what happens in armenia and azerbaijan go to war? that could happen. i would not exclude it. what happens if russia invaded georgia again? 2008 was a tough year in u.s.- turkey relations, with turkey looking like it was on the front lines of a reemerging cold war. several scenarios you can imagine. what happens if israel, or israel and the united states, or the united states alone strikes iran? big problem. a conference one year from now could have a different tenor, i would submit.

differences may emerge over syria, or worse, turkey's relationship with israel. a series of things could go very wrong. the eu part might come back together, and that could change the calculations of turkish leaders about where they need to make investments of time. we work on 24 hours a day, but there are only 24, so if you spend more time on the e you you will be spending time on -- less time on other matters. that could be a factor, and that is what ambassador pearson referred to, the problem of expectations. there is an expectation that relations continue to be great, they will go on, and they will

be wonderful. they only got to be better because of concerted efforts from senior people in the united states and turkish governments to put right. what takes a long time to get right could be broken quickly, perhaps intentionally or not intentionally, and it will continue to require a sustained effort, whose nature and sustainability may be more complicated after november, 2012. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, ross. i would like to ask now former foreign minister yasar yakis to address us. >> thank you very much. i have the advantage of being the last speaker, so almost everything has been set.

i may dwell on it for their tax the rich got a further explanation where needed. -- and a further explanation where needed. on turkish-american relations there is a saying that america always does the right thing, but after having tested all the other options. the distinguished ambassadors who are here who served, in certain parts of their tenure there, the united states was trying the other options, so i know it was a difficult task, but been very brilliant and talented diplomats they served turkish-american relations in an excellent manner. if turkish-american relations

continue to improve and arrived to the level that it has reached so far, it is thanks to their efforts that they have done during their service. i am very grateful to them. i worked with both of them, with ambassador pearson when i was minister, and ambassador wilson when i was chairman of the eu committee in the turkish parliament, so or friendship continued. is there anything left to be done in the turkish american relations? yes, of course a lot of things in between two countries that have different interests. on the bilateral level, economic, political and cultural

levels, and also the regional levels. turkey is not yet at the point where it could assume a global role, the role of a global actor. i regard turkey as a country that is striving to assume a reasonable -- regional responsibilities, and it has come a long distance in this direction but it has to compete with countries like iran, which essentially plays, when you look from the iranian side to become a nuclear power, -- uranium side, to become a nuclear power, and egypt, having gone through this small, is obtaining its own identity.

egypt will remain an important country in the region. turkey has to compete with iran and egypt to become an important factor in the region, and it has advantages and disadvantages. so, turkey, perhaps can cooperate with the united states for the regional roles, for the american vested interest in the middle east, in the caucuses, in certain part of the balkans, and in central algeria, where turkey has some sort of preference. on the subject of the iran, turkey thought that it would be -- that it would make a contribution if it tries to

take an initiative regarding slowing down or regarding taking under control the new clear -- the new clear rule uranium enrichment program in iran, by volunteering to make -- mediate , but the iranians should suspend the program. at that time there are at a level of 3.5%, most probably, and they were going to stop this, enrich uranium to turkey or another country, and the other countries were going to provide upwards of 20%, which is necessary for scientific and

medical purposes turkey took this initiative in -- purposes. turkey took this initiative in cooperation with the united states, and when they were able to persuade iran to do it, then america at that time thought it would be more appropriate not to go along with this program more this initiative and to impose sanctions on iran, in passing a resolution in the united nations security council, so turkey was left out in the middle of nowhere. well, the time proved that turkey's initiative could have been utilized as a good opportunity. how did we see it? later on, several years later,

when this initiative came to the agenda again, by that time, iran had already reached the enrichment program of up to 20%, 21%. so, when it was at the level of 3% or 4%, the west had something to offer to iran in exchange for stopping it. now the to have received 21% in richmond, the west is deprived of any assessment they couldn't -- consistent they could make to iran. it was a good opportunity that was missed. we should not assess the relations between two countries like turkey and the united states like specific issues

like this. this was only one example that was not elaborated on in this firm, so i wanted to give my perspective on it. there might be details were i am wrong. perhaps during the discussion if there are questions on this subject, those that are more knowledgeable than mean may contribute with their knowledge. this is regarding iran, turkey is, of course, the less country to see a benefit in iran becoming a nuclear power. why? because it will upset the balance in the middle east, to the detriment of turkey, and in favor of iran, the balance that was established since the 1920's when the ottomans' withdrew from the middle east, and there was a

balance of power between iran, turkey and other countries. now, especially after the withdrawal of the united states from iraq, and with iranians filling the vacuum in iraq, and if this nuclear program continues like this, and iran becomes a nuclear power or a candidate to become a nuclear power, then the balance will not continue to be there any longer. if the regime in syria is maintained thanks to the russian and the iranian support, then, of course, this balance will be changed more in favor of iran

again because iranian political influence will extend all the way from iran to the mediterranean. at present, the only missing link for iran to expand its influence is syria. they have a presence in iraq, and lebanon, through has the law, so the missing link is syria, so to maintain the syrian regime in place is very much important for iran. it is a strategic goal. the same thing applies to russia because russia wants to come back to the middle east and it had to withdraw, or perhaps bring down its visibility in the middle east since the dismemberment of the soviet union then, now that russia has

-- soviet union. then, now that russia has achieved this, the country they could use as the best steppingstone in the middle east is syria because of its relations from the time of the soviet union, and syria is again dire need of the support of a country like russia, so russia would not like to miss this opportunity, so they will give their utmost support to the present syrian regime to continue. of course, this brings us to the question of what type of solution should turkey and the united states be looking for for

syria? military intervention? if there is no international legitimacy, it will be a breach of international rules. international legitimacy means security council resolution and security council resolution means that russia should not use its veto. under the present circumstances, i cannot figure out how russia will give up this idea of preventing any resolution that will allow outside military action in syria. therefore, a corollary or another version of the six-point

plan -- it might not be six points, but another version of it that the international community will accept, will have to be used as a solution for syria, and there, when you look at it, the plan, when you clear the details, was aiming at a negotiated settlement rather than a military solution negotiated settlement? what does it mean -- negotiate -- solution care if a negotiated settlement, what does it mean? it -- solution. negotiated settlement, what does it mean? it means that it is part of the solution, not part of the problem. if this is the only exit, then

turkey and the united states will have to cooperate to act with the international community. ok. in this case, i will say a few words regarding turkey's relations with the european union. the distinguished representative of the the you mentioned the problems. one thing that is -- of that you mentioned the problems. one thing that is -- eu mentioned the problem. one thing that is important is the council blocked the opening of the eight chapters in negotiations with turkey, tying it to the opening of the turkish harbors and turkish airports for ships and aircraft. turkey upon this said something

-- "yes i will do it better, it is my commitment, but the european union -- do it, it is my commitment, but the european union has a commitment, and what is this commitment? in 2004, when the greeks were punished, the council had a meeting to adopt a decision that extended economic aid to the turkish cypriots, this is an the 24th of april, 2004. five days later, the greeks to join the european union and blocked the implementation of this decision -- the greeks joined the european union and blocked the implementation of this decision. where is a country that joins the european union has the

obligation of adopting everything that was adopted at the time, so this decision to enter into direct trade with the turkish cypriots was binding with a new comer, did greek cypriots. turkey said they would open the airport at the same time that you implement your decision, and this proposal is on the table, and has been since the beginning of 2006 and we're waiting whether the european union will when they see this offer. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mr. minister. let me take the moderator's prerogative to ask the first question, and then we will open up to questions.

just for you all to know, we will have until 3:20. they have given us an extra five minutes. i would like to ask each of you the same question. if you each had a golden bullet of the device, a bit of advice that would be followed, to either the eu, turkey, or the united states, as you look at turkish relationships with the united states and europe, what would you consider to be the most important piece of advice did you could give that it if -- if it were implemented could make progress on this overall subject to we have been discussing, and let's go in reverse order from the speakers. >> can i go again? >> if you would like. >> in the european union, the

present circumstances does not allow to revive, despite this positive agenda -- i do not see the the succession process will change in nature in the days to come because the european union has its own problem, and perhaps it is better for turkey to put more orders to its interior. when i was chairing the european commission in the turkish parliament for the last eight years, i've always said turkey should put aside all what angela merkel says today, or nicolas sarkozy said yesterday, and should try to use the accession process to put more order to its interior, to make

turkey a first-class democracy, to make turkey a country where fundamental rights and freedom are enjoyed better, to make turkey a country with a more transparent market economy, lesser corruption, and when turkey achieves all of these things perhaps it will not be that much importance whether it joins the european union or not. we are still there, and turkey is performing very well in the economic field, and some portion of the turkish public opinion believes rather than pushing the membership today, let's leave it to later days where turkeys bargaining position will be stronger. in the future, turkey will be in a better position. today, it may be forced to make certain concessions. in the future, it will not. in the turkish-u.s. relations, i

think we spoke with you before the meeting. there is valid today -- validity in the public relations, rather than the official level. there are zigzags, but more or less at the certain level, depending on the circumstances in the region and in the national landscape. so, if we can add to the present relations, not political one, not the military one, because they have their own dynamics, but the economic relations and their relations at the public opinion level, people-to-people democracy, people-to-people relations, we could perhaps

achieve a more stable relationship between the two countries. >> thank you. and mr. wilson? >> i of two, but hopefully they will be briefer. one will be for the united states to continue to give a sustained and high-level attention to turkish relations and to dialogue on important issues. he is a big change s taken place and we have to -- it is a big change that has taken place and we have to have a model that looks more consistent with the u.k., japan, france, and other major allies that we deal with on a regular basis. for turkey and the eu they have to work hard to enrich the foreign policy dialogue our colleague referred to the project earlier. the a session process has to go forward, but if there is -- the us session -- the secession

process has to go for it, and if it does not, both sides will suffer as a result, so they have to work harder to enrich this dialogue. >> mr. pearson? >> mine would be processed- focused, and that would be that what is often missing is active listening. i see people quite anxious to clarify what it is they want and they think, and i actually believe that a little more commitment to active listening and a willingness to act on what you hear would be an excellent prescription for all of the parties involved. thank you. >> mr. political counselor? >> thank you very much. i think i will join many of the comments made, and what is most important now is to set aside

populism, and working concretely on the achievements we can have, and i would have my mind firmly on the uk-turkey relations there, and we would work to transform what the situation is and to change perceptions. perhaps i will contradict you, minister, as some matter of fact, turkey had been transformed will -- have been transformed will become a lot more attractive for the you. >> let's follow the same pattern michael used this morning. we will call on two people let the same time, one from each side. please identify yourself, be brief and ask a question rather than make a comment, please. so, besides first. >> i am and intel analyst. mr. yakis, you said you saw no

circumstances under which russia would surrender its veto and i believe there are two, which the united states submitting is in the style defense system, or integrating russia into such a system, or for us in the west to extract a promise from the revolutionary forces of the russian submarine base would not be shut down. most two bonds could move veto to neutrality in the u.n. security council, and do you not agree? >> the second question? >> my question continues his questioning in this way, regardless of what has been going on in the last 10 years, or the last 18 months in the arab spring, to my understanding it is a battle of influence between west and east, and when i say east, i am talking about north africa, the middle east,

all the way to china. as a half-american, as i was not born in this country, and my daughter was and i pay taxes, why has in the last 10 years, the american policy maker in the name of the american security spent trillions of dollars and all of these lives we lost -- is the america of better positioned in the middle east compared to 10, 20 years ago today? that is the question. >> thank you. >> mr. minister, you do not have to go to the podium for each answer. >> this part, i do. regarding the questions regarding the negotiations, in which case russia may agree, you are right. i said i did not -- i did not

saying it will never agree, but it will do its utmost in order to support of the present regime, and you are right. if for bigger reasons, bigger agreements, russia finds to it's a advantage that it is going to benefit from it it may agree -- its advantage, but it is one to benefit, it may agree to support the fall of this regime. the second part of the question, if the russian naval bases will remain there, russia may not agree for this concession to give up its support to the regime, because notia's only interest is maintaining the naval base

there. it is more than that. it is to come back to the middle east, and its presence at the level comparable to the soviet time, during which it had a visible and strong presence in the middle east, especially in syria. and, the naval base is only one portion of it. so, by giving a concession to maintain been able base, it may not be sufficient. thank you. >> thank you. i think the second question was directed to both ambassadors wilson and pearson. >> i will go first. thank you. i would say the most important question does not influence. influence goes up and down, but whether the interests of the u.s. were the same today as they were 20 years ago, and i would say they are -- one is to avoid

a general war in the middle east, the second is to encourage economic the bottom in the region and the third one is to make it possible for democratic core pluralistic governments to gradually assume power through their region. so, those three interests have been there for 50 years, and i predict they will be there for the next 25. thank you. >> i would only add that it is probably incorrect to assume that what is going on here in the arab awakening countries is a one half-way trip down the tubes for western influence in that region. i think that is a profound misreading of what has given rise to the revolves have taken place, and i strongly suspect it is a misreading of where the new leaders will want to take their countries. they will want their countries

to succeed, and among other things that will require a stronger relationship with the united states and with the west. >> ok. next round of questions on this side 10 >> my name as aaron petrie. i wanted to ask a question regarding the strong relationships that has developed. is the relationship between u.s. and turkey a challenge to the turkish bid for the u.s. session? ambassador wilson said there is only 24 hours and a day, and the need to figure out where they need to spend most time. >> from this side? >> i am from the george mason university's school for conflict resolution, and my question goes to both u.s. ambassadors and the representative from the eu delegation. it has been argued in the past couple of years that the turkish armed forces, basically, come under the direct control of

the turkish government. there is an observable by democratization process in turkey. nonetheless, i think there are close to hundreds of journalists in jail, around 3000 kurdish politicians in prison, and in the past decade, when they looked into the eu reports, there was always a criticism in the state of human rights in -- on the state of human rights in turkey, but recently that criticism has become less and less. i would also like to hear from the u.s. ambassadors on their opinion on the state of human rights in turkey. thank you. >> on the first question, it was not directed, so anyone who wants to answer that one, please? >> if i understood the first

question properly, it was about whether the american-turkish relations is a substitute with turkey's revision should but the eu. no parent on the contrary, turkey believes that its relations -- turkey's relations with the e u. no, on the contrary, turkey believes its relationship with any country, whether it be in central asia, where the major powers like the united states, such better relations is not a substitute for turkey's relations with the eu, and on the contrary it is a complementary dimension for the following reason. the european union will take 30 more seriously if turkey maintains better -- will take turkey more seriously if turkey maintains better relations with other countries and the united

states, and both the united states and european countries must take turkey more seriously if its relations with the european union goes better. thank you. >> from the second question, he wanted to hear from me, american investors -- from one of the american ambassador's. >> thank you. it can only be good to see the eu, the u.s. and turkey showing common concerns, and i would not see any element of competition between those various factors. in relation to human rights, i do not have answers to the individual cases you raise, but to say we are seeing rights as a priority in our dialogue, as i mentioned, having a discussion about this was the first topic

which is in discussions with turkish authorities in establishing an agenda. i am not 100% familiar with ongoing reforms, but i understand that it is coming under discussion in the turkish parliament. as i said it is something we are strongly encouraging so we are hoping these elements will help improve the situation you mentioned. >> i would just say that i think the u.s. and the eu share, and many millions of turks share the vision of a turkey where there is a robust freedom of speech and a lack of concern about the consequences of speaking out, and protection under the law for

that freedom. i do believe the new processes very helpful in that regard, and i think that turkey has continued to have those discussions, and i think you have seen responses to it. there is widespread concern in the united states about the journalists. i cannot compliment on individual cases either. there are reports of journalists being forced to give up their jobs and people being -- giving up their jobs. i share the point. to deal with those issues directly and justly is an ambition that turkey has and i applaud that initiative. >> thank you, and we have four minutes left, which would be time for one quick question, and i would like to choose someone

that has not asked a question in any panels yet today. >> thank you. this is for foreign minister yakis. what are your thoughts on how to improve israeli-turkey relations? we had heard that it was on the table, and israel can take it or leave it, i wonder if you have further remarks. >> actually, the government's position was explained a few moments ago in his skype program. i am one of those that believes israel and turkey needed each other. i never entered into the discussion of which one needs

the other more. in case the country's overcome the emotional dimension of their problem, it is not a substantive problem to be solved. perhaps the present governments are not ready because they committed ourselves. otherwise, the solution is not insurmountable. when this difficulty is eliminated, both countries will benefit, both at the level of bilateral relations, and also at the regional level. also, the third countries will benefit as well.

turkey was playing an important role with messages between israel and the palestinians, and with syria. now, these countries are deprived of this opportunity because turkey has lost this leverage. so, it is not only for the bilateral relations, but it is for the entire region that it is very important. i still expect that either one of the parties will give up some sort of dilution and erosion of these emotional things, or we will see other political developments which will make it easier. >> thank you. i would like to say too wide to all four of our panelists, not -- thank you to all four of our panelists, not only for their comments, but for sticking closely to the timeline is

imposed on us. join me in thanking them. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i just want to let everyone know there is a quick coffee break. we will start the next panel of 3:30. >> british prime minister david cameron talks about the results of the european summit in the house of commons monday. live coverage at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. coming up next, the supreme court oral arguments from the united states vs. alvarez and a hearing the can at regulating new video game technologies, and later "the communicator's." >> about the president's. >> harry truman goes to the white house, and he says to

eleanor roosevelt, and i pray for you? she says no. we need to pray for you. >> their campaigns. >> there are a lot of promises made. they said we would have to rent a large hall, larger than this one to get all of the people that the czech president -- jack kennedy promised the vice presidency to. >> and their ideals. >> tell the coach may have been the last jeffersonian, believing -- held in college may have been the last jeffersonian, believing in the resistance to extend federal power. >> your coverage this -- your questions this sunday, and also a middle east expert on the obama administration's response to the arab spring, and the israel-palestine peace process. that is senator and 9:00 p.m.. >> the purchasing power of

gold, specified as a weight unit, was constant for four centuries. >> it seems to me that the record of the gold standard in some is a record by large of growth in the macro sense, and of personal accountability in the banking or the macro sense could >> this weekend, lewis lehran and james grant look at returning to the gold standard. also, more from "the contenders ," our series on political figures that ran for president and lost the changed political history. charles evans hughes ran against woodrow wilson. he was the last supreme court justice to be nominated by a major party. this weekend, on c-span3. >> on thursday, the supreme

court struck down a federal law making it a crime as protected speech. the 6-3 ruling strikes down the stolen valor act. justice kennedy wrote for the majority and said the first amendment protects the speech we detest and that we embraced. we will surely the oral argument from february. it is about one hour. -- show you the oral argument from february. >> the united states versus alvarez. >> the military applies exacting criteria in awarding honors. congress has a long tradition of legislating to protect the integrity of the honor system. the stolen ballot at continues that tradition by prohibiting knowingly false -- valor act advances a legitimate, substantial, compelling

governmental interest that shows no protective speech. >> during the vietnam war, the protestors would hold up signs that say, i won a purple heart for killing babies. he did not win the purple heart. as a reader, i cannot be sure whether he did and is a combat veteran who opposes the war, or what he is a citizen protesting the war. is that pursuant if he is not a veteran having received the medal? is he liable? >> it would depend on whether

that expression was reasonably understood by the audience as a statement of fact or as an exercise in political theater. it is the latter, it is not within the scope of the statute. >> suggesting speech to the absolute rule of no protection. there are circumstances where this speech has value. i believe that is your bottom line. >> this court has said in numerous context, that it calculates its actual osgood has no first amendment value -- contexts that it has no first amendment value. >> i do not know if that is correct. it is well understood that that speech can enter defamation. you think there is no value in all city. -- falsity.

i think there is no -- falsity is a way in which we contrast what is false and what is true. >> i want to respond with precision. the court has drawn a line. false statements of fact have no first amendment value. that does not automatically mean a false statement of fact lacks first amendment protection. >> you want to take the gertz case where it is understood that the definition is actionable and say that as a general matter, the government can in bay what is false. -- can invade what is false.

>> with respect to that delays false statements, the government can recognize that factually false statements have no intrinsic first amendment value. there are substantial constraints that are satisfied because the stolen ballard act --radiate stolen valor act relates to a verifiably false claim that a soldier has gotten an honor. that punishes speech about yourself. it is these that is uniquely within the individual. >> supposed the declarations were left out and congress had

said, we don't like people saying they were in the marine corps for 25 years when they never served for one single day in any armed force. they have a statute like this one. it is directed to the false claims that what has served in the armed forces. i do not see in your argument that there is something special about the declarations. well, i do think the matter. they would be a harder case because the category is much broader and more -- much harder to define. >> why is it much harder to define. i suppose your argument is there is harm.

it is not just falsehood, but conjoined with harm. just as libel is. >> that is exactly our argument. >> ok. so, in the example that justice ginsburg just gave, in your case there is harm to those courageous men and women who receive the declarations. in the example that the justice gave, there is harm to the people that hon. served in the armed forces. >> yes, and if that is -- qwikster service is believed to >> congress would need to articulate a substantial service. >> where do you stop? >> there are many people that people know about themselves that are verifiable, where congress would have an interest in protecting. high school diploma. it is a crime to state a you have a high-school diploma if you know you do not. that is something you can check

easily, and congress can say we want people to finish high school. we want to make sure nobody goes around saying they do, when they do not get >> in that case, if it is an objectively verifiable fact, then the state could articulate a substantial interest that your honor identified. >> some states do have laws respecting false claims to having received a diploma. >> that is for submitting resonates. that is fraud. >> if i could get back to your honour's point about the nature of the harm, it is true that there is the particularized harm, but the common characteristic that allowed the court to move from defamation suit intentional infliction of distress, then to be baseless

lawsuit -- lawsuits, the common characteristic is not an analogy to the particularize harm that existed in the defamation context, but the opinions identify the calculated factual fall said. it is true that the harm here is different. >> they were -- they were in a context, though, of recognized torts, intentional infliction for emotional distress. here it does seem to me that you can argue that this is something like a -- a trademark, a medal in which this -- the government and the armed forces have a particular interest, and we could carve out a narrow have to

do that. but just to say that the cases you mentioned say that there's simply cannot agree that they stand for that broad particular context of a infliction of emotional distress. >> that is true, but there is also the harm of the erosion of the value of the military honors conferred by our government, then those are the to rise harms that are real, and the kind of speech that this statute regulates are a genuine threat to those arms in a way that looking backwards, and anchoring the argument in the tradition of this court's precedents, this is a type of calculated factual falsehood. >> general, i spent a lot of time going through the multiple cases they you have cited in your brief, defining the various statutes that basically in pose

penalties for impersonation of some sort. virtually in every one of them, except perhaps one, there was either an economic interest, that was harmed by the impersonation, either by the very face of the statute, or by the nature of the claim, the dilution of a trademark by taking on someone else's value will be a valuable property rights. so, i went back reading our cases, and a justice many years ago said faucets have no value. as such. but, the breathing space concept is defined by those falsehoods which cause injury to the rights that people possess,

to certain interests that they have, or to the reputation of others. almost every statute where we have approved a harmed concept has been permissible for recovery has effected one of those three things, so, please, tell me what is wrong with that view, number one, and number two, how does the definition of harm fit in that -- what is the harm here that fits within that description? >> if i could just make a general point in response to your honor's question. as i read this court's cases, this court has never held or suggested in any context in which the government wants to regulate a category of copulated falsehood that it would have to meet such scrutiny

-- calculated falsehood that it would have to meet such scrutiny. >> justice story said, if you want to regulate a falsehood, it has to cause harm this way. >> i want to respond to the point about justice story in the following way. there are a series of statutes -- the impersonating federal officers statues -- those are designed to protect the integrity of government statutes. >> they are intended to protect the rights of the government to obtain truthful information. the government has a right to force you to tell the truth. that is a right that it's within story -- fits within story's definition.

>> he was talking about private citizens. there is a category of long- recognized government regulation of calculate it actual falsehoods that serve systemic interests. with respect to the stolen valor act, it was built on a statute enacted in 1923 that was related to the wearing of medals. the reason the congress acted in 1923 was out of concern for the misappropriation that would cause substantial harm. that has been on the books -- >> is your argument limited to statements a person makes about

himself or herself? >> yes. that is the category that the statute regulates. the statute is limited to actually verifiable information. the person is -- actually verifiable information. -- factually arab bible information. -- factually verifiable information. >> what if someone said a spouse or a parent or a child was a medal recipient? >> that would be a case that under the breathing space principle that this court applies when talking about actual falsehoods, you have to answer a question.

-- factual balsa, you have to answer a question. -- factuall calculated all stood -- falsehoods, you have to answer a question. >> in punishing some all stood -- falsehood, you risk deterring truth. >> you have to answer the question of whether there was a material risk. under the breathing space principles, that is the question the court would have to anser. -- answer. >> you answered yes that it is

only self. then you say it could be making a false statement of fact. just in service, leaving out the declaration, false statements. like i deny the holocaust ever occurred. >> it could be. i think a statute seeking to regulate that, justice ginsburg, would have viewpoint discrimination problems of the kind that the court identified in r.a.v., and i think also under the court's "breathing space" analysis you would -- you'd have to look long and hard and have significant concerns about that kind of a -- a statement because it's so bound up with matters of

ideological controversy that -- that you'd want to exercise care, but that's really quite different from what we have here. this is a pinpoint accuracy, a specific verifiable factual claim about yourself, that you've won a medal. >> could i -- i want to follow up on justice scalia's question because i'm not sure i understood. the government's position is that there is no first amendment value in a false representation of fact, by which i understand you to mean not parody or something like that, but a statement that's intended to be understood as true. there is no first amendment value in that statement. it may be protected because of the "breathing space" argument, but in whatever context, in whatever guise, there's no protection in that false representation as such. >> well, that is the position we've taken in this case, your honor, and the reason we've taken it is because we read the court's

precedents, gertz and many others, falwell v. hustler, as saying precisely that. in fact, falwell goes a step further and says false statements of fact are affirmatively harmful to first amendment interests because they impede the -- the search for truth. that's -- so, our -- our position is based on the precise language of cases stretching back a half a century. garrison said calculated falsehood is a category of speech that is no part of the expression of ideas or the search for truth, and then it cites chaplinsky - >> general, what -- what about these state statutes -- there are more of them than i thought that there would be -- that say no demonstrable falsehoods by a political candidate in a political race, and prohibit demonstrable falsehoods by political candidates? how would your analysis apply to those? would they come out the other end as constitutional? >> i think that those kinds of statutes are going to have a lot harder time getting through the court's "breathing space" analysis because the context in which they arise is one that would create a more significant

risk of chill. >> well, suppose it says demonstrable falsehoods about yourself -- >> i think - >> -- just about your qualifications, about what you've done in your life, your -- you know, whether you have a medal of honor, whether you've been in military service, whether you've been to college. so, any demonstrable statement that a candidate, political candidate, makes about himself. >> yes. i think under the court's "breathing space" analysis, because of the political candidate context, those statutes are going to pose a particular risk of chill that this statute does not pose because this is a statute about verifiable factual falsehoods. >> i guess i don't understand why it would be more chilling in the one case than in the other. they're the same kind of statement, and one knows the same sorts of things about oneself. >> well, i think the idea would be, in a situation like that one, the government's power and authority is being trained specifically on the political process and statements in the political process. and this is -- this is quite different. this is a statute that says -

>> well, i assume that that would be, in the case of these state statutes, because the state feels that it has a specially important interest in maintaining the political sphere free of lies. >> but i -- what -- i guess the chilling effect seems to me, at least, to be materially different than in a situation like this one, where what we're talking about is a very specific pinpoint thing, one thing: have you been awarded a military honor or not? and a statement that is about yourself only, not about somebody else, and that -- and is supported by a quite strong particularized interest in ensuring the integrity of the military honors system. >> i suppose that even in the commercial context we allow a decent amount of lying, don't we? it's called "puffing." >> well - >> although -- although, you know, making false representations to sell a product is -- is unlawful, we

do allow puffing, don't we? >> well, certainly, and - >> you won't buy it cheaper anywhere else, and - >> that's -- that's certainly right. but when we're -- and that is the line that was - >> so, maybe we allow a certain amount of puffing in political speech as well. >> and i do think that - >> nobody believes all that stuff, right? [laughter] >> i do think the court's -- i do think the court's breathing space analysis would call for that, i think that's true. but this is a different context. >> and i suppose it might have something to do with -- i don't know whether to call it collateral or not. i mean, i would think the concern in the midst of a political campaign is you have the u.s. attorney or the deputy district attorney bringing a -- filing a prosecution of someone 2 weeks before the election saying, well, you lied about this or that. and maybe there'd have to be a deposition, or maybe there'd have to be a trial. i don't -- nothing like that's involved here. >> nothing at all, your honor. and that is what i was trying to say - >> it seems to me your best analogy is the trademark analogy, olympics case, et cetera. you put that in a

rather minor -- not an afterthought, but it's a secondary argument in your brief. it seems to me it's the -- it's the strongest one. the whole breathing space thing almost has it backwards. it presumes that the government is going to have a ministry of truth and then -- and allow breathing space around it. i just don't think that's our tradition. on the other hand, i have to acknowledge that this does diminish the medal in many respects. thees, and that's government's interest here, and we do think that that kind of -- i think, your honor, that the reason that i think our -- we have a lot of "slippery slope" type questions here today, but the -- i would urge the court not to -- not to decline to make a sound decision about this statute based on concern about not being able to draw the line, because this statute is as narrow as you can get - >> general, but i have a

problem, which is it's not as narrow as it could get. wouldn't take much to do exactly what congress said it was doing, which was to protect against fraudulent claims of receiving a medal, and the example it used was someone who used a fraudulent claim of receiving a medal to get money. what i'm trying to get to is what harm are we protecting here? i thought that the core of the first amendment was to protect even against offensive speech. we have a legion of cases that said your emotional reaction to offensive speech is not enough. if that is the core of our first amendment, what i hear, and that's what i think the court below said, is you can't really believe that a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she received

because someone's claiming fraudulently that they got one. they don't think less of the medal. we're reacting to the fact that we're offended by the thought that someone's claiming an honor they didn't receive. so, outside of the emotional reaction, where's the harm? and i'm not minimizing it. i too take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but i take offense when someone i'm dating makes a claim that's not true. [laughter] >> and -- and - >> and as -- as the father of a 20-year-old daughter, so do i, justice sotomayor. [laughter] >> you know - >> but -- but if i could take a minute on the interest, because i do think it's quite important. i mean, at some level, of course, it is true that no soldier charges up mount suribachi thinking, well, i'm going to do this because i'll get a medal if i get to the top. that's not what the military honors system is -

>> or i'm not going to do this because the medal has been debased. >> that's not -- well, that's not what the honors system is about. the honors system is about identifying the attributes, the essence, of what we want in our service men and women: courage, sacrifice, love of country, willingness to put your life on the line for your comrades. and what the medals do is say to the -- to our military this is what we care about. it's what george washington said in 1782, when he set up the honors system. it's designed to cherish -- it's designed to cherish a valorous ambition in soldiers and to encourage every species of military merit. and i -- what i think with respect to the government's interest here and why there is a harm to that interest is that the point of these medals is that it's a big deal. you get one for doing something very important after a lot of scrutiny. and for the government to say this is a really big deal and then to stand idly by when one charlatan after another makes a

false claim to have won the medal does debase the value of the medal in the eyes of the soldiers. it does do that. that is the government's interest, and we think that is a real and substantial interest, and it's threatened here - >> but the reality here is that this gentleman was publicized, deriled for what he did. his public position was compromised, as is the case with almost everyone who's caught at lying. >> but, given that this is a category of calculated factual falsehood, we think the government has the authority and the constitutional - the constitutional space to try to deter this kind of speech, as well as allow for private attorneys. if i might - >> did the military -- did the military ask for this? you're claiming there's a special interest in seeing that a military honor is not debased. >> it did not, justice

ginsburg, but under article i, section 8, congress has substantial authority to regulate our armed forces, gets substantial deference. it's not unlike the statute that the court evaluated in the fair case in that regard, which was not a statute that the military -- that the military asked for, but congress nevertheless was given substantial deference. if i - >> did the commander in chief sign that -- that legislation? >> yes, he did, your honor. thank you. >> thank you, mr. verrilli. mr. libby. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: the stolen valor act criminalizes pure speech in the form of bare falsity, a mere telling of a lie. it doesn't matter whether the lie was told in a public meeting or in a private conversation with a friend or family member. and the law punishes false claims to a military award regardless of whether harm results or is --

even is likely to result in an individual case. >> what is -- what is the first amendment value in a lie, a pure lie? >> just a pure lie? there can be a number of values. there's the value of personal autonomy. >> the value of what? >> personal autonomy, that we get to - >> what does that mean? >> well, that we get to -- we get to exaggerate and create - >> no, not exaggerate -- lie. >> well, when we create our own persona, we're often making up things about ourselves that we want people to think about us, and that can be valuable. samuel clemens creating mark twain. that was creating a persona, and he made things up about himself and - >> well, but that was for literary purposes. no one is suggesting you can't write a book or tell a story about somebody who earned a medal of honor, and it's a fictional character; so, he obviously didn't. it just seems to me very different. >> perhaps. but there are other

things, in addition to the fact that people tell lies allows us to appreciate truth better. >> do you really think that there is -- that the first amendment -- that there is first amendment value in a bald-faced lie about a purely factual statement that a person makes about himself, because that person would like to create a particular persona? gee, i won the medal of honor. i was a rhodes scholar. i won the nobel prize. there's a personal - the first amendment protects that? >> yes, your honor, so long as it doesn't cause imminent harm to another person or imminent harm to a government function. >> an obvious example that used to be -- are there jews hiding in the cellar? no. >> well, that's right, and that's certainly a beneficial lie. >> that's not a statement about one's self. this is - >> and now - >> are you hiding jews in the cellar? >> excuse me. sorry. [laughter] >> it seems to me that the stolen valor act is more narrow than that. and i

would say, in that situation, you would not describe what the individual in justice breyer's hypothetical was as simply telling a -- a false statement about himself. it is about whether there is someone hiding in the attic. it is not about himself. >> well, perhaps, just dealing with an example under the stolen valor act, if a grandfather were to make up a story that he had won a medal in order to persuade a grandchild to - >> in order to - >> -- to join the military - >> it seems to me that that's missing the limitation that the government has read into this statute: not damage, not for parody, not to avoid the discovery of someone who should be hidden, not in order to do something with respect to one's grandson. it's just a purely false statement about oneself. what -- what -- what is the first amendment value in that, again? >> well, another value is the

fact that the purpose of the first amendment was a limit on government power. it's -- it's -- our founders believed that congress, as a general principle, doesn't get to tell us what we as individuals can and cannot say. now - >> well, of course, they do in countless areas, the state does, whether you're talking about defamation, trademark, perjury, all sorts of things. you can't adopt that as a general principle and apply it without regard to the situation. >> well, that's right, mr. chief justice, but in all of those examples, those are examples where we have harm attached to the falsehood. >> well, sometimes the harm is just the impairment of governmental purposes, such as section 1001, which criminalizes the making of a false statement to any federal agent, for pete's sake. how do you justify that? because the making of the false statement impairs a governmental investigation. and what is being urged here is that the making of this type of a false statement impairs the

government's ability to honor valorous members of the armed forces. >> well, we believe there's - there's a difference there, your honor. with respect to 1001, there's the substantial risk of imminent harm to a government investigation. whether it in fact causes that direct harm, there's still a significant risk of imminent harm resulting from telling a lie to a government investigator. >> but, mr. libby, you've suggested to us that we should apply strict scrutiny to all of these cases. now, almost nothing passes strict scrutiny. why should 1001 pass strict scrutiny? i mean, it seems to me you're proposing a test that would invalidate all of the laws on the books regarding false statements. >> well, no, your honor. what we're suggesting is false statements -- false statements laws do have a history in this country. and the court could recognize a historical category of -- of imminent harm or potential risk of imminent harm to government functions. and perjury certainly falls into

that category. 1001 very well may fit into that category. since the beginning of our nation, congress has passed these various false statement laws. >> and do we give some deference to congress as to whether there is a harm to governmental purposes, or do we make it up ourselves? when congress passed this legislation, i assume it did so because it thought that the value of the awards that these courageous members of the armed forces were receiving was being demeaned and diminished. >> well - >> by charlatans. that's what congress thought. >> well - >> is that utterly unreasonable that we can't accept it? >> justice scalia, it's not entirely clear what congress thought here because congress held no hearings on this. it made a broad general finding that false statements harm the reputation - >> well, it's a matter - it's a matter of common sense that it, it seems to me - that it demeans the medal. let

me ask you this: what do you do with the statute that prohibits the wearing of a medal that has not been earned? >> wearing medals is a slightly different category because there you're dealing with conduct rather than content. >> well, i'm not so sure. you know, the tinker case with the arm band; it's purely expressive speech, it seems to me. i think if you prevail here that the wearing prohibition must also be in serious doubt. >> it may be or it may be in doubt under certain situations where one is wearing a medal. but certainly congress has an interest in protecting non- expressive purposes of wearing the medals. >> but i think it is, if the whole purpose of the person who puts the medal on his tuxedo that he didn't earn is an expressive purpose. that's pure expression. >> it may be, your honor. but again, we -- we view it under a

different prism. we - >> why? i mean, it's expressive. one is i am speaking through conduct, and the other is i'm speaking through words. you wear the medal and you're saying i am a medal of honor winner. >> that's right. and as i said, it may ultimately be the case that the court finds that, if in fact it's unconstitutional - >> so, you think that the wearing - >> -- in this provision, that it could be. >> -- that the wearing of a military decoration that you haven't earned, that that's also of questionable consistency with the first amendment? >> it may be. but, again, it would depend on the circumstances. >> no circumstances. where you go out in the street with the -- with the medal on you for everybody to see. ifif -- if there's -- congress does not have a non- speech purpose for prohibiting the wearing of the medals, then

if it's strictly an expressive purpose, then, yes, there would be a significant first amendment problem. >> well, don't you think that's the case? there's no non- expressive purpose that i can think of. >> well -- and that very well may be. what i can say is in this case what we're dealing with is strictly a content- based regulation on speech. >> but you -- you acknowledge that the first amendment allows the prohibition or the regulation of false speech if it causes at least certain kinds of harms. and the problem i have with your argument is determining which harms you think count and which harms don't count. would you go as far as was suggested earlier to say that only pecuniary harm counts? if you -- if you say that, then the -- the classic case of intentional infliction of emotional distress is unconstitutional, going up to someone and saying falsely your -- your child has just

been run over by a bus. so, how do we determine which harms are sufficient? >> i believe -- what we believe the right way of looking at this is you -- you determine whether or not there is imminent harm or a significant risk of imminent harm to an individual or to a government function that would result from the speech. >> when you say "imminent," you mean -- what do you mean by that? >> i guess i'm suggesting the brandenburg standard, which is -- if - >> well, if that's the standard, then most of the prosecutions for making false statements to a federal law enforcement officer are not going to survive, are they? >> well, but the issue is what about the law. and the issue with 1001 and those false statement statutes is it's the substantial risk of imminent harm to the government that could result from the falsehood. so -- well, certainly, it may

not result in a particular case, but the substantial risk of imminent harm is there. >> well, then you're not really talking about imminent harm, i don't think. you're just talking about harm. >> well, when one lies to a government investigator, presumably you're doing it in order to send them in the wrong direction, even if it doesn't do that. so, the harm may not be there, but there's certainly a significant risk of harm that the government has the right to protect itself from. and that's why we believe that's -- that's where you draw the line. and that's where this court appears to have drawn the line in those categories of speech that it has said are unprotected, such as - >> mr. libby, let's suppose that i agree with gertz that there is no constitutional value in a false statement of fact, and the reason why we protect some false statements of fact is to protect truthful speech. so, if -- if that's so, is -- how is it that this statute will chill any truthful speech?

what truthful speech will this statute chill? >> your honor, it's not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech. i mean, it's - we certainly concede that one typically knows whether or not one has won a medal or not. we certainly -- we concede that point. >> so, boy, i mean, that's a big concession, mr. libby. then you're saying you can only win this case if this court decides that the gertz statement was a kind of overstatement, an exaggeration, puffery. >> well, we do -- well, we do have the situation where we believe the statute currently does cover -- someone could be prosecuted for engaging in parody or satire or exaggeration. certainly, there's nothing on the face of the statute to suggest that those - >> but the government has said that's not how we read the

statute. and the courts read statutes to avoid a constitutional collision. so, let's assume that we are not going to cover performances, satire. it's just a bald-faced lie. that's all that this covers. >> then it's still our position that it's still a -- that all speech is presumptively protected unless we go back and it fits into one of the historical categories of speech that this court has found historically is unprotected. and bare falsity certainly has never previously been recognized by this court as being an unprotected category of speech. >> counsel, my - >> i don't understand the government to argue that the speech at issue here is totally unprotected. i understand them to argue -- i mean, is -- it's totally unprotected. i understand them to argue that it can be limited under its

"breathing space" rationale. in other words, it's not within one of the categories of totally unprotected speech. you do have to analyze it under the first amendment, and you analyze it to determine if it chills protected speech. >> i suppose i read the government's argument differently. as i read the government's argument, it's that it's entitled to, at most, limited protection. so, the government seems to start from the presumption that it's not fully protected speech; whereas, of course, what we should be starting with is the presumption that it is fully protected speech unless this court has previously said it's in one of these historical categories of unprotected speech. >> may i -- if i understood your argument, you're saying historically we have not protected false statements that cause harm. i think that's your argument. >> that's correct. yes, your honor. >> all right. assuming -

so, it's -- we do protect false statements presumptively, but the historical exception, like defamation, are those that cause harm. so, i go back to justice alito's question because you really haven't answered his question. you've dealt with the government process cases, although i -- we could argue about whether that's protecting a process or protecting a government right to truthful information. that's a different issue. but the question is how do you deal with the intentional infliction of emotional distress? because damage -- we require injury, and it's defined under law what kind of injury. so, tell me how you define harm in the nongovernmental situation, number one, and then tell me why that -- this situation doesn't fit that definition.

>> well, in the situation with intentional infliction of emotional distress, you are arguing with an instantaneous harm, a mental distress that results from the false statement. so, there - there's imminent harm as a result of -- that results in intentional infliction of emotional distress for false- light - >> so, why isn't the outrage that medal winners, legitimately entitled medal winners, experience in seeing fake people or hearing fake people claim a medal -- why isn't that comparable? >> well, i don't believe that fits into the same category of -- of mental distress that we look at in intentional infliction of emotional distress. certainly, people are entitled to be upset by these false claims. i mean, i'm personally upset by these false claims. but the fact that there is a certain level of upset doesn't mean that you were -

you're harmed in the sense of the intentional infliction of emotional stress tort. and so, what we're dealing with here is simply a non-instantaneous harm. now, what the government has suggested is that there's no harm that really results from a single claim, that mr. alvarez's falsehood did not cause harm to any individual. >> it seems to me what you're -- what you're arguing is that we should determine that there are certain harms that are sufficient to allow the prohibition of a false statement and there are certain harms that are not sufficient, irrespective of what judgment congress made about the significance of those harms. is that -- is that accurate? >> that's certainly part of it. i mean, we believe that there needs to be imminent harm, that it needs to be targeted harm to an individual or to -- to government function, that it can't be the type of diffuse harm that the government - >> why not?

>> -- says took place here. >> why not? because, after all, we're willing to protect the olympics committee when a false person saying he's the olympics committee might deprive the olympics committee of a penny, while here they're saying that to win this great medal, say, the congressional medal of honor, the highest award in the military the nation can give, you're deserving of the most possible, grandest possible respect, and we don't -- we don't even want you to have to think about somebody having taken that name falsely; and so, we will just criminalize it to discourage such activity that undermines the very thought and purpose of giving the medal. all right? so, i'm just saying in my mind there's real harm. and there's real harm, and yet, i can think of instances where we do want to protect false information. and i want you to accept that as a given because that isn't my question.

[laughter] >> my question is: if i'm right that there are very good first amendment reasons sometimes for protecting false information, and if this also would cause serious harm, what the government is aiming after, are there less restrictive ways of going about it? and, if so, what and why? >> there are. first of all, more speech. there's time to fix the problem. if someone tells a lie about having received an honor, there's time for them to be exposed. and, in fact, that's what typically happens- >> the government is going to hire people to follow, you know -- is that realistic? >> well, what - >> i mean, there is a sanction. you know, when there's a sanction in place, you think twice before you tell the lie. but if there's no sanction except you might be exposed, who's going to expose you? that sanction already exists, and there are a lot of people nonetheless who tell the lie.

you really expect the government to hire investigators to go around the country outing people who falsely claim military honors? >> well, justice scalia, isn't that - >> that's not going to happen. >> isn't that exactly what's happening right now with this law? because the law is on the books, the government is sending fbi agents out to investigate these allegations. how do they find out about it? it's because it's reported. individuals hear the statement, and they think it may be false. they investigate it. and -- and conduct their own investigations. so, that's what happens, and that's what's supposed -- that's the whole idea of more speech. >> is there anything else - that the threat of criminal prosecution might discourage from lying who would never be caught. so, at least as to that set, exposure won't work. so, you have a less restrictive alternative that helps some but

not completely. are there others? >> well, of course if you're never caught, then under the government's theory, then no one has been harmed individually or in the - >> not under my theory. my theory is that it does hurt the medal, the purpose, the objective, the honor, for people falsely to go around saying that they have this medal when they don't. okay? so, i might be wrong about that. i just ask you to assume that for purposes of argument because what i'm trying to get to is i want as big a list as i can to think about of what the less restrictive alternatives are. >> sure. >> or might be. >> the military can redouble its efforts at honoring those who in fact are entitled to the awards. there was a congressional hearing that suggested that the military has been a little lax in identifying true heroes and awarding them medals. so, that could be done. the government could publicize the names of true winners. it

could create educational programs to let the nation know what it takes to win these awards, what these awards are, who has won them. all the heroic acts that have - >> how about giving a medal of shame to those who have falsely claimed to have earned the medal of valor? [laughter] >> i think that would be a good idea. >> well, your honor, actually, that's certainly something the government could do. >> well, not under your theory, right? i mean, it -- i mean, it's still a sanction for telling something that you say is protected under the first amendment, whether you get 6 months or a medal of shame doesn't matter under your theory. >> well, there is a significant difference between a criminal sanction that puts someone in prison versus simply exposing them for what they are, which is a liar. and mr. alvarez -- whether or not he in fact was sentenced to a crime, he still was exposed for who he was, which was a liar. >> suppose -- suppose the statute were amended, as has been proposed, to require an intent to obtain anything of

value. >> that would turn the law into a fraud statute. and, of course, fraud is an unprotected category of speech. so, that certainly would be a constitutional law. >> but that wouldn't -- that wouldn't reach this speaker. is that -- is that -- that wouldn't reach alvarez because he didn't obtain anything of value. >> well, that's -- i mean, that's not what we have here. what we do know is that mr. alvarez did not obtain a thing of value. >> how do we -- how do we know that? he was politically active, right? >> yes. >> he was involved - well, doesn't it help a politician to have a congressional medal of honor? >> perhaps, your honor. i mean, for -- certainly, there are many people out there that would consider that to be a great thing. there are also a lot of people out there who don't know what it is. and so, to them, it might not mean a whole lot. >> but it seems to me that your willingness to say that this statute is valid so long as

there's some benefit to the person who lies, it's an awfully big concession. >> well, it would -- if it - again, if congress were to amend the law to require that it be done with the intent to obtain a thing of value, again, it becomes fraud. and fraud is something that the government does have the right to prosecute. >> something of value. it has to be something of commercial value, right? it's - doing just to -- just to obtain praise and the higher esteem of your fellow citizens, that's -- that's not enough. >> well, your honor, as i - >> you have to get a penny out of it, right? >> as i understand the proposed amendment, it just says anything of a non-de minimis value. how that is ultimately interpreted - >> that's just the basic definition of fraud in the criminal law. >> that's right. now, could it - could it be a nonpecuniary thing of value? as it's currently proposed, yes. but that's -

>> so, if he -- so, if he makes this statement at a debate when he's running for office, then you can prosecute him because getting the office is presumably something of value. it presumably has some pecuniary aspect to it. >> perhaps, your honor. and, again, it may come down to how the courts ultimately interpret a thing of value. it's not clear that simply trying to obtain a vote from somebody is necessarily a thing of value, would be considered a thing of value. obviously, if you promise to give up your votes in office in return for support, that would be a little different. >> what if he just gets the cheers of the crowd? he's up there. i'm a congressional medal of -- the crowd cheers, and they give him a parade down main street. is -- is that something of value? >> it could be. again, it -- it will come down to, over time, how that ultimately gets - >> but that's not -- the answer

is would the first amendment permit that. >> that's a difficult question, your honor. >> well, that's sort of the question we have to answer here. >> sure. [laughter] >> and i get that. [laughter] >> suppose what the person gets is -- is a date with a potential rich spouse. would that be enough? >> your honor, i think when it comes -- when you get into the situation where you're getting something like a date, i do not know that -- i certainly wouldn't consider that a non-de minimis thing of value. [laughter] >> but - >> some people might have a different opinion. [laughter] >> well, that -- that -- and that may be, which is why, should that ultimately become the law, courts will have to look at that very closely. >> well, how does it work in the law now, where we have similar statutes, and there's an additional requirement when you're imitating, say, a federal officer or somebody else you shouldn't, you have to perform an overt act that

asserts authority that the impersonator claims to have. what does that add? does it add enough to just make it not pure speech, to limit -- to wall off the things about -- the things that we're worried about in the first amendment? or there's another one, you have to falsely assume or exercise powers, duties, and privileges. those are ways statutes have of limiting this thing. how does that work? >> well, when you get into the issue of impersonation, then you're -- the court perhaps would be assessing it under the amount of -- of imminent harm to an individual that can result. >> it has nothing to do with harm. it's a way of walling off things that are of concern under the first amendment from those that aren't. and what they use -- i read you what they use: performing -- you know -- you know the language. it's written about in the briefs. and i just want to know how you would

think about a statute that imported that kind of language, which is limiting language. >> it -- it would be important, certainly in the first amendment context, to limit the language as much as possible. you want to make it as narrow as possible because, again, we're supposed to start from the presumption that we have the right to say pretty much what we want to say, and then we start to limit it where -- again -- and, i guess, it goes again back to what this court said in stevens and entertainment merchants, which is, is it one of these historically unprotected types of speech that is not entitled to constitutional protection? unless the court has additional questions - >> thank you, mr. libby. general verrilli, you have 3 minutes remaining. >> my -- my only -- one of my questions is the slippery slope

problem, college degrees and so forth. could you address that? >> yes, your honor. the - we think the "breathing space" analysis does a very substantial degree of work in controlling the -- what your honor is describing as a slippery slope problem. the government's got to have a substantial interest - >> but - >> -- the statute's got to be narrowly drawn. it's got to meet all of those tests. >> college degrees. >> well, as i think i said in my -- in my opening statement, that -- i actually think that's a case in which you could argue that one either way because there might be, if the government articulated a substantial interest in protecting its - diplomas issued by its public - >> how about extramarital affairs? >> excuse me, your honor. i didn't hear the question. >> the government has a strong interest in the sanctity of the family, the stability of the family; so, we're going to prevent everybody from telling lies about their extramarital affairs. >> in addition to the -- in addition to the -- the governmental interest, your honor, there's -- it's got to be tailored in a way that

avoids chill, and i think it would be very difficult in that situation - >> but this is something about the person's own experience, that the person knows everything about. you either had one or you didn't have one. >> that's right. and that's a hard case, but i do think, with respect to the chilling effect analysis, you -- you would, i think, have a great deal of difficulty sustaining that statute. but, of course, that's not the kind of statute that we have here. this is a targeted statute that's designed to deal with a particular harm. >> the trouble is that you can think of 10,000 instances that meet your criteria that one candidate or another could bring up in a political campaign. and we don't know what will come up, but i can easily think of examples. and then, if this is lawful and constitutional, then you have people in political campaigns suddenly worrying that the u.s. attorney is going to come in and start indicting him. now, that's part of the chilling effect. and you've assumed you can get around this chilling effect, but i'm less certain. >> well, i think -- but that's why i think the "breathing space" analysis requires before a statute gets upheld that it

-- that it not have that kind of chilling effect. >> how do we know this doesn't? >> and this statute doesn't, and that's the key here. this statute doesn't. >> counsel, it seems to me that you're asking us to value the speech in context. we're not talking about the effect of the speech and whether you can regulate that. you're asking us to say, you know, the guy who says he's a college graduate in a political campaign, that could chill political speech. so, in that lie in that context, you can't sanction, but you can sanction that lie in a different context. on a date. >> well - >> i don't know because, on a date, it doesn't chill political speech, and it will induce a young woman to date someone who she thinks is more of a professional, because that harms the parents, it harms the family. >> may i answer, mr. chief justice? >> oh, yes. >> thank you.

the respondent has conceded that this statute chills nothing. that should be a sufficient answer to your honor's concern that, with respect to other statutes in the future, they can be evaluated to determine whether or not they impose a -- a chill that would lead as an instrumental matter to the conclusion that they ought not to be found to satisfy the first amendment. as respondent concedes, there is no chill here. so, this statute is constitutional. thank you. >> thank you, general, counsel. the case is submitted. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this week, we are joined by ranking member henry waxman. he will also talk about energy issues including the keystone pipeline and republican plans for the epa budget.

join us sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. coming up tomorrow on "washington journal," a roundtable discussion following the supreme court's ruling on the affordable care act. we are joined by gail russell chaddock and edward-isaac dovere. our roundtable guests include -- "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. coming up monday, we will continue the discussion on the supreme court's ruling on the health care law. experts will analyze the

constitutional implications, the scope of government and help the system, and look at what steps congress can take going forward. at 1:30 live monday on one o eastern here on c-span. >> the purchasing power of gold was constant for a period of four centuries. it seems to me the record of the gold standard is a record by and large of growth and of personal accountability. >> this weekend, the origins, departures, and arguments for returning to the gold standard saturday evening at 7:00 p.m. eastern. also, more from "the contenders." send a, charles evans hughes ran

against woodrow wilson in 1916 and was the last supreme court justice to be nominated by a political party. this weekend on c-span3. >> this week, a hearing look at video distribution technology and how they are regulated under current communication laws. this subcommittee also exposed edges in video access since the cable act of 1992 and hal laws apply to new technology. witnesses include representatives from broadcasters, cable, and the internet. it is a little over two and a half hours. >> we certainly welcome our panelists, witnesses who are here today, we appreciate your willingness to come in and

share your thoughts on the future of video. this is one of a series of hearings that we have organized. the first being the future of audio and the future of video and we will do the future of data. in july will have all five fcc commissioners here now that it is up to full functioning status. we're looking at these various rules and laws that have been on the books for a long time and in an era where the marketplace continues to evolve and change dynamically and in a rapid way. the fcc regulates the a providers based on a bygone era. when congress passed the 1992 cable act, cable operators controlled 90% of the market and were affiliated with 53% of the national program networks. that law was meant to spur competition. it worked. nationwide, satellite tv

providers, dish and direct tv control one-third of the market and are the second and third largest providers. only 50% of networks are vertically integrated with the cable operator. broadcast asians are going mobile and wireless carriers and streaming video. programmers and pay tv providers are filling screens with their content and services as the fastest viewers are clamoring for them. new entities are flocking to the market. within the last 10 years, youtube, itunes, netflix, amazon, hulu and others have left to provide programming over the internet. one option is to recognize the competitive landscape and start deregulating cable, satellite, and broadcast companies. the other it is to expand the communications act to apply to the new technologies and services. i do not believe we should be

expanding beer regulation. internet distributed video is growing at a remarkable pace in the absence of regulation. video represents more than half of global internet traffic by 2011. video delivered over the internet to televised -- to television's doubled in 2011. it will increase sixfold by 2016, representing 11% of video traffic. by 2016, 1.2 million minutes of video will cross the network every second. it would take more than 6 million years to watch the amount of video that will cross global ip's networks each month. existing cable and satellite providers are experimenting with the internet distribution. regulation is not only unnecessary in such a vibrant environment, it can harm this nation's competition. the cast is healthy.

a vibrant marketplace benefits consumers and generates new jobs. the last thing we want is to shackle everyone's entrepreneurial spirit with a one-size-fits-all rules designed for another day and time. if we're not going to apply the old regime to the new participants, we must recognize the inequity of applying it to the traditional players. the rules were premised on a lack of video competition that is not the reality any more. to impose the regulations in a desperate fashion is bitter technologically more competitively neutral. is not only unfair to the parties, it does yours a disservice. this is how we will spur innovation. i yield the balance of my time to the vice chair. >> thank you. a lot has changed in the video marketplace over the last 20 years. contrast, distribution, and

preferences that have all evolved. we are a society that wants what we want when we wanted and wherever we want it. communications sector has spent billions over the last two decades in order to meet that consumer appetite. as we engage in discussions about the current state of video marketplace and get bogged down in the granular details of disputes, it is apparent that we always keep one thing in mind. the consumer is and always will remain the most important component of the discussion. it is appropriate to ask questions about whether the regulations of decades past are, in fact, still appropriate today. did the inhibit competition or spur it? do they create regulatory parity or uneven playing fields? most important, do we still work to the betterment of the consumer? war, are consumers caught in the middle? consumers need to benefit from

the great expansion in technologies and mobility of technology trade with that i would like to submit for the record a letter written with regards to that technology. i think my friend -- i think my friend from oregon and yelled back. >> the chair recognizes ms. [unintelligible] >> thank you for having this hearing. it is a very important one and when you look at the line outside, there is a great deal of interest. over the past 20 years, the video market has undergone or workable transformation. consumers have access to more programming choices than ever before and have increasing control over where and when they watch these programs thanks

to the deevey are -- dvr and smart phones and tablets. there are key barriers that have concerns -- that could curtail the exciting innovation that defines the next generation of video. when congress passed the 1996 act, we require the sec to establish -- fcc to establish rules to establish trace in competition. what we -- women never have imagined the benefits -- we may never have imagined the benefits. second, consumers should not be held hostage when transmission disputes breakdown. since 2010, 10 different

multichannel video programming distributors have experienced at least 34 blackouts and at least 76 media markets. among the most high-profile disputes which i think all of us recall was a blackout that presented millions of households for -- prevented millions of households from watching the 2010 world series. ask for consent to submit for the record a broadcaster rate trends -- blackout. i am concerned about the potential impact of that caps on the growth of the streaming video market. two weeks ago, it was widely reported that the department of justice have begun looking into whether data caps limit video competition. we do not know the extent of this inquiry, it falls on the subcommittee to examine the issue and insure future innovation is not curtailed.

there are joint agreements involving verizon and several of the largest cable companies that are an example of changing video landscape. last week i once again called on -- for the subcommittee to have a hearing to review the proposed transaction and i hope that the chairman will agree to this request. i have not taken a position on these proposed changes or what is in the works but i do think that we would all benefit from an examination of them. i want to welcome again all of our witnesses that are here this morning. most especially to the two that have troubled probably the furthest.

thank you again and i yield back the balance of my time. even the fcc's data on video competition is six years of data, let alone the regulations. the laws of economics encourage diversity. companies that can provide the same services or content at cheaper prices drive to offer different services of content. even the sec's data up on video competition is six years out of date, let alone the regulations.

companies that cannot provide the same services or content at cheaper prices strive to offer different services for content. that is what we call innovation. many regulations drive everything to the lowest common denominator. if everyone is entitled to whatever content is popular, why would anyone risk investing in something brand new? if everyone is entitled to the fruits of your labor, whether that is your distribution platform order content, you're less likely to invest as much. differentiation is often a leading driver of competition. many attributed the exclusive availability of the football sunday ticket on direct tv as a prime source of that satellite tv provider's growth. this in turn forces other players to invest in different content, develop better services, or lower prices. regulations will only decrease economic activity.

if behavior were economic, there would be no need to compel it. while such might be warranted in a world where cable operators serve close to 100% of the pay-tv market, that is not the world we live in any more. cable -- the cable share has dropped from 98% at the time that congress passed the 1992 cable act with 60% in 2006. that is about 55% today. that means almost one out of every other home gets their programming from some other source. like a satellite operator or phone company. the number of national program networks grew from 106 in 1994 to 565 in 2006. the percentage of networks' affiliated with the cable operator has shrunk from 50 -- 53%. we want to spur investment in

jobs. the time may be to pull back on laws that congress and the laws of economics do more of the work. fears across the country would be better for it. >> we have three on our side would like time. >> a little nudge from this committee would [inaudible] the 1992 cable when it was passed, everything has changed dramatically since then. i hope today is the first step toward all this coming together with a process to modernize the 1992 cable act. the cisco released a study revealing over 60% of the u.s. data traffic will be video.

the current push to enter the market are examples of consumer demand. consumers have access to more content, higher quality programming to and a greater variety of devices than perhaps ever before. i look forward to learning what is working and what the government can do to enhance the future video further. >> now, the gentle lady from tennessee. >> thank you for -- to our witnesses today. from the opening statements, we can agree that the construct and the video arena has changed. changed in innovation and i was speaking through my 20 years of working in the private and public sector on this issue and going from big bucks to me to home theaters and watching the analog to digital. you can carry pretty much whatever you want on the ipad and plugged it in into a scream

and -- a screen. going forward, i think we will focus on use. consumers said the best that deciding what they want in content and also in their delivery mechanisms. i look forward to the discussion we're going to have about how we insert free market principles into the good work and innovation you do. i yield back. >> recognize mr. waxman for five minutes. >> recognizing their ranking member. >> thank you for holding this hearing to examine the future of video. digital broadband and access are altering how content is produced, delivered, and consumed. i want to thank you for working with us to assemble an interesting and diverse panel by witnesses. internet access is altering how video content is produced, delivered to my & -- and consumed. our challenge is to ensure diversity of voices.

robust competition, and greater access to these new platforms. the panel of witnesses before us illustrates the many ways americans can access video programming today free over the air broadcasting. pay television service, like, -- satelite, even traditional telephone companies, or video delivered to your broadband connection. video programming is no longer the exclusive -- and province of the television set. consumers can use tablets and smart phones to watch their preferred content. innovative products and services are increasingly putting viewers in control of what, when, where, and how to watch video. even as we marvel at the incredible advances in technology, we must be mindful that policy choices we make today will impact the video landscape we see tomorrow. we should examine whether the legal framework created 20 years ago still works for a

video market filled with choices that did not even exist two or three years ago. we should remember that old challenges can persist in the face of new opportunities. competitors need a fair shot at getting access to content and independent creators' need rules that prevent discrimination against carriage of their programming. the actions of this committee and others in congress helped it once nascent industry like cable and satellite to offer new choices to consumers. we must continue to ensure innovation in the video marketplace can continue to flourish. as consumers watch video through broadband and open internet that is accessible to all, it becomes even more important. we need to carefully examine whether practices like broadband data usage caps are restricting consumer choice or being employed in an anti- competitive manner.

also deserving of our scrutiny is whether major providers of video and broadband services will continue to have the incentives to compete in light of joint agreements and consolidation in the marketplace. i join our ranking member in requesting hearings to examine the proposed transactions between verizon and four of the nation's largest cable companies including an examination of the joint marketing agreements that would allow the companies to cross market each other's services. i hope the committee will convene a hearing so members can consider the impact of these deals, not only on the video and broadband markets, but also on wireless competition. i appreciate the witnesses participating in today's hearing and i look forward to your testimony. i want to yield the time. >> i want to add my greetings to my constituent from dish

network who came almost as far to be with us today. thank you for coming. i yield back. >> i join you in welcoming our panelists whether they came from california or from pastry. -- from down the street. welcome to you all. yield back. >> thank you for being here. we will start with mr. robert johnson, the ceo of sky angel, us, llc. we appreciate your testimony and look forward to your comments. if you have not use these microphones you need to get pretty close to them to make sure the light is on. >> it is my pleasure to have this testimony today.

thank you for inviting me to read his bait -- participate. sky angel was founded for the purpose of providing families with a high-quality and affordable distribution that would offer exclusively for family friendly program. there are 80 channels that are offered. many of which are familiar in american households such as the hallmark channel, fox news, the nfl channel, bloomberg, and the weather channel, to name a few. also, we will be adding a new african american family channel started by magic johnson. skype angell is the first to provide a service which uses internet protocol television technology. and a set top box. subscribers can not access the included programming without the box which has broadband

internet input, including home wireless rudder access and video output that connect to their television sets. sky angel is not a web based service and no external computer is needed. all any american family needs is a television set and a broadband internet service of modest capability. our set top box looks and acts like the ones consumers use at home. here is one of them. the sky angel subscriber uses a remote-controlled. the click on the selection that they want to watch. the service is functionally identical to typical cable or satellite video distribution. it offers systems at affordable

rates. the cost 3299 a month. it includes unlimited access to a library of movies which are also family friendly. we have recently rebranded as save tv. we have inspirational programming also available to the ipad. our goal is to offer safe haven to enjoy the largest selection as possible of video and audio programming and recorded video programming without fear of exposure to objectionable content. we're proud -- cipro recipient of the seal of approval from the parents television council. families can have media as a wholesome source of entertainment. they can have it in

addition to other services. the choice is theirs. our business model is not complicated. we enter into written agreements with programmers through the system. we pay the programmers monthly fees for a subscriber receives the channel. sky angel enters into relationships with consumers. we downlink our channels at our state-of-the-art center provide -- located outside chanted a. -- chattanooga. provide subscribers with boxes necessary to receive programming. we control the programming through the box at all times. we have been facing obstacles. one shocking example is c-span which is supposed to be a public service but c-span refuses to deal with us. three years ago, c-span entered into an agreement with us for distribution of c-span channels

on the system. however, sees band cut its -- c- span cut its service of three days after we started carrying it. we had a signed contract. c-span said they had made a mistake in not permitting us to -- in permitting us to carry its channels. c-span has been offered on the internet as a free public service to all but as your -- fewer people know, c-span is controlled by the cable television industry. in addition to the shocking decision of c-span to cut us off, a number of large programmers have refused to deal with sky angel saying that they want to avoid conflict with big players in the video distribution industry. unlike c-span which is supposed to be a public service, prefers -- commercial providers that

refuse to deal with us are passing up the higher subscriber rate that we typically pay because we are too small to have any bargaining power. discovery communications is the most obvious example of a large program that refused a lucrative agreement in order to stifle competition. my written statement sent -- describe the problems with the discovery in some detail. they cut us off from receiving their channels two years into a seven-year distribution agreement. discovery has never offered a coherent explanation for its actions which did not make economic sense. we are positive that it was anti-competitive by nature, trying to deter a new startup company using iptv technology. we filed a program access complaint against discovery in march of 2010. today, the fcc has never made a substantive ruling on that case. even though the fcc policy only own decisions -- on decisions -- own decisions say to file a -- decide complete within five months.

27 months have passed without substantive action by the fcc. sky angel remains injured. on the unfair programming decisions. we believe our experience with starting an operating a new distribution service shows that there is anti-competitive conduct in the industry and significant problems with the manner in which the fcc is failing to enforce program access laws and regulations so that of valuable new competitors are facing unfair discrimination. the requirements require a fair treatment of competitors. but those are not being enforced. the will of congress is being ignored. competition is being stifled. we believe the public interest

in supporting competition and expanded use of the internet, a diversity in programming sources, and affordable choices for american families requires the attention of the congress to ensure the existing legal framework is properly enforced. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i would be pleased to answer any questions or provide additional information. >> thank you for your testimony. we look forward to following up with questions. we now turn to the president and ceo of public knowledge. we look forward to your comments as well. >> think you for inviting me to talk about the future of video. there's widespread agreement we are currently living in the golden age of television. despite the great programming and from the keen devices, americans are still locked into a model that limits competition

and choice, keeps prices high, and limits technology and online video from achieving their full potential. this model is made forward by -- made possible by an outdated structure. it is time for policymakers to revamp the structures and new competition can thrive giving consumers greater options having the ability to watch video whenever they want in on the device of their choosing. this will result in lower prices and more flexibility for consumers. the internet is changing the video marketplace as it is for other forms of media. consumers are demanding more content be provided through the internet. one campaign by consumers advocates for each bill content -- for hbo content to be available for purchase on the

internet. within 60,000 people visited the website within 12 hours of its launch. many expressed their willingness to pay money directly to hbo if it were available on the internet. it is not a foregone conclusion the internet will disrupt the video marketplace. dominant players control the content on-line competitors need and the price for consumers. as a result, high value programming is not available to online video providers. they have to contend with arbitrarily low data caps and other discriminatory practices that keep them from reaching their full potential. it is not inevitable the market will reach its full competitive potential. that is why policymakers should extend policies that ensure new competitors can access high-

value content at reasonable prices. if they do this while protecting openness, they can enter the video marketplace normalizes and becomes competitive. there are other regulations that should be repealed today. these do little more than preserve old business models. if these protectionist rules ever made any sense in the pre- internet era, they certainly do not today. the senators are on the right track with a bill that would clear away much of the regulatory underbrush that holds back the evolution of the video marketplace. the bill does go far by eliminating media ownership and restrictions. other items are also allocated but part of the fabric of regulatory and business expectations.

they should be reformed but cautiously and eventually eliminated. copyright law is also regulation often is used to hold back innovation. witness the lawsuits. by taking these simple steps, policy makers will be able to facilitate the development of competitive on-line video and disengage from regulations designed to counter the effects of bottleneck control. if they fail to do this, it is likely incumbents will continue to shape the development of the video market and extend their current dominance indefinitely. the internet provides grounds for hope that the future of video will be better for consumers. a lot of work remains for this hope to become reality. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. now we will welcome the general counsel for netflix.

we look forward to your testimony. i know we did audio at the last hearing. if you could just touch the button and make sure it is on. there we go. >> good morning. netflix helped to pioneer streaming over the internet. in 2008, we began to deliver instant streaming videos through internet-connected devices. over 23 million consumers in the united states use the streaming service on more than 900 different types of devices including game consoles, mobile phones, and tablets. netflix delivers close to 1 billion hours of streaming movies and tv shows to its members every month. the internet delivery provides consumers with freedom and control over programming as well as when and where they can watch. this is the future of video. increased demand for internet

video is driving consumer adoption of broadband. it is spurring innovation in consumer electronics. innovation leaders are developing new methods for delivering data traversing the internet. we announced the rollout of our open connect network, the content delivery network focused on the efficient distribution of large media files. our goal is to make it faster and less expensive for all. we are connecting to isp's free of charge. user interfaces or ui's are likewise evolving. the typical selection. -- grid will likely be replaced with intuitive and digitally voiceating ui's using

and touch for control. these will involve in amazing ways. a decade from now, using a remote will feel as odd as using a non does today. last year, netflix announced it would be offering several original television series to its members. this is the first time high- quality productions will be debuted through the internet. our first show will be "house of cards," a political thriller set in washington. it stars kevin spacey. we will be experimenting with how our programs are released offering multiple episodes and perhaps a whole seasons at one time. netflix is giving artists greater latitude to create compelling stories while giving members the freedom to what world-class content in a way that suits their individual preferences.

we're leveraging the power of the internet to help consumers discover content they will love. using recommendation and merchandising technology, netflix is hoping to expand the reach and popularity of video content. the availability of all prior series of "mad men" helped to drive a 20% increase in those watch in the opening episode of the season. we're able to find an untapped audience of more than 1 million viewers for a show in its fifth season. this is one example of how traditional and emerging platforms can complement one another. the change has led to speculation about the demise of traditional platforms and networks. it is our belief these will also adapt to the shifting landscape. we see the beginnings of this with authenticated video offerings, commonly referred to

as tv everywhere. these provide on demand access through internet-connected devices. cable subscribers are afforded many of the benefits of the internet video within the bundled offerings of their cable services. to get a feel for this, i would recommend you look at hbo go or tv everywhere offerings. these will grow in popularity. consumers will increasingly view programming on the internet. at netflix, we focus on streaming and begin to offer original content. we often ask if we are becoming more like a traditional network like hbo. the fact is these networks are becoming more like netflix. as the traditional platforms moved to district on the internet, they are becoming more

like netflix. issues like discriminatory data caps interconnection must be examined with a discerning eye. you have the means and motivation to engage in anti- competitive behavior. regulatory framework before the internet era, you have the makings of confusion and gamesmanship. competition leads to innovation and choice. because of innovation, traditional platforms and networks are changing their longstanding ways of doing business. these platforms and networks should not be permitted to unfairly leverage their relationships to stifle unaffiliated video providers. i encourage the committee to examine the evolving competitive environment for video. we stand ready to work with you

to examine various changes that will help to assure a competitive and innovative market place for years to come. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your testimony and participation. we will now go to the senior vice president, mr. funk. for being here. >> think you for inviting me here to testify about the future of video. i am a senior vice president at roku. we're rapidly growing with less than 200 employees, small by comparison with other countries represented. the founder is this a real entrepreneur who started replay tv and is considered the inventor of the gdr -- dvr.

four years ago we introduced a small box that allow consumers to stream movies from netflix over the internet and watch them on their tv without needing a computer. the combination of a $99 roku player and netflix training was a revolutionary model. now there are many game consoles and boxes offering this capability. these products can be found at best buy, walmart, target, and amazon.com marketed by well- known brands. since the launch of the player, we have sold more than 3 million boxes in the u.s. and offer a range of affordable products. roku has become an open streaming platform that allows providers to create applications which we call channels.

roku features more than 500 channels available to households that have purchased our streaming players. most users have a cable or satellite subscription service in addition to the roku player. it provides new choices in ways to get value out of a cable or satellite television service. roku users can enjoy thousands of episodes of tv shows and movies on demand from other providers. we offer sports packages for major league baseball, nba, major league soccer. there's news. beyond video, users enjoy streaming music services like pandora, internet radio around the world, and popular games like angry birds. roku is becoming an alternative

way to reach consumers for distributors. we announced a partnership with this network -- dish network to stream programming to international viewers. customers can now enjoy on demand movies and shows from hbo on roku. " broadcasters have begun to experiment reaching audiences on roku. you can watch stations located in wisconsin and indianapolis. roku is also a means for content producers to reach the living room tv via the internet. we have over 75 faith-based channels representing individual congregations catholic church protests. the of hearings like this are available on demand. we believe these devices are

part of the future of television because of what we see. the average user streams over 10 hours of video per week, almost 1/3 the number of hours the average american watches traditional tv. consumers like it because it provides new content choices with convenience and value. with the widespread adoption of on's, consumers expect demand during. the combination of inexpensive internet-connected devices and expanding selection of video services offer value for cost- conscious consumers. i did not come today to advocate for specific legislation. our point of view is that devices like roku are finding a home in the homes of millions of consumers. these devices are being embraced

by the entertainment industry to expand legitimate content distribution. they are driving the adoption of high-speed broadband connections for the benefit of isp's. our interest and the consumer's interest is that there continue to be an open marketplace for competition. that includes not only competition between device manufacturers but also open competition between video services as well as competition between the internet service providers. the widespread availability of high-speed internet is essential to continued growth and innovation in this market. thank you for your time. i look forward to your questions. >> we will now go to michael powell. we are delighted to have you here today. please go ahead with your testimony. >> it is always an honor and

privilege to appear before this committee. i have done it many times and am proud to be here again. i am proud to be here as a representative of the cable operators and programmers of the united states to talk about the future of video. this is an industry through its investment and innovation has contributed to the glimmering present we are enjoying and has every intention of intervening to a more glorious future in the area of video. it is important to remember the cable we brought television to rural american urban areas that could not be reached by traditional broadcast programming. we ultimately developed the original programming that led to the iconic brands that most americans associate with the television today. cnn, espn, cspan, discovery, the history channel.

the lives or all creations of the cable industry working in cooperation with the production community. we were the first to bring about any kind -- in a time shifting through video and demand. in 1996 when congress called on the communications space to introduce telephone competition, it was the cable industry that must inevitably made an impact representing almost 25% of all telephone service today. then there is broad band. tralee the cable industry stepped up and led to the mass deployment, now averaging 93% of all homes in america. we are experiencing a truly golden age of television. but almost any metric used, we are experiencing the best we ever had. there is simply more content. we have gone from a 1950's world of three channels to one

in which there are 100 channels back in 1992 to over 900 programming channel sources today. that continues to expand at a rapid rate. is it any good? i would submit that tv is producing the finest content it has in its entire history. the critically acclaimed programs like "modern family" are truly captioning the imagination of the american public. i think the industry and content producers have a great deal to be proud of in terms of the quality. when i was at the sec, are a central role -- our central goal was the diversity of content. we do not want all of the same step.

we are experiencing a time in which we hit on the model that allows true diversity of niche programming to smaller audiences by definition but ones that are passionate about the things they believe in. if you fish, love music, great sports, court on politics, or refund your committee on television or if you have a fetish for "jersey shore," it is all out there. you should be proud of what we have achieved in diversity. i would fully met the 20 years ago when the cable act was passed, the cable industry was a monopoly and had 98% a multichannel video distribution in this country. today, it enjoys 57%. its share has remained flat or declined in the face of competitive threat. today americans can choose between cable companies, the satellite companies that rank second and third in subscribership, telcos, you can buy dvds at best buy. or go to a red box and distribution machine.

it is an exciting opportunity. but we have not seen enough. d internet finally began to produce a realization of its promise. you're looking at extraordinary amounts of internet content and video by a host of companies. there has been 80% increase in video streaming since 2008. by some estimates, 62% of traffic primetime on the internet is video content. the original content is being produced on every conceivable the vice. that is an exciting place. this golden age is set against the regulatory environment that is tarnished. i am a big believer that law is premised on certain factual predicate about markets, economics and technology. today's regulatory regime is built on a foundation that crumbled long ago. i submit my full testimony for then and now analysis but you can quickly see, cable owns 57% of the market today.

cable once owned 54% of the cable channels you see today. today the only own 14%. in 1992, the majority of americans watch television over the air. today that is down to 14%. the predicate on which the law build crumbled into the sand and it is time they be re-evaluated. i'd like to conclude by taking on the conjecture and speculation and at the suggestion that somehow the cable industry is actively involved in an effort to destroy or eliminate over the top emerging competition. it is flatly wrong and belied by the facts. we have seen a breathtaking explosion and video streaming content. netflix is the largest provider of subscription a video in the country. that cable or satellite. that growth has occurred in the current marketplace. our policy have in no way for the consumer's ability to watch content by any measure.

we are expanding to meet demand consistently, have increased by 10 speed than hunter% in the last decade. recently announced plans for a startling speed by the end of the decade. we sell broadbent. as the testimony of the ceo of roku and netflix made clear, their services help stimulate demand for the services we sell. members of our board are proud and appreciative of some of those services. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. we look forward to asking a few questions of you and the other panelists. now to the president and ceo of hearst television, mr. david barrett.

>> good morning chairman and ranking members. i am the president and ceo of hearst television. our company owns 29 tv stations across the country, a number of which are in your home market. i traveled here today from new york city on behalf of the national association of broadcasters. you can tell from the makeup of this panel that the future of video is very bright and diverse and more inclusive than ever before. each of us here today plays an important role in the video ecosystem but what differentiates television broadcasters from every other entity at this table is our unique commitment to serve our local communities and operate in public interest. localism is our mandate in the breed it every day. the supplement our local programming with the most popular national entertainment, news, sports programs to provide viewers in variety and

quality of content unmatched by any other medium. we cannot discuss the future of video without talking about spectrum. the oxygen of our delivery for over the air signals. with concerns over spectrum use intensifying, broadcast television uniquely offers the most efficient use of spectrum to transfer video. the genius of television broadcasting is its architecture. for high demand programming like the upcoming olympics, there is no limit to how many viewers can tune into these games and events. with wireless architecture, there is not enough spectrum on the planet to allow every viewer to watch the events simultaneously on smartphone or tablet devices. there should be no doubt that we need to focus on the most efficient ways to deliver video to our consumers. today and into the future in order to optimize the video experience. to meet the demands for

mobility, our industry is today launching podcast mobile television. new mobile devices and the doctors will enable reception of full motion digital broadcast without the need for additional spectrum. because podcast mobile tv relies on our existing over the air transmission, we can offer a high-quality video without running up expensive consumer costs or exhausting day the capps, internet providers provoke -- internet providers impose on their customers. these innovations will highlight how creatively broadcasters are using their digital spectrum now and will be doing so in the future. as broadcast is initiated compared to the fcc policy determinations, not jeopardize the opportunity to bring these new services to life. our industry recognizes that consumers expect programming on a variety of devices large and small. in order to make that a reality and preserve our business -- it's as fidelity, content producers will need insurance the programming will only be transmitted with prior consent

and agreed upon compensation. in the current television context, re jens missing consent allows companies to negotiate in the free-market for the value of the broadcast signal. these negotiations are successful because both sides of the deal have scan in the game. we have a mutuality of interest. broadcasters benefit from the exposure that cable and satellite provides. likewise these video operators benefit from reselling are incredibly popular content. it has been suggested by some in the cable industry that cable bills are rising because of the cost of broadcast programming. there is a chart on the screen that would indicate the data does not support that assertion. cable price increases have consistently outpaced inflation for 11 of the last 12 years. it is the cable networks that have been collecting the vast majority of carriage fees. the next chart shows the differential and disparity in fees paid to basic cable networks compared to the total

fees to broadcasters. both on a chellie basis and as projected into the future. in 2012, it is estimated cable will pay broadcasters $2 billion dollars in retrans fees. this did not give effect to the value of the inventory change that goes on from cable networks to the cable mso's of that amount of money does not equal what the $27 million disparity. this is even more confounding when you consider broadcast ratings are many times higher than cable in so many cases. approximately 95 of the top 100 shows in the recent television season aired on broadcast television in the demographic of 18-29 and 29-54.

retrans payments are not the drivers of increasing cable bills. how do we ensure our broadcast content is successful beyond its traditional platforms to the new video technologies? i will observe -- i think congress got it right in 1992 when it noted broadcasters must be allowed controlled use of their signals by anyone engaged in reed transmission by any means. new companies like sky angell are part of the video marketplace but it appears to be unclear as to how the wall -- the law will apply to them and other new entrants. they're considering the question of what is a multi channel video program distributor. these questions have far reaching implications.

who has program access? who pays retransmission fees? the rules should be applied to all new entrants. as an industry that creates content or requires the right to content, it is imperative we have the right to negotiate over how are content is distributed. congress should reject any erosion of the bedrock principles to reach as missing content and market exclusivity because they are essential to our local system of broadcasting. but that television is an important part of today and tomorrow's video ecosystem. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you.

we appreciate your testimony. our next witness is the chairman of dish network. we look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. i am chairman of the dish network. we provide 16 million subscribers. because hanahan assemble roles. college try to understand what the customer wants. change is inevitable. customers what to watch things on their bonds and tablets no matter where they are. they want to be able to surf the web or make a bow, matter where they are. dish plans to offer consumers to get these from one company. we do a pretty good job of providing fixed video to the

home. customers want mobile video. they what mobile voice in mobile data. we need to provide all those communications services to everyone of our customers. our company is moving in that direction. our customers can use a wireless tablet from any location. we recently purchased blockbuster, integrating the holdings to increase our on demand holdings. we are a distributor of dvr technologies said they can watch the content they pay for whenever they want. we give consumers the choice to more easily view their preferred programming was giving what they do not want to see. allow your kids to watch television does not mean they have no choice.

this improve upon technologies to give them the ability to record their television shows. these are some of the ways we responded to our customers' changing needs. we still have to go further. we went from selling big dishes to their own business. they give consumers what they want. last year we invested billions of dollars with the game at transforming these to the broadband one. this brings me to my second point.

foster change. do not ignore or be afraid of it. we can not be started until the fcc gives us updated rules on how i can be used for mobile broadband. we hope the fcc will act in finalizing our new rules by the end of the summer. we will begin as soon as possible to have a chance. 20 years ago when congress first adopted this it was one cable operator in any given market. today there are multiple providers in each market including large regional cable

providers. then there are over the top providers like netflix. he paid television providers stiff competition for one another. the result is almost bad for consumers and the free market. broadcasters played the providers against one another. consumers lose because they cannot see if it when they paid for. in a bang higher rates. -- they end up paying higher rates. the problem is getting worse. they cling to the status quo instead of raising new technologies. the regime is a prime example of an outdated government policy by congress or the fcc. it is incredible to see how much we have changed.

there are few of us you use the internet are have a cell phone back then. just as businesses must foster change involving gay video marketplace, government should work to ensure its regulations. thank you appeared of a four tier questions >> thank you. now our final witness, the senior vice president for internal affairs for the motion picture association of america. >> thank you. i want to thank you offer the opportunity to testify at. i want to acknowledge and thank my colleagues on the panel. i am honored to be with such a distinguished group. want wherever you are, content

distributors are working together to provide innovative options for audiences. we welcome this opportunity to testify and work with the subcommittee as you consider appropriate policies. we are pleased to be a part of this discussion. we had driven by the desire to create any consumer demand for the products we produce. we're listening to our audiences. we are developing new ways to get yours the experience they want. . others are in those that only exists in the mind of some invented young person. all of these innovations benefit

both the consumers to reseat the viewing experiences they want and the creators to take the risk and invest in these. for many people around the world there is no substitute for the peter going experience. it is a foundation of the american movie industry. this is an important part of america's rich history and the present and future of video. our company embraced #d and brilliant sound enhance the experience. play into how people are entertained. for decades people have watched movies on television's appeared this is changing with each passing day. they're being delivered by digital broadcasts and through a

new range of channel choices in the cable and satellite business. i insist they're able to watch these programs at the time of the original airing or the time of their choosing through the tv options. watch moviesan and television shows across the internet in their home third services like netflix and other services. finances fine entertainment and in their mobile devices as well. the ability to access high is thriving onontent line.

competitors for consumers' intentions are providing new offerings every week. the quality of video delivery has improved tremendously. this at cigna began buying it by providing online access -- significant buying power by providing online access. on-line services today cater to every manner including gruntal, download to know, subscriptions, and at the port did you ring. -- including download to own, subscriptions, and portable

viewing. retailers like amazon and blockbuster. new ventures are given. a word about portability. i insist want the convenience to access the content they purchase on a variety of devices without having to buy the same thing twice. we're delivering to this. this began as a company started to add a transferable or downloadable digital copy for consumers to use. now there are a variety of ways to buy one employee everywhere. one comes from the system that

is more than 60 studios, stores, and firms that have created a cloud base storage locker for consumer content. when a consumer purchases alter violent media such as a blue ray or dvd, at the consumer has the right to enjoyment that continent by streaming devices at home or on the go. over 5000 titles are available. over 3 million consumers have set up accounts in less than one year. walmart will begin offering consumers the ability to convert their current collections to digital copies that they can book download answering. they estimate the average user brings about seven disks to the store and each conversion takes a minute. other initiatives are also

being delivered. we are trying to keep pace with the demands of our audience to give them more choices of how they view their content. as this committee considers the policies [unintelligible] make no mistake. we will always have a way to find new content to be distributed. we must be part of discussion. this is an important topic. with afford to working with you.

>> thank you for your testimony. thank you for an lightning as with your use. let me start with this question. we appreciate your comments. i want to get above your company and raise the issues that come up in this new world we are in. i understand why you'd want the protection of the communications act. are you prepared for the responsibilities when this goes to others as well? the rules requiring the competitive availability, the network not duplication and syndicated aeschylus -- exclusivity. tell me what this means.

closede offering captioning. we offer the eas service. as far as the consent, we will not be carrying any type of local broadcasting. we have done a marketing agreement with a company that sells over the air digital and tennis --antennas so they can do this through them so we will not be entering into this consent issue. >> what if people are required to? >> we will have to look at that when it happens. >> given the world you're operating in now, you want everything that is in the communications act good and burdensome. >> the current situation where

this is probably the right approach. there are some parts that i think one naturally come to this. a lot of the regulations are in different environments. >> i agree in the sense that i can highlight some of the antiquated notions. i think that it is something in connection with determining it on a broader scale in a single regulatory filing. it a little strange that a kid can be watching the sprout channel in a living room but the way the programming that there but they may have been subject to different roles? thingn't the regulatory

be the same t? >> we're asking for the level laying feel that our competitors do. because this is up and question we have not been able to have access to that programming. >> the rule should be the same. if you're going to be a provider, get the rules or change them. there are some cases where things are little different. we have to look at and on the case by case basis. cable as more than local service. remains to be seen if they will

be national or local. it depends. there may be some differences because of that. >> yes. i largely agree. -- with that said, i would not make the hallmark of suggesting things are similarly situated just because they could produce the same content or show. there are different business models, different technologies underlying. the business builds an infrastructure that is optimized for premium high-quality content. that is very different than the same content being sold on itunes for $2.99 in a model

largely designed to sell ipods more than content. as long as we are confident, these are pursuing different objectives just because they have the same content, does not make them identical. as we look at the statute i do think they should be more sameness then there is today. >> my time is expired. is really to get to the heart of the issue here, everybody wants a little different deal -- the other guy's deal. we are trying to find out what is the right regulatory scheme to spur innovation in a marketplace that functions. with that i will turn to my colleague from california, the woman who is proud to represent innovation and technology. >> thank you. i think you hit the nail on the head. we all want to see an acceleration of innovation, that

it not only be -- that we motivate things through whatever it might be, a change of the law -- whatever rules at the fcc. this is really one of the more exciting areas relative to our national economy that holds so much promise. i think this morning's hearing is really highly instructive. right below the surface there are all these different cases. we are very well aware of the consumer demands for innovative data intensive video applications like netflix, amazon, hulu, the all continue to grow. at the same time the wireless

carriers are moving away from the unlimited data plans. there was a piece in the new york times that talked about broadband moving to meters. first of all, do you think this curtails innovation? if so, how would you address it. >> first of all, there have been speed based tears and anger based -- internet service for some -- speed based tiers and internet service for some time. as long as there is competition, providers to give good values to consumers will get the business. if they become restrictive in a way that disadvantage services in a competitive market, companies that provide those services will not succeed. i think the key is really competition in order to ensure

they get the right outcome. >> thank you. >> there has been a lot of talk about the competition in the video marketplace. thousands of video channels in the golden age of video. i think that is true. the one thing we have to be mindful of is that internet video, there is only one way to get internet video and that is over and internet high. there are very few carriers. in some places there are only one carrier -- there is only one carrier. it is something you should be mindful of as you think about the internet video. with respect to our issues, the issues we have raised them in public about with the application of discriminatory did a caps, the way in which the same content is delivered -- >> when are they discriminatory and when are they not?

crux the sand content from netflix or the same from comcast, one counts against data caps and what does not. they should be applied equally or not apply at all. >> let me give you an example. i agree with my colleagues to the left. a perfect example of data caps are concerned about is what comcast is doing with the >> box 360. -- xbox 360. netflix and others are subject to the data cab. we did nothing they are inherently bad when they are arbitrary they can be of use. they can be anti-competitive. there is an incentive and ability to discriminate against online internet competitors. one of the things -- public knowledge has been asking the

fcc for almost two years to look at data caps to find out how they are evaluated, how they are raised or lowered so people can have an idea of what the caps are intended to do. they have refused. >> thank you. it is my understanding that 20% of your customers have dropped their cable or satellite service. what factors do you think would lead more customers to consider an alternative rather than a complement to traditional cable or satellite service? what we do see a percent is that have dropped their packages. i think there is a variety of reasons for this. in some cases it is cost living situation where individual preferences on programming.

what is interesting is there are now choices that allow consumers that opportunity. things like netflix or hulu plus get people who want a different selection of video the ability to get that. i think the increased choice of offerings is really the key to providing the right service for all consumers. i think we provide what method for doing that. you will see a lot more innovation in the coming months and years as to how to do that better. we are optimistic that it will lead to continued consumption but in different fashions. >> i have four questions, i will submit the other two in writing. i want to thank the witnesses. together you have made this not only an important but an instructive hearing on the future of video. >> thank you. the chair recognizes mr. barton. >> i first want to take a look -- victory lap this morning.

the president announced we will have a non b.c. s playoff and college football. i can take a little bit of credit because back when i was chairman of this committee we have some hearings on that and we got the ball rolling. they announced a 14 playoff. -- four team committee. i do not think it is the ultimate, but it is a start and the right direction. when they get to eight or 16 i think they will have it. my first question is to the audience. i want somebody in the audience to tell me the original analog televisions, how many channels were on them? anybody that is my age ought to know.

i see one hand out there. how many? somebody. not how many you got, but how many were on the dial. there were 13. to-13, but there were no no. 1. i never understood why there was no number one. you could go up to 13. there is light 900 programs available now. -- there are like 900 programs available now. on my first tv we got one channel on a good day. now we have thousands literally. i think it is time to review the talent communication video market. -- telecommunication video

market. i think they will be commended for agreeing to do this hearing. i think there are some principles we need to remember. this is just my -- i do not claim this as the universe. obviously, in order to have a program you have to have a creator. in this country we have never regulated the creator of the programming. they have to have a producer. to my knowledge we have never regulated the producers. there have been efforts at censorship. in terms of creativity and production, we basically let that be a free market operation. once you have a program be have to have somebody to package it and market it. have to have somebody to transmit it. you have to have somebody to buy it or somebody to view it or consume it. when you get into the packaging

and transmission is when we had a role for government. i think it is a truism that form follows function. in our original regulatory for mac, it was based on the fact that whether it was radio or television, there was a potential for a national monopoly. government he did tries to prevent a monopoly or regulated monopoly. a lot of ideas originated when the early radio and tv market was getting started. the advent of the cable industry brought video to more people, but it also brought additional regulation. i was the only member of the committee back in the 1980's that voted against the

reregulation of cable. the only one on either side of the aisle when first president bush was president. i was at the white house when we deregulated cable. when we passed the telecommunications act in 1996, there were at least four or five or six witnesses at this table that their industry or company did not exist. did not exist. i listen to the president of roku try to explain what is. i know it is too late to do a major bill in this congress, but i hope in the next congress we take this up and use original principles to review the market. i think we are better off with

less regulation that more and more enterprise and market competition than last. the role of government is to provide a level playing field to prevent the monopoly of possible. to try to prevent undue market share and be fair to all. i think this is an excellent hearing. i look forward to big things happening. if we are going to do big things, it has to be done on a bipartisan basis. this is not a partisan issue. it will go nowhere if it becomes r vs d. it has to be done on a bipartisan basis. with the leadership on both sides of the committee, that is a doable deal. with that i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. first of all i would like to

welcome the witnesses before us today. i would like to acknowledge the great work that a hearst owned station is doing in sacramento. i like to get a better understanding from our witnesses about the role of to -- retransmission consent and our shared commitment to localism. i understand that retransmission consent payments are used by broadcasters to support local news and weather. how would you respond to concerns that changes in the retransmission consent regime could undermine quality local programming? >> thank you. retransmission consent, maybe we can get a little more information on this. it generally goes some to the network. it has changed to were the major network may take some of that.

that is the way it started. now the national network will pay a large portion of that. second, of course, it is a -- the broadcast model is a two pronged a model. they get from two sources. >> the troubling thing is despite the fact retransmission fees have gone up since i started in this business, localism and the local level has gone down from a local news perspective. to cut cost and to operate more efficiently, many broadcasters are sharing local news networks. in many cities you will see that a knows -- a news show will be on multiple networks or they will be sharing resources.

>> would you like to comment on that? >> a 21st century media company today needs to do a revenue stream. for years they operated with an advertising on the model. the cable industry help us get our signal into rural areas. then it built a significant business on the back of popular programming available to americans in every community in this country, and that was local television. we are using the retransmission consent fees to invest in local businesses. i think you have see most local stations -- many local stations go from producing 20 hours a week of programming to 40 hours a week of programming exclusively in the local news john rupp. we have added multitask channels on our signals now.

i would disagree with mr. ergon that is not being used in a constructive way to advance the interest of local television. >> how would you respond to concerns some parties have raised about the impact of coordination and consolidation on retransmission consent negotiations? >> speaking for our company we negotiate only on behalf of the own stations of the hearst corporation. others have pulled their consent and negotiations and have created bundles, i believe in most cases people have been smart enough to acknowledge they have to break up a bundle. mr. ergon wants to buy a station where we have a duopoly. i will sell him kcra separately.

>>i think the problem is that local broadcasters, there are a government sponsored monopoly. nobody can bring that signal into the marketplace today. it is an unfair fight. i will give you one example in wyoming where one individual that their rights to negotiate for the three broadcast networks and wyoming. there was either no local networks and cheyenne or you had to pay whatever rate -- the signal had to come down so consumers lost because of unfair bargaining. it is wanting to be an unregulated monopoly, another thing the to band together and negotiate on behalf of multiple stations in the same market. what to say this is not the center of the country. it appears what mr. barrett says

-- sacramento might not be the same way as what you are talking about in wyoming. >> i would agree that each broadcaster handles it differently. mr. barrett's company handles it on a professional manner with their networks. other people utilize their market power. that mischief can happen. >> i have run out of time. i would like to submit some written questions here. >> thank you. i recognize myself for five minutes. i will spend most of my time with you, mr. powell. first i want to give a little anecdotal story. but i walked into my 17-year olds room. by the way, we got him a tv for his temper christmas thinking when he graduates it will be a good thing for a him to take to college. hopefully he is going to college.

i walked into his room, and he is on his iphone. i said, what is going on. he said, just watching netflix. on his iphone and there is a tv sitting right there. that is the world we are living in. that are the -- that is who will dominate the consumer products and video markets for the years to come. i think of turning on the tv, they do not. >> tv internet connected. >> good point. he has the xbox 360. so he can do it that way as well. he chose to do it on his phone. mr. powell, it is intersting you mention 57%. in 1992, congress was concerned about the cable monopoly. that does not exist today.

the folks sitting in this panel. what does that mean to the cable industry? how is it evolving to be competitive. in reference to the 1992 act, let's try not to be redundant. what other underbrush is there from 1992 that was so focused on the cable industry, what dowe need to do to clear out the brush, what specific things should congress look at if we want to review the 1992 act? >>the dfirst thing i would say is you have to increase value for your consumers. i think the competition we face first form the satellite

companies increased the quality of content we were providing, the amount were providing. it forceus to look at new businesses for revenue development. it helped to drive investment and broadband and brought that into the bottle of services we offer as well. if you look at the over-the-top folks are doing use the cable companies knowing that they, too, have to be able to bring the value to your son to allow him to watch what you are xboxes asver ipads and > well. i would give you a more global answer of what to change. i think the 1992 core elements -- we were readily integrated monopolies and another that was on subsidizing broadcasting.

i think the vertical integration rules -- these would be roles like program access, carriage, and rules prefaced on the idea you have to guard against our incentives with a distributor and owner of content. we have a dialogue those are the rules which should have to talk about. you have to also reevaluate elements of the social contract. is it still the policy of the united states that the cable industry should continue to forcefully subsidize the broadcasting model, reid transmission consent that other elements? i am not prepared to answer them. >> one last question and hopefully we can have time for the broadcasters to rebut that. we are getting calls and our

office about cable rates going up. i think this goes to the verbal integration model that was thought of as cable them. you're not the content provider today. could you explain quickly in 26 seconds how that impacting the business model and what we should be telling our clients? >> any industry in this day and a gender economic stress that is not sensitive to affordability is acting at its peril. i think our industry is focused. you are seeing companies experiment with a smaller and lower-priced packages. basic packages are offered for one. i think it is very difficult to compare prices over time. there is so much more that consumers are buying. dvr, more channels. on an hourly basis cable is 21 cents per hour. that is cheaper than netflix and

most other entertainment products. >> viewing hours or 24 hours a day? >> viewing hours. >> thank you. at this time the chair recognizes the gentle lady from the virgin islands. >> thank you. welcome to all of the panelists this morning. thank you for holding this hearing. just a couple of questions. i probably will not use up all of my time. can you hear me? what policies would protect this without a carrier? >> i think we would be comfortable with preserving must carry four public stations.

as far as commercial stations are concerned? -- are feeling is that if they are providing good local programming, cables will want to provide the because the customers will demand it. clucks how are broadcasters looking to respond to the pressures on advertising revenues from new technologies and services? >> one of our challenges has been to enact --neilson has been --[unintelligible] the revenue stream as we iterence, we're optimistic

will be opportunity for other stations as well. >> could he answer that again. we will stop the time. >> our challenge as broadcasters has been to be sure the neilson captures viewing on the time shifted television experience on the cpr and the like. the new revenue opportunities we have with retransmission consent, multitask, and a mobile television, the extent does ad revenues will replace and support some of the downward pressure on ad revenues against our core product. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. you and all of the other panelists have pointed out the way the competitive environment

and technology has changed and is continuing to change. he recommended reexamining a lot of rules, regulatory rules, content obligations as well as must carry transmission content. some would say if we were too weak and any of those rules it would give cable an unfair advantage. given the wide choices that are available today, how would you respond to that? >> i think the way i would characterize it is i do not think the cable industry is -- we are look not looking for deregulation. we are looking for a more rational regulatory model that reflects the reality of the market. we think a lot of roles that we are currently living under if you accept the way they are premised would fall under a standard by today's measurement. i am willing to entertain that somebody could conceive of a

different basis or a different reason for some regulatory rules. i think the obligation -- the burden should be to prove that from a zero base. given the reality to of today, why do you still need this rule or why do you need a new proposed role? we are a cooperative partner and trying to make sure the policy is right as opposed to a get rid of everything because it is stupid. we think it should be justified based on what we see in the market. given what you have heard, on balance that would be a ragged -- dramatic regulatory regime. >> at this time we recognize mr. stern's for five minutes. >> i have a little delicate question that is more or less confined to my congressional district. i represent the university of florida in gainesville. it appears there is a dispute

between direct tv and abc affiliates over retransmission consent fees. you are probably not familiar with that. >> i am not familiar with that. we owe the nbc affiliate filed orlando. >> some have suggested because gainesville -- they cannot even get abc now. is a blackout. in your opinion, are these blackout's becoming more frequent? >> i think they are very infrequent. we on the nbc affiliate. over the past several years or so there has been a new nbc affiliate licensed to gainesville to that market place. he may infer we stood aside and did not challenge that nbc affiliate that went into the

marketplace. >> what is your reply to that? are the blackout becoming more frequent? >> they are becoming more frequent. i could speak for a dish -- >> we have a clear difference of opinion. >> costs i can speak for additional work. we had six blackout last year. 9 already this year. >> 9 this year. let's take gainesville. they cannot get abc. the call you up and say why can we back it abc. what do you say? >> he said you are working with broadcasters to negotiate a fair rate for them. it is a bit of an unfair food fight. the broadcaster -- the consumer has a choice to switch to another video provider. their sweeps ratings only happened four times a year. i only get measured four times a year by nielsen.

cable companies cannot take down a network during a sweeps rating. it is not a fair fight out there today and is becoming more prevalent. >> what should a solution be? is there a solution? >> i think there are some fairly easy solutions. if we are going to make a market determinant, i am all for that. if you do not have the gainesville station -- he would have to go to a standstill arbitration or have the right to import an abc station from orlando so the customer does not do without the abc network while the dispute is going on. then you have a free market system working where it is more of a fair fight between the broadcaster.

>> you have opened pandora's box. >> i understand they deploy services to allow viewers to watch local news, emergency alerts and other programming on the go. are the differences between brought band, video over broad band is currently available on cell phone and can mobil dtv alleviate the pressure on the wireless bands? >> the architecture, it is a symbol. malta. distribution -- it does not run into broad bank ingestion. if i invited you to a yankee game in new york city and we wanted to go on-line, you would have trouble in yankee stadium connecting with a broad ban supplier that did not offer or have a real signal limitations. over the year broadcast symbol could touch everyone in that

stadium simultaneously. it is a vastly superior system. >> i think we all understand the need for more spectrum. i think they are moving forward on a rule regarding the dish. this recently acquired it to go out on a wireless network. what is the status of this item and when will they issue the final order in your opinion? >> we first went through a waiver process. we were denied that waiver by the fcc. we went to a rule making process that is complete and the sense all the comments are in from all the parties who might be affected he their positive or negative way by entering into the wireless business. the rule making is now having to be decided by the commission. we are hopeful they can do that

by the end of the summer. they have allme rejecte the facts to approve it here we are hoping by the end of the summer. the unleashes 40 megahertz of spectrum. of course a huge investment in this industry and jobs at a time when a lot of people are hoarding cash. they are waiting on the fcc uncertainty. it can alleviate that problem. it is a case where businesses and government can work together to do the right thing for consumers and also unless productivity and investment in the united states. what's the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from colorado. >> thank you very much. sitting here listening to this testimony reinforces my view

that the consent issue is a messy issue. there is not a one size solution. most people would like to see agreements reached that are fair to consumers. i think almost everything -- one thing almost everyone can agree with this congress should not put too heavy of a finger on that scale. we should allow them to come to a solution. i believe we need access to free and the verse and local news and local programming. information and an emergency. i was looking at some of my local news on these wildfires and colorado. there is a good example of how consumers and boulder and colorado springs or fort collins need to get access to local news. that is a balancing that we have to have. several members of the panel talked about mobility and how

much promise that has. the strong arguments supporting the value of broadcasting to consumers do not necessarily equate to a justification for polling a signal from cattle -- cable or satellite viewers if negotiations fail. i am thinking about this from the standpoint of my constituents who barely have time to sit down in front of the television and who want to turn on the first game of the world series -- they would help the rockets might be and that but maybe not this year. they cannot get their programming they want because we failed consent talks. my first question is a simple question. i would like to have a yes or no. that question is, do you think blackouts as a result of the failure of disagreements are fair to consumers no matter how

rare or often they might be? i will start with you. >> know. >> mr. barrett? >> know. >> know. >> no. >> mr. ergen, i have a question for you. as you testified in your statements -- i think everybody knows, the technology lets consumers skip over other things they do not want to watch. as you said, that would mean when kids are watching tv they would not have to see junk food and alcohol commercials. i would submit that as the fall approaches many would skip over the shock and all commercials everybody will be treated to in the campaign this fall.

i think the volume is the issue. it would let them decide what they want to see. i know this is in the courts right now. talking not about the legal issues about consumer choice and innovation in the free marketplace does it not simply improve on technology that is already available from the d p are to what is possible to the d p are? >> i think it was settled legally 28 years ago. but it does what everybody in the pay-tv business does which is it allows customers to record a series of channels. it allows them to skip ahead through a commercial. although hop makes it more

convenient to do it. i woke up this morning my alarm went off at 6:00 as it does every morning. i do not have to reset it every morning even if i am in a different time zone. autohop -- you can make the choice to skip to the commercial with the skipper of the button. just as we have regulated -- i sat through regulations of, we have to have a rating system for our tv shows so parents can block them out. we have regulations to turn the volume down. it is amazing we had to do that. it is amazing commercials could be that loud. we do not need regulation that prevents -- they do not have a right to skip a commercial or have the right to record a show. we will fight the good fight for the consumer.

clucks from the standpoint of the broadcaster, i understand their business plan and revenue concerns. i think we have to balance the consumer decision of what they want to see versus that business plan. we have to work something out. >> if this committee is interested in protecting localism, if you are interested in having your local station cover the wildfires, the auto harper and that technology will be damaging to the local business model and you will lose local station's ability to provide the coverage important in your district. >> i think for the local broadcasters, i am sympathetic to the business model. we need to balance that plus the consumer interest. it is not dish that once that choice, it is the consumers.

we will have to work that out. thank you. >> now the gentle lady from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> i have a couple of questions that i want to get to today. i do thank all of you for your patience and diligence and continuing to work on this issue. since you are the only female on the panel today, i see seven guys and you. we need more women down there. let me go to something you said previously. you basically endorsed having the usage based the billing at one point by saying the isp should charge a flat rate for a certain amount of bandwidth and then a meter great for usage that goes beyond that limit. what i wanted to see is if you still agreed with that.

if somebody is a netflix subscriber and they are using a large portion of capacity as opposed to somebody who checks e-mail and does a little bit of surfing, should they be paying the same amount? where are you on that? >> basically what we say is that they attack caps are not inherently bad. they can be abused. -- data caps are not inherently bad. what is the rationale for a day to caps? former chairman powell said in his testimony, well, we have to deal with congestion on our network. data cap is a blunt issue because congestion only happens

at one point in time. if i am backing of my data at 3:00 in the morning i of not causing congestion but that goes against my day to a cap. i want to emphasize it is important to know how data caps are set, evaluated, moved over time. comcast just raised for the first time in years to 300 gigabytes. why did it take so long? we do not think usage based billing is inherently bad, but it can be abused. it is important to know how it is used. >> let me come to you. you might want to respond to that. i want to ask you to talk a little bit about the alternate distribution methods that are there and cable carriage contracts.

it-filled with a lot of entertainers, they understand the approach when they are doing shows. with a lot of our producers pushing content forward, we have some questions about the adm approach. if you want to respond and answer the second question. >> i would like to highlight something she did say. it has been echoed by the leading regulators that there is nothing inherently wrong with usage based pricing just like there is not -- if you run your air-conditioning all day long the lowest temperature and your neighbor chooses to open the window, you will pay more money than your neighbor is. usage based pricing is about price fairness. you are being allocated a portion of the cost consistent with your use. that is a well-established

economic principle. we do not think just because you can condemn it in words makes it so. another thing i would say about caps. caps are not the industry standard. as far as i know, after comcast's recent change there is not a cable company that uses a cap. they are able to move to other pricing bundles or increase capacity. the idea that we are all uniformly applying caps i think is not factually accurate. there is an economically defensible reason for usage based pricing. it is not about congestion management. it is about how do you monetize the high fixed cost network. if you put this thing in and you have a charger in users.

with net neutrality we cannot charge other corporations. how to do that fairly is the question cable companies are experimenting with. i am not that much of an expert on the specifics of these contracts. they have been around a long time. i would note in the doj investigation, they looked at these and the context of the merger and other merger specific deals and did not find any violations in those cases. to be honest they are contract specific. i am not usually pretty. i think they can serve a beneficial purpose and also be harmful. -- i am not usually privy. >> my time has expired. i will yield back. >> gentle lady yields back and the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes.

>> i want to thank you for joining us today. i know my constituents in pittsburgh appreciate the hearst station have there. i want to elaborate more on mr. ergen's comments. there is a fair use exemption for dvr recordigns. can you explain why you believe it is so different than regular dvr service? >> i think it goes beyond the contemplating issues. i will be anxious to see how the core judy yates that. it remains a threat to the local broadcasting system. one of the best qualities of the american society is we have a local broadcasting system in place in 210 markets. all of the determination as you will make it will be a trade off

of things. i am here on behalf of people committed to local communities. there has to be a high priority fixation for conserving the localism they provide. >> it is not a copyright issue. this is a perfect example of how copyright is misstated and misused to stop an ovation. the sunny versus universal case was action -- absolutely clear. the public has a right to record what they want to record off of tv. that was 1984. that was a long time ago. people have been skipping commercials for 50 years since the guy who just died invented the remote control. i remember 10 years ago when fox said it was ok for people to go to the bathroom to skip commercials. service isrgen's

doing is turning three steps into one and consumers should have a right to do that. >> in your testimony you spoke about your ultraviolet service. my understanding it is it is a new way for consumers to watch movies through the internet rather than having to purchase a dvd they could only purchase on a dvd player. i find the service interesting. i have some questions. on the ultraviolet website you indicate customers can stream content to almost any internet connected device and they can download digital copies when they do not have good access. it can ultraviolet customers download a digital copy of a film onto any device or certain compatible devices? >> my understanding is it has to be devices registered with the ultraviolet service. downloading is a component of it. in the first phase, they will

have the ability to download it onto different devices. >> i just thought it was unclear on the web site. based on the advertising, it seemed to me like i could download the content into any device of my choosing. i noticed similar confusion from other ultraviolet users who thought they were going to get a digital copy of a movie to watch anywhere. can you explain what some of the approved devices are? what would be an approved device? >> you could download it onto your laptop, a tablet, different things like that. i would have to give back to you the specific list. >> i am curious with these ultraviolet compatible devices are. it might be easier for consumers when you look it that website to understand what actually they

can use and not use. just to follow up to that, does your service to customers guarantee they will always have access to the purchase they make? i have my old the tds. i can still go into the closet and pull out the dvd anytime i want. is there a guarantee people will always have access to a purchase they make? >> it is my understanding it is a perpetual agreement between the consumer and the producer that they will have access to those, yes. >> with that i will yield back. >> the chair will recognize myself for five minutes. look at the marketplace as drastically different than in 1992 when congress passed the cable act. yet the laws written then still apply as if innovation has come to a halt. i think it is important to look

back. we take advantage -- the laws we have on the books today were written when we had these devices for telephones. while i can do things today we all take for granted, the law was written when this device was your communications device. when we started this conversation it is important to remember technology has changed dramatically, yet the law has not changed at all. we have a process today where if you have a disagreement with the law you have to go to the fcc. maybe they rule your way one day and a row against to another day. -- rule against you another day. since congress created the problem decades ago it has a responsibility to fix them

today. the current system forces people to turn to the fcc for relief. i also question the wisdom of regulating do startups and services as traditional video providers. they are not recipes for encouraging the up most innovation and competition benefiting consumers. modernizing the regulatory framework should focus on providing relief to all stakeholders by repealing the intertwined 76 and 86 copyright licenses as well as the 1992 cable act. it will level the playing field for content creators and distributors alike. negotiators -- negotiations will look like it does for cable programs where compensation is paid for traditional copyright licenses. it is time we recognize the transformation that has occurred by getting the government out of negotiations that should be left

up to the private sector. i think i know somebody in the subcommittee who has legislation to do just that. i want to ask some of your panelists some questions. first if we could go across the board. do you believe the current video marketplace allows consumers specific choice over how the watch video programming, yes or no starting with mr. johnson? >> regarding our service i would say no. >> thank you. >>no. >> getting there, yes. >>make that three, yes. >> yes. >>no, not yet. >>yes. >> we have a split amongst the panelists here. mr. barrett, i appreciate the

work he do -- one of the hearst affiliates. who do you not qualify for compulsory licenses? >> limited right from our networks with respect to how we may transmit their signal to other distributors. >> limited rights. >> yes. >> mr. ergen, your company is opposed to paying access for content. >> know, we are not opposed to paying for content. >> mr. johnson? >> will use the content do you me local programming? >> any content -- >> we have been paying for the content.

>> all we do is pay for content. >> this is something that already occurs. i want to ask mr. barrett -- you own a stake and a7e, lifetime, other cable channels. >> correct. >> when you are negotiating with different distributors, is that a free market? do you sit at the table? are there any compulsory laws that have to happen? >> will negotiate on behalf of hearst telelvision and are not involved in any at linked and associations. >> i want to ask you about some comments he made on page 9 and 10. you made remarks about 3675. you refer to their content. first they will turn back the clock to a time when cable and satellite providers confiscated

and resold broadcast signals to subscribers without containing -- obtaining consent. i would first a my legislation does not do that. we would revert to traditional copyright laws. under the legislation i refer to, a company would have to pay for the content that you provide before they could distribute it. you refer to my bill would use a providers could confiscate the content, which is a mischaracterization. did you read the bill? have you looked at the statement again? >> i read the bill. if you say this is a mischaracterization i will revisit that. >> you look at this industry. you have read the bill, too. does this allow for people to confiscate content and give it away or would they have to pay for it?

>> of course not. i think what keeps getting lost in the conversation is mr. barrett and his colleagues get their transmission means for free from the public. they get it and in exchange they are supposed to make that signal for free to the public. the notion they are entitled to money for their signal, that has only been the case for 20 years. from the advent of television in the 1950's until 1992, other people were compensating -- confiscating their signal. that is supposed to be free. >> but if somebody retransmits it they would have to pay and get an agreement -- paid to get the copyright -- >> that makes more sense. that eliminates the middle man. >> i will go back and look. i think the characterization that we get this for free is a mischaracterization.

the public trust the model has been in place since the 1920's and 1930's communication act. it acknowledges spectrum is a limited resource that belongs to the public. most capable should be trusted with that license. local broadcasters in this country have served the public interest very well. >> >> i was specifically asking about the bill that was filed in the copyright laws that would still be in effect. appreciate it. now, the german from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you. -- the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. welcome to our witnesses. i have a lot of questions to ask and to little time, will you will help me by answering yes

or no. this question to all witnesses -- i will make a statement and then ask if anyone disagrees. we should all agree that consumers want innovative, informative, and entertaining new content, and delivery methods will not matter much to consumers. is there anyone that disagrees with the statement that content creators should be compensated fairly for their content, which itself should be protected? is there anyone who disagrees with that statement? very well. speaking of content, there is some consternation, i understand, about the affected your latest invention on content. is dish network currently being sued for copyright infringement or breach of contract in federal court over its new operating

service? yes or no? >> yes, i would characterize it a little differently -- >> thank you. >> let me finish please. i want to make the record clear. we filed a third joint ruling -- >> mr. chairman, may i have order, please? the next question -- is it true the your service only automatically records and provides commercial stripping for programs on the local four network affiliations in the market? yes or no? >> no, it does not automatically record. >> thank you. is this so because the channels are in the most popular channels on your system? yes or no? >> it has to do with a variety of factors. that is that yes or no? >> it is not a yes or no answer on that one.

>> i have got an election coming up, like all of my colleagues here. like every politician everywhere. we all use political ads on local stations to reach our constituents and those who voted s. the district's your service potentially limits the ability of every one of our ads to reach constituents. do you understand and appreciate the concern that the politicians up here and other politicians would feel on this matter? yes or no? >> i understand the consumer's very well. i'm not a politician, so i cannot say i understand your concerns. i certainly understand consumers. >> thank you.

given all of this, i hope you understand my skepticism when it comes to dish's latest offering and its effect on the future of video. i would like to use the rest of my time to learn more about how the cable industry is adapting to new federal communications regulations to provide subscribers with new ty content and ways ts. is it true that the cable industry supported the commission's open internet order -- yes or no? >> ultimately, yes. >> mr. paul, again, if you please, help me remember -- mr. powell, was used-based billing considered and allowed by the ordinance? >> yes.

>> i want to thank you for the way you are proceeding here. our cable companies delivering products and services as well as practicing business models that comply with the open internet order -- yes or no? >> yes. >> in other words, cable is complying with the order -- is that right? >> i believe we are. >> one last question -- i do want to commend you again -- the sec just and said its view ability order. i think it is very important that cable subscribers be able to access local content by smaller broadcasters. this is the question -- what memberwill ncta's companies take to make sure their subscribers can still access local broadcast signals affected by the order's sunset?

>> we agree it is important they continue to receive the signal. 80% of consumers have gone digital and will not be affected. as to the remaining 20%, we have committed to low-cost boxes that would make it an affordable transition, similar to the boxes broadcasters used for the hdtv transition, and we have committed to providing adequate notice and a transition period. >> my thanks to the panel. thank you for your assistance and your candor. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yield back. mr. rush is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i also want to thank the witnesses for their appearance before the subcommittee. i have a question for the panel regarding the mdtv definition

that i will submit for the record unless we get time to do another round of questions. if there is time remaining, i would also like to hear the views of some of the panelists regarding the consumer privacy matters. privacy needs to be address. so many of your business models depend heavily on advertising, and there are other emerging models not represented here today that are rolling out video offerings tied to social media platforms. but first, i would like to ask, for the record, questions that pertain to the importance of more diverse ownership of broadcasting, wireless, cable, and information services licenses. while i agree with you that we should lament the lack of

diverse ownership and control of wireless services, i would like to look more into something that is written into your testimony. it says that, "the broadcast model permits a diversity of ownership and control that does not exist in wireless services." you know, for example, that minorities make up more than 1/3 of the u.s. population yet only owned and estimated 3% of full power commercial television stations and a little more than 7.5% of commercial radio stations. i strongly suspect that minority cable system ownership numbers are not much better.

do these numbers suggest to you that there is sufficient diversity of ownership and offerings of diverse media content? should we be concerned that those levels could decrease even further for the involuntary relocation of broadcasters in the le up to this change? >> those numbers suggest there is a sad limitation of the numbers of minorities that are involved in ownership, but i think my comments and remarks were meant to suggest that there are 1700 or so tv stations across the country. there is an opportunity for more diverse ownership, and there may be -- then there may be in a world where the national providers of this content is the reality that we live with. i think that the country is at risk in terms of less diversity, and i would note that minority groups are very dependent on

broadcast reception. 28% of asian households, 23% of african-american households, 26% of latino households are today receiving broadcast reception over the air. >> thank you very much. i would like to enter into the record a copy of a letter that was just filed with the sec a couple of days ago by a number of stakeholders, asking the sec to study the state of black radio ownership and programming diversity and to adopt rules that address these disparities. even though the subject we are taking up to date is video and audio, these concerns and the state of minority ownership in the video marketplace is even more acute. >> no objection. >> this is a question i have a around the issue of tax certificates. in the past, the association you

are representing here today has strongly endorsed passage of legislation to establish a new communications tax certificate program. is that still their position? >> yes, it is. we would continue to support such a lettuce the -- legislative initiative. >> and the association that you are representing here today also previously announced passage of legislation for new communications -- is that still the ncta's position? >> yes, in 2003 when senator mccain introduce the tax certificate, i was an enormous proponent and remain so. >> thank you very much. without objection, i would like to enter into the record the

report recommending that congress orientate -- reinstate a tax that specific policy. i would point out that the statement of the former fcc commissioner accompanying that has been the source of the minority ownership percentages that i cited earlier. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields, and there is no objection to the gentleman's unanimous consent motion, so that will be entered. now, the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you very much. could you tell me what you believe the effect will be of the proposed deal between verizon and spectrum company on the telecommunications marketplace? >> the deal will have several negative effects, both for competition and consumers. one is because there are these side agreements -- the marketing

agreement and the reselling agreement, basically is an agreement between the cable companies and verizon to lay down arms and no longer compete in the video marketplace. verizon and at&t will get the wireless. the cable industry will get the wire lines themselves. even worse than that, there is something called the joint operating entity, and that is essentially an agreement between those five cable companies and verizon to develop, patent technologies that would help streamed video from wireless to wireline, and that has an enormous capability to be anti- competitive and used against, for example, mr. bergen company. if he wants to use that technology, he would probably charge very high licensing fees or told that he cannot have that technology.

>> are you afraid of that, that you might not be part of the club? i guess she is saying there is going to be some kind of cozy cooperation that exists and you might get walled out. do you agree that is a possibility? >> we have not seen the undetected commons, so i cannot say specifically what they say, but we would certainly have a concern where two vicious competitors might get together to not compete with each other and exclude other people from competing with them. >> yes, that has always been the beauty of the 1992 and 1996 telecom act, that it created the conditions for darwinian paranoia-inducing competition, which ultimately is -- ultimately results in innovation and more benefits for

our consumers, so you always have to be wary, especially when people start talking about rewriting the 1992 and 1996 telecommunications act. maybe some of the smaller players do not need protection. let me go to you -- you just heard the comments. how would you comment upon that? >> i will be limiting my comments because as the head of the association, and i'm not really party to the transaction and do not have the specifics that the companies would in terms of their compensation. i would say all deals like this deserves vigilance, and that is why we have an antitrust process. i think we should rely on the confidence and able skills of both the federal communications commission and antitrust division to rigorously scrutinizing transactions for those purposes and reach a

conclusion in the public interest. i do not believe that it is intuitively clear that it is a capitulation and there would not be continued competition among these companies, but i think that is why we have an antitrust process, and i have a lot of faith in it. >> let me ask you -- july 1 is the deadline for the completion of the rule making and implementation of the provisions which i built into a 2010 law for video accessibility. could you give us an update as to where you were two industries are in terms of complying with the -- as to where your two industries are in terms of complying with that? >> our implementation will be fully complete, and i'm very pleased with how it has proceeded. i think on behalf of the member stations, the same thing can be said.

>> i would say effectively the same thing in response to your question. we are working towards compliance and also pleased with the way the process is going. for the deaf and blind, do you have access in the 21st century, that they are able to use all of their god-given abilities to fully participate? it is very important that we get the full cooperation, and we thank you for your positive comments about the process. i thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> digital and yields back the balance of his time. i believe that is the last member of our subcommittee. i want to thank all of the participants to date. as you probably heard from some of our colleagues, they may have other questions that they would submit for the record, and if you could be responsive in your

answers, it would really help us. your presence today certainly does that. these are consequential issues we are discussing at a positive policy level, and your input is really helpful in our process. i thank you for participating, and with that, the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> british prime minister david cameron talks about the results of the european summit in the house of commons monday. live coverage of his remarks come at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c- span. this author writes about the president's. >> harry truman goes to the white house and says to eleanor roosevelt -- can i play for you? and she says no. we need to pray for you.

there are a lot of promises made. they said they would have to wrap a very large hall, very much larger than this one, to get everyone that jack kennedy promised the presidency to the year. and their ideals -- calvin coolidge may have been the last jeffersonian. a man who was president believes strongly enough in the limits of governmental power and federal pallor -- power to resist the temptation. >> your questions and comments live at noon eastern. also this sunday, a middle east expert on the obama administration's response to the arab spring, afghanistan, iraq, and the palestinian peace process. that sounded at 9:00. and of president obama gave his weekly address from colorado springs. the president talked about the colorado wild fires. then, wyoming senator john

barrasso has the republican response. >> hello, everybody. i'm here in colorado springs, visiting some of the devastating fires that have taken place over the last several days. as many of you have been watching on television, entire communities are under threat, and we have a chance to tour some of the devastation that has been taking place in some of these subdivisions here. firefighters are working 18 hours a day around the clock, trying to make sure that they get this blaze under control. we have volunteers out here making sure that these firefighters have the food and the water and all the resources that they need. we have been engaging in some unprecedented coordination between federal, state, and local communities to try to bring this fire under control. one of the things i have done here in addition to saying thank you to these firefighters is to let them know that all of

america has their backs. one of the things that happens, whether it is a fire here in colorado, for a tornado in alabama or missouri or a flood or a hurricane in florida, one of the things that happens here in america is when we see our fellow citizens in trouble and having difficulty, we come together as one american family, one community. you see that spirit and the strength here in colorado springs where people are working together, promising each other to rebuild. we have got to make sure that we are there with them every step of the way, even after this fire is put out. for those of you who can provide some help, you should get on the website of american red cross. they are very active in the community. you can make your contributions there. we will continue to make sure that the federal emergency management agency, the forest service, our military, national guard, and all the resources we

have available at the federal level are brought to bear in fighting this fire. here's a good reminder of what makes us americans -- we do not just look out for ourselves -- we look out for each other. one of the things i told these firefighters is that we can provide them all the resources they need, but only they provide the courage and the discipline to be able to actually fight these fires. it is important that we appreciate what they do not just when our own communities are struck by disaster. it is important that we remember what they do each and every single day and that we continue to provide support to our first responders and first -- emergency management folks, our fire fighters, our military -- everybody who helps secure our liberty and security each and every day. so america, i hope you guys remember folks during these times of need. i know this is a little bit unusual. we do not usually do weekly addresses, but i thought it was

a good opportunity to focus attention on a problem that is going on in colorado springs. we never know when it might be our community. it is important we be there for them. >> hello. i am dr. john barrasso hear the president and his allies in congress are going to try to convince the public that the supreme court just gave the health care law a seal of approval. the fact is that this is the same failed policies that will not lower the cost of health care in america. on thursday, i was in the courtroom as the supreme court ruled that the president's health care law is what the president claimed it was not -- a new tax. president obama has repeatedly promised, "if you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan," he said, "will not raise your taxes 1 pay." now all americans know the truth. the health care law hires more

irs agents to investigate your end to make sure you buy insurance, but it fails to deal with the shortage of nurses and doctors to actually take care of them. the president's health care tax is only one of his many broken promises related to this law. he promised lower health-care costs, but they keep going up. he promised lower insurance premiums, but they have increased $2,400 a family over the past three years. he promised the law would create jobs, but the congressional budget office projects that 800,000 fewer people will have jobs because of this law. he promised it would not add a dime to the deficit, but the law calls for trillions of dollars in new spending that americans do not want. the president said that he would protect medicare. instead, he rated $500 billion from our seniors on medicare, not to strengthen medicare, but to start a whole new government

program for someone else. even after the supreme court ruling was announced, the president said that if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. mr. president, because of your law, many americans have already lost the health insurance that they have and they liked. each broken promise proves that the supreme court's ruling did absolutely nothing to improve the president's failed health care law. it remains unworkable, but affordable, and very unpopular -- and affordable and very unpopular. americans deserve better. as a doctor who has come -- practiced medicine for 25 years, i know the health care system in this country is far from perfect. it is one of the reasons i ran for senate in the first place. the goal of health care reform all along should have been to ensure that people get the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost.

under president obama's health care law, they got the exact opposite -- tax increases and government control. now we have another chance to reform our health-care system and in a way that does not result in higher costs, fewer choices, and less personal control. there should be no doubt -- republicans in congress will fight terrific -- repeal the president's health care law. it is a law that is bad for patients, that for the nurses and doctors who care for those patients, and it is terrible for taxpayers. in the middle of a tough economy, president obama pass a health care law that has made our economy even worse. by forcing expensive new health- care mandates through congress, he has made it harder for americans to find good jobs and provide for their families. with unemployment at over 8% for over 40 straight months, we cannot afford for this tax to

stay in place any longer. once we have repealed the law, we will tackle the serious problems that plague our health care system and are now getting worse. we will replace this law with real reforms that will actually lower costs and improve access to care. we will not make the same mistakes the democrats made. we will not raise taxes in the middle of a recession. we will not push through a 2700- page bill the american people cannot afford and do not want. unlike president obama, we will not cut deals behind closed doors to protect special interest groups or include political car routes for some states at the expense of others. what we will do is make sure that our health care system is truly patient-centered, not government-centered. republicans in congress are committed to a step-by-step approach that is focused on

lowering the cost of care. that means common sense solutions like allowing premium rates to encourage healthy behavior. it means letting consumers buy insurance across state lines, letting small businesses pulled together to offer affordable health insurance to their workers. it means finally ending the lawsuit abuse that leads doctors to practice defensive medicine by ordering expensive and unnecessary tests. now that the supreme court has acted, the american people cannot afford for congress to wait any longer. it is time for washington to repeal the president's health care law and replace it with real health care reforms. thank you for joining me today. >> coming up monday, we will continue the discussion on the supreme court's ruling on the health care law, an event hosted by the cato institute. experts will analyze the constitutional implications, the

scope of government and the health care system. they will also look at what steps congress can take going forward. join us live monday at 1:30 eastern here on c-span. >> this is the conversation we need to have in this country that nobody is willing to have, okay? what role should the government play in housing finance? >> a pulitzer prize-winning "new york times" columnist details the but it's a meltdown and one continuing issue -- government subsidized home ownership. >> if you want to subsidize housing in this country and we want to talk about it and the populist agrees it is something we should subsidize, then put it on the balance sheets and make it clear and make it evident and make everybody aware of how much it is costing. but when you deliver it through these third-party enterprises -- fannie mae and freddie mac -- when you deliver the subsidies