although it is sad is an opportunity for more people to be engaged whether professionally or personally. >> that is what mine relates to, it is the bipartisan nature of the issue and the strange ballot -- bedfellows it can often create. working in him -- human trafficking and child trafficking. it is a bigger issue because many people are supportive once he learned it is a problem, they want to help create in highly polarized political environments, it is a joy to see republicans, democrats, service providers, faith-based working s all round leading around and trying to solve this. what is very difficult issue. together, i think we can do it. that is my hope. >> thank you. please join me in thanking the panelists.

[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indistinct conversations] >> if you want to watch this any online, if you missed any of the conversation about child trafficking, you can find it at

our video library. we have more live coverage. we will take you to grand for a rallyigan i with president-elect donald trump. scheduled fory is 7 p.m. eastern. we will take you there live. and recent oral argument in the seventh quote -- circuit court on whether police have a right to search a car because it is parked illegally. that case, usa versus randy johnson. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. and cathy mcmorris rodgers will helm theumps picked to department of interior. is trying to wrap up business before gaveling out and that includes funding the federal government past midnight. the senate working on a

resolution that was passed by the house, extending government funding through the end of april of next year. one of the sticking points is a provision related to health care for retired coal miners. senator mcconnell is urging senators to back that despite the coal miner dispute. you can watch the senate debate 2, underway now. >> every weekend, book tv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. here are some of our programs as weekend. saturday at 7:45 p.m. eastern, courtney martin explores the term of what -- the meaning of what the term that are off means. , "better off, reinventing the american dream." i does not matter what your bank account is. you are vulnerable to this government in a way -- and the way it governs like every other

person in every other socioeconomic bracket. well full this into thinking we can buy our way out of suffering. p.m. eastern, fox news anchor megyn kelly talks about her latest book which recounts her life and career as a journalist. is an opportunity to grow and become stronger. no just -- i had had adversity into my head prep -- parents who kept me in a protective bubble for 45 years, how do you think i would have handled the past year? >> sunday, harvard business goal professor looks at white-collar crime in his book, way they do it. inside the mind of the white-collar criminal. ed by [inaudible] without remorse

would steal 100 from my account. that is the fundamental difference in terms of these crimes that you can do some devastating things and not have that gut feeling of actually doing something harmful. socializedeasonably people. >> go to c-span.org for the weekend schedule. all day saturday, american istory tv on c-span3 featuring programs about the anniversary of the japanese attacks on pearl harbor. beginning at 8 a.m. eastern, christopher carter reach from u.s. navy logs describing events on ships that were under attack in pearl harbor followed by the casually t burial of john wereley, his remains recently buried -- discovered.

at 9:30 p.m., president franklin 1941sevelt's december speech to congress asking for a declaration of war followed by the 75th anniversary ceremony cohosted by the national park service and the u.s. navy. we are your calls and tweets live. civil,hor of pacific for were at sea in the versatile, 1941-1942 discussing the pacific war from the attack on pearl harbor through the u.s. victory of the japanese at midway. we are live with paul travers, ,uthor of "eyewitness to infamy an oral history of pearl harbor." giving a behind-the-scenes of the -- account of the attack. and then at one, the pearl harbor 75th anniversary ceremony from a national world war ii memorial in washington, d c with keynote room -- remarks by

senator john mccain. >> next, a conversation about the u.s. political system and whether third parties can survive in the current two-party system. this is hosted by the new york university school of law. >> good morning. my supremely talented and collegial codirector, as the nyu law schools legislative and regulatory process clinic, i want to welcome you to the inaugural session of the forum. newprogram today, a political system promises to be very interesting and perhaps a bit provocative. this forum would not be possible without of sidleyus support

austin. togives me great pleasure the co-head of their litigation practice and one of the firm's national cochairs of its recruiting committee. of particular significance to us, john is an active alumnus of the nyu law school. john: thank you, sally. is honored to support the form which will be a robust scotian involving the role of .he state, local parties we're honored to welcome vice

president biden today and thank him for agreeing to provide his insights as our keynote speaker. we are positive that today's form should prove to be interesting. informative, and enlightening on these and other subjects exploring whether we are on the vanguard of a new political system. it is a firm with a treat -- deep tradition of public service and has been a destination for lawyers who have served throughout the government. two of our partners will be moderating two of today's panels. both have served in the u.s. government. rick is a member of congress and cam is a member of congress. several of our partners were important to ensuring that the forum move forward today and have served atey the highest level of the executive branch. alumni who have

served in the federal government under democratic and republican administrations, one of whom is president obama who was a summer associate in our chicago office years ago. as was the first lady who was an associate there as well. we are grateful for the hard in and they have done a fabulous and outstanding job. in addition we are grateful to dean morrison for his support the --ion for sidley and to come together and make this for him a reality. we also wish to thank in advance terrific panelists without whom this -- the panel could not be a success. sidley has a wonderful relationship with nyu law. nearly 100mnus and lawyers in a firm including 35 partners. sidley is proud to partner with nyu and we know we can make a valuable contribution to the dialogue involving american

democracy, citizen engagement, and public service. over sidley's 150 year history, a fundamental tenet of our firm and supporthonor the rule of law in this great democracy. the forum is an example of our continuing commitment to do so and we are very proud to be part of it. thank you. [applause] >> might introduction and the introductions will be brief because the full biographies are listed in your program which you should have received at the registration table which remain out there. we will hold our panels to roughly 50 minutes and allow 10 minutes for time for questions from audience members.

we have students assembled on the rails on both sides with cards and pens. you have a thought, you raise a hand and one will come and send this to you and we will be able to ask those questions. rick wonderful to have year. he was a member of the u.s. house of representatives for 28 years where he chaired the subcommittee on to medications and the internet. he currently chairs the practice intrategy the sidley austin washington office. >> thank you. it is a privilege to take part in the forum this morning. i want to say a word of welcome to everyone in the audience, to our first panel which focuses on the role of the political parties. the november election certainly defied the expectations of many.

and by almost all accounts, it political event, but what are its invocations were the future of our political party, what role do they play at a time when super pac's are prominent and major funders of the candidates directly without party intervention. are the parties stronger or weaker than they have been historically, is the situation ripe at this point for the emergence of a third political ?arty how have passed reforms work? would first year -- future reforms strengthen parties and with a country to a stronger democracy. are the parties at risk of losing aspects of their constituency. in order to answer these and other questions, we are joined today by a truly distinguished panel. i will say a word of introduction about each of them

the outset. ben ginsberg is a partner at jones day and a former national counsel to the bush-cheney and the romney presidential campaigns. he is currently counsel to the republican governors association. we are joined also pildis.ard he is a litigator and a widely read other on legal and policy -- theconcerning this structure of democratic institutions. his acclaimed casebook, the law of the rocker c, legal structure of the political process launched an entirely new field of study in law schools across the country. we are joined by david keating, clubtive director of the for growth. he previously served as executive vice president of the andonal taxpayers union

executive director of americans for fair taxation. it is also known as the man who s.vented the super pac the full bios are bound into the program and if you would like to learn more i would invite you to read them. it has been suggested that donald trump whose positions crossed traditional party lines, evolveshis platform from republican principles, part from democratic principles, part of pre-match his own. is truly perhaps the first independent american president. following.d his own he largely financed his own campaign for the nomination. he staged a hostile takeover of one of the major political parties. ginsberg, is that an accurate description of what happened?

and i will expand the question by asking, did the democratic party also come close to a possible takeover by bernie sanders and his supporters, and what are the implications of these very unusual events for the future of local parties? is fine if that is where you would like to start. ben: i think donald trump has succeeded in trying collating all the party alignments. it is tough to know what the base of the party is, what the core constituencies are. i take a little bit of exception to the assumption in the question, if you look at the way donald trump has named his first is abinet people, which

fairly traditional act. you have three generals in national security positions. you have four billionaires are perceived -- we are perceived as the party of the billionaires although we can argue with that. you have seven or eight people who are people with -- who are loyalists to donald trump and conservative credentials. that looks like a traditional government at least in the first 15 of the 660 people who need to be nominated by the senate. but just to make one other point. i do think in this political cycle, the party structure splintered a lot more than it has in the past. you are saying and evolutionary time that started in the 2004 election where the party structures are much more

diffuse. it is much tougher to have principled governing coalitions in the congress. i think you have senate and house campaign committees that take care of u.s. senators and u.s. house people. you have a governors association and attorney general's association. it is not the democratic and republican national committee's who are the core political boots on the ground, money to the candidate, tv ads on the air that they were prior to the mccain.of you do have a changing structure. >> tell us if this was a major hostile takeover. >> the larger framework within which i was -- where then which i would situate what is going on, we are seeing what i view as of political fragmentation american democracy.

not just american democracy, of democracies around the world. when i mean by political fragmentation is that the traditional sources that organized governance and organize the political process, and election, had their power diffused inthority various ways. it has been diffused externally. we have seen tremendous diffusion of power away from the parties to these outside groups. there has also been an internal diffusion of power within the parties in the sense that the party leadership no longer has the kind of control over the oncers that the leadership had. individual members of congress are much more independent printers in the used to be. trumps how i view donald

and bernie sanders. i view them as independent, free agents. sanders is an independent, never was a member of the democratic party, is not a member of the democratic already. trump was a republican, a democrat until about 10 minutes ago and then decided it was advantageous to run as a republican. the parties have become so possibleout that it is for free agents to capture the party label for their own purposes and agendas. i think that has happened for two general reasons. one is institutional changes we have made. particularly with respect to the nomination process for choosing the candidates. we have completely taken that process since the 1970's out of the hands of the parties. we have stripped the parties of any meaningful role whatsoever. in that process, when we went with a system of pure primary

election or populist processes for choosing the nominee. surprise, surprise when you shift the nomination process to one that is a populist controlled process, through the primaries you will get much more populist kinds of candidates. finding it easier to emerge from that process. there are other changes institutionally we have made. the second set of changes are cultural and technological changes which we are aware of. the committee case and revolution and the technology revolution have undermined the authority of all sorts of organizations whether it is the parties, churches, academic institutions, corporations, it is now possible to ipass the traditional organizational structures. that is why people like ted cruz and liz warren, one year into

the senate become two of the most powerful figures in the parties in a way that was inconceivable for someone like lyndon johnson, as powerful as he was, in our politics in the past. it is possible for people to find their national constituencies through social to raise money through the technology that is available, and free themselves from the traditional sources of control what the party has exerted and the traditional support the parties provided. what we're saying is this fragmentation that empowers lots of individual actors, scripts media institutions like the parties of a significant role. and somewhat inevitably, is going to be fueling more extremism and more litigation -- polarization. >> let's take off from one of the points you mentioned. pac'sct that with super

lookingcandidates and to outside sources. david keating, do you believe that the parties are relevant as funders, that has been a traditional role of parties. how damaging is it to the political parties that perhaps that role is eclipsed to a significant extent by external funding sources? and do you think parties perhaps have been weakened by virtue of the fact that candidates can now so directly communicate with voters on their own. i am or -- reminded of this to trumps twitter following of something like 48 million people that gets him instant access to a very large part of the electorate. what is the effect of those changes on political parties? >> i am president of center -- the center for politics. club for work at the

growth number of years ago. and then also i wanted to make sure it is there to people, super pac's can not directly fund candidates pick -- candidates. they cannot coordinate with the candidates, they cannot ordinate with parties. there is a long list of roles that i am sure ben and i could give a seminar on those someday if the player interested. these are independent groups. they are people getting together with other people and talking to voters and urging them to vote for or against particular candidates. previousn the question, i agree with virtually everything that rick and ben have said. in terms of the individual members, congress, and candidates they have always been to some degree entrepreneurs. otherwise they would not gotten elected in the first place that i agree that changes in campaign finance laws and the advent of

media and the atomization of media has made it even more likely that these candidates can emerge and spring out of nowhere. , i doms of the parties not think the right approach is to somehow blame independent groups. these are groups of citizens to my after all. the real problem is that the campaign finance laws have undercut the ability of parties to organize americans and speak out together. if you look at especially, the democratic party is hurting right now in a big way. you look at their bench at the state level, the state legislative level, the gubernatorial positions they wipeoutd it has been a in over the last eight years. one of the big factors i think that is hurting parties that

people do not talk about very often is the incredible complexity of the campaign finance laws, especially on state parties. activityhe political of state parties now has to struggle not only under state laws and regulations which are obviously bad in many places, but the federal laws, a lot of the state parties are crushed by regulation. i think we have got to simplify campaign finance regulation in a week -- a big way. to the extent we can lift contribution limits, maybe take them off altogether on political much morehat would be important. that is a much better way to go than trying to figure out how to push down independt groups. >> been ginsburg, let's continue that discussion. being very see

constructive in terms of change make thew that would funding of campaigns by the parties more effective? for example, each of the national parties has an independent expenditure committee. if you count all the various ones that are in existence, it is about six in total. parties spentese significant sums in isolation without coordinating the central party units, a sensible weight to do things, would it strengthen the role of the they were funders if able to coordinate more directly at least internally? your views on what could happen in terms of making the parties more significant in terms of funding campaigns. you need to that, take a stark look at the system as it exists today. which is in limiting candidates and political parties and what

they are allowed to raise, but with none of those limits buckleyng back from allejo andly how -- v citizens united, you have a system of limiting what the actual actors in a campaign can do. limitingign -- and not special interest groups who can raise unlimited amounts of money from sources the candidates and parties cannot. you have a system where the agendas set by outside groups as opposed to being the loudest voice in the debate. if you were going to help strengthen the parties, you would look at the three core functions that parties historically have performed. they have raised money for candidates. it is no longer done primarily by the party.

it is no longer done by super pac's and expenditure groups but it is done by a large membership organizations on the left and right who will mobilize their members to give contributions to candidates they like. the candidates will go to special interest groups rather than the political parties. they will owe their allegiance not to the broad governing coalitions of the political parties but to the groups that helped fund them. the mobilization efforts these days as david correctly pointed out really are not done by state parties because that is now a federalize process with limited contributions. if i want to put out a message as a state party that says vote democratic, i now have to use all federal dollars, i cannot you stay dollars even though indisputably helps state candidates as well. federal dollars are limited. each state has its own set of laws. that has in turn been outsourced either to campaigns are two

special interest groups to do the mobilization and ground game. of third core function parties was always doing the messaging to help their candidates. , outside groups have more money to put into that process than the parties do. limited in the amount that they can spend . itctly on their candidates is the coordinated expenditure limits, it is -- it has not been increased except for inflation in many years. certainly not kept a proportionately with the cost of campaigns so the parties do have these independent expenditure units. still much smaller than what outside groups can do. the units are not allowed to thereo the core groupo is bizarre messaging that takes place. sometimes you get a party

committee, expenditure messages that are not what the campaign and the candidate would like. it is a messy end nonsensical system if in fact your goal at the end of the day is to have members who get elected pay some degree of adherence to core party principles than a big tent --opposed to individuals''s special interest groups that are groups the core of finding candidates. >> are there changes in finance can strengthen parties? >> and want to push this to a more cultural or conceptual perspective. so many americans, particularly younger americans hate political contempthave come as for political parties, you see the figures about the plurality of voters under the age of 35 m a registered independent, not as

one of the party members. in this discussion, it is important to step back and say more about why the parties are so important despite all of the awful things that are true about them. point is that unless you have strong political parties, the private interests are going to carve up the government. politicians who have to stand there on their own without a strong hardy apparatus are extremely -- party apparatus are extremely vulnerable particularly in the united states. they are more vulnerable than house additions and any other country, especially in the u.s. house. they have to elections every two years, primary and a general election. they mostly raise their money independently. they have to do that. so they are constantly vulnerable. -- the strong

political parties that can take concerted positions and defend thesemembers is checked honorable members when they take difficult votes. the second thing is in our separated power system, this s -- system cannot function unless we have a certain degree of compromising typically across party lines. unless you have unified government large enough to overcome the filibuster in the senate and that compromising is very likely to come, in my view, from party leaders who, with -- if they are strong enough to make these compromises, as tough as they are, ring their members along and protect those members. the fragmentation i am talking about makes our system also not just more extreme but more dysfunctional and more paralyzed. when we talk about strengthening parties, it is important for people to understand why it is

so important to be doing that. i think that along the same bens of the measures that has described, trying to channel the flow of money into the parties, and away from these outside groups, those people still want to give, they should be free to do it. we have created these incentives that force them to go to the outside groups including people who would rather be giving the money to the political parties. we can allow greater coordination between the parties and allowndidates greater coordination across national and state parties. here is an extreme suggestion just to get people to think in a framework. when we talk about public financing in the few states that have it and there is more interest in that in the various states, it is about financing where money goes to individual candidates. we could think about public financing where a lot more of the money goes to the political

parties which is the way that public financing works in most democracies which have public financing. empowering the parties through a public finance system that does not get to be so individual candidate-centered but tries to empower these organizations that i think are absolutely essential in any healthy democracy, but particularly with our separated power system. >> what do you think about allowing more coordination internally within the parties with -- in terms of how the funding flows, is there harm in that, or do you still prefer takethe external role prominence? sayd: it is amazing that we to political parties they cannot coordinate with their candidates. who came up with that idea? it really makes no sense. a party is going to corrupt its own candidates?

that is silly. take thehey should coordination limits off completely. especially if we have a contribution -- the contribution limits we have today. there is lots of things you can do, i think. if people are concerned about the ability to raise super large chunks of money then say to the candidates and elected officials mother cannot, let the parties get more money, let them coordinate with their candidates. there is a bigger problem and i think rick's analysis is very much on point here. there is also a tradition that has developed in the party -- parties itself. they can protect their own in the general election but when it comes to the primary election, there is a lot of internal pressures on the party -- parties not to get involved in primary races. it is interesting to watch that politically.

in the presidential race, look when the wikileaks emails came out. it was clear that the dnc was on the side of clinton behind the scenes and it caused a huge reaction. last year, think it was last year when senator mcconnell like to make it easier for parties to do things, there was a big loeb among the tea party -- blowup among the tea party because they were concerned the parties would be able to intervene in primaries and they were saying no, we do not want to pass this. i have seen this recur at the in termsel as well as of liberating parties. a lot of the concern from the more right wing republicans is they do not trust the party establishment and they do not want the parties to intervene. there is a tradition that they not do so but there have been the legal means

for parties to intervene in primaries. that would only solve half of rick's problems if we loosen the rules, we allow parties to courtney with their candidates but there is still going to be a lot of pressure to not protect these vulnerable people in a primary situation. >> we seem to have a consensus that more coordination internally among the parties would be sensible. we saw something pretty unusual in this presidential race. on the republican side, many people who would be defined as traditional business persons deciding not to support the republican presidential nominee. making public statements to that effect. many others who had nothing to say publicly or privately expressing a lot of discomfort in the way things were going on the republican side. on the democratic side, we saw people who classically have been democrats, blue-collar workers,

people living in rural areas who historically in many places had been the core of the democratic party mott defecting en masse to and hisdonald trump campaign. what does this say about the future of coalitions within both parties, is there some risk that these core coalitions might defect and are the circumstances right now for a third-party to arise based on these and other factors? i will make this a jump, who wants to go first? >> on the third party angle, as much as i personally might want to see a third-party, i am one of these people who has been registered as an independent for a long time. i do not like a lot of what both parties have to say. possiblesee that it is under the campaign-finance regime that we have to do it -- today to get a third party going. i am not saying it is

impossible. to start witht politically. when you look at the campaign-finance rules, it is even more difficult. i do not see that happening. to me, one of the interesting things about the last couple of to shift to the other part of your question, there was a lot of discussion that the republican party was going to go so far off to the right it would become irrelevant. and with the democratic shifts occurring, the republican party might disappear in some fashion. think this whole script has been flipped. there is a huge amount of upside for the republican party with trump. i am not predicting it. people thinking i'm predicting it is going to happen. the democrats are in serious trouble. of [inaudible]k

trump has been able to flip a number of states. we have already seen west virginia go from a totally solid democratic stronghold. now their publicans control both houses of the legislature. it has voted for republicans solidly in several campaigns. and then you look at the other ,ourt -- core constituencies hispanic, the african-american community, i know this is hard to imagine but it is possible trump could make inroads there is well. we have already seen him make inroads into the working last. party andatic especially as it continues to the bernietor -- to sanders, senator warren left could be in real trouble. if trump turned out to be a

terrific politician, we simply do not know what will happen with that. >> you are talking about centrifugal force possibly throwing off a male -- major coalition. what about in the republican businessll the community remain entirely within the fold? the think they will because democratic party, if you look at the policies and a lot of the things the party and the elected officials in congress have done over the last decade, as bad as the republicans might get on many issues important to the is this community, the democrats are not giving them anything, either. they do not have anywhere else to go. rick: think about how much donald trump's coalition represents what had been the old union democratic coalition and terms of substantive policy

issues. against free trade, restrictions on immigration, protections of entitlement. somethingthe midst of we obviously do not understand but absolutely, i think we could be in the midst of a significant reconfiguration of both clinical parties in a way that would unscramble the polarized structure we have had over the last 30 to 40 years. democrats make a big mistake in assuming as some of the analysts have post-trump demographic still favor the democratic party over time. the hispanic population is growing, minority population is growing. that assumes that these groups will continue to vote at the same rates for the democratic party that they have been recently. republican party manages to cement itself as the party of working-class which is

a pitch trump is trying to make, i think, adopting a lot of traditional working-class issues, once the incendiary rhetoric and the polarizing because is not there some other candidate who is a republican carries on down that path, it would not surprise me to see other working-class voters beyond white, working-class voters moving in that direction. trump already got two points of the latino vote than romney did, too many people's amazement. variousectionism, the kinds of things trump is doing, the anti-trade agenda, that may very well push more of the business community toward the democratic party. it has been moving in that direction to some extent already. i do not know how to envision how these coalitions will or will not come together.

what is happening right now is the biggest disruption to the established set of coalition structures that we have had since reagan's election. and it is going to have profound effects on both parties as they struggle to redefine their identity in response to whatever i think bothsberg: coalitions are under a lot of stress and strain. the triangulation donald trump has achieved by surprising everyone and winning those states in the upper midwest with non-college-educated white-collar workers, is true. the other thing that donald trump showed is you do not need the three legs of the rake stooll to win -- reagan

to win an election as a republican. it seems to me the democratic coalition is equally strange in its own way. but largely between a donor class that has wanted candidates to stress things like climate change and social issues and base that waslar not terribly interested in those issues. you have got a country if you look at the red and loop maps is blue on the coasts and pretty solid red everywhere else, with the exception of a couple metropolitan areas in the midwest. the face ofrship, the democratic party in congress is a coastal face. every leader of the democratic party, chuck schumer in the senate, nancy pelosi and steny

hoyer in the house, are from the coasts. and at is a huge change huge strain. it seems to me the best legislative strategy that the democrats have and what i think should worry both the trouble administration and the republican leadership is the ability to triangulate on policies that donald trump favors that are not core republican, conservative issues. and you have already seen that a little bit in the back and forth on the trade deals. you have seen it when you talk about infrastructure, something that democrats have historically supported, and donald trump hawksts, but deficit are going to take a different view of massive infrastructure spending. while our footprint should be

overseas, it is another issue that could be triangulated and just wait until carried interest comes up as an interest -- issue if you want to see some strain. i would agree with the point you never know great change when you are in the middle of it and we may be in the middle of it and not fully cognizant of how great that changes. to drive thetic point home. i put together numbers of the vote for clinton and trump in of, manhattan, and california. when you take brooklyn, manhattan, and california out of the election donald trump one the rest of the country by nearly 3 million coasts. coasts,just the brooklyn, manhattan, and california gives you that picture from and you know some of this data, if you look across the country, so it is a mistake to focus just on presidential --ctions that industry and

to understand the struggle that the parties are going through, particularly the democratic party. 66 state legislatures now controlled by the republican party. donald trump won virtually every county that obama won only once, which is 207 counties. of the 709 counties obama won twice, trump won 30% of those. donald trump one ohio by 40 50,000 votes. that is staggering. so the problems about democratic in new yorks base city and california at a couple of other places is a very serious problem that the party has to be confronting. and republican party deals with the incredible internal struggles it will be going to under president trump. you will see this usually in

a midterm election, the party in power holds the white house, uses seats. justified kind of chance, the senate time is very tilted republican. 10 of the democratic incumbents trumpe up in states won i -- by trump. this late in election cycle, the congressional cycles are pretty locked in so that you are looking at a now you would not see this sort of historical course correction it comes midterms. let's link this into the point about the state parties. one of the reasons the democratic party or the clinton campaign may have been was fully unaware of what was going on in places like wisconsin is because of what dave was talking about,

and i was taught this point. because the state parties just do not exist in any robust form in a lot of places now, the campaigns, at least on the democratic side, are run out of a center in brooklyn with lots of data analytics, but not really connected to what is going on out there in wisconsin or in michigan. they are not getting the input that they used to get from state and keyl parties figures locally in the same way. and the decline of the state parties may be connected to the way these campaigns are run, what they miss about what is going on with big blocs of voters. so i think it is interesting to draw the connection as a threat through this discussion. >> in the election just passed, the democrats had no messages directed toward rural areas, and mr. trump focused on the rural

vote intensely and had a message tailored for people primarily who are blue-collar in rural areas. and results were pretty dramatic. he carried the world counties all across america. to the democrats, as part of their efforts to regain prominence and to solidify their , they needalitions to develop a world message. what could it become an can that be done consistently with the democrats continuing their strong appeal to people in the metropolitan areas across the country? who wants to try that? >> i have no idea. i am not sure anyone knows. i think it goes back to the problem of the state parties. they have been hollowed out. and if you are going to develop a message for the world areas,

you have to have people in the rural areas, and you have to have some functioning party structure there. it is not only matter of resources or this idea federalizing all the messaging -- i mean iflevel you were sitting around a laboratory what can we do to destroy state parties cannot what can we do to make it difficult for volunteers to get together, i have a great idea, let's come up with a set of rules that no one can understand if they have people like ben ginsberg advising them at every step of the way. ben is a very talented fellow. you do not see ben ginsberg in some world counties somewhere that does federal election campaign regulations and is on ay -- ready to do it

voluntary basis, they still would not be able to follow the advice. it is hard to overemphasize how bad the situation is. let's set this in the situation of what is going on or broccoli. this is a problem affecting democracy everywhere. it is a big part of the vote for brexit. the rural areas that are alienated. it is a big part of that just took place in italy. it is the rural areas. what is happened over the last 20 or 30 years, for whatever set of reasons is there has been more and more concentration of power, financial power, cultural power, political power in the dominant cities. and were rural voters, whether england, france, italy, the united states, feel increasingly alienated from power, ignored by those in power, condescended to

by those in power, responded to by those in power, and this is a global phenomenon that has to deal with the transformation of how people live. so it is not just a problem here for better or worse. it is a profound problem for democracy across the world these days. we only have a few minutes left, and we would like to offer an opportunity for anyone in the audience who has a question. is behind me. she will moderate this portion. sally: i had a series of questions, and this will not be quite one-second answers, but if you can keep your answer short. the campaign finance laws were primarily connected to diminish corruption. no one on the panel has even mentioned corruption when discussing them. were we wrong or have we just given up? anyone? the standardy is

is corruption or the appearae of corruption. so there have been precious few cases of actual corruption, but a lot of newspaper articles written about the appearance of corruption. even ifffect, corruption or the appearance of corruption is what you are trying to start them you now have a system where the candidates are limited in what they can say, special interviews that special interest scanned set the terms -- interest groups debate.the i do not believe that was a virtuous entered begin with. it has been proven in fact him and that is a rationale has led to what is a really distorted system now. mr. boucher: other comments? -- there is nonk evidence that contribution limits have reduced corruption,

and there's no evidence that contribution limits have increased trust in government, and many studies have been done to track this, both the federal, but especially at the state level where states changed over time. there is no evidence. do is aske need to themselves today, do we have a better less corrupt fatah politicians than we have had -- less corrupt class of politicians that he we have had -- then we have had? sally: and given the presence of such different candidates are in the primary, should party leisure continue playing a neutral role in primaries instead of unflinching rallying around certain nominees, or would be better served throwing their resources behind the favorites? in other words, come clean with what they want?

question if they are fighting over it. mr. ginsberg: my question is what resources. werenot sure how parties capable of weighing in on the presidential level, and when you get down to the senate and house levels, they are -- there were attempts by leadership for the super pacs or groups like the chamber of commerce to go up against tea party people who won in 2010. it depends on what level you are talking on, and on the national committee level, not much resources, legibility to impact it. more on the senate and house with incumbents. let me just add a quick point. i find it remarkable because people have been involved in

politics and they keep asking me, what is wrong with republicans or the democrats? why are they coming up with candidates like this? there is this impression in the public that somehow the parties can control everything. that is about as far from the truth as the reality. almost exactlyis the opposite of what the reality is. back to my this goes opening comment about the change in the way to primaries were. the about how bizarre this is. the democratic party cannot keep an independent from running for the democratic party nomination. in fact, if the democratic national committee tilts the neck against the independe thats is a, scandal. think about it on the republican side. walk in -- republican officers -- how was the

selection process done or who showed up on the main stage for the debate? by popular opinion, the media ran this. the party has no control over that. one of the things i am suggesting that will not happen, but that we think about legitimating a greater role for the party and the selecting or participating in the process of their reading the field, selecting nominees who run under the party label, as was the case for most of american history until the 1970's. let me ask a question which is linked to a panel later this afternoon. -- have talked about a you talked about the parties not having money as the case maybe. his money as important to campaigns when advertising seems to be fixed through

twitter, reddit, etc.? mr. ginsberg: i'm not sure i agree with this. there was a fascinating program at stanford on friday, which among other things the trunk campaign -- trump campaign said an equal amount on digital communications as broadcast communications. i'm not sure the message is being driven so much by this independent site as much as campaigned slowly shifting to actually spending the money on digital, which the media has not really figured out how to track to those spending numbers that are not immediately visible to anyone. >> there is a change in .ommunications i still believe it is being driven by the campaigns. matters?me money still

mr. ginsberg: money still matters. >> it is not the only thing. jeb bush had the most money initially. what did he get, four delegates? he said a new record on spending four delegates. money can help deliver a message, but if people do not like the message or do not agree with that, you're not going to be able to spend tons of money and buy an election, basically. but you have to also give donald trump credit. he knew how to get an enormous amount of earned media, not all was anas good, but there interesting study that was done on the value of the media, and the amount that trump had, the media-- so-called earned toward the other candidate. 's elections show the candidate mattered more than the

money, but the money has to still matter. you have to have enough money to meet is your threshold. sally: good. does public financing of parties represent first amendment issues, because the government is supporting these two specific viewpoints or whatever comes from the campaign? do not think it raises a first amendment issue. there are concerns about it, but presumably the way the money would be allocated would be based on some formula that has to do with the percentage of votes that party got in a prior election. we have public financing for the presidential election for many years until our friend, president obama -- not all of --blue that system by

deciding to go out of it. there was no first amendment issues about providing funds to the two major parties. so there are rules about access for -- that ballots is how formulas for public financing would work. there are difficulties in making a system like that work. i do not to overstate them, but first amendment issues are not one of them. i think you are wrong about that. i think there are serious first amendment problems of an a lot and somehow it is designed. the whole idea that two political parties and basically get the u.s. government funds to subsidize their operations -- what about the parties that are trying to emerge? how do you write a rule for that? that is difficult to start with. but a more fundamental problem

is how do you handle the enforcement process. that like all this campaign finance regulation, i do not think anyone has a good answer for how to fairly enforce these laws. system that has been developed to the federal election commission where no political party can control the enforcement process. and a lot of people do not think that works particularly well. but if you look at what happened in the irs, where there was clearly ideologically based decisions made about tax-exempt obligations, how do you go and enforcement losses that cannot be captured by one party to tilt elections? is not a matter of how much money the parties get. a much more effective way to undercut a party is to come out with a last-minute scandal or

last-minute enforcement action saying one party cheated. the clinton campaign thinks the fbi director cost her the shetion, and that was -- was never indicted, but the mere fact that an enforcement person says not something new about her emails 10 down -- 10 days out some a lot of people think that is the reason she lost. that is more of a first amendment issues. mr. pildes: these critiques are about any system for enforcing any campaign law. a criticism that is specific to public financing. it applies to whatever relations you have. mr. keating: that is my point. there should be a lot fewer of these revelations in the first place, but nevertheless, that is part of designing these systems in a first amendment way, and

most of the people who have proposed the type of systems want a very strong figure making the enforcement decisions. but how do you ensure that person is not going to tilt it in some way? it a very difficult problem to solve. mr. pildes: we will see what happens. this kind of reform always takes place first at the state level. it has always been the history of most kinds of reforms of the political process. it are more and more states who are moving to public financing system. we will see what record of experience we have with that so far. but the enforcement problems you are raising have not been an issue at the state level -- look that happened in wisconsin. in wisconsin we had a campaign finance law that a prosecutor had this john doe process he

conducted predawn raids on essentially every important conservative group and activist in the state, shut down the entire critique from the conservative side. mr. pildes: that is not a public financing system. that is an ordinary system that we had in the federal system and in most states. what happened in the new york race. a lot of people that de blasio won because of the enforcement process. >> you will have more enforcement which leads to the problem. the think that have put in public financing have an overwhelmingly blue tint to them. while we are looking for solutions to the party problem --mr. pildes: mr. pildes:i do not think that is true with arizona. mr. ginsberg: no, it is not working, it is getting peeled back, and that was the by and

large of the comments. -- chances of what commands what amounts to the food stands for politicians on the federal mill.is like slim and if you want a solution for strengthening parties can you need to look beyond the notion that government handouts are going to help your favorite politician who we have been all saying are not held in particularly high regard by the public anyway. is why we: and that will not get bipartisan support for public financing at the federal level. on a contentious note, i need to say our time has expired. i think we have done a terrific job. very informative. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] >> you will have more life coach today of events there on c-span. we will take you to grand rapids, michigan, for a rally with president-elect donald trump, is latest stop in his thank-you tour.

at 7:00y tonight's game p.m. eastern. we will take you there live. in thee oral argument seventh circuit on whether -- haveave a search to a right to search a car. the cases usa v. randy johnson. under way on capitol hill, the senate trying to wrap up legislative business before gaveling out for the winter break, and includes funding federal government passed the night tonight. the senate working on a continuing resolution that was passed by the house yesterday. that measure would extend government funding for the and the -- until the end of april. one of the sticking points, provisions related to health care for coal miners. mitch mcconnell in the senate is telling senators to back the government funding measure despite the cold minor dispute, and a tweet from cnn that the republican senator rapidity is labeling it joe manchin's government shutdown.

you can watch the debate in the senate live on c-span2. every weekend, "book tv" brings you programs about nonfiction books and authors. saturday, the question of what the term "better off" needs today in a book "then you better -- "the new better off." >> it does not matter what your bank account is. you are vulnerable. so wealth. us into thinking we can buy our way out of suffering. >> then making kelly talks about

her latest book "settle for more," which recounts her life. adversity as an opportunity to grow and become stronger. had had no adversity in my life and if i had had parents who had kept me in a protective for 45 years,le how do you think i would have dealt with the last year? >> then a look at white-collar in a book "why do they do it?" isis that the author interviewed by the former director of the securities and exchange commission. couple would feel a hundred from my account, and that is the difference in terms of these crimes. you can do some pretty devastating things and not have that gut feeling of actually

doing something harmful. booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. all day saturday, american history tv on c-span3 is featuring programs about this of pearlth anniversary harbor. a reading from a u.s. navy logs, followed by the pearl harbor casualty burial of one of the 429 casualties aboard the arizona. his remains recently were identified. and then tour the memorial along with a national park historian. fdr's speech to

congress asking for a declaration of war, followed by the 75th anniversary ceremony at cohosted by the national park service and the u.s. navy. and then we are taking your calls and tweets lie. -- live. warscussion of the pacific from the attack on pearl harbor through the victory over the japanese at midway. thethen we are live with author of a book that gives the behind-the-scenes account of the attack. and then the pearl harbor 75th anniversary ceremony from the national world war ii memorial, with remarks from john mccain. saturday on american history tv on c-span3. u.s. house held a hearing yesterday on extra martial arts,

looking at regulations, marketing, and health concerns. a hurting ran about an hour and 20 minutes. the hearing ran about an hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning to all of our witnesses. before we turn to the matter at

hand, i want to make note of the fact that this is our last hearing before the 114th congress. i want to thank my vice chairman of new jersey and the ranking member for their hard work and a hard work of all of our members. the energy and commerce committee is probably one of the most productive committees on capitol hill. the trade committee has justifiably heard the reputation as the think tank of the energy and commerce committee, and i would just note to the numbers on the dais we have passed over two dozen pieces of legislation from members on both sides of the dais over the past two years , and one of the most productive contributions for this subcommittee in several years. thanks to the participation of all our members. punching we have been above our weight, and i'm happy to close out this congress with my comments and look forward to

a busy agenda for next year. what's more, we turn our atntion to something where it is new ground for congress. as very as our jurisdiction, mixed martial arts, especially the industry of mixed martial arts, is probably a new concept to some of us. it is to your chairman. as the industry continues to involve -- he fall swiftly, it seems that the time to bring congress up to speed on mixed martial arts, and understand if there is a role that the congress should be playing in this multibillion-dollar industry. i want to thank congressman mullen for making this issue and making sure this issue was on the subcommittee's agenda. the latest major mixed martial under 2nt drew a little million viewers and round -- and around 1.5 pay-per-view buys.

perhaps most importantly since mixed martialthe arts fan base is comprised of a millennials, the event created social media impressions. the winner on top of the fight card made $40 million. that does not match what a top boxing match brings, but there is no love for a doubt that mixed martial arts is ready for and thatr prime time it is an economic driver. reince priebus here as have grappled with safety and the -- in previous eras we of gravel with safety. fighters is ofma importance and this will figure into our broad discussion of how the industry works and how it is regulated at the state level. the politics around combat

sports are tough. to some degree, fighters assume risk. all 50 states have legalized next martial arts and regulate it to some degree. state athletic commissions have generally located rules that prohibit certain maneuvers in the ring, require certain equipment, to provide for athlete drug testing. some states are stricter than state depending on on resources, how popular the state is as a venue for mixed martial arts. as with boxing, fighters must obtain a license to fight. the major promotion also require physicians to be present and make certain the fighters are healthy before, during, and after a doubt. i think the panelists who represent interests and perhaps -- perspectives today, and i look forward to a lively and interesting discussion, and i would like to yield to the gentleman from new jersey for

his opening statement. thank you. and my three terms as serving on e energy and commerce committee, this has been by far the most productive session for the commerce, manufacturing, and trade subcommittee. due in large part to the leadership of dr. burgess and the hard work of the committee staff. successive series, this is the principle subcommittee supporting innovations. we have acted on the information learn from these educational here is bypassing a partisan legislation and beginning the first legislative update to the federal trade commission in 20 years. we also passed legislation to help consumers to review their experiences without businesses engaging in retribution. leadership, the committee has provided oversight of the airbag recall, the largest

safety recall in automotive history. congratulations, dr. burgess, on an effective session and i look forward to continuing our work on these important issues and other issues in the full committee next congress. i take a moment to recognize the outgoing chairman of the full committee, and today is an forcednt day as his 20 century careers act goes to the president's desk. i wish everybody a peaceful new year and safety are magnificent shoots across the globe who protect us and the american people in general. mr. chairman, i yield back. that share thank the gentleman for his marks. since you were thinking the chairman, i ask unanimous that the gentleman be allowed to do

that. i want to thank the ranking member of the committee for being here as well and for a productive two years on the committee. i recognize you for five minutes. >> thank you, and i want to thank you. it has been an interesting and ,roductive session of congress and it has been a personal pleasure to be able to serve .ith you merry to wish everyone a christmas and a happy on account, which actually happened to fall on the same time. and then to the business of the morning. when i first heard we would be having a hearing on mixed martial arts, i was surprised. i confess i am not a fan. i have had to learn a little more about this in preparation for the hearing, and i do not think that will be my new hobby.

however, you do not have to be a fan to recognize the need for greater negotiating power and struggle protections for fighters. our colleague used to be a fighter. i had chatted with him about the sport, and yesterday on that with other fighters in my office. the lack of leverage that they had in their contract negotiations is frankly pretty shocking. and that comes through when you look at differences in pay and mma and otheren sports. i come to this as a fighter for workers rights and safety. today i think that puts us on the same side. a is, thew what mm mother in me came out a little bit. i do not know why. fighters love their sport and they should be able to fight.

i want to make sure that they are not put at unnecessary risk. safety providers and the .tructure are interlinked fighters only get paid if they are in a match. they had to secure their own health insurance because the insurance covers injuries just in a match. not injuries that happen in weeks of training beforehand. that forces fighters to push themselves at great personal risk. blows to the head. ago, jordan parsons became the first fighter to be diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy. this should not be surprising. research has shown repetitive hits to the head have long-term

effects on brain function and physiology and may increase the risk of cte. this is not new to the members. last march in response to a question i raised to a national football league, an official -- and the doctor we will hear from today was at that roundtable and also representatives have been pressing the national hockey league to reduce risks of head injuries, and mma is the latest sports with issues. -- york state improvement included a improvement that trauma the risk of brain . if knowing the risks of adults still want to be part of this, that is all right, but fighters

and promoters should take precautions and fighters should have the leverage to stand up for their own safety. thehe written testimony doctor provide some recommendations on the risk of brain injuries and how they can be reduced. we also need to support further research on the connection between cte and contact sports so that adults know the risk. are especially critical given the risk to young athletes. according to espn, an estimated 3.2 million kids 13 and under mma.articipate in some league span head hits. a doctor from the american academy of the graphics and fitness warns that kids do not need to be hit in the head to experience brain injury.

the force of being turned to the ground is enough to enter the brain. that is a quotation. to continue, i do not think there's enough data available to mma is safe for children. i want to thank the witnesses for being here. i look forward to your testimony. i yield back. mr. burgess: mr. mullen is now recognized. the top card, the top piracy received over $40 million in payouts. not even close. it was just misspoken. the top ticket on a received combined $4 million compared to boxing. a big difference. i want to make sure understand the difference.

this you for holding hearing to examine a hearing i'm passionate about. i want to thank chairman upton. this informational hearing is vital to educate the members of ofs committee on the future mma. as we look at issues from contract to help from an anti-doping to contract of interest, i hope can keep one thing in my. it's the fighters. without them there's no ufc, no sport. the promoters have done so much to grow the sport. but the fighters are what make this sport so compelling and so great to watch. the sport is much different than when i was younger. there was more media, more money and what brings -- with that brings more fans. as mma continues to grow, we need to make sure we keep it growing with everybody. before i yield back, wasn't to -- before i yield back i want to

highlight my bill, the muhammad ali expansion act. although it's not the focus on this hearing, it's certainly relevant. i look forward to hearing the perspectives of our witnesses and the legislation on the issues that addresses with fighters' contracts, the ranking system, and the role of managers and promoters. it's my hope that all members of this committee leave this hearing with a better understanding of mma and will continue working in the next congress on the issue that affects all parties in this room, especially the fighters. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. mr. burgess: the chair thanks the gentlemen. we will conclude with member opening statements. seeing no other members wishing to offer an opening statement, this year will rely members that pursuant to rules, all opening statements will be made part of the record. we do want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, taking time to testify before the subcommittee. today's witnesses will have an opportunity to give opening statements, followed by questions from members. our witness panel for today's hearing includes the honorable jeff denham.

thank you for being here. mr. jeff novitzky, ms. lydia robinson, dr. ann mckee, professor at boston university school of and mr. randy coture. mr. denham, your recognized. : thank you. i would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for allowing me to testify today. also want to thank representative mullen for bringing this to the forefront. it's an important issue to address and make sure there are some minimum mandatory requirements as we move forward

with this great sport. i had the opportunity to enjoy another great sport, boxing. i spent a lot of time in and around the ring. but also saw the challenges and the damage that a very difficult sport can have, lasting impacts on those that engage in it. i believe that we need to have some minimum standards. because oftentimes, if the health of a fighter is not addressed, you can have a fighter that gets back into the ring early or before they are completely healed. if that happens, that also lends itself to have irrepairable long-term damage as well. and i have seen the lasting impacts of friends that have gotten back into the ring too early or before they were completely healed.

so i do believe that the boxing industry has changed. 1996, the professional boxing safety act did make some changes. it focused on the physical well-being of boxers by establishing the minimum health and safety standards for professional boxing with limited federal oversight by the department of justice and the federal trade commission. i don't want to see congress insert itself so much that it really interferes with the great sport. but i do believe that there needs to be some minimum mandatory requirements. i also believe that as any business, you hire people. you expect them to operate on your behalf. so i hire a manager, much like i would hire a chief of staff or somebody to manage my company. i expect them to operate on my behalf. so i think there needs to be some transparency between the manager and any type of payment outside of the fighter that they may be receiving. in the ali act, in 2000, after

the 1996 initial act, the ali act addressed that issue. it also addressed some consistency across the states to make sure that boxing commissions across every state had those minimum contracts as well. much like boxers, mma fighters also receive a card. but i think it's important we have a consistent health inspection for the safety of the fighter to make sure that they are prepared to go back into the ring, back into the battle, and they are fully healthy and prepared to do so. those minimum standards i think are very important across the country, making sure that our state boxing commissions or in this case mma fighters also have that same safety, health inspection, a clearance to get back into the ring so that they -- their future is safe as well. there are other experts up here that will talk about the rankings and contract negotiations. i think those are important discussions to have right now.

but i don't think that there's anything more important than the health and safety of the individual that is engaging in an incredible, great sport. i want to see mma continue to flourish. i'm a big fan. but as a former boxer, i also know that the safety that can go with that sport needs to be addressed as well. so i am proud to be a co-author of this bill and look forward to working with you as we have future hearings and future amendments and go through the continued process. this is something that i think is not only exciting to address, but it is something that is critically important to address. again, i want to thank mr. mullen for bringing this to the forefront. thank you for allowing me to testify. >> it's an honor to be here today with my fellow witnesses. my name is jeff novizky. ufc vicei and the

president -- >> is your mike on? mr. novitsky: i think it's important to recognize the significant we place on the most important issue that we will talk about today, athlete health and safety. i would like to start off by giving the committee a brief history of my experience outside of the usfc and what led me to ufc last year. in april of 2015, i retired from a 22-plus year in federal law enforcement. in 2002, i opened an investigation on a company known as balco laboraties for the illegal distribution of athletic performance enhancing drugs or peds. while the case and subsequent case cases i worked one nevertheless, the laboratories investigation ended up involving some of the biggest names in sport in the world at the time who were athlete clients --

barry bonds, marion jones, dozens of olympic athletes, boxers, nfl athletes, and several major league baseball players. the nature of the investigation steered many investigative leads my way and led me to subsequent investigations involving the distribution of ped's. i conducted an investigation on professional cycling, including the united states postal service cycling team. i estimate that throughout my career i spoke with between 150 and 200 professional athletes who chose to use ped's. i always took the opportunity to ask them why they made that choice. more often than not, the answer came down to one word, trust. they didn't trust their teammates who were they were competing with, they didn't trust the competitors weren't using, and most importantly, they didn't trust their sports

organization really cared about the issue and that doping was allowed to fester because there was not sufficient programs in place to catch as well as deter athletes from ultimately harming themselves and others. when i was first approached by the ufc to develop and implement their new anti-doping program, i saw this's this as an opportunity to change that. the more i talked with executives i quickly realized, , their passion and commitment to athlete health and safety was paramount. they told me, we want the best anti-doping program in the world. we want to be the gold standard for not just combat sports, but for all sports. i realize i could be part of a program within a sports organization that its athletes could trust and could be a positive influence for not just the ufc, but for all professional sports. i can confidently state in the year and a half since our anti-doping program has been up and running, the ufc put together the most comprehensive, robust anti-doping program in professional sports in the world. a major pillar of our program is the outsourcing of the administration.

earlier this year, the ufc renewed our commitment, $1 million commitment to the professional fighters brain health study being conducted through the cleveland clinic. this makes ufc the largest combat sports contributor to the study. we have 88 current and former ufc fighters enrolled in study. it's done over longer periods of time to develop ways to improve safety in combat sports along with other professional athletes exposed to repetitive head trauma. another big development relating to fighter health and safety is the construction of the ufc's new athlete health and performance center. the goal of this facility will be to provide our athletes free of charge with the best training, rehabilitation, nutrition education, and injury prevention practices available in the world. we will team with universities to conduct studies on our athletes to learn best practices for training, rehabilitation,

brain health, nutrition and weight management practices. the center is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 2017. as you can see, the ufc has taken concrete steps towards increasing safety standards and protocols not just within our organization, not just throughout mixed martial arts but across the board. from our anti-doping program, which has been recognized by the media as the best anti-doping program in professional sports, our continuing education of athletes on topics relating to health and safety, safer weight management guidelines and practices, our participation in brain studies through the cleveland clinic, and our athlete health and performance center, we have made great strides to ensure all of our athletes compete on a level playing field, take proactive steps to protect their health and safety, and enable them to lead fulfilling lives in and out of competition. as an organization, we are not only looking to lead in this area, but take a leadership role

and set an example for all of professional sports. thank you. : the chairrgess thanks the gentleman. ms. robertson, you are recognized for five minutes for an opening statement. statement. statement. statement. statement. statement. statement. statement. ms. robertson: i am serving as treasurer of the association of boxing commissions. and just a little background on the organization. in the late 1980s, a group of concerned commission representatives got together in hopes that they could standardize some safety regulations for the professional boxing industry. shortly thereafter, the bill known now as the muhammad ali

act came into being. and it helped unify those various states. so more and more states joined because in the muhammad ali act it specifies that if you do not have an authorized regulatory body from within the state that you must use a different recognized organization. and every state wanted to participate. not too long after that, the law was amended and now includes a lot of travel governments. we have 75 members that are housed within the u.s. borders and about another 70 members from outside our borders. the abc, the association of boxing commissions, is a 501c3 non-profit and maintains a website and offers continual training courses to enhance uniformity and skill among professional boxing and mma referees and judges. roughly eight years ago, the abc began working on uniform standards safety rules for mma. just as had been done for

boxing. they were updated this past summer in 2016. the abc receives no funds from the federal government, but exists on the dues collected from state and travel commissions and from registration at the annual educational and training symposium. the abc has no employees. we have no contract help other than an occasional cpa. i'm here on my own time. and the abc president had hoped he could be here. there's a brief statement from him included in the comments. the abc's interest is always focused on fighter health and safety. how do we protect fighters, sometimes from themselves, and let them participate in the sports of their choosing? the interest on the fighters, the fair treatment of their fighters, and their future is

always uppermost. without these brave athlete souls, this meeting wouldn't even be held. and without the promoters putting on those shows, this meeting wouldn't be held. there's a delicate balance between the two. the association of boxing commissions expanded their name this past summer to association of boxing commissions and combative sports. as clearly, the abc is ready and willing to accept more responsibility of the ali act or some other bill directed at safety and to benefit the fighter. the abc, among its many members possess unique and valuable perspective. i was a promoter for years. one of our board members was a fighter at one point. another state commissioner trained fighters. this five member board of directors for the abc currently

has has 90 years experience. so let, so that participatory. unlike some laws with good intentions, the muhammad ali act has greatly contributes to competition standards in title fights, altered the way contracts are entered into between managers, promoters, and athletes. the simple fact is that if a bill will reduce mma exploitation and enhance fighter safety, it is -- and if it is something the fighters are ready for, the abc, after seeing the final bill, will probably support the bill. the abc does not concern itself with promoters and their needs, regardless of whether they are multi-billion dollar promoter or a small one found in the state of alabama. it is the fighters with whom the abc is most concerned. in closing i would like to remind everyone that the small local promoter will be required

to adhere to changes in any law. the abc's goal is uniform enforcement of protections. my last comment would be, there is a balance between a business model and a sports model. i am not an expert enough to tell you what that is. but i think with all of the committee's experience and dedication, you will arrive at those decisions. and the abc is so grateful to be a part of this. thank you for allowing me to testify.... mr. burgess: the chair thanks the gentle lady. the chair recognizes dr. mckee. five minutes, please. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation today to testify on mixed martial arts issues and

perspective. i'm a professor of neurology and pathology. i am chief of the neuropathology service for the va boston health care system and i'm director of the cte center at boston university. my testimony today reflects my my personal, professional opinion. i'm not speaking officially on behalf of the department of veterans affairs or boston university school of medicine. encephalopathy is a major problem in contact sports. such as boxing and football and any other sport that involves a high number of head impacts such as mixed martial arts. even though there is not much research available on the long-term consequences of mma, we know it has a high concussion rate and importantly it has a high substance of the -- high sub concussive impact rate. it's a neurodegenerative disease triggered by repetitive head trauma that causes buildup of an abnormal protein in the brain. the abnormal protein is toxic to nerve cells and causes a

progressive brain deterioration over time. symptoms of cte include memory loss, confusion, impulse control problems, aggression, depression and dementia. originally described in boxing and has been found in many other sports. we found evidence of cte in the only mma fighter we examined, a 27-year-old who took his own life. there's good reason to believe that a significant portion of other mma fighters are at risk for cte. this is because exposure to repetitive head impacts is the major risk factor for cte. mma fighters experience substantial head trauma during their fights as well as during their training and sparring sessions. there has been a primary focus on concussions in the development of cte, even the movie about cte was named "concussion. have -- all of our research points to the fact that cte is associated with prolonged exposure to repetitive small

impacts. the sub concussive hits that are asymptomatic. in sports like mma, the risk for cte is not directly related to rather the risk of cte is related to the cumulative exposure to suffer concussions. starting a contact sport at a young age often leads to a longer playing career and greater exposeure to head trauma. but another factor that contributes to enhanced risk for young athletes is that the developing brain is more susceptible to damage from repetitive trauma. there's a lot of skepticism regarding the significance of cte. for years people have said that cte was not a real disease. they say there's confusion and debate among scientists that cte cannot be distinguished from alzheimer's disease or aging and epilepsy. there's no confusion about

whether it exists. cte not only exists. it's definitively diagnosed by neuropathologic examination of brain tissue. in 2015 and 2016, a panel of expert neuropathologies convened by the national institute of neurological diseases and stroke determined that cte was a unique disease that could be easily distinguished from other diseases. they went on to say there is a pathognomonic lesion for cte. a brain lesion found in cte not found in any other disorder and is specific for cte. the other misinformation about cte is that it's very rare. it's only been diagnosed in a few hundred people. millions of people have played contact sports. but cte is not rare. we would not be able to find 218 cases of cte in 291 athletes over the past eight years if it were rare. if you don't look for something, don't know how to look for something and don't find it, that doesn't mean that something is rare.

it means it's under recognized. recent brain bank studies have shown that cte is present in 5% of the general autopsy population. if you were to ask me how to limit risk for cte and mma, in addition to the minimum standards previously suggeste / denim, don't allow them to participate with head strikes, educate fighters to limit expose exposure to not allow head strikes. limit the number of head strikes during a match and reduce the number of full contact matches per season. cte is a big problem. what we know today is very likely the tip of the iceberg. what we recognize the importance of contact sports to an athlete's physical and psychological well-being, cte is a known and preventable consequence. there's great urgency for funding for cte research and the risks associated with sports like mma and military service. we need to bring hope to the

players and veterans in the beginning stages of cte and showing signs of memory loss, behavioral changes and depression. we need to develop effective interventions and treatments for cte so that all individuals can continue to participate in the sports that they love but also live long, healthy, productive lives. thank you.... >> the chair thanks the doctor. mr. kercher you are recognized , for five minutes for an opening statement. chairman. thank you to the members of the committee to have me here as a representative of mixed martial arts fighters alliance. and give a mixed martial artist sport.tive on our great i've been in combative sports since the age of 10 for over 40 years. i wrestled at oklahoma state university. was a three-time all american there. received a degree, bachelor of arts in foreign language and literature. i started my mixed martial arts since the age of 10 for over 40 career in 1997 as a wrestler.

rolling years of the wrestling experience into mixed martial arts. my first title fight was that year in december of 1997. champion inme world the sport of martial arts. as an athlete, i want to give our perspective on what's going on in the sport and the things that we're up against. i think we fill out the same paperwork and are governed by the same regulatory committees in each state, the athletic commissions. we fill out much of the same paper worgwork as boxers. there's one difference that's going on in mixed martial arts and a flaw in the structure. that is that the regulatory promoter and the sanctioning body are one in the same in mixed martial arts, which isn't the case in boxing. mixed martial arts, the promoter

does both of the jobs, he promotes the fights, he also creates the rankings and the titles for those fighters. he promotes the fights and create the rankings and titles for those fighters. it gives him an unfair advantage and reduces the ability of fighter to negotiate fair value in the marketplace. an obvious example of that, recently, is the ufc sold for $4.25 million. if you do the simple math and the 16 years they owned the company and how much they put out to fighters during that time period, it's less than 10% of the amount. is a significant problem. increase a conflict of interest where they create the tight the rankingses and

for us as fighters. if we want to participate we , have to sign away a lot of our rights and abilities that other athletes in the protections of the ali act give boxers. what we're trying to accomplish is to get the ali act amended simply by changing the definition of what a boxer is to a combative sports athlete. under those provisions, it will standardize the contracts across the board, create separate independent agency to determine rankings and titles and allows us a free and open market for the promoters to bid on the top fights and gives us a chance to estimate our fair value in the market and get our fair share of the revenues that are generated. freight now, the number one promotion in the sports is the ultimate fighting championship. they are garnering over 90% of the income that comes from the sport. there are other promotions that are using the same flawed model, creating their own titles and rankings. but obviously on a much smaller scale.

so, it is our hope, and we love this is a process, but it is our hope that you will consider amending the ali act to encompass and incorporate mifled -- mixed martial arts and other combative sports that fall under just like boxing. thank you very much for giving us it was here. the chair thanks the gentleman. thanks to all of our witnesses for your testimony. i was going to excuse representative denim. he has excused himself. so noted. we will begin with the question and answer part of the hearing. i'm go going first. mr. mullen of oklahoma. five minutes for your questions please. >> i never get to go first. >> it's my last chance to let you go first. >> we're ending on a bang. thank you for the witnesses for all showing up. really do appreciate it.

appreciate miss robertson you coming in on your own behalf and representing the entity that we're looking forward to help with the ranking system. dr. mcgee, you're bringing a perspective that we all know about. we know that the sport is violent but is the sport that we love though. we look forward to working with you. we understand it and that's part of what we're trying to do here. because we feel like we can negotiate better contracts. we don't have to fight as much. randy, i want to go back to your testimony that you just said. can you explain a little bit more about how the ranking system works? works and howly it manipulates of the fighters into basically saying, a take it or leave it attitude when it comes to getting a chance to fight for the title....

>> there's a take it or leave it attitude that comes from the promoters. a perfect example of that is you mentioned the new york -- the first show in madison square garden in new york. the number one fighter and probably most popular on that card was connor mcgregor. he was the 145 pound champion for the ultimate fighting championship. he was in that particular fight fighting for the 155 pound title belt. he would be first athlete to hold that two belts at the same time. he also is interested in pursuing a match with floyd mayweather in boxing. because that kind of went against the grain with the ultimate fighting championship, they stripped him of his belt at 145 pounds even though he had not been defeated in the weight class and hadn't actually competed in the weight close under the law because he was attempting to do something historic in winning two championship belts at the same time. he was stripped of the title and not only stripped of the title but dropped out of the top ten rankings in the weight class even though he had not been

defeated or competed there. they used their rankings and titles to manipulate the to hope the line. there are other examples of that. i'm living proof of a similar thing. the closed market that exists in our sport right now. i pursued in the height of my career as what most people consider the number two heavyweight in the world. wanted to fight the number one. how do you be considered the best in your sport? you fight the best guy out there. i pursued that fight myself outsidof that contract and was prevented and injunctions were filed to keep me electric best from making that fight happen. at some point i had to recognize that i was in my 40s and the clock was ticking and went back and continued my career but never got the clanshance to be considered the number one fighter in the world based on the outcome of that fight.

there's a lot -- that conflict of interest giving the promoter a ton of power to manipulate the fighters to manipulate the rankings to get -- for them it's just business. they're trying to get the most pay per views sold and the most people to buy tickets. they do whatever they need to do to manipulate that to do that.... >> mr. novitzky, you talk about the anti-doping program. when i was fighting, it was very rare that anyone got tested. how long has the ufc implemented these rules with the dopeing?... >> it went into affect last july. >> is your mike on? >> our anti-doping policy went into affect just 2015. -- >> you are being real strong july 1, 2015. on that. you're not letting anything past?

you are making people make sure they test? >> actually, we have the united states anti-doping agency, which is the officially recognized anti-doping agency of the united states for olympic and paralympic sports administer our program. that's one of the beauties of our program. the pillar of strength is that we don't police ourselves. we have an independent authority.... >> tell me, how did brock lesner get a pass just this past july to not have to test before a fight? he was waived to the four-month waiver, when you come out of retirement, you are supposed to test for four months before you can come out of retirement. however, he was waived. he didn't have to. that's not accurate that he got a pass in terms of testing. >> yeah. i believe it is. i can submit the article for the record if you don't mind, chairman. >> i would be happy to clarify what the situation was. >> okay. maybe we can do that.

i'm running out of time. before i run out of time, mr. chairman, i have a copy of the standard mma fighting -- fighter and promotional contract from the ufc that i would like to enter into contract, just to make sure the body understands what type of contracts our fighters are currently against and how being a promoter, being the contract owner and controlling the ranking is a controlling the ranking is a conflict of interest for the fighters.... >> without objection, so ordered. >> i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. five minutes for your questions, please. >> thank you. i want to follow up on head injuries. of course, they are inherent in mixed martial arts. we have heard all the dangers of concussions. but i wanted to underscore the threat posed by repetitive hits to the head known as subconcussive hits that do not result in concussions and often show no symptoms.

my understanding is that subconcussive hits can be quite dangerous as has been discussed. dr. mckee, can you tell us what the evidence showed thus far in terms of the affect of the subconcussive hits on the brain and have these even in the absence of a concussion diagnosis been linked to decreased cognitive functioning or changes in brain chemistry?... >> absolutely. subconcussions or exposure to repetitive impacts, that's measured in years to a sport, the length of the playing career of a bubble player or hockey player. that has been associated with long-term cognitive impairment, apathy and depression, not cte because those are living individuals. but we have seen it in our brain autopsy series where the long -- longer a football player plays the higher the risk for , cte. we know in high school athletes, if you follow them for a single

season in football, hockey and soccer, even in the absence of a concussion, you will see mri evidence of brain damage at the end of the season, not related to concussion, because none of the athletes had a concussion. that's the sub concussive injury sustained by those amateur high school athletes, single season showing up as brain damage on , mri and also some neuropsych exams.... >> you said because the players were living that it's hard to find out if they have cte. you are saying that -- what's the status right now of being able to diagnose cte in living people?... >> well, there's a tremendous interest in that. obviously, that's one of the stumbling blocks for understanding how common the disease is. there's a tremendous interest. many academic centers, mount sinai, boston, mass general, ucla, many centers are looking at dying floesiagnosing cte

-- diagnosing cte using a way to image it in the brain just with an injection. that's looking very promising. there have been case reports reported. we're looking for the big series of being able to confidently say this is cte in living individuals. there's been a lot of advance in blood biomarkers looking at things like ratios in the blood, different markers. we are on the verge in the next two to five years. we're going to nail this down. there's been tremendous explosive advances just recently.... >> i would suggest that members of congress who are really interested in these kinds of sports and especially because of youth sports and the exposure of kids who see these athletes as role models, that we really push for that kind of research so that we could make sure that we know more before someone dies....

>> absolutely. i think we also need long-term perspective studies of thousands of amateur athletes. high school athletes following them so we can learn what those subtle symptoms are in the very beginnings of this disease so we know when to intervene to maybe develop therapies that would make it less likely they would develop cte. we're operating in the dark right now. we don't have any diagnosis except after death. there's a huge need to understand the effects of sports trauma. we know that sports are important. we don't want our kids to stop playing sports. but we have to understand the risks. that's going to require funding for some of the long-term projects.... >> thank you. mr. couture we have heard the , structure of the mma system does not give fighters sufficient bargaining power with regard to their contracts. i'm concerned about the effect that has on the health and safety of fighters.

if a fighter is hurt, does he have pressure to fight again instead of waiting to heal because he needs to fight to get paid? we had talked that injuries can occur in the lead-up to the fight. there's no compensation, there's no health insurance, there is no -- nothing until you actually fight. so are you -- are they pressured into the fight?... in that. you are not going to get paid for all the training and everything you did leading up to fight night. so if you are injured or any of those things in the course of that training, obviously, if you are unable to compete, you have done all that for nothing. you are not going to get paid. so that's certainly -- i don't know a single fight that i didn't walk into that i didn't have some nagging injuries, whether it be a sprained thumb from sparring or sore ankle or whatever.

certainly, something like a knockout or something like that is a rare occasion in life. thus we have great team. guys we train with very hard. it's still a contact sport. that's an important piece of the puzzle. so i definitely think there's some pressure there. you want to get to fight night. you are going to do whatever you need to do to go out there on your opportunity and show what you trained to do. i think we fall under the same guidelines as boxing. ct scans and blood tests and all the medical procedures to ensure that we're healthy going into that fight are taking place. we're getting the physicals day of the way in like boxers and other athletes. if you get knocked out or you are injured, the first place you go is to the hospital. you are getting a ct scan to make sure there's nothing seriously wrong going in there -- that stem from the of the way competition. there's mandatory suspensions. those things are regular

practice, mandatory. if you get knocked down or out, you are going to get a 90-day suspension off the top. depending on the depending on the outcome of that ct scan, they'll determine if that needs to be longer, if it needs to be extended to give you more time to heal up before you spar again let alone compete again. so i think there are safety procedures in place that are implement ed implemented by the -- implemented and regulated by the athletic commissions that put on combative sports across the country. >> but not an in mma? >> well, the same things happen in mma, the difference if i was floyd mayweather making the kind of money he made as a boxer, he can fight one time a year. he's only in training camp far -- for that two or three months period to fight that one time a year. he may not have to fight for a year or two until he wants to again. in mixed martial arts i don't have that luxury if i want to make a decent living in the sport i love.... >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts.

mr. kennedy, five minutes for questions, please. >> thank you, dr. burgess. i want to thank the witnesses for being here, particularly dr. mckey and the the work you do at boston university. i know he has been recognized by more of my colleagues here so far. i know we wouldn't be here except for his efforts. i know mr. mullen's passion for this stems from his experience from this. i want to thank my colleague from oklahoma for his leader -- leadership on this. mma have been criticized for not allowing fighters to negotiate terms of their contracts. i want to start mr. , couture, with you, can you expand on the issue? i know this has been touched on, i know you've touched upon it a bit but why don't fighters have more bargaining power when they enter contracts with promoters?... >> there's no transparency and what is made off the particular

bout you're in so you have no real way to judge what your true value is in that particular fight. and they control the rankings and who gets shots at the titles.... >> talk about that. what value would an independent ranking system have for you and how would that help fighters gain power? >> independent ranking structure would create an open market where promoters could bid on making those independent rank and top fights for those best athletes happen regardless of -- it would eliminate the exclusivity of the contracts. right now every promotion is forcing athletes to sign a contract that's exclusive to that promotion. what if wimbledon forced all the top tennis players to sign an exclusive contract to compete in wimbledon for that title? that's in essence what the ufc does right now. they are the wimbledon. the u.s. open, the australian open, the french open, they would all dwindle and go away because they would no longer have access to those top athletes that are

forced to sign that exclusive contract.... >> and so focusing on the ranking system there, can you also talk about -- i heards -- i heard a little bit about this yesterday, the typical payment structure for mma fighters? >> the payment structure? >> yes. >> right now it's something your manager and you negotiate with a promoter to get. the top five athletes in our sport make a decent living. is it compared to what floyd mayweather and other boxers make? not close.... >> what about the 95%. >> 95% of athletes are struggling to make a living. >> what is struggling? >> can compete. the lower tier fighters are making $5,000 to show up and fight, $5,000 if they win that fight. how many times do you have to fight in a year when a training process takes 10 to 12 weeks to make a decent living.... >> and how many fights does a typical mma fighter go through

? >> in a given year? , to do that in a way that is safe for you. >> it takes me 10 to 12 weeks to prepare for one fight. if i fought three or four times, that's 48 weeks i'm in training preparing in a 52-week year. so there are some fighters that are more active than that and fight more than that, but that's a pretty good indication.... >> talk about endorsements. how does that structure work? >> the endorsement structure has changed with that particular promotion to ufc. we used to develop relationships and i had people that have sponsored me since i first started fighting that grew with me through the exposure that they got from my success as a fighter. much of that went away with the ufc and fighters under contract with the ufc when they forced the fighters under contract with them to wear uniforms made by reebok.

they signed a deal with reebok for $70 million and now -- >> >> so you have -- >> they have forced all athletes to wear that uniform and no longer are they actually going to garner their own sponsors in the various niche supporters of the support. best of the sport. >> so that would be supplemental income on top of the five and five you said was liberty tree. >> many of those lower tier fighters could make just as much garnering sponsorship for the exposure they are getting for that particular fight than they were getting for their fight in the first place. >> and now they're limited from doing that? >> they lost that. >> i have 30 seconds left. i want to build on what you touched on. my understanding is that for injuries suffered during the fight that that is covered from the health care that is provided by from the league, if you will. what about injuries suffered during training? what happens to their? whatoes that work --

happens there? >> if you're injured during the course of the night the insurance rider for that competition covers what happens. through my deals with the ufc, because i've had several contract disputes over ancillary rights and other things with the company, out of that one of my complaints was is what about these guys that get injured in the course of training or getting ready for a fight? now they can't fight. not only don't they get paid because they couldn't make it to the fight but now they're responsible because of lack of insurance for most fighters. to take care of whatever that injury was. the ufc is the only promotion that does this. but they have implemented an accident insurance policy so if there is an accident, if you're sick, are you have the flu, you're on your own, but if there is an accident in training, that -- it is not a great policy. >> what is an accident? like you break my rib? >> something like that. it is a contact sport.

sometimes those types of things happen. you get cut. sometimes you get cut. >> is that covered? >> now i need stitches who will pay for those stitches? >> i don't normally head-butt in my daily business here. i try not to, anyway. >> but as a sport on the whole, that's the only accident policy in place, fighters on the hole across the board are on their best fighters on the whole across the border on their own. >> sounds like a strong endorsement for obamacare, mr. chairman, thank you very much. >> i have a different interpretation. the chair would recognize mr. rush for five minutes for questions, please. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank all the witnesses today. i want to direct my questions to dr. robinson -- ms. robinson, rather. you are the treasurer on the association of boxing

commissions, pleural. tell me a little bit about the boxing commissions. i want to know what is that?... >> those are the regulatory bodies spread across the nation. almost always a state agency. my personal state is housed under the arkansas department of health. some are under commerce. some are under licensing and regulation and each state has created a commission so that they can have a department that enforces the muhammad ali professional boxing act. and that includes tribal governments as well. not every tribal government in the may orsts boxing, but if they do, there is a real push for them to be part of our training symposiums, our officials training.

>> so in terms of governance, do they have really teeth, power in terms of governance? do they really call the shots? >> i can't speak for every state. but, yes, the ones that i'm familiar with, california has an excellent program and they control every item of it. in my home state of arkansas, it's not -- no matter what violation, the way the law is written in arkansas, nothing that a licensee does is a felony. but they are very fineable misdemeanorers so, yes, they have a hammer. to the best of my knowledge, all of them have a hammer that they can require enforcement of the minimum standard rules.... >> i was an opponent and worked on the muhammad ali act and i certainly am supportive of it and i'm supportive of expanding protections.

inour testimony, you mentioned mma fighter exploitation. we've heard some testimony today that would bring attention to exultation, but that's a problem in the industry deco >> if you talk to participants the answer is most definitely. to other components .hey would say not so much it's really a question -- whatever legislation is passed will be enforced on a local level for a small promoter just as it would be enforced all the way up the chain to whatever major promotion there is. so exploitation in my state of arkansas, we have never had the benefit of one of the major mma

shows so i have never actually held a contract in my hand. i would like to be able to speak first person on that so i can't address that, the fighters that i hear from, they do talk about exploitation.... >> is anybody else on the panel have more of a direct experience with exploitation that you want to highlight here before this committee? . okay, well moving on because my time is running out, this congress is like an 800 pound or 10,000 pound elephant, it moves around quite slowly. how can we help you? what do you suggest? what are you thinking? how can we be of assistance to you?...

>> the association of boxing commissions combative sports welcomes the idea of having more authority or aiding in the enforcement of proper regulations. >> the association of boxing we already have passed minimum standard rules for mma. we have training. we're there. we just don't have any teeth to do any other kind of enforcement in boxing. as i think representative denthe representative alluded to. in boxing, when it comes to recognizing the contract, the abc recognizes sanctioning bodies, they have to make application, that has to be published. the fighters know what the standards are. and we don't have those kind of teeth in the mma industry so we even expanded our name this year

so that we could make sure everyone knows we are here for all combative sports. so it's the association of box boxing commissions and combative sports.... >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> chair thanks the gentleman. chair does wish to recognize that a true sense of harmony in the season, i allowed every other member to get first because i wasn't sure when we were going to call votes so i'll recognize myself five minutes for questions. ms. robertson, first, it's an unrelated question but you're a graduate of arkansas tech, is that correct?... >> i am. [ laughter ] >> my wife graduated from arkansas tech. >> go wonder boys. >> there you go. let me just ask you and mr. nowitzki. dr. mckee provided by us in her testimony four items and i'd just like to go through those

individually and have both of you respond to whether or not these are something that could possibly happen with whatever regulation occurs through ufc and through the national or the commissioners. don't allow children and young adults to participate in full contact with head strikes. mr. nowitzki, is that something ufc could live with?... >> absolutely we're in favor of that. >> ms. robertson? >> excusing? generally the association of boxing commission has taken position against youth pan cration. manipulating joints is also very dangerous and we are concerned right now about the cultism of weight loss which has been proven to contribute to the head injuries.... >> we might get into that more with the trickle down effect, role models. the second item was to educate fighters so they learn the greatest opportunity to limit exposure and not allow head

strikes in training and sparring exercises. mr. nowitzki?... >> absolutely. we're seeing more of that in training techniques and with our ufc fighters. that's one of the things i talked about with the under construction athlete health and performance center. where the idea is, we would bring in athletes free of charge to come in and learn training techniques and be educated in areas about avoiding subconcussive hits during training. and take that back out to their gyms not only in the united states but throughout the world and educate and allow fighters to train in a much safer level. >> a very good. ms. robertson, from the commissioner's standpoint?... >> to the best of my knowledge very few states in america have the resources to foray into regulation of boxing or'm may -- or in an a gems.

i know in my home state that is out of the purview of the law.... >> let me interrupt for a second because dr. mckee, i don't think he was asking for regulation, just educating fighters to learn the greatest opportunities to limit exposure to not allow head strikes. that seems straightforward. would the commissioners be in favor of that?... >> yes. the abc would be in favor of that. >> of the third recommendation is to limit the number of head strikes in the match. mr. nowitzki, is that done now or is that possible? >> yeah, if you -- we have some of the best referees in the world in mma which you know their job within the octagon is to look out for the fighters. you regularly see fight stopped when there are multiple hedges. >> what's the magic number? >> i don't know if there's a magic number. >> and now mr. couture spoke about an income limiting event but in general ufc would be okay with that?

>> mr. couture also spoke about mandatory medical suspensions and that's something that the mma has, i think, better than any other sport. somebody who's concussed in a match can be up to six months mandatory medical suspension where they can't have any contact for that period of time. so depending on the damage a fighter takes --... >> let me interrupt you for a second because i'm going to run out of time. dr. mckee, you said this is not related to concussion, it's a repetitive small volume injury that are small per cussive injuries that occur, is that correct?... >> i did but i didn't want to minimize the effect of concussion as a brain injury as well so i do think they should be removed from the sport if they have a concussion and not allowed to return until they're fully recovered. i'm just trying to eliminate the smaller asystematic hits we know accumulate over time.... >> do you have a quantitative

number for us on the number of head strikes that should be allowed with any given match or year or career? >> no. my understanding -- and it's fairly rudimentary, but my understanding that the specific equipment required of the athlete is fairly minimal, is that correct, mr. couture?... >> the equipment requirement at the professional level is a cup and gloves. obviously the gloves are forced to allow grip and grappling but i don't think those are really the issue.... >> yeah, but so there's no helmet involved in this? >> well, we wear head gear -- >> you do? >> in training. not in competition. it's a professional sport like

boxing and the version of amateur boxing versus professional boxing, amateur boxers wear head gear when they compete, professionals do not. same thing in our sport. >> that's interesting. dr. mckee, do you have an opinion as to whether or not that could make a difference?... >> improvement cans always be made with head gear. it won't eliminate the problem but we can mitigate it or reduce the injury with head gear. >> okay. my time has run out and i want to be respectful of everyone else's time. many robertson, i want to ask you on the whole notion of the -- ms. robertson i want to ask , you on the whole notion of the independent sanctioning, is that something that the commissioners have looked at that the person who promotes the boxers shouldn't be the one who's -- not the boxer but the athlete should not be the one who's then controlling the endorsements and number of matches and whether or not they're on a card?... >> that was set forth in the muhammad ali act. and it did not require input from me.

if it's something that we favor? i believe -- personally, i'm not speaking for the association, i i believe the muhammad ali act did enhance anti-exploitation of their contracts, but it also greatly reduced the number of events.... >> which gets to the difficulty that mr. couture talked about, the difficulty in earning a living when your number of events are restricted. >> yes, sir. >> but then the limitation on your endorsements, that's also a significant impediment to income, is that correct? >> some of that goes hand in hand with the power and basic monopoly that particular promotion has in the sport. because they're allowed to set their own rankings and create their own title which is isn't done in boxing and which is governed by the muhammad ali act which is why we're seeking to get the act expanded to include mixed martial artists and combative sports athletes from other sports.... >> and i acknowledge this is not

a legislative hearing, this is an informational exercise but mr. mullin's language is language that is favorable what you seek?... >> yes, sir. >> does anyone have a different opinion, in language in mr. mullin's bill would be dut remit detrimental to the sport or the would it be detrimental to the sport or the athlete? >> i have a concern about the open ranking system that involves other promotions as it relates to health and safety in that if a ufc fighter who is under the most stringent comprehensive robust anti-doping program in professional sports in the world is forced to fight a fighter from another promotion that may not have any out-of-competition anti-doping program, that's clearly a health and safety terrific our fighter.... -- health and safety risk to our fighter. >> and a competitive disadvantage. >> correct. >> correct. >> so recognized. which you alluded to in one of

your statements. people who do use performance-enhancing drugs do so because they see it as a defensive posture because, doggone it, everybody else is doing it and if i don't i will get hurt.... >> absolutely. >> i want to thank everybody. seeing there are no other members wishing to ask questions, i want to thank our panel. it has been an illuminating discussion this morning. before we conclude i would like to include the following documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent -- a fighter contract submitted by mr. mullin, an article explaining the contract, a letter from the abc in pursuant to committee rules, i remind members that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record. i ask the witnesses to submit their responses to this questions within 10 business days on receipt of the question. and without objection subcommittee is adjourned. thank you all. [ indistinct conversation ] [

indistinct audio ] [ indistinct conversation ]> ... [ indistinct conversation ]

>> and a look inside trump tower. president-elect announcing fixed term congressman kathy rogers is take to head the department of interior. she will be at the head of opening federal lands for oil development. and rudy giuliani has taken his name on the running for secretary of state or any other position. campaign,to the trump

mr. giuliani notified of the president-elect that he wanted to remain in the private sector. we'll have live coverage of the president-elect here in c-span. he is in grand rapids, michigan on his latest stop in his thank you tour. tonight's rally is scheduled for 7 p.m. eastern. then tonight, recent oral arguments in the second circuit court about whether police have the right to search a car just because it is parked illegally. the case of usa versus randy johnson. you can watch that on c-span2. also underway on capitol hill, the senate is trying to wrap up legislative business before winter break. that includes funding the federal government has to midnight tonight. the senate is working on a continuing resolution that will extend government funding until the end of april of next year. legal --s majority

leader mitch mcconnell is asking them to back the funding despite the cold minor dispute. you can watch now on c-span2. the transition of government on c-span as president-elect donald trump elects his and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress. we will take you to key events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span, once on demand at c-span.org or watch free on our c-span radio app. earlier today, president obama ordered u.s. intelligence to look into russian involvement into u.s. elections since 2008 and come out with a report with a focus on this year's residential contest. she is the assistant to president obama for intelligence

and counterterrorism. this portion of the breakfast is about 25 minutes. >> ok, here we go. thanks for coming, i'm from the "monitor." our guest is the assistant to the president for counterterrorism. mr. monaco is here for her first visit with our merry band of reporters. was here when the director of the fbi came a while ago. a long while ago. newton,aco grew up in massachusetts and graduated from a girls school where she said, our teachers taught us we were going to go places. she clerked for a judge in the u.s. clerk of appeals after graduating from harvard. she served as counsel and search

is a prosecutor in the district of columbia and was named to the enron task force. her next service was in the deputy attorney general's office and confirmation by the senate as assistant attorney general for national security. she is held her current position since march of 2013 working out of what she is called "my cave or bunker in the white house." the rest of my colleagues. now on to the compelling recitation of ground rules. you're on the record. no live blogging or tweaking. please give us time to actually our guestwhat actually sets. there is no embargo when the session ends. to help you curb your relentless

selfie urge, we will emailed the session to all the reporters here. if you would like to ask a question, send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal and i will happily call on as many reporters as we can get to in the time we have. we are trying to have this up and moving at 9:55 to get back to the white house. we'll give our guests a chance to make opening questions -- statements. onoco: what is a nonthreatening signal? >> i know it when i see it. thought what i would do is just spend a few minutes talking about the moment we are in. moment andnsition also one that has given me an

opportunity to reflect on the threats we face and the landscape that the next team will be coming into. let me take a few minutes to do that and then get to your questions. on the terrorism front, the landscape we face has been addressed by the president earlier this week in his speech at the air force a down in tampa. terrorist threat front, after continuing to put relentless pressure on al qaeda, we have largely decimated the core of al qaeda that operates from the afghanistan and pakistan region. killed osama bin laden and continued to place pressures on al qaeda affiliates,

particularly in yemen and syria. we have been placing relentless isol, which i believe poses a hybrid direct. it is an insurgent army rolling through territories we have seen over the last two years in iraq and syria. a terrorist group that mounts, organizes, and directs attacks as he saw in paris, brussels, and elsewhere. most importantly and most distinguishing of it as a threat is the feature it possesses as a social phenomenon. insurgent army, terrorist group, and a social phenomenon in its ability to use social media to inspire individuals to act wherever they are with whatever they can act with.

he extolled followers and adherents to use a knife, if that is what you have, use a t ruck, if that is what you have. followersty to extol from anywhere has put out a new and different phase in the terror fight. we are, however, making progress against isol in all three of these dimensions. it has a lost 50% of the territory it once held in iraq and syria. it's number of fighters are down. ability to, its distribute and get its message out is also being reduced. we have seen the private sector acting much more aggressively to of their platforms

by isol. face a real, we threat both in respect to external operations from al qaeda affiliates in yemen and syria. we cannot take our eye off the ball. the radicalization, isol's ability to recruit individuals where they are is the most immediate threat we face. the landscape is one that my successor will inherit. the president spoke to the fact that, because that is the case and this is a long struggle, we have to take a long view. he articulated earlier this week the sustainable approach that he is proposing and has now

executed on for eight years. that is rkinwith partners ,verywhere from south asia whether it is a coalition in the unter-isol campaign or partners on the ground in iraq and syria. it also means acting unilaterally where we must to address threats to the united states and to u.s. persons abroad. and it means going after the right that has fueled the of groups like isis and the theity of it to appease greatest engine that we have seen in the last century, the internet. the greatest engine for progress and free speech and modernity and going after isol's ability

to abuse that platform. the president talked about that sustainable fight being put in place and the fact that we need to execute on that consistently. frankly as transparently as we can possibly be while maintaining the tools to the united states. the legitimacy of our operations against a long-term threat. 2009, theer front, in president came into office and very quickly described the cyber threat as one of the greatest national security and economic security threats that we face. think what we have seen

there is an approach that has been transformed. we no longer viewed the cyber threat is simply a technical problem or an intelligence rather a threat in the national security space. and the way i have approached this is see take some of the lessons, many of the lessons that we have learned in the counterterrorism realm and apply them to how we are fighting the cyber threat. fit, butap is not 100% i think we have learned a lot in the counterterrorism space that we can apply to the cyber threats. that means using all elements on the national power against side -- against cyber threats, using

diplomacy, sanctions, etc.. we have got to put all of those tools on the table to combat the cyber threat. clear that been very we will act to protect our interests, we will pose costs on a range of actors when we see their malicious cyber activity or going after u.s. interests. mr. cook: i am going to do my usual -- what they call the gig-box -- they paid me -- bi bucks -- if you could wrap this up. we do not want the torches. if you could wrap this up. next team ishe going to inherit a rapidly growing threat in the space

across all dimensions. the number and the range of actors we see from state actors, to nonstate actors, hacktivists to criminal actors, the range and diverse the of vectors areugh which these actors conducting malicious cyber activity, this will impose i predict a huge challenge that the next team will increasingly need to focus on, and of course the tactics they are using, everything from district of attacks that make us or may make us question the integrity of data. last thing i would say is the other area that is particular to a range ofse is crisis management that one has to do in my role in the white house. this is everything from natural

disasters to school shootings to pandemics, to emerging infectious diseases. and i think what you have seen across the last eight years is a federal approach that has been honed, tested, quite frankly, across a range of crises, and aat we have done is show unity of effort across local and international actors, and the resilience across that we put tos these threats. i highlight is emerging infectious diseases. without any malicious introduction or origin, causedng like zika has

tremendous challenges to puerto rico, for one, and poses a border threat to us. these types of things, ebola that was not a malicious introduction in africa two or three years ago. the type of threat today as we transition that i will be saying to my successor we need to focus on and may need to 2008,very much on like in 2009, the outgoing team highlighted to the incoming team the cyber threat. and i think the emerging infectious disease threat and the transborder nation and the ability for it to move rapidly across borders and cause tremendous this location and crises is something the next team will have to confront. it is a long to do list.

it is growing, ever-growing, and ever under predictable -- unpredictable, but we will keep working it until the very last day until we passed the baton. mr. cook: let me ask you about passing the baton, and then we will go to our colleague, josh to start. we will do our best to -- a political report that while mp's team-elect tru is getting to be in place, have you met your successor?

how will the body of knowledge be transferred on january 20? ms. monaco: i have not met my successor. my successor has not been named yet. i am eager to sit down with that person. know,ole, as many as you was one that was created in a post-9/11 environment and was called out by the bush administration and this administration that one person focused on homeland security, counterterrorism, with direct access to the president. 50 paces fromairs my cave office in the west wing, up to the oval office, the president knows it is because something that has happened, domestically, usually, or to u.s. persons abroad. that is my focus. result,nows it and as a

i have immediate access to the president, and that is pretty important in the world we live in today. so i hope that i have the opportunity to engage with my successor. we have done a tremendous amount of work. the staff at the national security council has put together reams of information to carry out what has been the direction, which is a smooth, comprehensive, and professional transition. i participated in this process. i was chief of staff to bob mueller 2008 two 2009, and what i saw was a professional transition from the bush administration to the obama administration, something the president has spoken of, was important to him, and he told us we will need to meet that bar and exceeded. mr. cook: there has been talk about lack of interest by the

president-elect in the daily presidential brief and what that might or might not say about his intelligencehe community. do you get any sense of a lack of interest in the homeland security and the cyber front? ms. monaco: i do not. again, i have not had the opportunity to sit down with the person who will be my successor, but the president-elect and his team is moving to name a range of personnel. i hope i have the opportunity very soon to sit down with my successor. mr. cook: great. josh from politico? has: i wanted to ask there been a concerted effort by the administration in the last few months to lay down publicly a policies,sies, -- brought and strategic things. suddenly a lot of detail memos that were kept secret or a long time are put on the record. what is the goal of that?

does that make these policies more durably -- durable? or will they just be directives? and giving you guys seem to be on a transparency kick at the moment, is the president about setting in motion the release of the full so-called torture report, as several members of the senate have requested him to do? so i think i would challenge one of your premises here which is that there has been a transparency kick. president has talked about the importance of transparency for the last eight years, and you can point to any number of actions consistently across those eight years that have demonstrated that commitment to , and we can rattle them off in just the second term

when i have been in the white from a commitment to disclosing civilian casualties from our terrorism operations to making available the presidential policy guidance albeit in a redacted form, in order to protect our ability to continue to conduct revisions of the state secrets policy, and on and on and on. there is a robust record of the president's commitment to transparency. and i would say not transparency for transparency's sake. the point is to put down as much rationale andhe the principles behind the operation we conduct, because that will both lend confidence and legitimacy and, therefore, hopefully longevity and

sustainability to those operations, because we are going to need to continue to conduct them as a result of the threat that we face. and then i outlined at the outset -- so the purpose for laying these things down is exactly that. i would point to earlier this in anhe laying out of, unprecedented way, the legal and policy frameworks that undergird our use of military force around for counterterrorism and other purposes, whether detention, interrogation, prosecution, etc. unprecedentedn move. i think some of the commentators , legal commentators on this, have said no other state has done this. and the reason, and the president talked about this earlier this week is to make clear the bar we have set for ourselves to try and also go

some way to setting norms and to lend confidence and legitimacy to the work we are doing. do i think it will be sustained throughout the next administration and going forward ? that remains to be seen. obviously, the next he will come andnd review operations make their decisions. i would say that there is a difference when you are in the room and you are privy to the intelligence and to the threats, understanding fully and have the benefit of the professionals who work these issues extremely hard for extremely professionally, and with tremendous integrity. to be seen.ins certainly, our hope is that when the new team comes in and sees and conference all the information that confronts all the information they will be privy to that day will take a

long view. josh: to follow-up on the end of that question, given that the president supported release of the executive summary of the report, what is the logic in not supporting the release of the integrity of the report with appropriate parallel actions? ms. monaco: i know of no new news to make on this score. i know when we released or rather provided to the congress for them to release a redacted version of the executive summary of that report, it was after a very careful and painstaking process to ensure that national security sources and methods and individuals could be protected, and that was a lengthy process that the president very much supported and wanted to make sure that we got done and thought it was important. mr. cook: brian bennett from the .".a. times

brian: the obama demonstration came up with the extra step with a memo to approve killing american terrorists, suspected terrorists overseas, without trial. in place, as you transition to the next administration to ensure that that powerful capability is not abused? thealso, when it comes to use of torture, the senate report documented many cases of americans working for the government to exceeded the approved techniques. and yet those individuals were not held to account. so what is in place to prevent a future administration from allowing things like that happen? ms. monaco: with regard to the legal memorandum that you referenced, that, with regard to

using force against americans who pose a threat to the united thees or to u.s. persons, protections there and the rationale they are as laid out that memorandum. the prince -- the transparency around that memorandum allows to holdike yourself government academy. in fact, one of the other on the presidential memorandum and report that was issued earlier this week described it as fundamentally a government accountability document. in other words, a way for the public, the press, other governments to look at how the united states is accounting for and laying out the rationale for its actions, and it is a way to point to going forward, here is the bar, here's the way what administration did it.

at the end of the day, elections and thesequences, strictures of statute, the constitution, but ultimately policy will be government by the next team. but by putting it out there, by making it clear there is a mechanism for the public and the press to point to it and other governments to hold the united states to that bar potentially. mr. cook: jeff mason from reuters. jeff: lisa, one of the other long list of things that you cover in your job has been one-time obey. -- guantanamo bay. the president has knowledge difficulties in getting close before he leaves office. the vice president addressed optimism a couple months ago that it would be closed. what is your take on the possibility that it will be closed by january 20? how will that happen?

and as a separate note, what are your thoughts of general kelly? guantanamo,so on the office spoke to this earlier this week. the same restrictions are going through the currently apply. nevertheless, the work that has been done to go from 242 detainees at the time the president took office to today, 69 detainees, remain in guantanamo. and therts are ongoing, work that has been done by the state department, defense department, across the board to engage and to tremendous diplomacy and make arrangements with other governments to allow for transfers, we will continue to pursue those

transfers as much as we can before january 20. at the end of the day, the domestic transfer restriction or mains in place, so until congress lifts that, we are not detainees here even to serve a life sentence, even to undergo a prosecution to render a life sentence. so those restrictions remain in place, and there continued to be a number of detainees who likely great a threat and had been so dubbed by unanimous professionals,r intelligence, military, law enforcement, and others, who pose too great a threat to be released or transferred subject to security arrangements. so there will be some number absent ann, and ability and a lifting of the commercial restrictions to bring theyto the united states,

will remain in guantanamo. the president is clear. we will continue our efforts to the last day. and that is what we have been doing. and we have put a plan before congress. there was no receptivity, shall we say, to that plan that plan was put up nearly a year ago. add to what the president said earlier this week on that. with regard to general kelly, i worked with him when he was the head of southcom, and i found him to be a professional, dedicated military man who has troopsous regard for the who served under him. >> and look inside trump tower today. today the president-elect announcing cathy mcmorris rodgers is his pick delete the department of the interior.

and former new york city mayor rudy giuliani has taken his name out of the running for secretary of state or any other position in the administration, saying that the trump campaign had notified the president-elect that he wanted to remain in the prate sector at thend of november. we'll have live coverage of the president-elect on c-span. he will be in grand rapids, michigan, on his latest stop of his tour through the state that he won. the rally tonight is scheduled at 7:00 eastern. tonight at 8:00, a recent oral argument in the seventh circuit court of appeals on whether police have a right to search a card because it is parked illegally. the case is usa v. randy johnson. you can watch that at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. on capitol hill, the senate is trying to wrap up business for gaveling out for the break, including funding federal government through april year. current funding expires tonight at midnight.

one of the sticking points is a provision relates to health care for retired coal miners. mitch mcconnell is telling senators to back the government funding measure, and other republican are starting to label this joe manchin's government shutdown after the west virginia senator who is pushing for health care for miners in his state. a lot of the coverage will affect 60,000 retired miners in seven states. we could see senator manchin on the floor soon. he tweeted he would be out on for around 5:15, and you can watch the debate live on c-span2. we can also see votes in the senate as late as 1:00 this morning eastern time. every weekend, book tv brings you 40 hours of nonfiction books and authors. here are some of our weekend programs. courtneyat 7:45 p.m.,

martin exports the question of what the term "better off" means the date in her book "better off." ter howoes not mat much money is in your bank account, but if you care about america, it does not matter how much your bank account has. you are vulnerable just like every other person in every other social economic bracket. lth full us. >> then making kelly talks about her latest book, which accounts for life as a journalist. opportunity is an to grow and become stronger. had had no adversity in my life, and if i had had parents who had kept me in a protective bubble for 45

years, how do you think i would've handled this past year? >> then a look at white-collar crime in the book "why they do it." he is interviewed by a former director of the enforcement division at the securities and exchange mission. >> the question is why do i never need to worry about this, but many of them, without much remorse would feel a couple -- steal a couple hundred for my cap, that is the difference in terms of these crimes, that you can do some devastating things and not have that gut feeling of doing something harmful, even if you are a reasonably socialized person. booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> american history tv saturday is featuring programs about pearl harbor's anniversary this week.

a reading describing events from ships that were under attack, following the burial of a person at arlington national cemetery, one of the casualties aboard the uss oklahoma. his romans were recently identified 75 years after the attack. -- his remains were recently identified 75 years after the attack. fdr's speech to congress asking for a declaration of war. on by the pearl harbor 75th anniversary sovereign me -- sermon. then we are taking your calls and tweets lie. book discussing the pacific war from the attack on pearl harbor to the u.s.

victory over the japanese at the battle of midway. at noon we are live with the author of "eyewitness to infamy," giving an account of the japanese attack from his more than 200 interviews with veterans. and then the pearl harbor 75th anniversary ceremony from the national world war ii memorial with remarks from john mccain. saturday on american history tv on c-span3. for the next 90 minutes, an american history tv elusive. our cities tour visits pittsburgh, pennsylvania. for five years we have traveled to cities across the united states to explore their historic sites, and you can watch more at www.c-span.org/citiestour.