their iphone, one year later, maybe they do not like at&t service. . taking advantage of an early termination fee and switching to another carrier is within their rights of the contract, and also underwrites as the owner of the device. it just seems like common sense to most consumers. i actually very much agree with you that there is a larger current of people tried to turn this into a conversation about subsidization of funds. for some people, and for some

people this is about broader issues. there was some controversy about the initial launch of the iphone. actually the subsidies that launched bones are not only making the funds cheaper, but help to ensure that innovative devices like the iphone get launched in the first place. contrary to the assumption some people made, it was not at&t that insisted on exclusives and subsidies, it was awful. i am all with you on descending exclusivity on something that is good for consumers, even though it may not seem that way and some people may seem better off buying fully unsubsidized devices. >> also do not forget the government has pushed very hard

to get the early termination fees pro-rated. months it is8 pretty much as zero etf. this is a method of contract enforcement. no one will do that for a hands up. you are trying to find ways to mitigate the market. what it is really about is developing the black market and taking these phones and paying the etf. mathematicalct example where it is still worth it to pay it and sell it around the world, which is what happens. i have no problem with the fix that the commissioner has proposed in the legislation.

that is why i said you have to parse out the difference between whether we can subsidize handsets and pay for it to verses copyright enforcement >> if you do that in the carrier gets what it expects to get at a profit or however you want to define that and a person is selling its overseas, i do not see a problem. >> i am trying to figure out a

mocking and enforcement. >> i think everyone on the panel agrees we do not want to separate contract law. absolutely. the cell phones that are subsidized and blocked the network. the buyers do not contractually promise to state that track down. the devices are locked. if you looked to the but cases, there is a laundry list of claims on which tracks funds

were available to make litigation happy. competition. so if indeed this is happening, companies like pratt bones -- like trac phone should have remedies. why should the governor interfere with any of this? why don't wireless companies sort out whatever arrangement makes sense for whatever penalty there might be under contract? >> we must take the world we live in, not the world we like.

it is what it is. it is policy perspective. you were asking fundamental questions. was the registrars decision correct or not? under the reading of the law, sure it is. the third issue, do we need the dmca at all or not? you are talking about a very important of and very complex issue. i spent my father's day weekend crawled up with jerry's book.

it is a very loaded question as well that you have to think about. the reading of your book of essays. a ticket. tot i picked up -- you had schools of thought in your book. the first one was copyright is not really a full right. the second one is it is a victimless crime, and we want to make copyright criminal at all. everyone has been involved in this debate for a long time. every time i keep getting a panel that says the guys in the black helicopters will swoop down and address -- address my mother for unlocking her phone. and what we're talking about broadly with copyright is that it is not cost less. workscopyright to protect

of intellectual property. there is a lot of debate about that. but to make a tremendous cost, supply slope as birds -- upwards. battles we are talking about. the copyright debate keeps going back to what is the appropriate enforcement mechanism? are costs involved. i think that is where we need to focus the conversation. >> let me remind you this is about unlocking and not the entire copyright debate. we did have that last year. it is up on the web site. you can read gerry's book if you want more information on that. one might barely say the book is a little unbalanced.

there are people here who believe in a copyright to think it should not apply to unlocking and the larger debate should not be an issue here. so before we get into the larger context, -- i apologize for this on your book. there is a lot to be said for copyright. the issues that never gets talked about is copyright is something at the end of the day that works only if we all respected. criminalizing something like cellphone unlocking, even if larry is exaggerating that has been exaggerated for the practical effect of the copyright decision, criminalizing helps people the lanais the system. it certainly helps to demonize a system that is really great for artists in content creators. i am someone who thinks the

librarian has gone way too far. do you want to respond to larry? i hope when you say unbalanced was presenting one side. that is what the book was meant to do. i do not think that the book says anywhere that i saw that copyright infringement is a victimless crime. when it says is you do have costs. at the same time, there are cost of over regulation where you can go too far. burglary.xample we could get rid of this if we had the death penalty. we do not do that. we have a sense of proportionality. the cost would be too high. what we need to do is strike the right balance. i believe in copyright. i believe it should be

protected, but i do think in some cases we have gone too far. we get unintended consequences as a result. what we need is a balance. we need to strike the balance better and maybe unlocking is one place to start. >> i really agree with jerry. the broader discussion of a mocking, not just with handsets but the vices and technology is a very important one for us to have. i am hopeful that congress will have it in the future, but the reason that is because with the world we live in with digital media and new technology you can put a technological protection , you could put that on just about anything these days.

does it mean to own something in the digital age. i think one of the best examples right now is cars. best technology on wheels these days. you will find it in your car. if you want to change your oil, you should be able to do that, but with a car these days you have a light that tells you the sometimes you could not turn that light off unless you have the tool to circumvent that on your car. there are a number of things now and in the future where we will see many factors putting locks and devices and it is important if itk at them and we see is worthwhile to creep exemptions for them. i would say for someone to be able to change the oil and a car they've bought is a common sense fix.

certainly not asking that you eliminate copyright law totally. we're just asking for targeted fixes that allow you to update the log and balance blocks for new technological uses. separate those from the larger debate? we cannot download a car on that. >> distinction is very important to train content. expressive works were you could duplicate them at 0 or minimal cost. a carve an agreement with manufactured or wireless carrier. congress needs to and is thinking about how to ensure

circumventing preventions of the did you write -- digital right copy act go to copying reproduction of expressive works, which in many cases is a real problem in seriously harmful. distinguishing in that situation, the house judiciary committee is taking a very careful and close look at copyright reform. i am sure anti-circumvention will be part of the hearings that comes up. that we may not sink they ought to apply in the cellphone context does not mean necessarily that they are bad. hit may mean that they need to be tweaked in a way that permits some type of circumvention. striking the balance is very difficult. there are unintended consequences. forcould circumvent it

infringement purposes. there is a big debate that congress needs to have, but that can happen over the course of the next few years. whereas today congress can address the narrow issue about walking without getting into the very sticky dnc reform. >> let's talk about fixing the problem. are you saying you think the immediate issue of cell phone or tablets unlocking should be dealt with legislatively and to deal with a longer problems of how it works later? >> yes. >> i think the answer is yes, but if you look at the bills that have been introduced so far, some of you did not get the permanent fix that the commissioner was talking about. just overturning the decision of the copyright office and allowing them to revisit the decision does not give us the

permanent fix. sureu want to make whatever happens the library of congress cannot simply perverse whenever congress might do legislatively today. >> on the cellphone unlocking issue itself, there is no reason when there is this a bipartisan consensus we should not have some sort of consumption written into this. including tablets. >> i agree with that. when you write into law wireless devices should be able to be a lot. that includes the definition of what is a wireless network, wireless device, a communications network. what about devices that maybe it is your car with an oil change. that is not a wireless device. i think the representative has

an elegant way of doing it in her bill where she says circumventing a lock is a crime breachs done in order to copyright. >> that makes sense. that is the purpose. you do not have to define wireless devices or anything. >> what the bank about those options? what could you live with? >> i will tell you what i cannot live with. i think jerry raises a very good point on definitional examples. good lotcopy of the and and as senator's bill they take a very different approach. says we will bill

appeal the most recent rulemaking and several making and try to put this to bed. everyone seems to be generally in support of that. it seems to work. to contract rights, i would recommend looking at the the fcc noit says later than 180 days shall direct commercial mobile services through such services to about the type of devices needed to access such services. and other words talking about using contract as a right. taking the bill that essentially this ritz the whole use of contract. use a sign a contract but any type of enforcement is gone. so there are different types of enforcement to this. >> you want to make sure the fcc is not put in charge and we respect private contracts. >> absolutely.

you are trying to find that some mechanism to minimize free ride. >> we talked about the concept of having several roles for complex world. so one way of paraphrasing what you just said is we do not want to take roles that are already complex and make them more complex by layering on more exceptions and special circumstances. so to the point that jerry and particular was raising, how do we write a simple rule that will hold up when we're talking about unlocking lots of other devices, keeping in mind that there may be anti-circumvention tools that still should be covered by the dmca. what we're talking about today is unlocking and for other purposes we have agreed should be able to pursue and are

consistent with the goals of copyright, which is promoting innovation and creativity. how do we write that simple standard? i like the approach that the representative takes. you basically say are predicate is copyright infringement. circumventing, a lock in order to infringe, that is a problem. if you are doing it for a lawful purpose, such as increasing the font size because you cannot see very well and want to change the oil herself and then turn off the light, these are lawful purposes. very simple way to do it. >> i would agree. he should be able to write a bill that we support that allows for general unlocking for non- infringement purposes. for not just the

individual but the agent and for someone offering services. so that he did not to be a software engineer or programmer in order to unlock your phone and car. without that sort a lock, i think it becomes much more complicated. if we are stuck with just the review process of the copyright office for exemptions, there are many things that could be fixed with that. the a idea that each review every three years is a no vote review and does not take into account previous decisions by the copyright office probably harmed the cell phone unlocking exemption when it came up in 2012. an exemption that has been there away,veral years, it goes review canf regular

cause innovators not to want to not to want to unlock the device. thef the cost of enforcing enforcement were zero, that is if we could make sure everyone who circumvents to infringe is punished and everyone who does not is, i think it would be a no-brainer. i have some reservations about it. what if a company invests to develop a service that to allownts the drm users to extract a 32nd segment of online video for fair use of the user's certified, that if they will use the trunk and the trans form of matter. that would be non infringement of the development and use. then let's say other actors come away -- come along and we

purpose that. they somehow reverse engineer the platform and build upon the investment in circumvention to make a tool that can be used. protecting the content creates real challenges when circumvention can occur for non- infringement purposes. one solution to that is the owner of the content actually enables users to make a fair use is so there is no need in the first place for anyone to come up with circumvention. i believe we should not embrace this until we think more carefully about the costs of distinguishing between circumvention technologies. to add to that real quick, going from a policy idea

to our role is a very difficult thing. i know a lot of policy ideas i would like. turning it into our role is another matter. but we have to understand is we start to craft legislation if we're going to go that route. as soon as people know what rules they are they will want to exploit this. plenty of ideas that seem like a good idea at the time. perhaps it was too short of time, who knows. i think we be exceedingly careful as we start to tread. >> a good question on twitter for runyon. when the lawful purpose is for good use, how does the standard applied? your example you talk about users certifying in that tool that what they were doing was their use. how would you respond to content owners who would be released --

who would be concerned that the line might be drawn in a way to open the door to circumvention tools? respond that is a fair point and the reason we should be careful about writing a lot. it really this may all come down to balancing, weighing on the one hand is fair use important? on the other, to what extent do the anti-circumvention provision to prevent circumvention? when you look at the internet you can get a perfect copy of the day it comes out. that may not be the case in the future as we move toward a model where people are accessing content on the internet. perhaps the each with with each infringers circumvent will decrease. perhaps will do more to

circumvent in the future. these are all things congress needs to consider. there is the basic standard in the sony case. it is not a question to which i have a good answer but a difficult one that requires a lot of tough questions. >> are you all in agreement that there -- that we should not be repeating the process that the librarian of congress has gone through in the past, which is to say not just issues exemptions every three years and reduce any advocate has to satisfy, and if they fail to meet the burden, the exemption disappears or is never granted in the first place in the case of tablets. larry? >> open notice hearing were they here to block and turn it into a

popularity white house -- contest at the law. one could argue there is almost a presumption of exemptions rather than circumvention. do people like having to go in every three years? .robably not i think the process is what it is because it has worked so far. that is the system that we have today. i can say you're absolutely right. i think the librarians did a good job following the process in place. the reason to criticize the termination of the merits. that does not mean that given the outcome and that has the last straw and the series of determinations that we cannot the sudden as a country we do not want that process anymore, and that is what we're saying

here. everya process where three years people who have poor eyesight have to go and request in assion to use devices way it's set they can read them. we should not be doing that. >> talking about presumptions. areeems to me what you getting at is the general rule of anglo-saxon law which that -- you are free to do anything that is not prohibited, right? the opposite is true in certain continental legal systems where you are free to do only what the law permits you to do. dmca,ou just said is the a profoundly american assumption that you are only free to do with the law permits you to do. it exists for reason.

congress was concerned about circumvention of technological protection measures. so without regard to specifics, how do we deal with that problem? how do we craft are ruled that adapts better to new technologies and does not force innovators in users to go running to washington for permission to do something innovative? >> i cannot put it better myself, the way you describe it. how do you craft the roll? you focused on what the purpose and what it has always been, which is to allow copyright infringement and allow content creators to protect works. so make copyright infringement the predicate for anything related to how this. case by caset a determination that this use is

allowed, this is not. make it any use is allowed as long as it is not infringing copyrights. >> there would no longer need to be an exemption process because he would not be in the business of creating exemptions. >> the burden of proof would be on the person alleging you are using the technology in order to infringe copyrights. think the company is developing those technologies might actually lack of uncertainty? as bad as the process might be, today it is really clear whether you have an exemption or not. the scenario you are describing, it would not be clear. the burden would be to say you are infringing until proven otherwise. do you think there is a need for ore sort of certification

advisory letter or some process if an innovator is uncertain to get clarification that in fact the technology is a circumvention tool? i do not like regulatory approaches were you have to get permission from regulators before you could do something. i would weather see common-law where you try things and then experiment in the marketplace and that something does not work out, you can solve that through a common law practice. >> get concerned when folks talk about technology to prove it is not infringing. had the digital age we had xerox machines. they could copyright in the book he wanted. no one ever expected or no reasonable person expected to

will all of xerox machine because it can copy a book. the hard part, and this is the point you are getting at, the hard part is how you deal with technology that can rapidly copies something over and over again and make almost perfect copies. that is a hard question, a different question. i think we need to, as we look for the balance in the law, we need to find a way not to outlaw the technology that brings about the new, innovative uses. the point about folks that cannot read a device or the example of reading and e. book if you are blind. the ability to circumvent a lock in order to allow someone to read when all digital media is going towards digital books in fewer and fewer paper books is something we need to make sure is there. that is part of the balance.

i have thenow if answer, but that is the discussion we need to be having. >> i think implicitly saying the decision can be made between allowing users to unlock devices for the purpose we've been talking about today, to customize them for unlawful purposes to carry -- change them to a different carrier. on the one hand the example bryan cave of breaking a technological protection measure in such a way as to start infringing actual copy rights. there is a principal way to draw that line. >> absolutely. you could make a copyright determination about whether what you are doing after you were circumventing was infringement or not. determination to court could make. to the point earlier, you could

end up in a world where if you except a case by case determination where the folks who would make non-infringing uses of a circumvention technology would end up not being able to do it because they're trying to do the right thing. the criminals who are trying to rip the that? stream goingtflix to do that. >> to be honest, i have not bought it through. one thing that just popped into my head was patent controls. if we adopt that model but all the sudden we have the technology and you are being sued out of nowhere. all of a sudden we are clogged and that is the problem with the patent system. i am not sure what the answer is. we have had a system that we have thought through a lot. we have made a societal touched

it and started with the presumption. some people may disagree, but you have to start somewhere. think having the presumption we have now, which is here is the technology with approved the exemption, seems to be working. so no lot is perfect. there is always the law of unintended consequences anytime you put up our role. i was talking about this with my partner before we came here. this reminds me of that neutrality. here is our role everyone thought was a great idea and has all these unintended consequences. firms are not passive recipients of unintended regulation. if you own intellectual property, you will not sit by and let the intellectual property be stolen. you will do action. perfect world, and

we have to think very carefully about what we're doing. >> thank you. would this be its neutrality was not brought up. they're always in competition. i will let ryan ask one more question and then we will turn to the audience. >> 15 years since the digital millennium copyright enactment. we need to look to the future. what role will digital management play? congressand need for to revisit the law? there are also problems if we go down the road of making it easier to develop technologies that facilitate infringement. the core presumption reduces the amount of circumvention that occurs. whether it does it in a way that is worth the cost is a tough question that congress is

thinking about proportionally. >> this is my last question. congress is thinking about. think about that sentence for a moment. as margaret thatcher said, there is no such thing as society, .here are individuals there is no such thing as congress, individuals and staffers. they are faced with a lot of issues. the point earlier that we all have ideal policies to b.c. -- to be put in place, how do we see they are put through the wringer the right way? i think it disagree with larry are where we would come out, and i am very sympathetic to the wage issue is being used. in the sense that there is a broad sentiment in the internet policy community that they stopped sopa. thosee part of both of

efforts. there is a sense that they can do anything if they get enough people to sign petitions. the question is, what is that think and what it looks like. i think all of you agreed that this is a generally difficult issue. it may be a fairly simple matter to say global devices should not be covered, but the question we have been talking about about how you either change the recurrent process or how you write a simple fix to govern what they should cover in the future, how you draw that line. my question to all of you is what do you think about this issue about the way people cover it and they may try to bring and other issues, what do you think this says about tech policy and the ability of congress to get hard issues like this right by

writing simple rules for the future? and even more so, what it says about how people who are starting to care about technology -- technology policy, how they interact with congress. are we going in a good direction toward writing better roles or will they be worse in the future? we would just go down the panel. who agrees with the principle but disagreed with the way in which there were implemented, it is a good question. are they going to contribute positively to the debate? if they are willing to appreciate the complexity of the issues, perhaps the answer is yes. walkinghis cellphone push has been positive. as the copyright issue proceeds, it is often easy to get confused

about what is good for consumers. this might sound great to many consumers. this would in fact probably be a very bad idea. hopefully those of us to spend all our time working on those issues can do more to guide them and the direction that will promote positive policy change. >> more or less optimistic now about getting laws right? take a more optimistic. optimistic. >> the shorter it is more optimistic. i am a firm believer in the idea that people get the government that they demand. have that is made up of this andand they liked

have a certain baseline understanding of how technology works so important that they ine the time to have experts stakeholders at the table and process in determining walls around technology are done deliberately. that was not the case here. against demonizing -- i did not know if you return to purposely or not but i caution demonizing the petition efforts. i certainly was not. >> i think cellphone walking and other petition issues are one of the great ways average americans have been heard on the issues that are complicated and difficult. i think still fun of walking is something people have gone right away because everyone has one. it is an enormously important tool that is protected by the

constitution. think it is a great addition the congress has had to create the we the petition process. it is hard to make proactive policy. so it is important that congress continues to have what they have on the table and have long, the liberty of discussions about cellphone of hockey and other copyright reforms. a difficult topic and difficult for members of congress to weave through the technology and engineering without having the time and input. great atons are getting congress excited about something and creating a sense of urgency. what happens when the sense of urgency is created about a genuinely hard topic that there is not a lot of attention span for. what does the process look like to make sure congress gets the law right? >> it is the process we know and

love. i am especially optimistic about copyright. the reason for that is that for about a century the way that copyright law has been fashioned of this country has been negotiation between the content makers and owners of broadcasters and other interest like librarians literally sitting down and negotiating copyright law that congress bed gives a thumbs-up stew -- that congress then gives a thumbs-up to. that has worked. now for the first time, because of the internet, as to the public having a seat at the table that it has never had before. for that reason i am optimistic. i think that is the reason why for the first time ever that i

know of our registered of copyright has suggested reducing the rights of copyright. because we have had this negotiated lawmaking for such a long time in the copyright space, we have ended up with copyright unbalanced. now the public is involved in the think we can fix that. >> you should write a book. always a engagement is good thing. i can tell being a former staff this is a greater professional accomplishment. do, we have for ph.d. economists on staff. we stare at these things and mobled these things. this is a political process. debatenition, during the i noticed my daughter's facebook page that said stops sopa.

i scream out get in here. but is that? she said they're going to shut down the internet. i said who told you that? would you like to read the bill? she said what is that. she said i took it down. that is public engagement. i have been doing this a long time. you are never going to make things right. all of us were serious about policies that we try to make things as not wrong as possible and be happy with the results. it is happy -- i am happy to be engaged in have conferences like this and bring it to the floor. >> i would like to take questions from the audience and will field some on twitter if anyone has one. my colleague as the mike. do not be shy. i think i see a question in the back. >> please make sure to identify yourself. great panel.

effectively -- [inaudible] the willful prevention's would probably get us that. to com >> you can imagine a situation where you have done on locking mechanism that serves no other purpose other than infringement. those were being alluded to, and those would remain the legal. >> anyone else? >> any other questions on

twitter? anyone? --i know i have an accident asking a lot of questions but i will ask one final question. you alluded to there is another provision -- proceeding on going now about revising copyright law. can you give us a little bit of background on that and tell us how you think these debates intersect. boy, briefly. certainly the sense of the register copyright reports say have a new to copyright act and congress has taken that lead, and the congressman has begun the process of how to intersect with this.

in particular focus on the copyright act. i a imagine that they will be taking a look at that as well. i do not know if that answers your question. >> i think it is long overdue. there are a number of issues. i think it is a large pot and will receive spotlight in what congress takes on with the copyright review. there are a number of revisions. i think it is really interesting that the register of copyright has said it will be interesting to look at reducing the copyright terms. it has been extended several times from our original intent. it is hard to make a case to a consumer that someone who has passed away should continue to

have protection of copyrighted material that they are no longer benefiting from four decades and decades. so there is a great opportunity to rebalance copyright law. wither it is how we deal damages, so it is something we should investigate. i do not think this is something we should do quickly, but it is great we are having the discussion. it is great that everyone is invited to participate in the discussion. >> do you see this unique bipartisan agreement, the you see that dissipated when we get to the larger debate about copyright or might at least help to set a good tone for having a constructive dialogue? >> i think it will be helpful. we have seen how these committees work together.

hopefully on copyright the stakeholders could realize a bill in the right direction is probably not going to include provisions that anyone stakeholder is completely supportive of. when we need legislation reform that moves the ball forward, makes copyright act better and one that we will have to address the copyright infringement and circumvention. >> one final question from the audience. >> [inaudible] there seems to be a consensus that striking a balance between policies and actual law, it can come through wind up. from one on to hear

the floor as to what that might actually look like. this is the balance we need to strike. what might that look like in the end? question.t i have been thinking about this issue for quite a while. one of the challenges of the is you have an expectation of freedom. it is so easy to get content. the expectation of free. free is never the right price. there is your problem. costs involved for making content. trying to find the balance when -- societal expectation is free now. there is always an expanded use

of something on the internet. trying to find a balance of not indicting the little old lady who put up two youtube clips, verses a major in digit major motion picture spent $100,000 making the wolverines movie and the next day it is on the internet. difficulty of the enforcement. i think there's probably consensus on that. >> i will wrap this up by giving the panel was brief response. 30 seconds big picture. absolutely. the purpose of copyright is to give an incentive for folks to create what would otherwise be a public good. so we need to have copyright in

order to do that. the question is, what is the right amount of copyright? that is a very difficult question to answer. it is one that congress is especially unsuited to deal with. that is to best to deal with it. i do think we should worry about those who get arrested for copywriting a couple seconds. we should worry about them. we should look at what is that a symptom of? probably over criminalization, so we should follow that part of the conversation. >> i would add to that. culture of free i do not necessarily subscribe to. i think that generally most consumers are willing to follow the rules when they are set up in a way that allow them to access goods and services.

in the 1990's when i was growing and peopleapster were downloading music, a free music all over the place. then you had i tunes and people were willing to pay 99 cents. it hopefully will be the same with the update of the copyright act for digital ownership and digital goods. in support of that we allow for a marketplace for digital goods. what it looks like will be hard to construct. we have to understand there is expectations that people still should be able to go out and buy banks. if that is not up there, it will lead to more piracy. creating structures and laws that allow for the marketplace is to exist online and offline has shown it will reduce piracy and people will follow the law generally. should there be protection for infringements, the great pirates

out there, absolutely. but the best balance we will strike for the average consumer that once goods and to be law- abiding to the gray parrots, there has to be a balance. a tough discussion. the technology is out there. the technology is out there for you to buy and sell digital goods, books, and movies. thais -- sometimes the right price for content is indeed zero. mean the copyright is compatible with it. it is the baseline. you can watch broadcast content, they will just be a commercial with it. there are some companies try to stop that from being the case

with questionable measures. in contrast with cellphone, it should be contract law. whether the subsidy should be accompanied with $350 early termination fee or $1,000 early termination fee. these are all questions about how to price content, how to price cell phones that happened to occur through voluntary transactions in the market subject to a baseline road. -- baseline rule. letting actors build the law the best governs new technologies. of contracts a mix law and copyright law, not necessarily the dmca, was a statutory add on to copyright law. i look forward to having another event about the overall revision of the copyright rules, probably

later on this year. i look forward to seeing some of the rest of you at the event about children's privacy in july and what the recent changes say about children's media, privacy how it the ftc works and builds law for governing the use of data. having said all of that, thank you again for coming. i look forward to seeing you that it -- seeing you at other events of the headquarters. please think the panelists and commissioners for joining us here today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ." removeas essential to france from canada for the united states as it became to have the the opportunity to achieve independence. the few people recognize the possibility for america to become a great country.

let me put it in different words from what i said a moment ago, 2.5american achievements, million free people, for them to get the british to affect the french from borders and the french to help them event the british, to manipulate the greatest powers of the world was astonishing achievement. >> conrad black on the emergence of the united states as a world power saturday at 7:00 eastern. he accepted it as a defeat. clearly he could not accept it as anything else. but he also recommend that the logistical outcome of the campaign had been very good from a confederate perspective. as for the long-term impact, he argued the heavy losses at gettysburg did not exceed what

it would have been from the series of battles i would have been compelled to fight had i remained in virginia. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. live commemoration from the gettysburg battlefield sunday on american history tv. coming up today on c-span, washington journal. at noon eastern the u.s. house returns to kind -- to continue consideration of the farm bill and the bill banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. congressman mass born very of texas, member of armed services committee. -- mac thornberry. . easter rosa delauro discusses the farm bill and her work to preserve

federal food stamp programs. tom taylor of bloomberg. "washingtron host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." tackles a late-term abortion law and a farm bill. hisident obama continues overseas meeting. it's just today the supreme arizona's lotn that would require arizona voters to approve their citizens. here are the numbers to call --