaging, and challenging. when i listen to them talk in conference, and i am participating in the conversation, i know i am being challenged to be my very best as a lawyer and a judge. that process is quite invigorating. sometimes, it is a little scary. but, there is, i think, a level of respect and affection that has surprised me. with it is the second most surprising thing about my new court. there were two prior institutions that i loved. they are very special places. i have never worked anywhere in my career where everyone in the
3:12 pm
building, from the person who has a part-time time -- part- time jobs to the chief justices in the court, has an equal amount of reverence for the working and tradition of the court. court employees reese -- employees have been there their lives, many of them. they are devoted to the court as an institution and the role it plays in our society. that is such a wonderful feeling, when you walk into a place and you know that everything you do is being supported by a group of people who care as deeply as you do. that is not myself alone, but my colleagues as well. the third is the point that ruth
3:13 pm
raised, which is, this is a hard job. the cases, every last one of them is hard. even when we are unanimous, there are arguments on each side of every case. that makes the process of deciding difficult in every case. i guess because i was on the court of appeals, as most of you are in intermediate courts or courts of last resort or you do not have rights to select your cases, where you have a mixture of cases, some clearer than others, and so not every case you are dealing with is as hard. here, that is very different.
3:14 pm
we reviewed these because there's generally a split of opinion. each one presents a very serious challenge. beginning observations. >> you serve on a court with a new name, supreme court of u.k. come in a renovated building across the street from parliament. the question is whether the move to a new building, whether the old court just got renamed, or whether or not you are the -- you are in a different institution. >> it is a bit of both, really. yes, we are doing exactly the same job. it is the same people. we are mostly doing it in the same way. it is the same old institution. the lord was quite a well-known
3:15 pm
brand. people thought if they were broke, they would fix it. what was the point in moving? it cost a lot of money. some of us were rather pleased to be out of the u.k. parliament. i don't know how much you follow the u.k. news, but you may have gathered there has been a certain amount of brouhaha in the press about parliamentarians and the expenses they have been maintaining. this is not a time to be associated with the u.k. parliament. [laughter] we got out just in time. we are beginning to think about not doing a different job -- we will never be the supreme court of the united states. we did used to be the supreme court of the united states. [laughter] [applause]
3:16 pm
but, i think you gave us up. [laughter] unless we have a written constitution in the u.k., which i don't think we will in our look -- in my lifetime, we will never have exactly the same job that my lovely colleagues have. we do have a job that gets more and more interesting all the time. sonia, you were saying this is hard. there are no easy cases. it also means there are no boring cases. at every other level of judging, there are boring cases. [laughter] true, isn't it? [laughter] let us be honest. there are lots of things we can talk about that one is beginning to think about doing differently.
3:17 pm
there are 12 of us normally, so we can sit in two panels of five. we have to sit in an uneven number. we have never sat 11. we're beginning to sit nine more and more frequently. i agree with you. that is a much scarier experience than sitting as one of five. you are much less likely to get your own way, too. >> justice ginsberg, you wrote and spoke about the fact that when you were the only woman on the u.s. supreme court, you thought that was not the enviable position, and it was important to have more women on the court. could you speak a little to the difference between serving as the only woman on the court and serving with other women? >> sandra day o'connor was the lone woman for 12 years when i
3:18 pm
came on board. everyone understood there was a woman on the supreme court, but it did not sink in during our entire time together that there were two. in fact, this organization was prescient. they held a welcoming reception for me at the court. sandra was there. the organization presented her with a t-shirt that said "i'm sandra, not ruth." every term that we were together, one lawyer or another would call me "justice o'connor." that is one large difference. i don't think anyone has called me "justice sotomayor."
3:19 pm
the solicitor general, an old colleague of mine, a distinguished law professor, it just did not sink in. what enormous difference it makes as for the public out there watching the court proceedings. it wasn't right that there should be only one woman on that bench when our law schools were close to 50% women, when there are women arguing, sometimes on both sides of the case, no one thinks that is an oddity anymore, that there should be just one was wrong. it was wrong for the grade school children to see on the bench. recently, there have been great changes. one is sonia. the other is elena. so, women hold up at least half
3:20 pm
the world, and they have at least the same brains. i think that i said i expected to see three, four, maybe even five women on our court. people ask if i'm disappointed. i say, i look to our neighbor to the north, canada. there is a chief justice and three other women. we will get there, not as rapidly as some people would like, but what a difference from the way it was. so, there was a line that
3:21 pm
sandra -- one night, we were players in "henry v." she has the line, "happily, a women -- a woman's voice will do some good." indeed, it does. [applause] >> lady hale, you are the only woman on your court. >> yes. >> do you see that affecting your work for the interactions with you and your colleagues or with the lawyers, the barristers who come before you? >> i have counted the number of times i have been called "my lord." you would think they could tell the difference. [laughter] we don't wear robes. it is even more apparent. [laughter]
3:22 pm
i share all ruth's views. it is a complete disgrace there's only one woman on my court, and that it took until 2004 for them to put a woman on my court. most of the rest of the world managed to do it about 25 years earlier, in some cases more. i hope it is not because they chose the wrong woman to put on the court that they have not yet found another one to put on. you might think if it were not the wrong woman, they could find another one quickly. they don't seem to be doing that. part of the problem in the whole of the common-law world is the assumption that you have to have made your way up through the legal profession, made your name
3:23 pm
in the legal profession, and then come in our case, made it up through the levels of the high court and court of appeals. because we have loads of young women who join the profession, but only 10% of the queens council are women, that means that -- she actually has more than 10% on the high court, but not much more than 10% -- an overall portion of full-time salaries, women judges in the ordinary courts, is 18%. i bet it is better here. 25% is not good enough, but it is a great deal better than 18%. we are improving, but we have a long way to go. >> lady hale has a fabulous as say about whether brenda hale
3:24 pm
can be a law lord. it is a doctrine s.a. about how to do textual interpretation that i commend to all. we will have to put it on the websites. >> if i may explain with judith is talking about, there were created in 1876. it said the persons with particular qualifications should region could become lords of appeal. in 1876, women were not persons, remember. that is why i wrote this saying, am i really a lord? >> may i interrupt? >> i am finished. >> we were at lunch with your chief justice. he said there is a new selection process that has been instituted in england. i don't know if i am being
3:25 pm
indiscreet by asking you whether the new process holds greater hope than the old process for more appointment of women. >> it may do in time. the women judges were very much in favor of having an independent judicial appointment commission. >> i don't think the audience knows what happens. >> in the old days, the head of the judiciary was the lord chancellor, and member of the government. he was a very senior and special member of the government. he used to recommend or make all the judicial appointments. he had a staff that did this. mostly, he relied upon consulting the senior judiciary, four members, depending on what level it was at. he did also have the flexibility to be a little bit brave.
3:26 pm
in 1994, he was extremely brave. he appointed me to the high court, and i was an academic, not a practitioner. he appointed the first solicitor to be a high court judge. there was a bit of flexibility. now we have gone over to this marriage-based judicial appointments commission, which does all sorts of lovely things, like having applications -- [laughter] there is no more of this. you have got to put your hand in the ring. it does not rely on the secret findings of the judiciary. it has an exam. it has interviews. it does things the right way. it is not necessarily producing all the right results, but i do think it is the right way. we hope that in due course, they should have a mission to
3:27 pm
increase the pool of candidates. they are not allowed to discriminate. it has got to be on merit and nothing else. we could get into that debate, if you like, but we have plenty of other things to talk about. it ought to mean a wider pool of candidates. ultimately, it means more diversity. there are not enough women. there are not enough minorities. it is an even worse problem than with the women. in the early days, they probably were quite cautious. they probably won't do anything brave, like appointing an off the wall-type candidate. so, i have a feeling it is still the early days. we will see. >> one large difference between
3:28 pm
this supreme court of the u.k. and the u.s. supreme court, right now, our court is composed of judges who were court of appeals judges. we have been criticized. the bench has been criticized because we don't have any former governors. we don't have any pillars of the bar. we were all judges. i think to an extent, that is unfair criticism. each of us had a former life. we did not come to the bench until we were closing in on 50. the argument is that to have a collegial body with understanding of all of the people, that we should draw from all quarters of -- all corners
3:29 pm
of the legal profession, from practicing lawyers, from judges , and academics. i think the sense that i got was that would not be acceptable in the uk system, to open up the supreme court appointments to, say, people who made a reputation in the parliament or in some government job, but were not judges. >> of course, it always used to be that. the qualifications are either having held certain judicial posts or having been qualified to practice for something like 15 years. there have in the past been people appointed direct from the bar to the house of lords, quite a lot of people. there used to be people who were appointed direct from being members of parliament. lord read, one of the greatest
3:30 pm
lords of the postwar era, was a member of parliament, a conservative member of parliament, when he was appointed by the labor governor. i don't know of that strikes you as shocking. the big thing that has changed with us is not so much that, but, with one exception, i don't know the politics of my colleagues. we think that is quite a good thing. i would agree, there's lots to be said at the second tier appellate court from having lots of different experiences. if you are the first tier appellate judge, it helps to know what it is like. i think having the responsibility of telling them
3:31 pm
after they got it wrong, i would not have liked to have that responsibility. i would not like to of had it without myself having had that experience. we are up in the clouds, you know. we are miles away. the case looks completely different by the time it gets to us. the facts of been agreed upon among the parties. we could have a range of experiences. everyone has something to contribute to our court. i think we are the better for it. >> i want to ask you, as we think about the present and future of course, what do you see as the challenge, central challenges for your courts in the coming decade? >> who are you asking first? >> you can volunteer.
3:32 pm
>> i think the central challenges at the lofty level of the u.s. supreme court, it is the everyday justice that most people encounter. i don't think we can take great pride in the state of many of our substantive courts. how you get the legislature to spend the resources that are needed, i don't know. i think the real problem is not at the top court level. it is where most people see justice or injustice administered.
3:33 pm
the challenges of funding -- this audience knows firsthand of the enormous challenges of getting financing and funding both for courts -- [applause] there are two examples. the new hampshire courts had to stop their jury trials for a couple months last year. when i was in portland, the clerk's office was closed once a week for part of the time because there were not sufficient legislative resources going to support these institutions. we know the current president has appointed a distinguished law professor to a special project to try to help get both criminal justice support for public defenders improved, and we have in the civil side.
3:34 pm
the whole apparatus is in question. that leads to the next question, which would be the interface among the branches, and how it is obviously part of the question of financing and funding. how do you see the relationships among the branches being structured? do you have suggestions for ways to improve or change the public or private interface respectful of separations of power so as to enable a better appreciation for the important work that courts do at all levels? >> oh, dear. >> lady hale was a member of the house of lords, the upper house. are you still?
3:35 pm
>> yes. when they kicked out the hereditary players from the house of lords, they said, they cannot be a member of the house of lords, apart from the '92 they saved. with us, we are still members of the house of lords, but we can no longer speak and vote there. most of us did not any way on parliamentary business. we were in the same building. some of us spent some time talking to the parliamentarians from time to time, but not on -- we did not say that the civil courts are crumbling to bits. nobody really wants civil justice. i am putting it a little bit too high. forgive me. the civil courts are squeezed between the demands of the
3:36 pm
criminal courts and demands of the legal merger. we have a single ministry of justice, which is responsible on the one hand for summoning the lawyers, and on the other hand, the prisons. in between are the courts. the criminal courts get the lion's share and the civil courts get very little, i am afraid. it is hard for us to say anything to politicians about that. we are also conscious of the fact that in the supreme court, we are not yet crumbling. we feel very guilty when we see a our colleagues lower down who are crumbling. i don't know what we can do about this. >> i don't have any ideas about how we address that issue between the courts and the
3:37 pm
legislatures now. i think long-range, however, that at least a former colleague of justice ginsburg, sandra day o'connor, has started a program in educating middle schoolers in the work of the court on the internet. when i first spoke to her about the project, it was during a visit she came to make of the second circuit. i thought it was a brilliant idea. it surprises me often how i meet congress people or people in the legislature of states, and their lawyers. it is one thing when it is a non-lawyer who might be unfamiliar with what the purposes are of the court and our role in society. it is a different thing when it
3:38 pm
is a trained lawyer who has not come out of law school understanding the value and our place institutionally in our democracy. i happen to think that long term, we have to spend more time in educating people before they grow up, before they come into the profession, to understand the strength and limits. i often tell group to visit come in every case before the supreme court, somebody is happy, whoever we ruled in favor of, and somebody is on happy, the party ruled againsti ruleds u nhappy -- somebody is unhappy, the party ruled against.
3:39 pm
we are bating 50/50. someone feels that justice has not been done, that judges are not smart, that they are corrupt, that they are something. there is something wrong. i think if we do spend more time educating people before they enter positions of responsibility about us and our role, we stand a better chance long-term. >> it is a question on which people have sharply divided views. it is virtually unknown in the rest of the world that most judges are elected and not appointed. there are other projects. sandra is going around the
3:40 pm
country, trying to persuade legislators. she was in maryland just the other day to change from elected judges to appointed judges. our colleagues abroad wonder at, number one, the election of judges, and two, how much money is spent on judicial elections. i would say, if there was a reform that i would make, it would be that. [applause] >> we know that you are part of the -- the u.s. supreme court decided 5-4, minnesota republican party versus white, that was about whether or not there could be regulation of the method for campaigning for the position of judge, and you're
3:41 pm
part of the dissent that argued it would be appropriate to treat chiapas differently -- treat the campaign differently. >> an election as an election. whether it was four of the governor, the state senate, or the state judiciary. my opinion was the state of minnesota acted entirely properly and in accord with the first amendment when it said that the judicial office is not a political office, and judges should not be permitted to say, if you elect me, i will be tough on crime, i will be strict in imposing the death sentence.
3:42 pm
it seems to me that the first amendment did not stop minnesota from putting sensible limits on what could be said about judicial candidates. >> the outgrowth -- descent being descent, there's a growing body of law about when refusal is appropriate, with more projects exploring how you can do campaigns with certain claims that might make you inappropriate to sit as a judge. >> there are young lawyers here. if you are advising young lawyers about where their work is needed, what are the topics or the projects? one way to ask them is, if you were starting again, where would you put your focus? another one is to say, where do
3:43 pm
you see top priorities now? people are beginning their careers. can you suggest people take up certain things? are there special suggestions you have for women on those areas? >> i would like to say first, your question implies a choice. certainly, women do have that choice. if you think back to the not-so good old days, there wasn't a law firm in the entire city of new york that would give me a chance. it was bad enough that i was a woman, but the killer was that i had a four-year-old daughter when i graduated from law
3:44 pm
school. sandra got her first job in the county's attorney's office by saying, i will work for free, and if after four months you think i am voluble, you can take me on -- i am valuable, you can take me on. women could not be prosecutors. why not? what about the women working as public defenders or legal aid representing tough client? there were so many closed doors. now, they are all open. that is an enormous change. you could not have asked that kind of question in the late 1950's because there were so few doors that were open to women. if you look at it another way, and sandra and i said this,
3:45 pm
suppose there had been no discrimination. probably, she would be, as i would, a retired partner in a well-known law firm. because we did not have that option, we had to find other ways. look where we ended up. [laughter] [applause] >> just a follow-up on that, one of the things i often say, when i first went to cambridge to read law, i was the first from my school to read law. there was nobody in my family who was a lawyer at all. my ambition was to become a solicitor in a small town practice of my home town, of
3:46 pm
richmond in north yorkshire, the original richmond, incidently. [laughter] that one down the road is an upstart. be that as it may, that was my ambition. i think it would have been more difficult to become the first woman in that firm then to become the first woman lord. sorry. >> there is a presumption in your question, and it is that the areas of need have somehow changed through the nearest -- through the years since ruth and lady hale started. i suspect they really haven't. yes, title 7 came aboard and the overtly discriminatory laws have been changed, but there is still
3:47 pm
discrimination. there is still criminal defendants who need qualified lawyers. there are poor people, poor people bringing civil actions who still need lawyers. so, i don't have advice about an area of law. i have advice about how to think about the choice, which is, find a job, when you can find one, because it is not so easy all the time, but whatever job you find, use it to develop your skills and spend time learning how to be a good lawyer first.
3:48 pm
once you have the skills and you can transfer to a lot of different choices, so in whatever works at and you are in as a young lawyer, finding those lawyers in that setting who are performing at their best, sit at their knee, literally, and learn from them. i guess the second bit of advice is, as your opportunity grows, pick those things that match is your strong suit. you know, i think for most of us here, to say that being a judge is the most wonderful thing in the world, and you say that so openly, but i have met people who were judges who left because they hated it. you cannot make an assumption that because there is a need, you will be the best one to do
3:49 pm
it. you have to find the need that you can give something to end that can give something back to you. you can do that in so many different ways. you don't just have to serve in public interest jobs. you can go to a law firm and do business law and devote a lot of money, because you're making it, to the association, and give time to community service. my advice generally is that, sort of an approach of looking at it, not from the need of society, because i think there are so many that you could find almost anything to do to suit what is best for you. >> as you look back on the kinds of different work you did before you joined the bench, do you see a particular kind of work or skill that has been very informative for your current work?
3:50 pm
something that you draw on or gives you some window or ability or understanding? >> judith, my dear husband occasionally said, ruth has this speech, and the law review article, and they are all variations on a theme. my old career has been very much the same in this way -- the life of a law teacher, of an appellate advocate, and an appellate judge, there are great similarities. what do you do? you do a lot of reading, and not thinking all by yourself -- a lot of thinking all by
3:51 pm
yourself, there's the courtroom if you are a judge, there is the classroom if you are a lot teacher, you go back, and there you are with the chamber staff, a law firm, and you are thinking, reading, writing. that is why the transition for me to the bench was easier than it was for some of my colleagues, because i had been doing just that, doing a lot of reading, thinking, and writing, trying to write in such a way that lawyers would understand. in that sense, i think that everything that i have done has involved the same basic skill.
3:52 pm
>> i would also say that people thought, how could she possibly been a judge -- be a judge? she has not been a barrister of her life. did they not know i was spending my time reading, listening, thinking, judging, and actually being very, very suspicious? if you spend your time with bright 21-year-old, you learn a lot about life. you learn a lot about lining. -- lying. [laughter] you learn a lot about judging. >> i don't know that there is any work that can prepare you to be a judge on a court of general jurisdiction, a trial judge on
3:53 pm
the court of general jurisdiction. you can do a lot to prepare yourself for a court of appeals or supreme court job because the cases and issues are more pointed. they have been brought to you by the court below. yes, if you have been a teacher, if you have been a court of appeals advocate, you can transfer those skills pretty easily. i give a lot of credit to the trial judges, though. [applause] i have often described my first year that i would go home with my head aching. i did not have a headache. i literally felt that i understood how the brain is a muscle because i was trying to
3:54 pm
cram met with so much new information, that i almost felt like it was going to burst. the bubble could not go any further. for all of you out there, courts of general jurisdiction covers so many areas of law, so many different procedures, so many different situations that i don't know there is any one job that is ever going to compare -- prepare you completely for it. i think there is some commonality with other professions with respect to different kinds of court on the higher level. >> one question is there's a debate in the united states and elsewhere about specialized jurisdiction to try to capture expertise in areas. are you for that with courts of general jurisdiction even with the difficulty entailed?
3:55 pm
>> nope. >> could i ask a question? the hardest thing i found about being a trial judge was doing jury trials. yes. lots of my colleagues loved them, for all sorts of reasons. i could understand that. being a trial judge who did the decision making oneself, that was not very different. obviously, there are rules of evidence that you have to learn, but it was a jury trial that was a really tricky bit. those court of appeals judges, they really are [inaudible] [laughter] >> one of our colleagues at the
3:56 pm
annual judicial conference gives a prize to the district judge who was reversed on appeal and then vindicated in the supreme court. [applause] >> we love it. >> you are all part of federations. federations are differently structured. i teach and think about federalism allot and we are with an audience coming to us in this injured-jurisdictional way, some from federal, some from countries abroad. how you see federalism as a constraint for an opportunity in terms of the work from the supreme court that you sit on? >> can i start off? as a federation, of course, we
3:57 pm
conquered wales. right? [laughter] we absorbed them. we are gradually giving them a bit back. we also conquered ireland. we absorbed them, and then we gave most of it back. the relationship is very different from the relationship that comes from independent states, voluntarily coming together in a federation. the nearest for us of that relationship is with scotland, because we never conquered scotland. it is said they conquered us. what happened was the crowns were united in one person, and the two parliaments decided they would merge in one parliament. scotland always regards itself as extremely special, and only
3:58 pm
fairly reluctantly agrees that the u.k.'s supreme court has got something to say, sometimes, about scottish law. our federalism is completely different from yours, really, although we are there with the object of making laws of the united kingdom as uniform and consistent, and correct as just, -- correct and just, as it could be. >> ruth could probably speak to this better than i can. with my short time on the court, the issue of the relationship between federal and state power is so interwoven in so many issues that come before our courts and continuing dialogue.
3:59 pm
for our system, it continues to revolve. is that a fair way to put it? >> very fair way. it is part of our everyday fare. just before i came here, i received an application for a stay, not of a federal court decision, but new york state's highest court, and that involves a state law issue, and then, depending on how that comes out, does the constitution permit or not permit what has occurred. we are dealing with a mix of state and federal law all the
4:00 pm
time. one of the great advantages of our federalism, brandeis was famous for advocating, the states are laboratories for experiments. they don't always have to do the same thing. one can experiment with choosing judges one way, another another way, and the one that comes up with a good system will be copied by others. >> the chief justice warren burger was described as concerned that the state issues were not being as well presented before the court as they could have been and was helpful in support of the national center
4:01 pm
for state courts, that started supporting state attorney general's in preparing for arguments before your court. . >> in the years i have been at the court, the quality of representation of municipalities in states has gone up enormously.
4:02 pm
there are organizations like the national association of attorneys general, opportunities for people with states and municipalities to get help from the academy. a law center with a moot court that they designed to even look like the supreme court. it is a miniature, but the carpet was copied, the lectern was copied. advocates of states and cities sometimes use those facilities. >> as do so us that argue on behalf of private parties at the georgetown facility, first-come, first serve on any side of the case.
4:03 pm
the genuine contribution to was all is the practice and expert advice. as we come towards the end of the hour, i wanted to ask you all have organizations like this one be of help to you? are there areas, issues, or programs that we should commend to these " -- organizations? >> i think that the soon to be president of the international association should leadoff. [laughter] >> i was horribly afraid that you would say that. well, the very first thing, to repeat what we have said from when we began, the main thing
4:04 pm
that the association of women judges can do is a firm one another. support one another. make us realize that we are not as unusual as we sometimes think that we are. after all, i spent my life as one woman in a court of 12 people. clearly they sometimes think that i come from another planet. and to some extent, i have. it is a great joy to me to come along and gathering of women judges, including of course those men judges who understand what we are about and have taken an interest. that is the first thing that we can do. raise the profile of women's issues, generally, within the judiciary.
4:05 pm
we have got a recruiting drive in the u.k. association, i have written to every high appointed judges, and i got several male judges to join. because they were pleased to be asked and they realized that these are important agendas. we have issues of import that we want to go before the whole legal community. there is lots and lots of work to be done. we have not yet worked out what to have the annual conference on, have you? there are always huge conflicts that we need to discuss and not enough people are discomfort -- discussing. we are discussing homelessness and asylum seeking.
4:06 pm
we have issues addressing homelessness and that context, crossing all jurisdictions. that is the other thing, finding views that across jurisdictions. not difficult to do. there are issues about women that cross all of these boundaries. >> i do not have much ad. -- to add. i have found it when you address any issue, homelessness on women, women being treated fairly, federal bankruptcy courts, these are issues where the treatment of women has been
4:07 pm
perceived and has been different in actuality. most of those instances have seen women that have brought that question to the forefront and to have lobbied for attention to them. i think that the benefit is broader than just for women. i find that each time we look at issues like homelessness for the treatments of different types of groups in the bankruptcy court, or whether there is gender bias , you wind up helping the targeted group and the process as a whole. i do think that you have to accept that sometimes there are issues that are more acute because you are a woman, more sensitive to it, you might begin to beat the drum earlier.
4:08 pm
that does not mean that men will lead join you. many do. it does mean that organizations like this are still important, because those issues are still out there. >> what i was a member of the ninth circuit gender task force and we were concerned about whether women were being appointed equally with men, for we looked all the different districts. before this inquiry there was no central knowledge of how people were being appointed. we learn how people were being appointed by district, as well as raising questions about creating an appointment that would enable qualified applicants to put their hats in the ring and a gain appointment. there are certainly those kinds of issues. i can remember your convening of a panel that one of the national women's judges conferences in
4:09 pm
washington on women and judging. i and several other law professors were on it. i have to say thank-you to the national association of women judges, i strikingly remember coming into the big hotel -- i had arrived at others and often there were signs about signing up for golf or tennis. there was a big sign that said sign up to serve in a food kitchen for the homeless. i remember being struck that i was in a conference of tremendously committed people, women judges concerned about the society of which they are a part. several targeted projects looking at women within the justice system. are there particular agendas you would like to identify?
4:10 pm
>> and judith, you brought up the first thing, information. the work that you did in the ninth circuit agenda task force was amazing. many judges were released surprised by some of the things that went on. there were judges the other there was no bias at all. their eyes were opened by the excellence of that report. i think that the last barrier has come down at the supreme court. judith, you once asked me about this. never until this year had we had a woman appointed special master. in a case where we were the
4:11 pm
court of first and last resort of controversy between the states. now we have a woman special master and i expect that there will be many more. >> i just talked north carolina vs. south carolina, a great opinion about u.s. standing. i did notice very much that there was a woman's special master. justice ginsburg quoted justice o'connor earlier this evening, henry the fifth. happily a woman's voice may do some good. i do not know if it is kosher paraphrased shakespeare, but that -- as i was thinking about this panel discussion, two women writers came to mind. first, george eliot. she begins her wonderful novel by saying that we are in the
4:12 pm
immediate risk. in the middle of a story of women becoming full citizens in all of a complicated ways that it will lead to citizenship and all the parts of life that we could participate in and help to generate the rights that we have, as well as making new ones. the three of you have helped us so much in gaining this citizenship opportunity. we are in your debt for what you have done and what you are doing. the other person that came to mind was virginia woolf. in her wonderful book she had a sentence that captured for me, at least, "when womanhood ceases to be a protected profession, anything can happen, she said, opening the door." thank you so much all of you for opening the door.
4:13 pm
[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> nauert a look at a newt -- now look at a new group called "coffee party usa." this is from today's "washington journal." and newspaper accounts as an alternative to what people commonly known as the tea party. on the phone with us to talk a little bit about the launch and the purpose is the founder of coffee party u.s.a., anabelle park. ms. park, if you had to boil it down, what's the purpose of this new group? guest: what we're trying to do is change our political culture so that we go from a political
4:14 pm
culture in which it's so divisive to one that's cooperative and solution-oriented. we need to get people in congress to be much more productive and to actually work together. host: and was there a certain situation or cause that led to you this belief? party? or was it several things that you saw? and if so, can you tell us kind of what led you to it? guest: right. well, i think it's really -- watching the health care debate degenerate. it's almost like, you know, we got to see an x-ray into our political process. and realize that there's something really wrong here. it shouldn't have played out in this way. the level of rhetoric, the vitreal and misinformation and the fact that we still haven't actually passed the health care reform is a sign of trouble. it's not the only issue but i think the health care issue led to us this point where we have
4:15 pm
to recognize there's something really wrong in washington. host: when you say level of rhetoric, was this particularly in your thought, coming from the republican side or did you see it from both sides? can you clarify that? guest: right. well, i think part of the problem actually is thinking about this incredibly important issue that is affecting our -- literally our bodies. you know? the health of our bodies. i just don't think a binary way of looking at our political process is helpful. democracy assumes we are a community and we are are to advance the common good. it really says nothing about having a paradigm in which you have two teams and it's a zero sum game situation. and severing about winning and losing. that's really not a healthy way for us to conduct collective decision making. we need to kind of dismantle
4:16 pm
that whole framework. host: so as far as a member of the coffee party, is this a partisan member on your part? who is, i guess, invited to become a member? guest: all people. all americans. we're inviting all americans to sit at the table and engage in the democratic process. because unless we have a critical mass, the majority of americans actively participating, we're not going to have a government that truly represents the collective will of the people. host: if that's the case and you sit and meet together, how do you then express those thoughts or at least those impressions to those on capitol hill? guest: well, this is going to be a bottomline process because the leadership is not there in washington right now. it could be that there are great leaders in washington right now but the car is broken. they might great drivers, but the engine is broken so we need to show them from bottom up this is what cooperation should look
4:17 pm
like, this is what it means to work towards solutions. right? so that's what we're trying to do. we're going to come together. we're having great results already. people are really fighting it to be a community, working on challenges together because we all face them. host: as far as today's events, how widespread are they across the united states? in essence what are people going to do? guest: basically we have events going on across the country. we're, i think in every state. i think the few were missing but we are in just about every state. and really, we're going to come together today as a community and sit down at the table and we're going to ask people to leave their political affiliation at the door and just meet one another as fellow americans. right? as human beings. roll up our sleeves, put our heads together, and talk about the issues that matter to us.
4:18 pm
right? we're going to work on collaborating. today's the day we start that collaboration process. host: as far as people who know about the tea party, one of the things they know about is browing being held here in capitol hill and other parts of the united states. do you envision your group doing that? guest: perhaps eventually but we need to build a process where we learn consensus together so hopefully we can have granular, checktive decisions like let's have a rally on this day. but we're just beginning this process. we're hoping to get there where we can say we support this candidate, we are going to have this rally. you know, we want these sorts of policies. democracy isn't just about talking. it's about first having open dialogue, it's about deliberating, considering facts and weighing our values. and it's about execution. we have to take action. host: do you have any backers or supporters whether a think-tank or a corporation or anything like that?
4:19 pm
guest: right. no. we're completely independent. we're all volunteers, totally independent. host: tell us a little bit about your political background. guest: right. well, i have been basically a very active as a citizen. it's just really in the past few years. i was always interested in politics, but i had an awakening to be really active starting about, say, when the abu ghraib story broke out. i became very involved in volunteering for senator webb's campaign in 2006. and relevantly helped do some minority outreach, especially towards asian-americans. i worked on president obama's campaign, especially during the primary. and created videos that really did outreach, again to latinos, asian-americans, just kind of with the theme that we're all united for this candidate.
4:20 pm
so i've kind of been able to use my film-making skills to communicate these messages. so i feel i'm just practicing responsible citizenship. host: finish up. guest: that's it. i'm advocating that people really practice active citizenship and become community organizers to get to the point where, you know, we can engage in the electoral process. host: you have a website. do you plan to use social media and those kinds of tools in this process? guest: absolutely. we started -- given birth on facebook, a social networking site. we have 123,000 fans as of this morning and we're growing quickly. we just added about 20,000 people in two days. so we are a very rapidly growing community. i think that's the best way to look at us right now that we are a community. we're not trying to start a third party.
4:21 pm
we're trying to change our political culture. host: annabel park, the founderr of coffe >> obama and his socialistic ideas of the government running the parks and the banks, this is a life lesson in progress right now for conservatives. >> sunday, michele easton on her work to promote conservative women in leadership roles. sunday night on a "q&a." >> now a senate hearing on the proposed merger between nbc universal and comcast. the deal would reportedly be worth $30 billion. jay rockefeller chairs the committee.
4:22 pm
this portion of the hearing is about two hours. >> mr. christopher, welcome. can we have order, please? can everyone take their seats rapidly? of the senator will be the chair.
4:23 pm
>> apologies to you, we have the faa bill on the floor of the senate. a number of us are there and that other hearings as well. i appreciate very much the witnesses coming to the committee to testify. we have mr. brian roberts with us. i believe that senator
4:24 pm
rockefeller has properly identified everyone on the panel, i will not do that again. let's begin with you, mr. roberts. mr. roberts? >> it is a privilege to come here to talk about the plan regarding nbc universal. comcast was started half of a century ago with a single system in mississippi. we have been able to build a national company employing 100,000 people. in our proposal to combine, we are taking the next step in our improbable journey. i am proud of what we have been able to accomplish and that my father is here with me today.
4:25 pm
let me summarize the transactions. ipunder our agreement, general electric was the lone 49%. we will have a new venture creating a theme park business is with comcast limited theme- park channels. it puts the companies under one roof, helping to deliver more diverse programming, helping to accelerate a truly amazing digital future for consumers. together we can help to accelerate the delivery of multi-platform video experiences. the combination will be a more creative and innovative company, success stimulating investors. this will be good for consumers, innovation, and competition. there shall be no doubt of the new benefits. we have made a series of public
4:26 pm
interest commitments in writing, detailing how we will bring more local programming, children's programming, and diverse programming. we have made agreements to our competitors that we would act fairly in the marketplace. first, we volunteered to have key components applying to the reach transmission negotiations, even though they have never applied before. second, we want independent programmers to understand that we are committed to help them. we have added new channels to the system every year beginning in 2011. bringing them together is a vertical combination. there's no significant overlap of the company assets. a vertical company poses fewer concerns, with no massive layoffs, facility closures,
4:27 pm
nothing to produce synergy. this is why some on wall street did not fall in love with the deal right away, but also why we believe that washington can. we will grow these great american businesses over the long term, making them more successful, not cutting them. congress has recognized this benefit before and adopted rules to address potential risks. at that time there was almost no competition to cable. more half -- more than half of the channels were owned by cable companies. congress brought rules that made sure they can -- company that owned both could not treat competitors on fairly. those rules have worked in the past and will work in the future. we are willing to discuss having those rules bind us, even if they were to be overturned by the courts. comcast has come to washington
4:28 pm
twice to seek merger approvals when we were looking for the ok from adelphia. in each case, we have delivered. we have spent millions of dollars upgrading cable systems to make them state of the art. on the man has been used 14 billion times. from a standing start we now give millions of americans their first real phone choice. we have created thousands of jobs and promoted diversity. we have described how consumers will benefit and we want to assure you that we will deliver. we are asking for the opportunity to make one of the great icons of american broadcasting part of the comcast family. we promised to be national stewards of the treasures that are nbc news. we hope to have your support. thank you very much.
4:29 pm
>> thank you, mr. roberts. mr. wells? >> i am happy to represent the writers guild west of writers and producers working in the media fields. virtually all entertainment programming and a significant portion of news programming is written by our members. wgaw has had a long association with nbc universal. much successful prime-time programming has been produced there. there is a concern that the impact of the merger, that what the merger will do to the content creators in the industry workers and consumers -- over the past several decades we have consolidated from dozens of suppliers to a handful of large
4:30 pm
media conglomerate. this has not been good for writers, producing a negative effect on job creation for entertainment workers. the industry may point to growth as evidence for opportunities in diverse content, but the reality is that a handful of companies controlled what viewers watch. analysis of the fall schedule in 2009 found that only 6% of the series were independently in -- to independently produced, only 10% independently produced on nbc. 20 years ago, 78% of the prime- time lineup was independently produced. with the integration of the cable network, comcast will have the incentive to flush other channels out of the most popular areas to favor their own
4:31 pm
network. this could affect the consumer's ability to take channels through marketing bundling. this proposed media consolidation promises to have in this -- have a significant impact on news programming. this will concentrate a great amount of local and national in one company. while comcast says it plans to preserve nbc nightly news, we feel that this pledge could be forgotten in the sake of profits. we believe that comcast might be able to use its position to favor in reciprocal or monetary arrangements.
4:32 pm
this could be to the detriment of all other content available. horizontal competition concerns have been raised as the cable market controls, video. good cycle of competition for the company's market control of distribution requires the consumer to have a constant cable subscription. most recently we have seen nbc embracing this practice, restricting online access for the olympics only to satellite subscribers. control over universal content will only enhance these anti- competitive efforts. we have serious concerns about them serving as the gatekeeper of video content online. in addition it would require 30% of hulu.
4:33 pm
it will be put behind a wall, reducing the viewing of the content. the internet is really becoming a town square. we must allow companies like comcast to remain neutral in its speed of delivery and cost of delivery. we believe that strong copyright protection should be addressed in an enforcement regime while maintaining a free internet. comcast has also said that it would like to use its control over universal content to establish a model that can be replicated with third parties. there could be a new standard for pricing content from third- party suppliers compared to the interest of content creators not being sacrificed to enhance the value of comcast's distribution.
4:34 pm
beef share the concerns of labour practices and their experience demonstrating a bad track record in worker rights. if approved, the merger will lead to a further consolidation in programming. we believe that any public interest commitment should be made legally binding by regulators. in the online space regulators must require that they not discriminate in favor of or against content on the internet by agreeing to network neutrality on the internet access service. the entity should not be allowed to use its market power for programming on alternative services on internet that might compete with various platforms for video on demand services. comcast must go beyond their office through independent channels that will have little impact on the channels needed to allocate prime-time programming on broadcast or cable networks.
4:35 pm
the definition of programming to be crafted in such a way as to ensure maximum diversity of programming. local news and public broadcasting must be preserved to ensure public diversity and comcast should be required to promote the users subsidize campaigns. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. >> thank you, dr. cooper. welcome. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, when he claimed that there was little for anti-trust authorities, they must think that we are worried in the do not worry, be happy fella do nothing era of anti-trust regulations. officials that understand that concentration and vertical integration can be bad for consumers and the economy, understanding that public interest principles are good for
4:36 pm
the community. not a moment too soon. this merger is uniquely anti- competitive across a number of markets, threatening to restrict consumer choice, reducing diversity, raising prices. comcast and nbc compete head-to- head in local content distribution in one dozen of the important local markets. they compete in the production of video content and distribution, with sports and news going up against nbc. they compete in the distribution of video content online. nbc is a major partner ahulu, -- in hulu. the marriage of the nation's largest cable operators with one of the premier video content
4:37 pm
producers will give comcast an immense amount of vertical leverage to use against competing programmers and distributors. favoring their own content that reaches one quarter of the market, denying competing programmers access, placing a heavy thumb on competition in the market. withholding must have content from distributors of undermining distribution content. the entity will have the incentive and ability to raise prices, programming, or force it onto cable systems. raising consumer prices as the bubbles get larger. the history of the cable industry since the past, 1996, has been a history of consolidation and higher prices.
4:38 pm
we are all aware of the fact that cable increases have increased twice the amount of inflation since 1996. the operating cash flow, including programming, has increased four times the rate of inflation. that is where contrast to its cash during the worst recession since the great depression to purchase a 51% interest in nbc. many of these prophecies have operated to push up prices over the last decade. and french awaiting the problem of rising prices. but the most ominous threat is the internet, signaling their intention to extend the of the model to the internet, proposing
4:39 pm
an market divisions seem-that dramatically. democracy is not supposed to matter on the internet. there is no franchise, no right of way. tying the internet product to their physical trade off -- physical cable product. in the lexicon of the industry,
4:40 pm
a television everywhere. fixing the areas mentioned in my testimony like local markets, a cable program access, internet distribution, and independent programs. if this merger goes forward without fundamental reform of the structure from a process for removal -- a more competition friendly marketplace will be dealt a severe blow. thank you. thank you -- >> bank you, dr. cooper. ms abdullah?
4:41 pm
>> we are a competitor in five midwest markets. 1 million households compete directly with comcast in michigan and illinois. we differentiate ourselves through our customer experience. recently we were recognized as the no. 1 provider in consumer reports, recognizing us in j.d. power. our customers centered approach works. we're not here to ask for favors or government assistance for special advantages. we are here as a purchaser of contents on line and with cable. having them combine their programs, much of which has been deemed as must have, giving them significantly more market power.
4:42 pm
that should concern you on behalf of consumers. we will be paying substantially more for today's programming if this is approved without condition. we will have no other choice than to pass it on to consumers. let me specifically explain why they will have more market power. as you know, conch it -- comcast is not simply a large cable operator. you can imagine how hard it would be to compete in a market without local sports. nbc has 10 broadcast networks. they own popular cable networks that we need to compete. comcast owns cable channels. combine together, that is increased market power. after the merger we will be negotiating with the consolidated entity that has much greater leverage.
4:43 pm
i know this because it happens today. in a filing with the fcc, other cable providers demonstrated that when they had to negotiate in the same market, their rates were 20% higher than when markets were suddenly negotiated on a station by station basis. our experience elevates this. i'm told that a proposed transaction is found to be anti- competitive. operators like ours are charge higher prices. comcast will use its increased market power to demand that the digital networks are carried.
4:44 pm
mr. robertson was quoted a few weeks ago that services like g g4 would enjoy the benefits of nbc in scale. that means more bumbling, tying of low value with high-value, and charging more. they will have every incentive to deny s content. comcast has offered to abide by my little more than the existing rules. these concessions are meat -- meaningless, as they fail to remedy their uses today, continuing to be meaningless if the merger is approved without condition and reform. these problems need to be addressed specifically. there is no automatic right to share carriage of the network while the case is pending.
4:45 pm
program access is rife with loopholes allowing for discriminatory pricing. there is no price transparency for program access disputes. the current arbitration process will be limited only to the voice programming and broadcast stations. it is time-consuming and costly, so much so it is beyond the means of members to utilize. >> in closing, we are the kinds of competitors referred to in previous acts. i am here to say that you need to consider structural and behavioral relief like stronger and more effective program access requirements. the goal has to be to prevent an increase in consumer pricing, preserving competition, setting
4:46 pm
a positive precedent for future mergers of this type. thank you for having me. >> thank you very much. >> thank-you to the committee for inviting me here. my written testimony complaint -- contains a complete analysis of the likely consumer impact that the proposed merger will have. rather than reverse those arguments here, i would like to emphasize two basic points. first, anti-trust analyses begin with the principles embodied by the supreme court, congress, anti-trust regular -- regulatory agencies and the sec. as issued by the trade department and justice department, those guidelines indicate to the proposed merger is not likely to harm consumers. guidelines also indicate that markets affected by the areas
4:47 pm
are powerful enough to be protected from anti-competitive of facts. the decisions by this congress, the court, and the fcc recognizes that local cable operator costs are constituted by separate markets despite repeated attempts to enact the measures from prohibiting the combination of television companies and cable operators. they have shown to be inconsistent with statutory obligations. the sec has abandon all efforts to enforce these rules. this would constitute a form of backdoor regulation that will allow the sec to impose restrictions through the merger process that it was not able to enact through regular process thees. the proposed merger as lot -- not likely to have anti-
4:48 pm
competitive effects. arguments must also take into account that the industry has undergone massive a vertical disintegration over the past 15 years. during that time the level of vertical integration has plummeted from a high of 36% in 1994 to 6% in 2009. this becomes starker of one focuses only on a highly rated that works. the level of vertical concentration among such a highly rated networks has plummeted from a high of 93% in 1994 to a low of 13% today. the past two years have witnessed the dissolution of the two largest companies in this sector. news corp., owner of fox television, reversed its 2004 acquisition of direct tv. in 2009 time warner spun off its cable operations into a separate
4:49 pm
company. while vertical integration may have once been a concern in the past, hard it is to make this case in the current business environment. consumers will bury -- bear the heavy burden. they must review the facts indicating that the merger is so unlikely to hurt consumers, it should be approved without further analysis. this requires more than opinions and conjecture, it also requires analysis and research. making the recent decision to cut back on decision making particularly welcome. second, i would like to focus attention on the recognize problems in merger reviews for making regulatory policy. traditionally it addresses problems on an industry-wide basis, guaranteed participation,
4:50 pm
with meaningful review. each of these leads to better decisions, making sure that policies that are enacted remain fair. the same cannot be said of conditions imposed during the new process. opportunities for public participation is more limited. even when it is permitted, it focuses narrowly on particular transactions instead of the entire industry. these conditions are also likely to yield regulatory policy favorites and are immune from scrutiny by the court. conditions on this merger will also necessarily only address 26% of the industry, leaving the vast majority of the problem not address. addressing issues that confront the entire industry threatens to skew the landscape, raising issues of fairness. this is not to say that the current regulatory regime is perfect. many industry participants have identified flaws and possible
4:51 pm
reforms. the best course of action is not the jury re a particular solution because one party is seeking merger clearance. the best practice is to address problems that exist on an industrywide brit -- basis. the sec has exercised this in the past. in the wake of an era where the sec was criticized by this congress for failing to follow good administrative practices, maintaining integrity would appear to be particularly important. any other solution suggests turning review into something that hurts consumers, creating bad policy, undermining democratic values and the integrity of the agency process. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony.
4:52 pm
i indicated the senator rockefeller that i would come back for the second panel to share it. i will make a brief statement before asking questions. i have a history of this committee would senator lott, first exercising the legislative veto on media ownership. i have long been concerned about concentration, particularly in media ownership. i do not think that big is bad and small as good necessarily, but we should always ask the question about what it means to the free market. it works best with robust competitors competing. the question, i would have some disagreement with you, professor, i think that the burden is on those that come to us with a proposal to combine, for them to describe why this
4:53 pm
combination is not going to harm the free market system, why it will not be destructive of the public interest and white? recharge competition. i think that the burden exists and i would suggest -- expected mr. roberts agrees. there are a smaller number of interests in the country, i agree, the need to determine what we see, hear, and read each day. we should be cognizant of that and understand what that means in terms of the future concentrations. i have been here long and fpl to have watched mr. casey and mr. levin said -- i have been here long enough to have watched mr. casey and mr. libbin discuss what a wonderful idea it was to combine time warner and america online. they were missionaries on a mission, completely convinced it
4:54 pm
was not only in the public interest, but their interest or reupholstered turns out the history answers a lot of those questions saugh in interesting ways and in-house i am concerned about a number of things, and we will ask questions about that. we have differences of opinion on this panel. independent programming is an interesting issue. i'm concerned that we have seen such diminished activity with opportunity for independent programming. i fear more of that. i think it is a very important question and i will ask mr. roberts about that. mr. yu, i will ask you -- i did not quite understand if you were saying that the sec should decide yes or no, but in any event should not establish conditions because you do not think there are appropriate. you think should be approved or not approve but you do not
4:55 pm
support conditions? a fair piece from what most of us would expect with conditions attached to a fair number of mergers recently. i will turn to my colleagues in a moment and we will have ample opportunity to answer. we have heard much testimony about what you are trying to do and the request for testimony over the issue of the smaller enterprises. the contention about the worry over hulu. give us your response to the questions that have been asked in terms of the kind of leverage and what it will mean for the consumer. >> i would start with your point about time warner and aol. the people where i was sitting at the time had many fears about
4:56 pm
that transaction. as you pointed out, history proved that they made a mistake and they paid a heavy price. many have said, as we heard, time warner and time warner cable have separated. they both feel we are approved through similar process these -- processes. i would begin by saying it is not a sure thing. what is your principal motivation? in my opinion, a principal motivation is an opportunity, a time when our economy has release suffered in last year or so, to make a bet that we will see a rebound. that this is a good time to bet on america, on advertising coming back, and on consumers wanting more content. one of my answers to mr. wells
4:57 pm
is that you do not purchase the fourth place network that was once the no. 1 network and want to do harm, but rather you want to invest, grow, and restore. one of the reasons general a electric has picked us to partner with his they think of the bill be more focused and more committed to wanting to see innovation and investment. we know, and as was discussed with the internet, consumers are looking for more ways to get more content on more devices. this is a very nascent market. i have repeatedly said that video over the internet is our friend and we are trying to find ways to accelerate that. we have invested billions of dollars to upgrade the speed of our capacity so that we can find applications -- three dimensions, high-definition, or whenever great engineers are dreaming of.
4:58 pm
i have no desire to not see that trend flourished for. i think that our company has been in the content business. some of these things are industry-wide. if the process has made her frustrated in the past, i am not aware of a specific complaint she has had until this transaction, but to me the chairman had an opportunity to do reform and look at that on an industry-wide basis. i would certainly welcome a process like that, but i do not see how it relates to this merger. >> i will have plenty of time to answer questions when everyone
4:59 pm
has left, i guess. [laughter] let me ask this question again of you, mr. roberts -- if this merger is approved -- and i have no idea if it will be or not, that is something that will be investigated substantially, but if it is approved it will have conditions. but i believe that comcast is actually, even now, contesting the fcc's authority regarding and neutrality. tell me, is that a conflict for you? >> that has been raised and i appreciate the chance to try to address it. i think it is an important issue. certain parts of some of the rules that have been placed for review, in the past the sec had policies that had been overturned against the industry
5:00 pm
and about our company in specific. there is always that issue. what we try to address here, voluntary commitments to be prepared to sign in a binding way, such as program access, such as free broadcast television remaining free and issues discussed in prior panel's. so, no, i do not believe that in the event that they are overturned by the courts, we are prepared to have them apply to us. we will have that conversation. >> i have other questions for you. i will ask this question of you when we are done. why should this merger be allowed? do not answer at the moment. let me say this. i will ask you all questions. you have all raised a lot of interesting issues. i think that the purpose of this hearing is to explore those
5:01 pm
issues. you have all contributed something substantial, but i would like to give my colleagues the opportunity to ask questions. in order of arrival? [laughter] >> way back when, thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you all being here. i guess you have a different view of the world. .
5:02 pm
>> i think we have concerns that there will be preferential financial treatment given to the speed with which were with the cost which are associated with the difference between ronald content that might come from a universal comcast company together, and also arrangements where others would be required to get the higher speed delivery. i think we have real concerns that there be an equal access in the speed and in the cost of everything that is available for internet connections. >> let me dig a little deeper. i do not use the internet allot. i may turn on the computer and look at half a dozen sites because i am interested in what they are doing their. i spent an hour a day on the internet, that would be a lot for me. there are other people that spent most of their day. they download things and they
5:03 pm
are watching movies or whatever they are doing. should the two of us pay the same for that? >> i think that everyone who wants to access material should be paying the same amount. my question is not so much exactly what the consumer is paying. i think the concern is will the speed with which things that move through the internet, because video use and the bandit use this requires -- the band it uses requires larger and larger amounts. people that do not have the financial resources to get that preferential treatment, but it may be important to the way we've received everything, particularly as we are seeing a diminution in local news, whether through the diminishment of local newspapers or what will end up having with local news, where a lot of local broadcasting, that everyone have that same opportunity, and for
5:04 pm
entertainment as well. i am just saying that we are concerned that if it takes -- if you get a very quick connection and an immediate feed on the news, or if you want to see huffington post or another blog that loads much more slowly, their questions about that. >> mr. roberts, let me turn to you. your family epitomizes what has happened in this arena. i am old enough to remember the first tv being locked into the living room. i grew up in northern iowa on a farm, and our method of changing channels was somebody had to be out back and made eight to buy four wrapped around a pole with an antenna at the top. somebody inside would scream
5:05 pm
"too far, too far." you would have to constantly adjust to get the picture. if you wanted to change channels in the dead of winter, someone had to run around to the back of the house while somebody was screaming inside. now i look at what we have, and i have to tell you, there's probably a cost difference between the old system that i grew up with in today's system, but it is remarkable what we have the ability to access. with the criticism that you have got to heaten here, howdy antice will serve your consumers better, and what about this merger will allow you to take the next debt and the next that? i read that pretty soon i will be able to sit in front of my tv
5:06 pm
and have a conversation and a video link with my grandchildren back in nebraska. tell me how you think you can benefit consumers, because some here are raising criticisms about what you are heading out to do. >> i appreciate putting it in historical context. as i think about what my father's generation of entrepreneurs, and what i have been doing for 30 years now is all about, people forget where we were. we liberated the viewing experience, not always for the better. some of the points that were made, not all content is perfect, but in reality, it is breathtaking what has changed in such a short period of time. what will happen in the next five or 10 years, i cannot guess. what i am trying to do for our company and our customers in
5:07 pm
this transaction is to try to associate ourselves with some of the most creative and talented creators, to try to find technological ways to create successful businesses for them and to make it great for the consumer, to take this technology like wide band, which is beyond broadband, so you could do the video cards and high-definition back home. it is a tremendous risk. there is absolutely no assurance that this is right or that it will work, but that is what american business is all about. what i would suggest to some of the criticism, there is always a potential you might do this or that. first of all, is a very visible industry. there is much -- there are many oversight agencies. our goal is not to get into cable to a slowdown innovation, but to speed it up. as i look to this merger, i see
5:08 pm
it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to try to associate ourselves with the best content inside a company like general electric that today has other business opportunities you need to them all over the world, and for us, this will be a defining opportunity. >> your description makes us sound like fossils', but we did not have individual televisions in my town of 300. we had only one, and that was at the car dealership. it was 125 miles from the nearest television station. occasionally we would get a skips signal from someone broadcasting, and the whole town would come down to see that skip and watch wrestling from west virginia.
5:09 pm
>> you can see why they are so productive in north dakota. there is not much time to mess around. i feel like groundhog day. i am the only senator on both judiciary and commerce. i thought i would start with you, mr. roberts. i did some follow-up questions after that hearing, and i raised this issue at the judiciary committee -- committee about the price of expanded basic cable that has gone out faster than the place of inflation -- the pace of inflation. customers are concerned in these tough economic terms about their cable bill. what assurances can you give that this merger will not result in higher fees for customers? >> first of all, we are always focused on that question. i don't think anything specific to this merger would incentivize
5:10 pm
us our cause us to want to raise cable rates. we are in a competitive business. we compete against direct tv, dish, verizon, fios. it is a very different business than it has ever been. today in washington d.c., we start as low as $15. we have 14 different levels of service. we are more competitively sensitive. we are trying to improve our programming with technologies. i still believe digital video, for which comcast is not the highest cost, as a group, the number of hours and what you get versus just going to a movie continues to be starkly different for the number of hours a month that the average cable household watches.
5:11 pm
in excess of that, it turns out to be 33 cents per viewing hour versus $15 to go to a movie for an hour for a family of four. we still have a great value. that is why the industry has been able to reinvest in create jobs. i don't believe this deal will cause that to change, and we have to stay focused. >> i know there will be a lot of lawyers looking at this deal, but i thought it would raise a few concerns. one is that nbc and its affiliates have succeeded by getting its programming to as many years as possible and providing its content, for free over the air or over the internet, will comcast restrict the selection of nbc programming that is available on hulu.com . nbc.com?
5:12 pm
>> i have never met with the hulu team. we have no intention of changing the relationship with hulu. it is going through business model reviews and how to fund its and what its future will be. we are not at that table, and i look forward to learning more about that business once we get together, if we do get together. >> the expect compaq -- do you expect comcast to block any nbc content from the internet? >> comcast does not want to block any content on the internet. as i said, my vision is a content creators, in different windows, has different business models.
5:13 pm
sometimes they want to be pay- per-view, like going to a movie in a theater. sometimes you do that in your home. sometimes it is at supported only. sometimes it is part of a subscription. who knows what other business models will come out in the future? from comcast perspective, my vision is to technologically try to create platforms, making sure the content is not pirated. and finding a way to let the content companies create their own business models that work for their businesses into the future. >> the issue about small and mid-sized cable operators, and they have objected to how they are compelled with both cable channels and broadcast affiliates, concerns about the leverage you would have over both your video distributor competitors and program to ship your competitors.
5:14 pm
what protection do you think should be in place to make sure comcast does not have an unfair advantage over its competitors in these negotiations? >> we have had an ability to resolve -- you do not go and spend what has been written to not one -- you are hoping to get the other 76%. it is very much in our interest as a business matter. in addition, there is the competitive reality that you will not have a very vibrant palette you are not distributed. the new go to the program access rules which we have talked about. if there is not complete satisfaction with those, there is hopefully an opportunity for the fcc to make it more
5:15 pm
attractive across all companies, not just our own. we have also seen other video distributors, direct tv and time warner cable, be separated from their parent companies who were making content, because they did not see that there was some advantage. there are a lot of answers to that question. >> what protections the thing would most help with this issue? >> you asked a great question about prices going up for comcast customers. mr. roberts center that. i can say that it might not for contest, but i can tell you it will for us, because of the reasons i mentioned in my testimony. the issues are costs and carriage as a competitor, and all people who compete for the product. in essence, your wholesaler is also your retailer. here i am buying products from these two large companies, and
5:16 pm
the remedies you talked about, where do we go if we cannot get what we need? if it cannot represent our consumers' wants a properly, what protections would help with that? it is the access rules. let's get them revised and reformed, and they are set to expire in 2012. >> if we are going to approve this merger before that, that is inadequate. to say that comcast will adhere to the current access rules which are not effectual, if they do not help protect us in the ways that we need to from a competitive standpoint, then that is meaningless. we would ask that the conditions be placed, especially, specifically, if we have an issue, give us the right to make sure that that network stays on the air while we are negotiating. put a time sensitive on it, which i noticed comcast but in
5:17 pm
their conditions. also make sure it that the network has to stay on during the time of the negotiation. otherwise you see what happens to customers. we witnessed that with the academy awards recently. i wanted to know what happened on the academy awards. could you and i talk about this later? >> just some quick questions. what is your current comcast gross revenues? >> about $35 billion. with nbc will be about $50 billion. >> what is your customer base for comcast? >> about 24 million. cable customers. >> if i can walk through a couple of questions that i
5:18 pm
have, in the purchase an agreement, are you personally financing equity and debt? is it a combo? >> it is a joint venture. 51% comcast, a 49% ge. we are contributing some assets as well as somewhere around $6.50 billion in cash. we will borrow at cash plus cash that we already have on hand. so the equity, b.g.e. remains 49% of the equity. >> in your investments -- can i ask the rate of return your expecting? >> what we hope -- we have not made a public forecast. what we said is we are hopeful to have positive and hopefully
5:19 pm
double-digit rate of return. high single, low double digits, it depends on your view of the economy and the strength -- >> i have your faith that we are on the right move. >> we are also long term. it depends on what time period you would ask that question here >> are you anticipating -- both for commercial and residential rates? >> no. the rate of return for this would be not related to or table. i was referring to nbc universal and their businesses, which for the most part do not directly touched our rates.
5:20 pm
>> are you expecting that to be partially repaid by users -- i am from a state that doesn't have comcast. are you expecting a rate of return from those customers, both users and comcast but also commercial users, and if so, how much of that trus-- >> some percentage of that is an advertising supported business. a large part of the answer is advertising. the second part would be improved quality, so you get higher ratings, so you get advertising from a better product. then the subscription fees that the cable channels have, and
5:21 pm
traditionally, nbc has been a fairly priced, widely distributed group of cable channels, and we are counting on business as usual in that regard. >> i am new to this process and i am watching my time very quickly. the question has come up on union contracts. there was a commentary that comcast has not been as fair. those are not my words, i am just repeating what i have heard. how many union become many employees currently have union contracts with comcast in any form? >> we have two basic businesses. in the cable business, it is around 2% to 3%. that is pretty normal for cable operators. you will find that is not an outsider in my opinion. in our programming business, it is north of 15%, in that range,
5:22 pm
and maybe a little higher in our regional sports business, which is also inside the norms. we tried to stress that we intend to honor and support all of the agreements that nbc had. is a very different business than cable distribution, but we are very proud of what we have built at comcast. it is a company that a lot of people would like to work for, and i am very proud of that. >> do you agree that conditions could potentially be placed on you within the agreement? why not just wait for congress? and i just work it out, insert into the condition -- why not
5:23 pm
just work it out and then move forward? >> in some ways we have suggested that. on day one, we knowledge to research and areas, how we compete, how we invest, how we feel about localism, how we feel that free over the air broadcast, and how we feel about some of the union issues. in all of those instances we made upfront commitments. one commitment we clarify that we are prepared to talk to the fcc and make binding is if a court case were to overturn some of the access conditions, they tended to be focused on exclusivity and some of the issues like sunday ticket or nascar. >> on the conditions is you, there was an interesting question. let's assume -- would you allow
5:24 pm
and make sure the conditions are and whatever agreement without the argument that will congress do it later? forget about what we are growing to do. if you wait, you will never do this transaction. >> the conditions we have suggested and are prepared to further talk about and try to clarify would not promise themselves on congress. -- not premise themselves on congress. >> my memory of antitrust analysis is that one of the first thing to talk about is the market. what is the market -- relic but -- relevant market here? >> we never heard many dire warnings come a little discussion of war and markets. there are two markets here. one is the market for distributing video programming
5:25 pm
locally, typically done by a local television station or cable operator. the second is the market for television networks. these are considered to be completely independent markets. there is a well established framework by the merger guidelines for analyzing these mergers and setting up concentration levels. the guidelines set up benchmarks for each kind of merger. some require strict scrutiny and some get a light look. some are approved without any extensive analysis at all. we need to find markets properly by looking at facts, it falls into the category of things that should be improved without any significant scrutiny at all. if you look at actual enforcement policy from 1996 through 2005, no antitrust authority has ever challenged
5:26 pm
the merger at the low levels of concentration that are here. i think there are real concerns that people have, and mergers do disrupt this to a lot of people. it will create different patterns, but that is an inevitable part of the business. >> when you say low concentrations, i am looking at your testimony and you say that nbc universal has 8.8% share of the market revenue, which makes them fourth place among cable programmers. even in these markets, and it is also my since these markets are changing so quickly, the way we get programming, we get on our blackberry, on the internet. it seems like a very dynamic changing. even with the marketplace as it is now, it seems like it is low concentration. >> the trends are becoming less
5:27 pm
concentrated with each passing year. you bring up the fact that traditional models are changing. if you look at the way our kids access video, it bears no resemblance to any of the markets we are talking about now. we have heard much discussion discussionhulu, which is independently managed and finance. even hulu has 4% of the market. it is a very different landscape and very small players. >> one thing that occurred to me, as you acquire more content, one concern would be whether or not you would seek to charge more for other content to come on your cable network, or whether he would give preferential pricing to your
5:28 pm
content. can you address those concerns? >> i have heard the concern, and has been referenced a little bit. first of all, if that was such an achievable objective, lighted news corp. to get out of direct tv? it is such a competitive market that i do not think that is really the motivation, nor do i think it is viable. there are program access opportunities. our motivation is to try to make these channels better, more relevant, invest in them, be more focused than their current situation. the next generation wants them on more and more platforms. that is really what our goal is.
5:29 pm
if we do all that, we will have a successful deal here. >> can you speak to what is allowed to happen to employees of nbc, and specifically i am concerned about nbc universal, the theme park operation that is headquartered there. i expect you will commit that there are no plans to move that to philadelphia? [laughter] >> people would love to be in this know we have had in philadelphia all winter long here in washington. yes, we are excited about other businesses that we have not talked about at all today. nbc, universal, and the investment in the harry potter theme-park. that is -- g decided to sell, and in all likelihood it was going to sell to somebody. most of them would have had
5:30 pm
duplicated businesses and there would have been job reductions. comcast does not on at the import, news channel, a film studio, and does not own many of the table top news channels. we did not anticipate any reductions and movements, and all the disruption to people's lives at this sensitive time in the economy. i think that is a reality that ge had chosen to sell, and if they sold to someone with more synergy, wall street would have liked it. walt -- washington would have had more dislike. >> speaking of headquarters, members of the panel might be interested to know that this giant of comcast actually had its beginnings in my home town
5:31 pm
of tupelo, mississippi. mr. roberts' father is sitting right behind him. he is not from mississippi, but he chose the city of tupelo in 1963 to start american cable systems, which has now grown into comcast. i did not want this opportunity to pass without giving members that little history lesson, and give are welcome on behalf of the committee to mr. ralph roberts. but to our witness, mr. roberts, what do i tell my folks, regardless of where they get their tv? give me some specific benefits that are going to get.
5:32 pm
you will get this and this, and this will be better if this gets approved. >> thank you on behalf of the roberts family. he is the nice part, and i get the tough questions. [laughter] i have been living with that for a long time. >> you might want to hasten to add that you really do love philadelphia. >> i have been to tupelo, and we are very proud of the mississippi heritage in the company. right off the bat, i hope we are going to make better programs and i hope we will invest in localism. we are a local company, whether the tv station or the cable station. there has been a trend to cut back on local public affairs and news programming. take something like on demand. we had 14 billion on demand
5:33 pm
shows that have been down loaded on comcast systems in the past several years, more than anybody else. that is more than itunes across the whole united states. that is a technology we helped invent. the number one criticism i get when i talk to customers about on demand is, why cannot i get more movies and tv shows on demand? we have four thousand movies in the library and 3000 television shows in the library. i hope we can hasten consumers access to over content, new content on more distribution platforms than ever before. we are a technology company that is embracing change. both from the product side and from the availability and changing nature of how consumers at different ages want to consume. that is one of the goals i have. more on demand content, and i hope more content available over
5:34 pm
the internet. >> so more local programming, quicker access to on demand and more content over the internet. would either of you care to challenge that? >> the economic interest of comcast is to maximize its profit. >> you do not object to that? >> i do not object to that at all. here is an example of the math that mr. roberts might discover. if he can deny access to sports
5:35 pm
programming, he makes more money that way. he uses his control of access to this programming to reduce competition in the local distribution of video programming and increases his profit. in all the numbers you heard about market shares, one number was left out. in almost every market where he is -- he said this is a local business. he has at least up 50% market share, and he may have a 60% market share. that is local market power. that is the one number you did not hear at all in this ocean of numbers. that is the heart of his market power. that gives him the ability, that is the business he is protecting. that is how we exercise market power there. you can take that arithmetic and apply it across the board. with nbc programming, he has guaranteed them access to 24% of
5:36 pm
the market, because now he owns them. >> we only have a minute left. >> i am not here to debate whether to be approved or not. if and when it is approved, it is critical that has conditions for the very reasons that mr. cooper was saying. you consult national numbers all you want. the concern competitively comes down to the local level. >> but i was asking is, are my folks going to get more local shows, more access to on demand, and were content over the internet? >> from comcast, yes. they are from a competitor, it depends whether they can negotiate for that content at a reasonable price at reasonable carriage and reasonable terms and conditions. they are not reasonable, right now the program access rules do not give us clear opportunity to
5:37 pm
resolve them. >> can we ask mr. roberts to give a 32nd rebuttal? >> i think you are talking around all the issues. there will be a thorough review and maybe they can do reform. nbc content today is not subject to those program access rules. by combining with comcast, there is now an additional governmental review process for any dealings on that contest. it would not exist it g e kept the business. >> dr. cooper discussed the obvious. i want to make sure, there is nothing wrong with your company making a profit. obviously your job is to make sure that your company makes a profit. he would be in big trouble in the company was not making a
5:38 pm
profit. i am assuming you want this merger because you think you can make more money. >> i stated earlier, we hope to have a positive return on our investment, but as the chairman pointed out at the start, not all mergers have worked with shareholders. >> you keep using examples, but i am assuming you are only going forward because you believe you are going to make money. >> i hope -- >> you have bigger out something that a oh, well and time warner did not figure out, and you are telling your shareholders you figure something out, because you plan on making money on this deal. >> perhaps the biggest difference is the moment in time. a oh, well was at the peak of the internet bubble, and we are
5:39 pm
-- aol was at the peak of the internet bubble. >> let's assume you do make money on it. it is a great part of the fabric of american business. it is one we should all relish. let's assume your risk is a solid rest and you make great money. i am assuming you have no problem with other consolidations that are similar to this. but me ask a hypothetical question. if a year or two years from now you have been very successful at this, i assume you would have no problem with time warner buying abc. >> i would have no problem. >> and you would have no problem with dish buying cbs? >> i do not think so, but in the
5:40 pm
world of hypothetical, what are the facts at that time? the market the way i see it is more competitive than ever. there are new technologies, and we compete, and i think for the most part, i do not think that is where the market will go, because the trend has been the other way. >> but you are bucking the trend, and you would not do it if he did not think there was a money-making opportunity. >> the ceo's of those companies have come out and said they do not like the trend we are on. i understand your point. >> what i am saying is, we are going down zero road with this merger. i want to make sure you are perfectly fine with saying everybody follow me, let's do the same thing. >> if we are successful, as i hope we are, and people want to
5:41 pm
follow that road, under the right circumstances, one of the points i would make is, i am not sure that is what the trend will be, if you ask my opinion. hypothetically, i don't think we owned any media voices in the market. different hypothetical have different realities. we are broadcast networks. >> do you charge yourself a lower rate for a regional sports networks the new charge other operators? >> we are in 10 different cities, hundreds of different agreements. we have more scale in some markets and some distributors, so i don't know off the top of my head every rate. for the most part, there is a transparent process. >> if you would get us that
5:42 pm
information, that would be helpful to know. >> we can try to summarize or generalize. next i think is important to get a handle on whether or not, if there is a price premium to others for what you own, it is a good indicator of what may come in the future. >> the question you specifically ask, our sports broadcast are subject to a condition we had on a previous deal that anyone who is not happy can complain to the fcc and go through a process. >> i know there has been a lot of talk about program access rules and how they will be protective. here is my question about that. if you are relying on the program access rule to reassure people that there will not be
5:43 pm
problems as those that did this, isn't it true that you are in court challenging those very program access rules as we speak? >> i said earlier in the testimony of front that previous to this transaction, there was a challenge made by cablevision that we joined in on the exclusivity provision, because those rules are written 20 years ago. in the last 20 years, things like nascar and sunday ticket are exclusively on our competitor, direct tv. dish network has something like 80 ethnic channels that are exclusive. the question was, should the rules apply to these new platforms that are now more successful than they were 20 years ago, or should the rule sunset. but we have volunteered is that even if you were to win that case, we would want the program
5:44 pm
access rules to apply to us, and we are prepared to talk to the fcc about how to do that as part of this review. >> i think the committee should take a look at those program access rules and see if there is something we could be helpful on in making sure they are tight enough and broad enough, but is anything that is 20 years old in this current market obviously has huge issues without a -- with applicability today. it is something we might want to take a look at. >> while i was not in the room, i was able to listen to your testimony. it was very helpful. mr. roberts, in the promotion of the comcast-nbc merger, you committed to expanding local broadcast news and public
5:45 pm
interest programs. new jersey would make it the fourth largest media market in the country. it lacks its own market. the only commercial high power station in new jersey, wwor, has not adequately served the people in new jersey. what ways might a combined comcast and nbc expand, and give us some assurance that our local coverage will be a major thing as a result of this? >> i am not sure i can completely change the broadcast business the way it has historically operated, so i do not want to create a false answer. nbc universal has 30,000
5:46 pm
creative folks that comcast today does not have. what we have committed to is trying to figure a way to take some of the news talent, news gathering, rather than cut it back, try to find ways to have more air time and more on demand where diverse programming and public affairs programming -- so we will have more expertise in the company then if we do not do this deal. we are not going the other direction. we have many cable systems in new jersey that now will have the resources of nbc in new york and philadelphia. >> if we can be a little more specific, with the multiple channels, might comcast and nbc
5:47 pm
seriously consider devoting a broadcast channel exclusively to the issues and needs of the people in new jersey, as opposed to us reaching to new york or philadelphia to get it? >> is something we should look at. there is an opportunity and the talent in the company looking to do more. we have new jersey -- i just do not know the answer as to why it has not happened before. >> but you have a significant increase in the number of channels that are available? i am asking for some degree of comfort to be offered in terms of making sure that nine new and people -- 9 million people, the ninth large stake in the country, can get the intention
5:48 pm
it rightfully -- get the attention it rightfully deserves. >> i would like to talk to nbc about that and get back with you. i would like to give up all response to that. it sounds like a market that is underserved, and i do not know what would not want to focus on it. i am saying -- >> what about new technologies? i had a chance to meet with your colleagues and your senior partner yesterday's, and we discussed -- i thought ralph was the senior partner. in talking about the advent of new technologies, 3 d and so forth, what might this merger
5:49 pm
produced by way of acceleration to these new technologies and availability? what kind of pricing might be out there for people who want to use that technology? >> i think we are seeing an extraordinary moment right now with technology and change. is generational in part. if you look at the two largest movies in recent memory, one of which is ""avatar." and the latest movie with johnny depp, ago alice-in-wonderland." incredible response by the consumer 23 d. -- response by the consumer to 3d. it is a great new consumer experience. i personally did not believe people want to watch with
5:50 pm
glasses eight hours a day, but four events and special, will produce content, it can be a whole new business. i think if you speed up your internet connections, you'll be able to enjoy 3d of the internet. we will be doing demonstrations of that in the near future. that is what gets me most energized about this transaction. that is what i was saying before. on a national basis, and exported around the world. comcast transforms ourselves from a local company to a national and international company and uses our technology and historical roots and tries to now say, can we put more energy and aggressiveness around this and ge can? i do not know it will all be perfect or simple, but that is what motivates me.
5:51 pm
>> as everyone is aware, we had a recent breakdown in negotiations between abc-tv and cablevision. the rules may no longer be sufficient to protect consumers. might you suggest a change in the rules for real transmission content, so that consumers are not constantly caught in the middle? this was a series of embarrassments, a feeling that too much muscle was being exercised over the viewing audience, and it was disturbing. i was not the life guard in this, but a last-minute change was finally induced. is there something you might suggest?
5:52 pm
>> can i think of something is that will make it so that every bargain goes to completion successfully? the answer is no. there are times in every organ where one party has to walk away from the table -- in every bargain. if we have a system -- can we do things that will start things earlier? the concerns are valid. i am not opposed to merger conditions. i think if a merger raises issues, it is entirely appropriate to impose conditions. but i am concerned about is taking a general problem that affects the entire industry and putting that into a merger review process for the parties will do anything to complement the merger.
5:53 pm
we have an open proceedings since october. comments are due april 8. we have a proceeding that will consider every aspect of that decision. we should allow the proceeding to run its course, subject to judicial review and public participation. to do it piecemeal for merger review process is actually hurts the process. >> one can agree with you as you review this. the question is, who is in charge? are the people who use tv as a commodity in their lives today b.g.e. people consider that tv is rightfully an opportunity for them anthem -- it is a wonderful
5:54 pm
addition to the life of people in their later years. the question is, who is the determination to be made by? i am not suggesting that we -- i think there ought to be some sense of loyalty to the viewing public that says if you have to suspend or continue your negotiations, do not tell millions of people they cannot see something that is important to them. >> the programmers who provide the content have all the leverage. we were negotiating with the programmer who had a suite of services. we took off one of the services. two weeks later, not one
5:55 pm
customer complained. i get a call saying that if we do not put it back on, there are other services that were highly view would be taken off by midnight. it is that kind of leverage that they have on operators who are representing consumers. that was not going to be good for our consumers that have very little leverage. i can go and paula complaint, but even while i bolick complaint, they can pull the network -- i can go and file a complaint. even while i filed the complaint, they can pull the network. >> there are so many questions here.
5:56 pm
the thing had just described to this committee goes on all the time, and we hear about it all the time. the provider says we have for channels here, and you have to take all four of them, despite the fact you do not want all four. if you do not take two of them, they will yank the most popular. there is a lot of leverage, and that is part of what we are talking about. it is going to have the leverage, and how will it affect what the consumer gets in the end? professor yoo, you have at least resolve one question. you seem to suggest this is a slam-dunk, yes or no, and no conditions. there is no problem with conditions, right? let me just tell you that the at&t bell south related a condition of net neutrality, which i strongly support.
5:57 pm
it was very constructive in leading us to war progress -- to more progress. that is not complete, thanks to a lot of folks who are fighting it tooth and nail. i think things like network neutrality or internet freedom are really important, and i would not one to have big interests decide to get married without a requirement. mr. whitaker, -- the waters belong to me and i do not want to will using the wires. that set off with the basic issue is with respect to internet freedom and gatekeepers and so forth. having said all that, you have no problem with conditions. i do not have a problem with conditions. if this is approved, in the future there will be conditions.
5:58 pm
>> i have no problem with conditions that are implicated by the m merger. if we use the merger review to expand beyond the scope of what is indicated by the merger, i think that should go back to normal regulatory process. if you read the at&t bell south or, it says that network neutrality is not required. they have voluntarily offered to do it, and we accept their voluntary condition as in the public interest. it has created a strange policy posture for the fcc. >> the interesting thing is that i actually agree with professor yoo about how we ought to deal with the fundamental problems. mr. roberts said these are fundamental problems in the industry. i suggest the way to handle this is to insist that the fcc and
5:59 pm
the other relevant agencies do the industrywide rulemaking first so that we have the basic structure of protection that we need, and then consider whether because of this murder there are additional things that need to be done. -- because of this merger there are additional things that need to be done. >> the fact is, some of the biggest interest in all their time trying to prevent action being taken industrywide. i understand your point. >> independent programming, it is very important, and it is diminished and continues to be diminished. how do you see as making progress on this?
6:00 pm
it is doing the investigation? the gao is doing the investigation at my request on independent programming. i would like to understand what is being proposed with respect to this merger, however it can affect independent programming and the quantity of it. >> there are two separate issues. nbc has been very aggressive in attempting internally to produce things for themselves, and i think anything that can be done in what is voluntary to compel more independent programming would be terrific. in the cable world, they control a great deal of it in there is very little that is going on that they are not actually doing for themselves. it has made it difficult for independent producers to bring things to the marketplace. >> why is that the case, and why has it changed?
6:01 pm
with it has changed historically because the companies have used the leverage to insist they be produced through their own entity. . for those of us that believe that more independent programming is better for the country, what can we take from this?
6:02 pm
from the recent history and your proposal for this acquisition? >> first of all, i put it in the context of going back in time. we started with three television channels. now there are hundreds. many independent producers exist and many have sold their company, chosen to consolidate into other providers. we need to separate these issues that we are talking about. we have never made broadcast television programming. first of all, what ever nbc has done, we hope that we can do better in the future. i have an open mind on how to do better. i do not know that i would support a government quota that would apply to us and does not apply to anyone else. there are rules from the past
6:03 pm
that seem to affect this area. if there should be an industry review, i am sure that nbc will have a point of view on that matter. i do not think that this merger changes the trend or existence. if anything, we have an open mind not to just make it ourselves. a substantial amount of our programming is from independent producers. six or seven of the channels afterwards we will have no interest in. we have to compete with other carriers and their programs. whatever is happening inside of this industry, we want to see how to get the best programming possible in the future. >> you will inherit this acquisition, 10 television stations and 17 telemundo stations. are their communities in which you would have two stations and
6:04 pm
also in which you are the dominant cable provider? is that an issue? should it be an issue? >> there are markets where both nbc and telemundo are there. i do not believe that it is an issue, one of the conditions we voluntarily started with was read transmission consent for broadcast stations that would have program access applied we're here to fore program access has never applied. >> applying a meaningless rule to something is still meaningless. it is an issue. in illinois we would negotiate for the sports network and telemundo. instead of negotiating with the different -- two different providers, we will negotiate with one for that suite of services. that is intense leverage that they will have.
6:05 pm
increasing from today. >> i will call on senator campbell. let me say that i think this is a significant issue that we should think through carefully, understand the consequences, and then make judgments. it is approved, there would need to be conditions, but it is not for us, and my hope is that from this hearing they will take a good look at this and understand the consequences. there are two different views here. at what level are you talking about competition? and these are always difficult and interesting issues. as i said, my background on the issue of media concentration and ownership has caused me to have a substantial amount of concern
6:06 pm
about concentration. on the other hand, i do not think that every circumstance big is bad and small is beautiful. there are circumstances where concentration can provide benefits to consumers. i tell you, concentration and leverage has to be tempered with rules, regulations, and conditions. we have seen many examples where they were not in such a way. mr. wells, you have spent almost three hours with this committee and answer all of the questions. i think all five of you would appreciate that very much. i'm going to call on senator cantwell, would you mind adjourning the hearing? >> thank you. >> i thank all of the witnesses.
6:07 pm
>> i want to recognize your long leadership in media consolidation issues and the importance of that. we will miss the voice at the end of this congress, which has been critically important. thank you for your leadership. i only have a couple of questions. i wanted to ask, mr. roberts, one of the reasons the people that cable rates are going up, basic services increasing to 122% over four years. one reason that people think that this growth in cable rates has been the right to broadcast sports programming.
6:08 pm
a number of my washington state broadcasters have expressed the concern -- at the crux of this is the rabbit year world of advertising eyeball content as a business model. i am sure that some people are wishing we could go back because of the cost. networks are worried that they're going to be eventually priced out of major sporting events because their business model and an ability to cost -- pass those costs on is going to be challenged. some people have said that in the distant future we will be watching the super bowl on cable, meaning we will be paying for it as opposed to having an advertising model that ves access to a broader number of people. do you share those concerns?
6:09 pm
>> thank you, senator. i think that there is some industry trends going on, to take some examples, bcs is going from fox to espn in the future. monday night football went from abc to espn. i do not think that this merger actually changes that potential in a way -- we would not be purchasing nbc if we did not want to find ways to make nbc by brand, valuable, and great, going back to the glory of what it has been in the past and of what it can do in the future. i think this of the questions raised by that, like we transmission consent, such as we have been talking about today in the panel, our industry -- i
6:10 pm
think that we can play a constructive role, basically 80% of cable operators after the transaction, in a sense we will be looking at it from both sides. are these good for consumer solutions that can be proposed and applied to the entire industry? not just one company? >> dr. cooper, do you worry that we will have to pay for the super bowl in the future? >> the only reason that the cable operators are able to pass those costs along are because they force consumers to fund them. they deny consumers choice per channel. one study that was none of those channels was that three-quarters of the american people would not pay the price they are being charged. the answer is that the market power that they have on local
6:11 pm
level and the change -- nbc has incentive to be on every television set. once they are owned by comcast, they have a different incentive. because now they are on 24% of the nation's television sets. all of their incentives will change and that willingness to maximize profits will change. television everywhere is a for example of the kind of cable fee that goes to another service. another bundle. that is the way that we must address this. there is a real incentive to extract from consumers what is called a surplus by tying those products together. they will have that incentive, so it is a very real concern. >> from our perspective, the content providers have such leverage during negotiations, not only do they make sure that we take the products that we
6:12 pm
want them to take and not necessarily what consumers want to pay for, but also how we carry it. for a long time i wished our programming agreements had allowed us to tear them service of lead. i had a direct e-mail and number for customers to call me directly. they will ask why they have to pay for a certain sports program, why their bill is going up. i cannot hear that because i am not allowed to. i would love to be able to offer services in a way where sports fanatics can pay extra after they buy it, but that is not how agreements are currently structured. >> i have one more question, i wanted to ask mr. roberts about customer service. vertical integration, i think that this entire area, we have some barriers to entry. we have challenges, even for the
6:13 pm
consumers, in switching from one competitor to another. it is not as easy as people might think to do that. if we only talking about a few, customer service is very important. when you think about the amount of money that comcast has been able to make, how much are you putting into increased quality and customer service? >> first, let me give a bad statistic, we have lost 1.2 million cable customers over the last couple of years. there is real competition that is hurting us, some of that is self-inflicted with mistakes we have made on customer service. i have made it a top priority for our company to improve customer service and the customer experience. not just when you call, it is how the experiences the find. >> what grade would you give
6:14 pm
yourself? >> -- experience is defined. >> what grade would you give yourself? >> i think we have gotten better. the number one thing that we are rolling out and have been rolling out over the last six months across the nation, including your market, is the guarantee to customers that if we mess up, we fess up. if we are late for an appointment, we will pay your bill. we will give you free premium service. pay $25. >> free premium service? >> for the month. or for a couple of months. different markets have different specifics. but if we are late, maybe here is $25, or a free installation. if you do not like the product, give it back to was at the end of the first month. the kinds of

287 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on