thank you for being here. i was parting of -- comcasthe failed nbc merger, there were questions and concerns raised about the potential for hurting -- competition. recently, it was reported in people took note that al gore was pushing the celsale. reported that al jazeera wanted to get the sharia law push into the united states and they were willing to pay big if there wasess oil or carbon all over the money. they were willing to pay big dollars but they would not do the deal one last comcast was to keep them in the list

of networks provided. it was reported that comcast all ofto so al gore got the oil in carbon-based money. beck off thenn air of comcast. the blazerecently, has been trying to purchase another network that was owe $20 million to comcast. the feeling by some within comcast was so strong about airing glenn beck off the that some, reportedly, were willing to forgo $20 million

that they offered to pay of this networks debt owed to comcast just to keep him off the air. now, i have no idea who the network is. they won't say. they have some deal about that. i was given a blurb from an e-mail that indicates, and this is an e-mail from somebody at whatever network it is. i want the ability to argue for comcast, trying to get the deal accepted. that they will not have to put "glenn beck on the air prior to the 24 teen election cycle." -- 2014 election cycle." there are some people who will see it for that. december 1 would get the deal after the november elections.

there was too big a risk, in my view, of getting a flat know from comcast if they smell the possibility that you intend to to influenceorm the american voters this november. sorry. that's how they feel about you. they are the ones who have to prove it. he's a smart guy. he brought up the issue of .iduciary duty i'm wondering how strong the feeling within comcast of their fiduciary duty to stockholders is for monetary gain as opposed ofpolitical achievements keeping conservatives off the air. we have heard the discussion rural not being part of a push by comcast. i get it.

why would comcast who want people to cling to god and there are guns? let me are talking about here is where thereus issue is so much power within comcast that they can say that we will not accept the $20 million that will help comcast because we don't want republicans having conservatives talking on the air between now and then. do you have a comment? >> should i do al jazeera current first? toi don't think you need comment on that. let's talk about your feelings personally. >> i don't have a problem identifying the network. it's interesting that network , which comes rl tv in the decision about rfd as well. we have an 8% ownership

interest, no management rights for the sale of that network. >> do you allow the purchaser to continue to be on comcast? kill the deal just like al jazeera. description is under this and this is a content the structure and -- description that does not include news coverage or political commentary. let me be clear. you read in e-mail presumably allegedlyne at rltv presuming the position of someone at comcast. i will represent to you and i'm going to confirm this but there is no judgment being made about

political perspective and certainly absolutely no judgment about whether that network should be on our cable systems before or after the election. >> mr. cohen, you are a smart man and a smart attorney. you understand the consequences of not speaking truthfully before congress. >> i do. >> thank you. i see my time is expired. >> we will report back to you. >> i think both of you. 0-- i thank both of you. 1 mr. johnson, you will yield part of your time? >> i will take first minute to ask a question and then i will yield the balance to my colleague to my colleague from texas, ms. sheila jackson-lee.

the issue will be the availability for everyone to afford access to the internet. comcast has launched the internet essentials program offering low-income families affordable broadband and digital literacy training. termsrogram is capped in of the number of years that a be a part of it. and then after that, the market rate applies. is there anything that comcast plans on doing for people who are still poor and still unable to afford the service after the qualifying time ends? if you will answer the question

for me and at which time, i will yield the balance of my time to ms. lee. in difference, i will give a very short answer to a question about which i am incredibly passionate. toare irrevocably committed essentials. for those not aware, in 30 months, we signed up 300,000 families, 1.2 million low-income americans to the internet, for many of them in the first time. we have trained low income americans and basic digital under that person training. congressman, if i can, one correction. for everyone who is signed up to that program to date, they will remain eligible for the program and will continue to get $9.95 internet service per month as long as they have a child in the

home eligible for the child lunch school program. it does not have to be the same child today. if a young mother has an eight-year-old today and has three more children, 20 years from now she will still be eligible for that pricing and that program. in terms of the plans for the program, our plans are to expand to the entire time warner cable footprint to bring the benefits of internet essentials to dallas-fort worth, new york, charlotte, everywhere time warner cable does business today. we are very excited and very passionate about that, very committed. i would argue that it's another good,where big is really having that expanded footprint enabling us to bring the benefits of that program to more low-income americans. >> thank you. i yield to ms. jackson lee. >> as a member of the full committee, i appreciate mr. acknowledge the

ranking member. thank your for appointing me in previous congress to the antitrust issues. we may have to look at a legislative construct that responds to all of the comments being made today. witnessesl of the that are here. i will join in mr. gomer to ask we have an ability to meet one-on-one in a litany of issues that i will not be in the to ask here. i look forward to getting that scheduled quickly. innovation, greater customer wille, an investment that make a stronger infrastructure that i think that you and time warner are attempting to do and we value that just as we value your privilege and the first amendment. all of this ties to consumers. i want to put into the record a letter from the naacp that asks the question about stations like

on basicat are not put but premium. doesn't that raise the cost? i'm concerned about the consumer. what would be your view of spinning off and allowing a station like that, a network like that, before this gigantic merger to buy themselves out so that they can grow? be happy to sit down with you and i look forward to that. theseered part of questions before. >> i know there is an ongoing matter in this issue. recordwant to put on the my concern about the lack of service regarding the astros and the rockets. >> i can answer that. company, we are committed to providing diverse voices and

diverse programming that represents the diversity of our customer base. we were very proud to help tv one after the at&t transaction and we remain a minority investor. tv one is carried on our most tierar lowest-cost digital to about 13.5 million. >> basic. of an olds sort construct. this would be the equivalent of digital basic, if you will. in addition we cover 10 other african american owned or direct the channels. every one of them is on this digital basic tier of carriers. we agree with the sentiment you expressed and we agree with the need to be able to deliver diverse programming on an affordable basis to the populations that have the most interest. >> you would be open?

>> in terms of tv one and the buyout, not 100% sure they want to do that but we have made quite clear that if they would like to buy us out that they could. we have reciprocal rights, as i think you know. there's been a concern that, gee trigger that you will turn around and buy us out but we are prepared to work with alfred wiggins and his mother to facilitated buyout if that is what they are interested in doing. with houston regional sports net, all i can say is not the best corporate governance structure and deal that comcast has ever put together in its corporate history. a lot of dysfunction. the network is in bankruptcy. we are working to achieve a resolution that works with the astros and the rockets as well as us that may or may not

involve a staying involved in the network. we don't look to stand in the way of consumers getting access to the astros and the rockets. tried to solve the problem and we are now doing that under the supervision of a bankruptcy judge. i hope we will get to a satisfactory place for your constituents and all rockets and astros fans. to yourng to get efforts on consumer price and your efforts with this merger. get yourwant to efforts on consumer price. >> we have talked about the main driver of consumer pricing is programming costs that have gone up 120% over the last 10 years. cable pricing has gone up less than half of that rate. we are doing a marginally acceptable job of being able to control passing on all of those

pricing increases to our consumers. we have tried to construct packages that are set at a lower price. obviously they have fewer channels. pricing and customer service are two issues that we think are vital to the future of our company and industry. we are focusing as much as we can on both of those issues. >> thank you so very much and i look forward to having a further conversation. there is some expectation for witnesses to tell the truth. i know you said you are happy and look forward to sitting down with congresswoman sheila jackson-lee. i'm not sure -- >> i really am. we've been friends for a long time. [laughter] but it know mr. gohmert, look forward to it as well.

>> i like making people happy. this is my smiling face. >> you are a better man than i am. [laughter] >> gentlelady from taxes and i sit together on the airplane. we smile together, do we not? texas andlelady from i are friends. >> we look forward to getting our sports situation solved them bleed down to corpus christi as well. of time warner and comcast. i'm actually looking forward to the improved internet performance in corpus christi and the network resets and dropped packets i've been getting every few months. that's something a really looking forward to in this merger. i want to align myself with mr. gohmert. you'reomes out that

making programming decisions politically based, i think there's going to be a problem. i certainly hope that's not the case. i do want to talk about a couple of issues that were brought up. you mentioned that the cost of adding additional ports, the hardware was trivial. there's more to it than just hardware. you actually have to get the pipes. >> comcast has sold its customer service that if they actually use the service at the rates that comcast is holding, the network would fail to operate. in order to mask the problem, they have limited the boundary capacity between their network and the public internet to help reduce consumer's use of broadband. makes the deal with netflix sound good. they've immediately opened up 30% more bandwidth.

netflix isn't coming through your peering point. >> there is so much additional traffic beyond netflix that wishes to go to comcast paying customers that the ports still remain constrained. >> mr. cohen, that makes you look like a bad guy. i am a geek enough that i will run speed tests. i do much better when i go to the roadrunner speed test ban if i go somewhere else. the same happens if i stay on the comcast network, i do better. in order to offer the high-speed internet tommy you need to get your -- in order to offer the high-speed internet, you need to get your peering in order. >> we are good citizens in the peering world. we were to very hard to work with all of the peering.

as professor hemphill said, this is not headline news. >> you do better than time warner. . will apologize >> i think we are good citizens with good arrangements. that we have have have been truly isolated and we've worked very hard to be on the resolve them interconnect. >> i'm running out of time. you have your boxes, all you cable folks. you're almost entirely digital now. you have very few subscribers at do not have the cable box. >> we are 100% digital. you need a cable card or converter box for every television. >> you have the ability to pull the boxes to see how many people are watching what channel for what time? data,h the advent of big

this is beginning to be something we are focusing on. we probably do have the technological ability to do that but as you know, cable is subject to intense and restrictive privacy restrictions that go far beyond what applies on the internet with what google and yahoo! can do with the data will they've gained. >> when he says he has more viewers than some of the others, you should pick somebody in denver. it allt don't have implemented. >> that's correct. >> do you see the increase in video traffic on the network? do you see a shift from the model where you're watching tv in real time to a you're pulling something from netflix and the entertainment program becomes more on demand. does this help or hurt your

bandwidth issues? many to break this down in a slightly different way, i think. we are seeing increased utilization but we're not seeing a degradation in the amount of time that people watch television and watch video on demand, part of the title vi cable services. >> i guess my point is in making program decisions and operating in the public interest, i know that is an archaic term in the lingo, but news programming, stuff that needs to be live, it seems like there should be more on your cable dedicated to that sort of programming as opposed to stuff you could get through alternative methods on demand that is not as time sensitive. i did wanttime but to suggest that it be something considered. it might be something --

>> the only quick thing i will observe is please do not amount ofate the sports programming in particular that is now available online. major league baseball has a .ackage nba, same thing. all availableare online as well as on television. i love my longhorn network. thank you very much. >> there was a reference to ford and that it appears the last mile and the type of wires. what may be true in one case is not true in another. i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you very much. i wanted to remind that a few

years back, i asked you at our hearings whether your merger with nbc universal would not result in the loss of jobs. has that been true than -- p roven true? >> i was hoping you would ask me that question because i told you it was a vertical transaction and there was no job loss to be expected. i'm proud to report to you that if you look at the combined nbc comcast and universal we are somewhere between 3000 and 5000 time wes than at the did the transaction. >> i'm happy we had that discussion back then. it is still an important question. in your view, how effective

in the comcast, nbc, universal issue been and should similar remedies apply in this case? >> thank you for the question. generally speaking, behavioral remedies are like medication. often time it does not work. there has been a rich respective , the most comprehensive looking at price increases. it looks at all the fact there's that go into the success of behavioral remedies. there are problems with them and even asian byde the parties being regulated. i will not get into an argument with comcast about whether it invaded certain

of those remedies. as a problem with unforeseen circumstances. we have heard about that in the defense of the remedies that appeared to cover the fcc open internet order. comcast went outside of that and made issues out there. my view is behavioral remedies are to be avoided. i'm quite sure doj is going to look back since it's only been three years since the nbc your transaction and the behavioral condition has been looked in. they will see what works and what did not. my guess is at the end of the day, they will agree with me

that the conditions they put in place were not adequate. >> they are difficult to enforce. sometimes they are so broad in not take muchoes to circumvent them either. >> they are difficult to draft. even in the recent airline doj explained why behavioral remedies are not good when they explained why they would not accept them. if it's the government too much in a business. it puts the business in a different position than competitors. there are all those problems including the drafting you have referred to. >> i think it was professor hemphill who said that the combined comcast is not likely to foreclose online video

distributors because online video is an increasingly valuable part of the broadband internet business. what kind of a response to you have for that inquiry? >> comcast is first and foremost a video company and its facing new competition from outside of its traditional business. according to the department of justice in the nbc universal complaint. against the action .ew form of competition in my view, this merger only makes it more likely and more likely to be worse. >> thank you. is the question

suggestion that we have heard comcast interconnection agreement with netflix is a sign the market is working well. is that necessarily the case? market distorted due to monopoly power. netflix entered that agreement because it was the only way it could provide connectivity and content to its customers. to pay the toll to get to those customers ultimately raising its prices. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. conyers, we appreciate your thoughtful questions. we recognize the gentleman from missouri for five minutes. >> why does comcast charges some parties for interconnection and offer others

without compensation? >> i will answer the question but the same answer were to apply to everybody else in the ecosystem. when traffic is in rough balance and a traffic provider, there is the settlement paid for that if we are sending roughly the same amount of traffic to level three as it is sending to us, there is a settlement-free period. when the traffic is out of balance, this is an thatnational convention applies with dozens of isps around the world, there is cash compensation for the extra traffic. just by way of example, cogent

and comcast had a hearing arrangement for many years. it was only when their traffic went out of balance and it was not by fight or center 10% -- 5% or 10%. we were roughly one-to-one but it went out of balance by 500%. kogen started sending us five times as much traffic as we were sending to them and it triggered the need for a discussion and to thision about moving relationship. >> so it's only when it is out of balance. of your relationships with interconnection counterparties involved payment. there a clear understanding regarding the degree of traffic flow that needs to change before it switches from a free transfer to a paid transfer? partyent does not pay any

globally for connectivity. we have two forms. we have approximately 40 settlement-free peer is and secondly, we have approximately 5100 networks that by full internet transit from us. do we do not sell or by appearing products. i would also like to respond to a comment that mr. cohen made. to that was not requested by his customers. secondly, his network is asymmetric in its architecture. greater download speeds down upload speeds. therefore, it is virtually network to be any in balance. it was an interesting statement in the rip in preparation -- written preparation where he claims the overwhelming majority goes through

settlement-free hearings but getting the outline requirements for ratios, it's impossible for our network or any network to meet that test. >> do you want to respond to that comment? >> it's inaccurate. they have settlement free peering arrangements with 40 companies which means for those 40, it is roughly in balance in traffic is roughly in balance with cogent at one point in our business relationship. >> can you explain how the national television cooperative purchases programming and how it might be impacted by the merger? it's a partner organization

for the member companies, the 800-900 member companies and they operate by working together to negotiate agreements. within that membership includes company's competitive such as wave broadband, wide-open west, and others. it works to collectively negotiate a master programming deal for our members. with a 1500 median size, it's difficult to go out and negotiate major programming ingredient -- agreements. nctc provides a benefit to smaller companies in the acquisition of programming. it's basically the operation of nctc. >> how will it be impacted from

the merger? >> as a result of the size of comcast time warner after the merger, when we talk about willibution assets, they be a much larger cable company. as a result, in their room negotiation with those same programming vendors that i , they will have the ability to lower the wholesale cost of programming. in thell impact to nctc 900 smaller companies that purchase in two ways. lower thee able to wholesale price, the disparity between comcast time warner pays and our members pay will be greater. there is also the possibility and the likelihood that as a ,esult of this transaction other providers may be asking

.or offsetting other prices >> i see my time has expired. recognized foris five minutes. >> thank you for providing this opportunity for a second round and thank you to the witnesses for your patience, your thoughtful testimony, your indulgence. explore someust thoughts connected to the testimony from mr. hemphill. believe in your testimony, you stated that the combined comcast is not such a must-have that it gains a competitive advantage with rogue grammar is. is that accurate to what you testified to? >> nearly so. the combined entity will not be such a must-have that it would generate the kind of bargaining power to break scale and thereby

give rise to concerns about losses on that side. >> time warner has 11 million subscribers? were to bensaction approved, i believe because of -- selloff, approximately >> it will be 29 million given the investor tour announcement we announced last week. >> i think one thing and perhaps other members of the committee, trying to understand what the appropriate legal landscape is through which we can interpret what an appropriate or inappropriate market concentration might be. as mr. cohen appropriately

pointed out, you have two d.c. circuit court opinions indicating that the 30% number was perhaps arbitrary and there was no reason for us to believe that it would be adversely impacted. as mr. conyers pointed out, there was a supreme court decision several decades ago but , united states versus philadelphia national bank that stated a merger resulting in 30% of a market trending towards concentration in much of a controlled 70% of the sale was presumptively illegal under section seven of the clayton act. it has provided us with some clarity to where things stand. >> i would be happy to react to that.

it is a useful starting point and it's an opinion written by my old dos. in a 50 years since, we have learned a lot about how to think about market power that's also relevant here. one thing you need to recognize here is the buying side is really different from the selling side. it's not a game where we worry about changing the price and quantity but instead inc. about bargaining power. they spend a lot of time thinking about the context of programming markets. although there is no hard and ontorule and we can hold its economic certainty that it's the right answer, we do have their best shot which, one, people have said is not merely arbitrary but too aggressive, too conservative and marks a time six or seven years ago when the market was somewhat different.

me have him react quickly to vent. , i'm it relates to the 30% a recovering lawyer so i cannot -- >> i cannot speak directly to the antitrust implication specifically but as i said in my testimony and in my oral threets, this is about parts. we have programming assets being with a newomcast distribution, and we have impact what happens when comcast distribution is combined with time warner. there is antioning, impact on 30% approaching that where they have enough leverage in the marketplace jiggled to affect the wholesale cost that impact other direct competitors.

>> i will do two quick things in respect to the time. officer hemphill made the basic point and i want to return to itething said earlier that depends on the market and the advantage we have with these two cases is that they dealt with this precise market. were dealing with these issues that they referred to. decision,n to their although i fully agree with one professor hemphill said, i want to quote a professor from the university of pennsylvania. that this would adversely affect the market. potentially insuperable obstacles.

i'm very comfortable and we will .e under 30% i think the express concerns that the sky is falling are simply not supportable under the law. i know they were in and out. tore going to be able extract lower programming costs but that would result in lower prices for consumers which a lot of people are interested in. if we do that competitors are going to have to pay higher programming. and itred this earlier is an attractive comment. any trustes not have economics. that's not how it works. >> we're going to wrap this up with mr. collins and died because we want to try to get out of here at 1:30 p.m. it may be a few minutes past that.

about of the best things this in the best results are actually having experts or ones who put themselves out as experts being able to share not only with the questions that we have but i like to put you basically -- i have to run for office of guess what? we're going to do debates. you're not off the hook. stateyou please to simply antitrust area as to why this might violate antitrust law. i would highly recommend you write them down because i will ask you to rebut them. closure, customer foreclosure, bargaining theory. >> that's a little more assisting to down i liked but we will go on from there. i may come back to you if you need to that. him --more assisting for

>> you are learning quickly. with respect to the buying power -- i think that's wrong for the reasons we talked about before. the testimony itself, page 13, .elies on a quantity increase unless you are in a market where you have decrease in quantity, this does not hold. there might still be a bargaining theory but that's not antitrust. you need to do some more work to get there and i do not hear that in the testimony but we have already talked about that to some degree. but they respect to input for closure, this is a comment within the testimony on regional sports networks. i've not made a close focus of, i believe, the four different that takeswhere

place. i think there are some general economic reasons for skepticism that any event, there is a comment about something not being a headline issue. finally, most importantly, when we think about the antitrust issues, there's not head-to-head competition that there is tilde question of foreclosure and we spend time trying to think about the incentives and consequences. the fact that broadband is a profitable and increasing reduces the incentive to engage in foreclosure and then you need to think through the very large number of different stories that an economic theorist can devise. i get at a few of these in my testimony. others have done exhausting exhaustive look that bad.

the most important one we've looked at has been with respect to comcast netflix, roughly speaking, the fact that they did a deal illustrates the workings of the market and tends to undermine the worry that this would be an instrument of foreclosure. >> is there any rebuttal? >> i will submit something in writing, if i may. thisbmitted in oral at point. if you would. [laughter] i'm not trying to be hired but members may or may not be able to see your written response but they may be watching in her office right now. if you choose not to -- >> just briefly to go back to thenetflix example, argument there is an comcast has made the argument that the market is working because

netflix paid for interconnection. response was we were getting so degraded on comcast butthey have a nice visual the service was going down lower than hd down to the vhs level that they felt they had to do something about that. as a netflix subscriber, i can tell you i would drop netflix in a case like that before i would switch my internet provider. netflix understands that, ok? the fact that they paid and the ceo then said comcast is a tax, we a toll or can afford it. others behind us cannot. this tells a legitimate antitrust theory. professor hemphill and i may

disagree on this at it is very much a similar theory to the microsoft theory that the doj .itigated the difference here because this is a merger is under section seven, we are under the merger.t see then you nip it in the bud. >> i appreciate both of you. andink it provides insight ideal back. as a netflix subscriber, do you watch "house of cards?" [laughter] >> are you trying to imply something there? don't go to the metro. [laughter] under advice of counsel, i want to answer the question. [laughter] >> we tried to get frank underwood to come here but i don't know. and these will be the last of the hearing.

mr. marcus or mr. cohen. >> i was starting to feel neglected. >> there have been allegations that comcast may exclude and interconnect. some commentators assert that they will control approximately 82% of the top 50 urban advertising areas in the country. can you provide assurances that comcast will not exclude competitors are advertising firms from the interconnect that comcast operates? i think mr. issa expressed concerns about that. >> let me answer the question. >> that's probably better. >> i would be happy to give you the assurance. gives me an opportunity to

correct the record on some of the things that have been said with respect to advertising. i do not think it is relevant that the percentage of the controller interconnects with a national advertising cooperative. you have to start with the intensely competitive nature of the advertising market. that market is a $72 billion market of which cable in the aggregate has about $5 billion. we are about 7% of the advertising market. even assuming that we will control 82% of the cable advertising market, which i don't think is accurate, but controlling 82% of 7% of the market and i don't think that antitrust risks or harm. advertisers have mass of other opportunities to be able to reach their eyeballs.

we are in the business of selling advertising. we are not in the business of excluding businesses who want to buy advertising from us and it gives us an opportunity to add a few sentences on something for my oral testimony. the original question was a small business question, mud of the huge procompetitive impact of this. we want to make the combined company a much more effect of in the smalletitor and medium-sized business sector. we're going to bring big benefits to those businesses and we are not going to take away any advertising opportunities they have today. >> the short answer is you will not exclude competitors are thertising from interconnect. >> correct. >> ok. considering whether to add an independent programmer to comcast network, does comcast consider whether the independent

programming content would ownede with comcast content? it was mentioned there was a rural network that you own 8 sense of and the fact does not weigh in. -- that you own 8% of. how do you ensure that's not a consideration? it seems it needs to be in your pecuniary interest something you have an ownership in. >> before you added that last comment in, in view of lateness of the hour, i can only give asus think dancer and we do not. we do not consider whether a new programmer is competitive with an existing piece of nbc universal programming. the way that is an is through the federal communications commission which illegally prohibits us from discriminating

against unaffiliated content because of affiliated content that we have and in response to how is itquestion, possible to separate it? that anot assume that alar subject matter channel leads into was only a matter of further dividing the high. let's take news as an example. have 100 people who watch news today and we carry 10 news channels and one of them is owned by us and it's getting, let's say, 10 of that 100, if we were to add another news channel it does not mean that only 100 would still be watching news. we add channels as more people want to watch. now maybe we have 110 and we are not losing any viewers from those we own or any other news channel on the net work.

make our programming more telling. -- more compelling. --would any of you gentlemen mr. schaefer, dr., would you like to respond? any counterpoint on that? the good place to stop. >> asking about ratings and in the extended statement we made, all 280the ratings for at comcast channels as part of the record for may. mentionw mr. cohen did

some of those decisions are reconsidered. i don't know how so. >> i came very concerned about comcast's attitude towards rural america, independents, and i'm even more concerned now. >> we are all problem solvers. we would not have gotten as far as we did. i appreciate this hearing. this concludes today's hearing. thanks to all of the witnesses for attending and your patients. it was cooler and the end of the hearing again which is unusual. without objection, all members have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or materials for the record ms. sheila jackson-lee who was going to introduce something. any member who wants to submit anything for the record. of the panelists wish to submit

additional information for the record. thank you. this hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house foreign affairs committee picks up policy bills including combating sex trafficking and looking at the abduction of nigerian girls from boko haram. 9:00 a.m. eastern on

c-span 3. >> changing some of the rules regarding charter schools in the ein is atates, alyson kl reporter with education week. >> it would make it easier to have a track record of starting high-quality charter schools, groups like kip and aspire, to start more schools while also making sure that charter schools serve students and special education, english language learners. those are two populations they have sometimes been accused of ignoring. like there are a dozen amendments lit evenly between democrats and republicans. what are ones we should watch for? >> we should look at amendments supported by the national education association which is essentially neutral on

this bill but wishes it went a little further in terms of accountability for charters. one of the amendments introduced by representative castor would require the secretary of education to develop and enforce conflict of interest guidelines for charter schools and another would set aside money for state oversight of charter schools. >> alyson klein with us. your tweet -- what is the level of support like in the white house for this kind of legislation? >> secretary duncan testified before the house education committee. he's excited to work with lawmakers on this.

>> we want to get your take on the article you wrote in education week. "as house is set to consider, key senators right their own bill." is drastically different from what the house will do? >> there are a few tweaks and changes. the senate bill gives a little more flexibility in using dollars. these are the groups that grow charters, that operate way more than one. it would steer money to those organizations more than the house. >> alyson klein for education week covering the charter legislation and you can read more on edweek.org and the politics k12 blog. that is also her twitter handle. thanks for joining us.

>> you can now take c-span with you with the free c-span radio app for your smartphone or tablet. all three c-span channels, c-span radio anytime. there's a schedule of each of our network so you can tune in when you want, podcasts of recent shows from our signature programs like afterwords, newsmakers, and queuing day. download your free app online for your iphone, android, blackberry. on the final day of his west coast trip, president obama will give a speech on energy efficiency. in mountain view, california. that will be live starting at 12:55 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> let me be clear that i'm not

defending ms. lerner. i wanted to hear what she had to say. i had questions about why she was unaware of the inappropriate criteria for more than a year after it was created i cannot go to violate an individual's fifth amendment want tost because i hear what she has to say. the greater the zabul is at stake. the sanctity of the fifth amendment rights for all citizens. >> i have never alleged that it goes to the president. i have said that the tea party would be described as enemies or adverse to the president's policies. they were targeted by somebody who politics -- was trying to overturni the supreme court

decision in support of the president's position using her power. with that, i yield back. >> this weekend, house debate on holding former irs official lois in contempt. saturday morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. yoo argues tv, john that the obama administration's look atill harm -- a the newly unveiled registration of the mount vernon dining room. week, eric k. shinseki -- while allegations on

backlogs were investigated. jeff miller called an emergency departmentissue the a subpoena. this is 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. i would like to take care of one item of business this morning. hearing a motion for the issuance of a subpoena to the department of veterans affairs to produce emails and other written correspondent related into the investigation of the phoenix v.a. medical center. it's unfortunate that we have to come to this decision, but we did not do this without some substantial justification. the last few weeks have been a

model of v.a. stonewalling which precipitated the need for this subpoena. first on april 24 our staff was briefed and informed on the existence of an alternate wait list and how that list was subsequently destroyed. we made follow-up phone calls to va-ocla beginning on the 28th asking for additional information about the list. however we didn't get a response back on the 28th so we called back on the 29th and got no response on the 29th. so we called again on april 30 and spoke directly to assistant secretary joan mooney, but still got no response. look, this failure to provide information led to my first letter stating that the committee would pursue a subpoena if we were not provided with the information that this committee had requested.

yesterday, may 7, i received a response from v.a. that does not, does not fully answer the very simple questions that i asked. therefore the time for request for this matter is over. today we'll vote to issue a subpoena. it's a historic vote. this committee has voted once before to issue a subpoena, the first time ever in the history, and we work with v.a. and actually we did not deliver that subpoena, but we ultimately got the information that we were asking for. but i trust the v.a. will have the good sense to not further ignore the request that this committee has made. the subpoena will cover emails and written correspondence sent since the 9th 6 april, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. to or from secretary eric shinseki, the

undersecretary for health, thomas lynch, assistant undersecretary for health. mr. wilgunn, general counsel, or any other representative of the office of general counsel, ms. joan mooney, assistant secretary for congressional and legislative affairs, dr. ron mauer, director of the congressional liaison service, and mr. cox, congressional relation officer or mr. michael hough, congressional relation officer. the scope of this subpoena will encompass all emails and written correspondence where these parties discussed the discussion of an ultimate wait list, regardless of what name it was given earnings which form in which it was kept. pursuant to rule 11, clause 2-m-1-b of the house of representatives and rule 3, clause g of this committee, we have a motion before us that's at the desk and i will ask that

the clerk will read the motion. >> ranking member michaud moved the committee authorize issuance to eric shinseki, secretary of the u.s. department of veterans affairs, for department of veterans affairs to produce all emails and written correspondence sent between april 9, 2014, 8:45, and may 8, 6:00 p.m. which addressed in whole or part the destruction or disappearance of an alternative or interim wait list with regard to the carl t. haden veterans' affairs medical center located in phoenix, arizona, in which secretary shinseki, dr. robert pretzel, undersecretary for health, dr. thomas lynch, assistant undersecretary for health for critical operations and management, mr. wilgunn, or any other representive office of the general counsel, ms. joan mooney, assistant secretary for congressional legislative

affairs, dr. ron mauer, mr. bobbing, congressional relation officer, or michael hough, congressional relations officer, or parties to or referenced in such emails and written correspondence. >> members, you have heard the motion, do i hear a second? motion's been moved and properly seconded. i will open the floor for the ranking member to make a statement and would ask if any other members have a statement that they be very, very brief because everybody has a very, very tight schedule this morning. i understand the ranking member is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think we all can agree that quality, safe, accessible health care has always been a priority of this committee. i believe that has not changed today. we have over the past years asked the v.a. for information that has not been forthcoming.

frustrations remain high among committee members. the chairman sent a letter on may 1, 2014, requesting the answer to two questions. the response we received yesterday from v.a. was, in my view, was insufficient. the subpoena we will authorize today is limited in scope and it narrowly is constructed in order not to interfere or impede the ongoing i.g. investigation. at the end of the day, we all are waiting for the results of the investigation to be provided to us so that we can be in a position to take action we need to fix the problems not only in phoenix but across the v.a. system. i was pleased to hear that the veterans health administration will complete a nationwide access review to ensure that employees have a full understanding of v.a. policy and that they will conduct a

national face-to-face audit at all the clinics in their v.a. medical center. i understand mrs. kirkpatrick, ranking member of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, recently sent a letter calling for v.a. to undertake a similar action in light of the numerous problems throughout the system. so i want to thank you very much, mrs. kirkpatrick. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. michaud, for your cooperation. i would ask does any other member have a statement they would like to make? very well, all those in favor of the motion to issue the subpoena will say aye. all those opposed, no. the motion carries. i'm now going to i sign the subpoena for the production of emails and written correspondence and hereby direct its issuance forthwith.

this concludes our business meeting for today. this meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the chairman of the senate veterans affairs committee and the secretary of veterans affairs will testify about the

state of veteran health care. coming up on c-span, the supreme court oral argument in u.s. about whether law enforcement concerts cell phone content without a warrant. then the house judiciary committee. as later the house debates committees investigate the 2012 benghazi attack. next washington journal, congressman john delaney of maryland on the highway trust fund. and the proposal to create a new funding source. then representative of pennsylvania talks about his proposal to create emergency unemployment on insurance -- insurance. conversation on facebook and twitter. let me be clear i am not

defending this learner. -- ms. lerner. i have questions about what she was unaware of the criteria. i want to know why she did not mention the inappropriate criteria in her letters to congress. anannot go to violate individual's that amendment rights just because i want to hear what she has to say. a much greater principle is at stake here today. the sanctity of the fifth amendment rights for all citizens of the u.s. alleged that it goes to the president. i have said that the tea party would clearly and fairly be described as an amazing -- as enemies of the president's policies. they were targeted by somebody who was trying to overturn the

supreme court decision in support of the president's the system in support of her power. with that, i yield back. >> this weekend, house debate on holding former irs official lerner inrner -- lois contempt of congress. saturday morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and invoke tv, john -- and in book tv, john yoo argues obama policy will harm the u.s.. tv, a american history look at the restoration of george washington's mount vernon dining room. sunday on c-span3. >> health science subcommittee holds a hearing looking at the role in tracking objects

orbiting around the earth. >> if you were accused of being ambitious and china, wild hearted, it was a death sentence. it could damage your family. it menu for yourself before the group. waschinese history, that unimaginable. socialism.cian or when i got there, things were beginning to change in a deep way. what i heard was people talking about themselves. not in a self glamorizing way. just in a self protective way. in a way that they would say it matters what i want in this world. even the terms and chinese for

was transforming. people were getting comfortable using it. and the less, we talk about the us, weration -- in tehe talk about the me generation. past, people in china would talk about us. all of a sudden, beginning after 1970, when it began on this economic transformation, people had no choice but to think about themselves. that the game -- became what drove my investigation and fascination with china >> omni -- sunday night at eight on c-span's q&a. >> the supreme court last week heard oral arguments in several cases regarding the privacy cell phone owners expect and the

interests of law enforcement to read the issue before the court is about whether police need a search word when looking at data on a cell phone. this is an hour. >> we will hear the arguments in u.s. vs wurie. chief justice.. the facts of this case illustrate why any categorical withwould be inconsistent historical practice and detrimental to law enforcement. this is a case where what the officers did was see a phone ringing on the outside screen. the color was identified as my house -- the caller was

identified as "my house." that is all they did. that sort of the search serves valid, time honored functions in a search situation. >> i'm not sure. he was at the precinct three at once he lied about his arrest, they would have known. justice sotomayor, you can almost always say that the police could have gotten a warrant. i'm not talking about cases where people are carrying a gun. cases you canher

imagine that involve searches for evidence, letters which occur in the historical cases. so phones which have been discussed here. ell phones which have been discussed here. here in fact there actually is a destruction of evidence threat with respect to the general category of cell phones. that is what the court has been asked to look at. the general category cell phones and smart phones. whether airplane mode is an effective counter to that. the ears. another threat to law enforcement which is encryption. if the phone turns off and becomes encrypted, officers can go to the magistrate and ask for a warrant. it may be months or years or never that they can break through the encryption and obtain the evidence.

the extent that the traditional destruction of evidence rationale is to find the search justify theone, or search of traditional items, that applies more strongly to cell phones than most of the items that might be seized from a person. >> please tell me about encryption. i know people can encrypt. i thought they had to do that when they put the information in the phone. >> as best i understand it, many smartphones are equipped with built-in encryption. apple has software and hardware encryption. other brands are quickly following with strong encryption. the encryption is deployed in a way that if you don't have the key, the data on the phone is useless. stored in often memory. it is only accessible when you get into the phone. if the phone is on and the functioning, you can get access to the phone and attempt to get

information from the phone without the encryption key being an obstacle. deployed,cryption is that can sometimes be a barrier. >> are the police going to look at everything in a cell phone? evidence -- the information on the phone is encrypted is my understanding. but the phone itself has a key to decrypt it. the user wants access to the information. apparently a -- neither you nor i have this our phone. i'm imagining something. sort of some side of -- system that you can never get the stuff again. when it happens, at least 10 by the after the arrest,

time you get to the station house, this already happens. no pills can. -- maybe nobody else can. i have never heard of it before now. i am incredulous about it from my tone of voice. i don't see why somebody who wanted to keep the police away wouldn't do it after 30 seconds. >> if you have an iphone, and i don't know which kind you have. >> i don't. [laughter] >> that's the problem. the phones are set up to protect the data. >> my point is somebody who really wants to go to all that trouble will surly -- surely have to turn it off. >> not all criminals are so clever. you see what i'm doing with

my questions? havingesponse to you is tried to ascertain the empirical reality of the problem, it is greatly feared by law enforcement. we have documented that the studies. the grave concerns that encryption has raised. it is not a big problem if you get the phone in an active state. it does have unpredictable capabilities of becoming encrypted if it is turned off or certain apps are deployed. >> but you have to keep the phone going anyway until you can get to a place where you do something with it. >> a lot of the searches occur at the side of the road when the officer -- officer opened the phone on the heel of the arrest and sought evidence that this individual was a gang member.

preceded by aas c. it is a very common thing for officers to take advantage of the information that is on a phone the way they would take advantage of the information on a person to find out who they are dealing with. it was in the argument whether been was a -- phones have used to trigger dangerous. people have used phones right before arrest to track -- to call and accomplices to attack the police. by looking at the cell phone quickly,,, they can see whether with -- there was a phone or text that could protect their safety. this is a categorical exception

as the court recognized twice last term. exceptionategorical to the normal word requirement. >> something that you said about the encryption. -- is ithe experience that most cell phones when they are found on a person are not open? they are locked question mark -- they are locked? >> i would not be able to answer that question. the fact that this issue has atr -- arisen indicates that least in a significant number of cases, the phones are not locked. the officers are able to obtain access to the information. if they are not able to obtain access to the information, i want to tie this back to things

that could give the court some comfort if the court were concerned about the possibility for police searching, too much evidence and cell phones. we talked earlier about the crime of arrest limitation which would screen out a great many minor crimes. the court has distinguished between the minor crimes. the officers have an interest in determining who the person is. the person could pose a threat even if they are just stopped for a traffic violation. there are also potential duration limits on a search

arrest. as the name indicates, it is incidents to the rest. decisions have described the lowering or expectations as happened to a reasonable time after the arrest. to the extent that most of the searches are going to occur either at the scene of the crime -- >> once we put in the limit, you download the phone. medicalng, there records and tax returns, even when they are not relevant, are part of your database. the potential last limiting principle. the court need not consider the consequences of downloading the entire concert -- contents of a cell phone. which debriefs have talked about. that didn't happen in these cases.

these cases involve the manual searches of the information that is available to the user. once the information has been captured into electronic databases, there is at least an argument that at that point the evidence is preserved and potentially be warm requirement would have a different application. at least if the search of the forensic database would go beyond ascertaining identity and verifying safety concerns. the court does not need to examine that in this case. it may well be that expectations of privacy do not exist. the kind of thing that the police are likely to look at when they make an arrest. they are interested in developing evidence that relates to the crime, protecting their safety, and ascertaining identity. they are not interested in arresting these medical records and so forth. >> you suggested the limitation with respect to access.

how can you tell the difference? >> that is something that officers would have to develop protocols based on changing technology. authority toim the use the phone to access data that is not on the phone in the cloud. it may well be that in the future, more information will migrate to the cloud. let's will be on the phone. that may ship with the officers can do. >> the whole idea of smart phones, even the user does not know what is on the cloud or not. the extent that that is true justice kagan, law enforcement officers to ensure they are complying with the fourth amendment would have to take the phone off the network. discussed and all the forensic manuals we have sent to the court to review want to take the phone off the at work to avoid the remote wiping problem. to avoid corruption of data.

it is sound forensic practice to do that. it serves what we think is a limiting principle. the court is to decide that. any cloudo claim that data was accessed. we are only saying that the doctrine serves a valuable , especially with cell phones. they are used as the medium for commission of crimes. they are carrying the information people would have carried on paper. it seems a little odd to say because information has migrated from paper onto a smart phone, the officers -- >> that you think it is odd to say we are living in a new world. kagan's questions say that someone who was arrested for a minor crime have their whole life expose on the device.

do you have any limiting principles we should consider at all? >> justice kennedy, yes i do. the first one that has been discussed in both arguments and justice scalia has brought up as well is that the evidence to be searched, unless there are some exigency,she -- should be relevant to the search. >> that was for an expired license. >> oron't necessarily -- was it the guns under the hood? >> and the riley case the guns were under the hood. bit denna --ound a a bandanna. the crime of arrest was the firearms. only during the impound

search that they conducted the arrest. the ultimate search that occurred was because there was a known propensity of gang members to document their use of firearms. that is what the arresting officer was looking for. no different than what he would have looked for in the wallet to read wasn't a cloud-based search. it was a scope focused search. principle, the officer is looking for related material and evidence that can be plausibly said is crime of arrest related material. the court can couple that if they were not satisfied with a scope-based limit which would say that you can't look everywhere on the phone where there is no realistic chance that there's going to be evidence related to the crime of arrest. you can just rove to the phone. you need to keep a scope focus. that canon would be enforced by

defendants. conformce would have to their conduct to the constraints of the fourth amendment when conducting this. -- but not something else. what would the scope limitation be? >> it would depend on the crime. if you are looking for evidence related to the crime of child pornography, you could go through photographs. if you were looking for a nether crime, potentially drug trafficking, you would look for things like recent contacts. lists of customers during not necessarily videos. to see how that limit would be applied. you could see that the police would be able to a articulate why almost every application or entry would reasonably be anticipated to have evidence of the particular crime. obviously call logs three even

facebook. maybe they have pictures of themselves with guns if it is a weapons crime. i have trouble imagining what application or entry police could not say it is recently likely there would be evidence of a crime. >> to the extent that you think that is an inevitable generalization, and there is a way of looking at it where that is correct, the warm requirement would do nothing. warrant requirement would do nothing. >> the point of the war and is a person is not involved with since to what the police knowing nyat sometimes like me or a other human being, a policeman can get carried away. if he does show a warrant -- if he doesn't, you don't.

it isn't because they are illegal questions. won a thirde you dispassionate mind to review the facts. if that's the purpose of having a more, how long does it take to in these cases? is it not a matter of hours? it may be in some places. >> in some places i'm sure it is difficult. most places, major cities, my guess was, and i want to be correct if i'm wrong, it is a matter of a few hours. you could do it more quickly if you needed to. am i right? you are in a department that keeps track of -- you are more expert than i am. therefore i would like your guess.essed -- vest in thearies considerably 50 states depending on where you are, the availability of magistrates.

fromld differentiate this the case where the court was confident you could get a warrant quickly. the reason the court could be confident about that is because trunk driving is a simple crime. officer has simple observations to validate it three there were -- to validate it. there are forms the officer could prepare. my question i'm trying to get to is this. what from what you have said is the harm in saying, yes, you need a warrant? the bell rings on the phone, to pin on the kind of crying. it may be important to let the policeman answer. it may be other people in the gang who are coming with weapons. if you are right on the technology, maybe somebody about to push a buzzer that will erase the information.

we have the circumstances. if your view of the technology is right. sense. you don't need a special rule other than the rule, get a warrant. how will that change? have discussed a variety of special rules. that rule completely compromises theynterest in search -- have always assumed that the interests and police discovering evidence that could help them in the prosecution, protect their safety, and avoid distraction is paramount, giving the reduced expectations of privacy. >> could you work with exigent circumstances? >> the encryption problem is what makes it impossible that you can take the time to get the warrant.

encryption kicks in when the phone is turned to a setting that automatically will occur on most modern cell phones that turns the phone off. the me phone's contents become encrypted and you need the password. if you don't have that, you won't be able to do it. law enforcement's for the clouds will not be able to get around forensic labs will not be able to get around it. months if you don't take advantage of it. >> how do you stop it from going off? thingsof the interesting that the petitioner -- pictures of the iphone 5, how you can go into the phone if it was configured this way and disabled the autolock feature.

with the petitioner did not do was provide similar information for the 500 faux -- or so other phones on the market and will be on the market. so police officers will be equipped with a manual as thick as the new york city telephone book with procedures needed to prevent phones from going into going encryption mode -- into and encryption mode. that is why exigent circumstances, unless done as a categorical rule. i searched it. lest you do that, you are putting the officers at the mercy of technology which will increasingly be able to defeat their ability to conduct the kind of routine searches they have always conducted. they've got their own technological front. there are flaws, i'm not surprised. mr. chief justice, it is an

arms race between the forensic capability of law-enforcement labs and the abilities of cell phone manufacturers and criminals to devise technologies that will support them. they will leapfrog each other at times and there may be periods when law enforcement has the advantage. periods wherebe the others will succeed. my point is it would not be a wise rule for this port to announce based on technology and reasonable predictions of technology. my experience from the people i have spoken with is that a lot of phones are arriving in a lab in a locked and encrypted state and it is tough to deal with. if the court has concerns about applying lock stock and barrel the traditional robinson rule,

there are ways stations and compromise positions. this case, as california pointed involve't really totally unpacking somebody's life from their smart phone. i'm not suggesting that the court should resolve these cases by announcing a rule that is limited to the effects of the cases. but the court is looking to preserve some areas for protection, we have talked about limiting the justification for a search. limiting the scope of the search. limiting the duration of the search. limiting the intensity in the sense of complaint about -- confining it to what can be found manually. >> i'm trying to find out if this is a way of dealing with the unknown? if technology is such that the policeman gets really crude. he has five minutes to search, he can get this viable evidence.

if the technology is such that it does not give him five minutes -- or such that it gives him for five hours -- or such he can press a button. or the opposite -- all that will be fed into the word exigency which we would not have to decide now. you could make your arguments about the real exigent chief -- exigency for preventing destruction later of the context of what turns out to be the technology of the time. >> the reason why robinson adopted a categorical rule is they concluded that case-by-case object -- is unfeasible. robinson struck a categorical balance. they would've stood was all do law.- unstabilized all the >> say there has been a

telephone call within a reasonable amount of time of the rest. -- the arrest. or any message that was sent at the time of the arrest. that is a plainview situation that would take care of the withtion of the person guns or the call to the confederate. the imminent destruction of the phone. >> i'm not entirely sure how to articulate that principle, but if it fits within the -- it fallbacka reasonable position. >> thank you, counsel. justice, i would like to first talk about the up friction -- talk about the encryption we have been

discussing. it is not an issue in this case. it is not an issue and riley. the government has said there are a lot of phones arriving in the lab in a locked state. do we know that they werelocked when seized were locked subsequently? the number of password-protected phones that are open at the time of arrest is pure speculation. if they are not open at the time of arrest, the government's argument about locking is relevant. the number of password-protected that would be accessible at a later time is also an unknown and speculative quantity. there are devices that can break past words. has capabilities breaking the more

typical passwords within 15 minutes. you can obtain subsistence -- assistance for manufacturers. >> you have gotten far field which may not be fair to mr. fisher. in your case, why isn't the information in plainview? my house, my home. they don't have to open anything. >> they saw the words, my house. they had to open the phone. >> you are saying you have no objection to the my house -- >> they were in plainview. that is not an issue. >> it says my house because he has done something with a particular number.

iew? would be in plain v in a case in which the user had number,d the particular the number would show up? >> yes. the number would be in plain view. interests the privacy and to social issues in the call logs, which the government has doesd about, is that it contain -- you have the associate all -- associational information created by the user. in this case, it was blinking my house. nicknamesnk names and and places to a number. e-mails. a relationship to a name and a number. dr., shrink, mom, dad.

you can link it to text messages. two other numbers. of can provide patterns calling that provide additional associational data and communicate the closeness of a relationship. how often calls are made, when they are made, what is the time of the call. the length of the call. you can link notes. about aeneral or particular call. rings, can the police answer it? >> the cases have been in the context of search warrants for houses. as the police are searching the house, the phone has been --ging 3-d courts have said - where it can be viewed as being within the scope of the warrant, it is permissible. >> what about this case?

the numbers in plainview. cannswering the phone -- you do it or not? you know what number is calling. if you are conducting a search and somebody knocks on the door, you can open the door? >> they perhaps could have answered the phone. >> what is your position? what rule do you want us to adopt with responsibly question? >> i would say that they could answer the phone. >> in this sense, it is plain hearing. it is an analog of plainview. there is nothing particularly private about the ringing. the policeman can answer the

phone. it doesn't mean the person on the other end has to respond. was thinking in terms of reasonable expectation of privacy. most people don't tick up other people's phones to answer -- pick up other people's phones to answer. unless the phone is a lost. perhaps this would be analogous to that. with has nothing to do elaine hearing. obviously they can hear the ring. it is another step to answer it. if the police have seized to the phone and can secure it, pending application for warts to engage in a search of its content, answering the phone could be viewed as part of securing. >> does the owner of the phone

have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the call log? >> i believe for the associational data, there is an expectation of privacy. >> the cell phone company has all that information. >> no, -- -- numbers.wners to the owner have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the list of numbers called? of numbershe list alone. but the call log is not limited to that list of numbers. bill may not , the loop oinclude -- depending on the kind of plan you have, the length of the call. >> the cell phone company won't have that information?

>> and will do tend -- it will depend on whether you keep that information and what kind of when you have. >> what information are we talking about in this case? have my home, which is in plainview. my house. then the call log. what else? >> that is all that was accessed. we are talking about the phone number that allowed the police to get to a particular premises. >> if the call log, the numbers by ad, is not covered reasonable expectation of privacy in my house, where is the search? phoneis in open the itself, which is covered by a reasonable expectation. could you open it to look and

see if there's something inside? >> you can examine it, but that will not get you the number. the officer had to push a button in order to get access to. there were two buttons. button, youg the get information that you just told me is not covered by a reasonable expectation of privacy. >> no, i believe that the information it is covered by a reasonable expectation of privacy because there is associational information that is inputted by the owner. >> was any of that used here? >> it was the link between my house and the number. that got them to the premises. >> they saw the phone ring at a particular time. if you look at the call log, you could see what call came in. then you know where the call came from that registered as my house.

>> but you wouldn't know it was my house. absence information that the owner of the phone -- >> why is that so? maybe i don't understand the facts. if the phone rang right now, and you look at the call log. you saw one call came in at 12:13. he knew that it came from my house. wouldn't you know that was the number for my house? >> you wouldn't know from the call log alone without information inputted by the phone owner on the log that was my house. input you would have the number itself in plainview. to some sort of reverse directory, but you have no -- what is the reason to believe it had anything to do with the defendant? >> can the police searched the

person's wallet and find the index card with the number for my house? and use the information obtained? >> i believe that the police can examine the contents -- >> examine the contents of the wallet but not read it? or may not the police examine the wallet, finding number -- finding number, and act on that information? yes or no? >> this court has not addressed the reading of information examined in searching for -- >> it seems to me that it is fairly clear that the content that are seized and in the can -- possession of the arrestee, the police can act on it.

under the justifications which were reiterated in robinson, the justifications are officer safety and evidence preservation. which does not necessarily encompass reading. the cell phone, you don't have to resolve whether it is appropriate to read paper documents you come across. they onlynt is information they got and used with the phone number and address of the house. and that it was his house. that is what is on your driver's license. >> they are residences. they needed his driver's license, which i had. >> i'm trying to see what greater invasion of privacy there was in this case then the looking at your driver's

license when you are carrying it around. >> because my house may not necessarily be the house in which you reside. you may have chosen to attach that -- that heroblem here was indicated that a number was his house and it might not have been his house? >> the problem is that the police searched his phone in order to associate information contained in the phone with what they were able to observe in plainview >> two buttons. that officeraim safety or circumstances justify the search? >> no. >> if there is a rule that says, you can search phones, you could do it. you might search a phone and, within that version -- with an

advertisement for a disney movie. but if the rule is you can't search phones, you win, even if they came up with something. they might have come up with something when he was six years old, there is a picture of an elephant at the zoo. totally public. but it was still fall within the rule. breyer.justice rule that weat the are proposing meets the needs of law enforcement by allowing them custody.in >> what is your argument for the proposition -- when you search a -- some of won't what you come up with this public information/

some is private, you want to say the absolute rule is no.absolute >> because everything is so intermingled on a cell phone or tablet or computer, you don't know what you are going to be getting when you push those buttons and start rummaging through the digital contents of the phone. then determining whether examination of information on a cell phone constitutes a search, what do you think we are doing? are we answering him. an question -- answering emperical question? what is the reasonable expectation of privacy with a

person in 2014 with a cell phone? or are we legislating what we think is a good privacy rule? >> i think the court is determining whether or not in a14, an individual has reasonable expectation of privacy against government intrusion into a device that carries around an increasingly large percentage of somebody's personal -- >> part of that is, people must actually have that expectation, that must be the expectation of people at large in 2014. everything that is on their cell is private. or some of the information is private to read or they think nothing is private. where do you think we should look to answer that question about what people in 2014 think about that question? >> i think from the fact that people carry them with them in a pocket or purse.

that exhibits an expectation of privacy. you don't expect people to rummage through your pockets. or through the -- >> why? i'm not going to suggest they are like things that existed in the pre-digital era. in the predigital era, people didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in papers, letters, things like that. photos and a billfold. numbers, addresses. things they might carry on their person. how do we determine what the new expectation of privacy is? >> peopled it have an expectation of privacy in those items. wheny was it not a search you search the pocket of somebody who was arrested and you found the address? >>

it's still a search. >> all right. how do we determine whether somebody has a reasonable expectation of privacy in any of information that is contained on a cell phone? of the interconnect activity of the data, i don't can say a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in this app but not that app. you don't know what is linked to any other part of the phone. providesle that