Transcripts For CSPAN American Perspectives 20100117

the two last proceeding presidents together to form a fund is, again, anar'r@ @ @ @ @) is already there. . >> mrs. clinton's visit really warms our heart today, but to especially reinsure the priorities and the needs and the coordination that needs to be done with the earthquake. i will not talk on behalf of mrs. clinton, i will let her express what the american government wants to do towards haiti. >> first, -- where is the haitian press? first, let me -- [in distant chatter] -- [indistinct chatter] >> first, let me express -- that is a good sound. that means good things are coming to help the people of haiti. i want to express once again the deep sympathy that president and mrs. obama and our entire country feel for the terrible tragedy that has affected the people of haiti. but i want to assure the people of haiti that the united states is a friend, a partner in compound and a supporter and we will work with your government under the direction of your president to assist in any way that we can. we had a very good meeting about all of the priorities of the haitian government and the haitian people. we are focused on providing humanitarian assistance, water, food, medical help to those that are suffering. we also are working with the haitian government on the continuing rescue of those that can be rescued. there are nearly 30 teams from all over the world that are working right now to rescue people who are still alive. most of the people that the american teams have rescued our haitian. the president just met a man who survived for all of these days and we are very grateful for the rescue. we discussed the priorities of restoring communication, electricity and transportation. and we agreed that we will be coordinating closely together to achieve these goals. >> i am very proud of the work that our american embassy has done. for our u.s. military, and for all private groups and citizens and church based organizations that are working with the haitian people. i want to speak directly to the haitian people through the haitian media. >> we are here at the invitation of your government to help you. as president obama has said, we will be here today, tomorrow, and for the time ahead. and speaking personally, i know of the great resilience and strength of the haitian people. you have been severely tested. but i believe that haiti can come back even stronger and better in the future. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> [inaudible] >> there is so much that has to be done and that is why the president of haiti and i will be issuing a joint communication tomorrow. it will be translated into all the necessary languages, setting forth our intention to cooperate today to other -- together. much of the work that will need to be done will be reconstruction and rebuilding. >> earlier today, vice- pr >> earlier today, vice-president talk about the commitment to rebuild haiti after this week's earthquake. this is about 25 minutes. >> we are here because we wanted to see firsthand the operation tempo here and how things were moving. let me start off by saying that all of us earlier in the day visited little haiti, and we met with a very impressive group of haitian american leaders, elected officials, mayors, state representatives, and others, as well as leaders in the business community, medical community, nurses, doctors, and then we went to notre dame to meet with the archbishop, pastor, and a number of other leaders. at the outset, i would like to point out that we have been absolutely astounded by the result and capacity of the community. one case in point, the pastor of the church, trying to give comfort to the community, told me he had just lost family himself. he had found out that morning. one of the priests at the church was there. he looked devastated, and he had just heard minutes before of the loss of a close family member, i think it was his brother. everyone in the community with whom we have met, including patrick gaspard, have lost family. it is one thing to respond to cries viet -- to respond to a crisis of significant proportion. is another thing to respond when your own flesh and blood has been the victim of that same crisis. same crisis. our hearts go out to all our hearts go out to all haitian americans and others who have family and close friends who are caught in the midst of this absolutely devastating disaster. the images we all see on television are devastating to the average american. but i cannot imagine how the silence of contacting by cell phone a relative in haiti and hearing nothing on the other end, how deafening that silence is for so many haitian americans. is for so many haitian americans. i cannot imagine how out syrian the pain they feel is at this moment. -- how searing the pain in. >> we tend to use adjectives to heighten the description of a circumstance, but sometimes it results in hyperbole. but this is close to unimaginable. we saw what we went through in katrina and rita, and we lost several thousand people. but here we are talking about tens of thousands of dead. a city, a region, from the epicenter out if you look at that symmetry -- if you look at the telemetry. this is absolutely devastating beyond recognition. the american government and american people are responding in a way that makes me once again brought to be an american. yesterday, i was keeping a long yesterday, i was keeping a long standing commitment to visit now, under the leadership of janet napolitano, fema is actually delivering the goods for the last year to louisiana. there is still a great deal to be done. i am meeting in an area of the largest parish in louisiana, where electoral system, out in a windswept area where some housing has recently been built for the elderly. i walked into a community room, and the first questions they asked me are, how can we help the people of haiti? they are just getting up on their feet in new orleans. these are meetings and with people from the ninth ward and other places still devastated, and they are organized. the firefighters in new orleans and the police were decimated, and they are organizing volunteers who say they are ready if we can get them there, to go to haiti. so ladies and gentlemen, this is an effort an undertaking that has the full, total, unrelenting support of the president of the united states and the government of the united states. we are moving as quickly as is possible. we are moving aggressively with all the assets available to this great government. we are saving lives and beginning a full-scale recovery, but put this in focus. there is one airport. possible. we are moving aggressively with all the assets available to this great government. we are saving lives and beginning a full-scale recovery, but put this in focus. there is one airport. the entire world is trying to get help to haiti. we are only able to land because of one apron in the airport, one taxiway, 48 aircraft on that ground a day, from all over the world. that includes the un trying to resupply their people. that includes the ability to refurbish and try to get back up on its feet. we were able to get yesterday 17 air frames in. we have the capacity to send in 700 air frames. i want the american people to understand that we are here in a position of trying to help another country, and we are going by, as we should, their priorities. they are telling us what they want in first, so there will be a lot of second-guessing of why did you not send in more doctors, why or why did you not send in the 82nd airborne quicker? we are being told now what they need. search and rescue teams. the secretary has gotten our teams then, the best in the world. they are coming from other parts of the world as well. you see vivid images of people caught between slabs of concrete, voices being heard from somewhere below, trying to get them out. that is the first priority. the second priority, they just need water. what is going to happen as we go through, we will get all this in shape, but i just want everybody to know that this first 72 hours, this first week, it is pretty hard to get everything in there we have the capacity to get in there. as the general said to me, it is like putting a bowling ball through a straw. this is the tail end of this, all the roads, the port is basically not able to be used. to airlift all this in, and we are looking to every other airport in the region to be able to get people in, and then taken over land, which will take seven or eight hours. we are doing everything in our capacity to do this. right now, there is help on the island, and much more is on the way. with each passing day, more and more assistance will greet the haitians, who are in desperate need our help. we have already begun one of the largest recovery missions in recent history. search and rescue teams are already on the ground. the coast guard is there. the coast guard responded immediately with the ships they had available to them, and the helicopters. the 82nd airborne, some are on the ground already. 3200 are committed. it is sequencing getting them in. the aircraft carrier uss vinson has arrived and is already moving. we are moving people in and getting survivors out. we have already rescued a number of americans and haitians. we have been able to process them coming back. this is just the beginning. the american marine expeditionary unit is on its way. one reason they are so important, when we cannot get in by a port, we will get an easing amphibious land grab. . . but the bottleneck is how we can physically get there. i want to thank our military for the incredible job you are doing. anything you need is at the disposal of this rescue mission. here at homestead, they are supporting deployment of rescue teams, the development of mobile energy response systems, they are sending water, cots, meals, hygiene, blankets, docks. the president announced an immediate investment of $100 million. that will mean more life-saving equipment, food, water, medicine, more of everything the people of haiti need, including more security on the ground. everybody knows how it works. initially, everyone is just so focused on staying alive. after that, there is a tendency for fear and panic to set in. there is the tendency for a few bad actors to begin acting bad. we're trying to get all of this done ooze quickly as we can. we are working closely with the regional and international partners such as the united nations and the government of haiti. we're standing up the government of haiti in terms of its ability to communicate with its people. this has been a total collapse, a total collapse of a country as a consequence of an earthquake. and so we're going anywhere that we can get and we're bringing every resource we have. we're there for the long hall is the second point i wanted to communicate to the people of the haiti. this is not just the united states, the president and i and our administration, we do not view this as let's get relief as quickly as we can, save as many lives as we can, make sure they have enough food, water, and shelter. we're in the for the long haul. the hate shan people are our friends and partners and neighbors. their time of need is going to extend for the ensuing months. it's going to going on for the next few years. we know that after a few days, the rescues grow fewer and farther between and that's when hope begins to fade. that's why the president and i and the entire administration are intensely committed, not just to the immediate mission, the immediate rescue mission, but in providing the basic necessities for survival and to bring reassurance in the days ahead and the months ahead, we will be there for the haitian people. it's one thing to provide supplies. it's quite another to provide hope that has to animate any recovery, any recovery from a disaster of this magnitude. we're not just going into restore haiti's past. our objective is to help them build a much better future. i am here on behalf of the president and thank the thousands of americans who have already responded by their donations, to thank the hundreds and thousands of sum total it will be of a military personnel, land, air, and sea, for what they're doing. and we want to encourage all americans who want to help. there is one way to help. the most significant way to help is a financial donation so that the n.g.o.'s on the ground, the u.n., our personnel on the ground can, in fact, have the wherewithal to provide what is needed on the ground. it's hard to get bulk in there right now and in the near term. so what we need to do is we want you to donate. go to www.whitehouse.gov to learn how you can make a difference. it's the mark of our compassion and humanity that so many of us saw the children in the collapsed building, heard the stories for mass scramble for scraps of food and we said we got to help these people. we got to do everything possible. that's the response, not just coming from us, i might add, but all around the world. but it's most important that we act on our charitable impulse in a way that can do the most good. and the most good now is to be able to send a check, send a check. i think the brave men and women of homestead air force base and all of our armed forces who are going to be doing this around the clock for a long time now, and imagine their frustration. imagine their frustration when they know they get everything from docs to nurses to all kinds of material that can get in and they can only get so much out because the throughput is so difficult. so like i just want to thank the firefighters as well as the rescue workers who continue to save lives even as we speak now. and i think the american people understand just now immense this challenge is. think about it, folks, we all saw katrina. we saw rita, we saw what happened. and many more than a thousand that died and many, many displaced. if the estimates are correct coming from the community on the ground and we're not there, the red cross, we're talking 50,000 to maybe 100,000 dead. this is of a magnitude that is almost unimaginable. i'll end where i began. we are committed as a government. we are committed as a nation, not just today and tomorrow and next week and next month. we are committed to see to it that the people of haiti have a fighting chance to get back on their feet and are able to look their kids in the eye and those that survived and say we got a future. we got a future better than the past that we left behind. i want to thank, god bless the troops that are here, all of the american people that are willing to help us and god bless the people of haiti because it sounds corny, but they need our prayers right now almost as much as they need our help. i would like to yield now to the secretary of homeland security, governor napolitano. >> thank you, mr. vice president. i echo our thanks to all the men and women who are here and your colleagues working on this effort and our thanks to those who are already in haiti and those who are waiting at home ready to stage into haiti as the help is on the ground where it's most needed. i would just want to add a couple of things first. as the vice president has said, the united states is fully committed to this effort, not just today, tomorrow, for the long term. there is a lot of rebuilding that will need to be done in haiti. with the haitian government, with the united nations, our international partners as an overall effort. as that rebuilding is done, though, in the long term. in the short term, our needs are very defendant. we need to be able to get in medicine, medical supplies, medical personnel. we need to be able to get in water systems so that poteable water can be restored -- potable water can be restored. we need to get in the men and women who are skilled in urban search and rescue. so those very precious airframes that we have are really dedicated to those highest needs and those needs have been the needs that have been identified to us by the haitian government as part of the international set of wings that are now going into haiti. as the vice president said, yesterday there were 48 lifts into haiti, 17 of those came from here. we're hoping that that number increases very shortly to 60. we don't know the number of those that will be from the united states or from here, so that precious air space is like gold right now. and one of the things i would and one of the things i would ask the american public. many have talked about chartering flights independently to bring in their own goods and personnel. there will be a time for that later on, but right now we are asking that all of that precious airspace be coordinated right through here, so we meet the highest needs as identified by the haitian government, and as common sense would dictate to us. secondly, the highest need -- the amazing generosity of the american people -- i have seen in my travels as the secretary. we would emphasize and try to ask that that generosity be in the form of donations of money that can then be used by the nonprofit organizations for the best and highest need on the ground, as those needs are identified. as you can already tell, we do not have the capacity to airlift in lots of additional goods, food, clothing, and the rest. some of it will end up going to the dominican republic. we will be able to truck it over. we are looking for ways to move goods, services, and personnel over time, but the number one need of all of these groups is just plain, cold cash. cash. the white house has consolidated all of its websites into one, www.whitehouse .gov/haitiearthquake. that is where definitions can go. last li, has has been widely reported, yesterday i signed the order beginning, for the process of t.p.s. status for haitians already in the states. this is an immediate immigration status that allows those who are here to remain and to work. as they work, of course, many send remittances back home. this in and of itself is a form of support to haiti and a form of economic assistance to haiti. to qualify, you must have been in the united states before january 12, the date of the earthquake. if you qualify, you should go to uscis.gov and there is information there to provide you on how you get the t.p.s. status. it will be good for 18 months from the date of the issuance, so that will be in july of 2011. so for haitians in the country who were here before the earthquake, we are now opening up the process of t.p.s., that intermediate immigration status for you. i would say lastly, please, if any haitians are watching, there may be an impulse to leave the island to come here. you will not qualify for t.p.s. status. if you do, you will be reupdateated back if you attempt. this is a very dangerous crossing. lives are lost every time people try to make this crossing. please do the no have us divert our necessary rescue and relief efforts that are going into haiti by trying to leave at this point. it's time to focus all our efforts collectively with haiti, the united nations, with our international partners on rebuilding this devastated country. and now it's my pleasure to turn the podium over to someone who has been with us through all of these efforts and someone who has been with us today, florida senator, senator nelson. >> the generosity of the american people is self-evident and it's also evident in the generosity of how the government of the united states has responded. you can see this is a well-coordinated effort. the military knows how to take care of business, and they're doing that to the best of their ability to get into haiti. the coordination among all of the agencies of government is there to provide this search and rescue and relief. so, mr. vice president, madam secretary, thank you for your very quick, prompt, and very detailed attention to this. we thank you, we god bless you and god bless america. >> ladies and gentlemen of the press, i'll see we will on a regular basis, the administration, we'll be operating you as we get more information, as things begin to get clear as to what's happening on the ground, exactly what's going on and u.n., if roads are getting cleared, how we're getting folks there as we put in personnel. so well be keeping you updated regularly. thank you all for being here. thank you. >> for the latest updates on the he the earthquake, log onto c- span.org. tomorrow, a discussion on jobs and the economy with karen finney and kevin madden. plus, how poorly equipped haiti is for natural disasters with mathieu eugene. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, here on c- span. >> next week, your chance to talk to the authors of the best selling "game change," the presidential campaign and the impact of the book on washington politics and policy, live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on tuesday's washington journal." >> tomorrow, british prime minister gordon brown pledges humanitarian relief for haiti. also, why the prime minister has not appeared before the iraq war inquiry. prime minister's questions, 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> did you know the number one at a news application for your iphone or ipod touch is c-span? there is also a tab with links to all of our podcast, and it is all free and available from the apps store. >> virginia's new governor took the oath of office, bob mcdonnell. this is from the state capital of richmond. this is about 30 minutes. >> the oath of office will now be administered to the governor elect of the commonwealth of virginia, robert francis mcdonald by the justice of supreme court of the virginia -- bob mcdonnell, by the justice of the supreme court of virginia. [applause] >> are you ready to take the oath? >> i am ready, yes. >> please repeat after me, raise your right hand. >> i, robert francis mcdonnell do solemnly swear that i will support the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the commonwealth of virginia, and that i will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties incumbent upon me as governor of the commonwealth of virginia, according to the best of my ability, so help me god. [applause] caller[cheers] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> members and guests, please be seated. i have the honor to present to the sovereign people of virginia the new governor of the commonwealth, his excellencey, robert francis mcdonnell. [cheers and applause] >> well, that is a lot of people there. kind of like one of your fundraisers. thank you. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you! [cheers and applause] >> thank you! thank you so much for the incredible honor that you bestowed on me. thank you, mr. speaker, lieutenant governor bowling, attorney general, members of the general assembly, distinguished guests from around the world and across the country, family and friends, fellow virginians and americans. good afternoon. i want you to know i am kept my first campaign promise. i said that it would be sunny and warm in richmond on inauguration day. [cheers and applause] i have been to many inaugurations, but i want to say, this is the best seat i have ever had. [laughter] we gather today on the steps of our magnificent and newly renovated state capital. from this hill, the land rolls gently down to the james river, the waterway of the settlers in 16 70. from this place, the sweep of history has moved us forward to today. this is the cradle of democracy for virginia and america. governor thomas jefferson designed this capitol building. governor patrick henry came here for the laying of its cornerstone. i am humbled today to follow in their historic footsteps. the general assembly first convened in this new building during the first term of america's first president and my favorite, virginia's george washington. [applause] behind me in the pro tunda are the busts of the eight virginians who became president of the united states. it was here that robert everyone lee, the son of a governor, was commissioned as the young nation split into war. it was here just four years later that president abraham lincoln came to begin the process of reuniting a war-torn nation, walking the streets of a still smowldering richmond. it was here 125 years after lincoln's visit that a grandson of slaves, l. douglas wilder took the oath of office as the nation's first african-american governor. [applause] and it is here today that an average middle class kid from fairfax county, the grandson of irish immigrants is given the enormous honor of becoming the 71st governor of the commonwealth of virginia. [cheers and applause] as it turns out, i succeed another descendant of irish immigrants, governor tim kaine. on behalf of the people of virginia, governor kaine, i thank you for your great service to the commonwealth of virginia. [applause] today virginia is a thriving and diverse home of nearly 8 million people with one out of ten being born outside of the united states. a state of rich history and strong people, we do face many challenges together. we do not face the challenges of forming a new government or securing a new nation as did henry and jefferson or washington. we do not encounter the devastation and destruction of civil war as did lincoln and lee. we do not struggle with the injustice of slavery and its legacy of segregation as did governor wilder as a young man. we do not march into the bullets and artillery shells as the greatest generation did on the beaches of more mandy and the islands of the pacific. pacific. two members of that great generation who served in world war ii, special people, are with me today, my father, jack mcdonnell, and my father-in-law, frank gardner are with us today. [applause] >> on behalf of a grateful commonwealth and nation, i thank them and all of the members and veterans of the military for their incredible sacrifice and service to our nation that continues today. the actions of those patriots that have come before us had a common purpose -- to create and expand freedom and opportunity for the generations that were to come behind them. the creation of and desire for opportunity has shaped virginia from its very foundation. it was in seeking the opportunity of a new world that captain john smith and 104 brave settlers braved the perilous atlantic to step on the floors of cape henry in 1607. it was in securing the opportunity of a new nation that virginia patriots joined together with their fellow colonists in the first fight for independence and thus was born a country of ordered liberty that now in years later is still a beacon of hope for the world. it was in seizing the opportunity of an equality and a good education that a courageous 16-year-old girl, barbara johns memorialized behind this majestic capital at the virginia civil rights memorial stood up and walked out of high school in farmville, 5 years ago this spring. new opportunities helped them meet the challenges of their time. greater opportunity will help us meet the challenges of our future. together we must create jobs and provide more economic opportunities for our people, provide new educational opportunities for all virginians and enhance family and community opportunities by easing the burdens of government on a free people. [applause] >> as virginians, we believe that government must help foster a society in which all of our people can use their god-begin talents and litter to pursue the american dream. where opportunity is absent we must create it, where opportunity is unequal, we must make it open to everyone. our administration will be dedicated to building a commonwealth of opportunity for all virginians. [applause] it starts with restoring economic opportunity for virginians in every corner of this great state. today tens of thousands of members of our family, our neighbors have lost their jobs. thousands more worried that they could be next as we confront the worst economy in generations, the creation of new job opportunities for our citizens is the obligation of our time. so all virginians who seek a good job can find meaningful work and the dignity that comes with it. virginia has received high-rankings over the years for being a very business-friendly state. now, these ranks speak very well of our past, but they do not determine our success in the future. competition for jobs is intense among the states and between nations. states are aggressively positioning themselves to best appeal to the entrepreneurs and the job creators. we must make this the best state in which to start and grow a small business. [cheers and applause] >> and that is why we will seek to reduce burdensome taxation and regulation that impedes job creation. that is why even in these tough times, we will have the foresight to invest today in ideas and economic policies that increase economic prosperity tomorrow. this economic downturn has touched every virginian. declining home values and diminished retirement accounts have wiped away in just a few short months the accumulation of savings of a lifetime. as jobs are lost and consumer confidence remain low, state revenues have declined and an historic budget shortfall has stretched into the billions. thus like so many households and businesses across the commonwealth, state governments needs to device new ways to operate and find savings. this will not be easy, but it is necessary. the circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore a proper and efficient role of government. without reform, the continued growth of government can threaten our very prosperity. we must properly fund the core priorities of government, which we all treasure. but equally important, we must use innovation and privatization and consolidation in order to deliver government services more effectively. and as we enact these reforms, we must remember the central truth -- that government cannot guarantee individual outcomes, but equality of opportunity must be guaranteed for all. [applause] >> all virginians must have the same fundamental opportunities to work hard, live free, and succeed in this great state. access to equality education is the foundation of our future opportunity. my dad stressed to me as a young kid, he said, son, if you want to get a good job, you need a good education. it was true then. it's even more true today. virginians are blessed with so many great schools, with dedicated professional teachers like my city nancy in amhurst who worked tirelessly to model the minds of the next generation. to compete in the global economy, every young virginian must have the opportunity of a world class opportunity from preschool to college. [applause] >> a child's future prospects should be as unlimited as his intelligence, his integrity and his work ethic can take him. no child in virginia should have her future determined by her place of birth or by her zip code. [applause] so well work with president obama to expand high-quality charter schools and institute pompei for our great teachers. more money must go to the classroom and less to administration and new opportunities must be found in the science and technology and engineering and health care professions that will provide the great jobs of tomorrow. let's recognize now that a high school degree is no longer the finish line. we must create affordable new pathways to earning college degrees. i intend to pursue a recommendation to confer 100,000 new degrees over the next 15 years in our great state of virginia. [applause] >> and we must make our community colleges national leaders in workforce development and career training, because these are the investments that will pay individual and societyal dividends for many years to come. barbara johns was willing to risk everything for the simple opportunity of a good education. surely nearly 60 years later, we can work together to provide that opportunity for all of virginia children. our administration will demand excellence, reward performance, provide choices and celebrate achievement. god has bestowed on our great commonwealth an amazing amount of natural resources. virginians have the intellectual capital to use these resources to create new jobs, reduce our energy bills and make our nation more energy independent. we will make virginia the energy capital of the east coast. [applause] we will do so by growing our natural gas and coal industries, expanding the use of nuclear power and promoting new energy technologies like wind and solar and biomass. and we will champoon environmentally safe offshore exploration and production bringing with it thousands of new jobs. [applause] and the revenue and capital investments that come with it. now we must also seize the opportunity to improve our transportation system by getting long overdue projects underway, utilizing new ideas to build roads and bridges and rail and ports that we need, a better transportation system will create new opportunities for our citizens all over this state. now, these are the policies focused on addressing the real problems that people in virginia face in delivering real results. i have had the opportunity to listen to people across the state over the last years and some have told me they fear that america may no longer be the land of opportunity that it has always been and that virginia's leading role in history may be just that -- history. they are wrong. [applause] >> working together as virginians, republicans, democrats, independents and the like, this commonwealth will continue to blaze the trail of opportunity and prosperity. and like the mechanic looking to the owners manual for guidance on how to trouble shoot the car, we should look to the founders and their writings for wisdom in governing. [applause] >> the founders capstone on the great american constitution was the bill of rights. no state or federal mandate nor program crafted by either political party should ever undermine the central principal of federalism enshrined in the birth certificate of america by those who pledge their lives and fortunes and sacred honor. the founders recognized that government closest to the people governs best. more often than not -- [applause] more often than not, richmond knows better about the hopes and fears and dreams and aspirations of americans than does washington. [applause] and likewise, fairfax, virginia beach, hopewell know better than richmond. [applause] now as we pursue this vision of a commonwealth of opportunity, i urge all virginians to continue to seek your own opportunities to get more involved in the life of our commonwealth. after a century ago, president kennedy uttered those immortal words that you all recall, "ask not what your country can do for you. ask what you can do for your country." today i urge all virginians to rise up and meet this timeless challenge. we live in the most generous nation on earth. so many virginians give of their time and their talent and their treasure and rightly so. for the scriptures say, to who much is given, much will be required. right now i urge -- right now much is required in this nation and much is required for the people of haiti. so i urge all virginians to donate generously to the relief efforts currently underway in haiti. [applause] here in this commonwealth, i urge business owners to look for new opportunities to sponsor a little league team, help a charity, promote corporate responsibility in the communities in which you live and you work. i urge all leaders of the faith communities to expand your selfless work of helping the homeless, feeding the hungry, and comforting the brokenhearted. i urge all the young people of virginia to use your god-given talents and your energy to fully engage in the future of this commonwealth. i urge virginians who came here from foreign lands to contribute your culture, your history, and your traditions to the rich tapestry of life in virginia. . ife in virginia. i urge every virginian to take every opportunity to thank a man or woman in a law enforcement or military uniform for the preservation of our freedoms. [applause] [applause] >> there is so much that each one of us can do with our individual and unique talent to leave this commonwealth a better place than we found it. no government program can possibly substitute for the incredible good done every day through voluntary actions performed freely by caring individuals in virginia. and while government can help provide opportunities, it is every person's individual responsibility to take advantage of them. in recent weeks, i have seen people exercising that responsibility and changing lives as a result. i visited the healing place here in richmond, the carpenter shelter, the foot banks, the boys and girls clubs in virginia beach, the u.s.o. in norfolk and in all of those places, great work was being done by caring people. as a commonwealth, we must do the same and we will. standing here today on the steps of this great state capital in the inspiring shadows of our shared history behind us, we embrace the limitless opportunities stretching out far before us. and it is now here in this place that i ask all to mutually pledge to work together to create this commonwealth of opportunity for all virginians and add our collective foot steps to those of our founders through virginia's journey. it was george washington who noted in his first inaugural recall address a timeless truth -- inaugural address a timeless truth. the smiles of heaven cannot smile on a nation which heaven itself has jordanned. it is right to help one another. it is right to get together and solve problems. it is right to provide opportunities for all of our citizens. so my fellow virginians, my friends, leaders from across the state, let us heed the words of the father of our country, employ these eternal rules and get to work for the good of the people of virginia. thank you, god bless virginia, and god bless this great country. [cheers and applause] >> cumming @ monday on c-span, gov. bob macdonald delivers his state of the commonwealth speech. tomorrow, on washington journal, a discussion on the obama administration's view of the economy with karen finley and kevin madden. also, how poorly equipped 80 is for natural disasters. -- haiti is for natural disasters. also, senator paul kirk. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> >> tomorrow, on "newsmakers," representative ike skelton on efforts of evaluating military officers. >> so much is subjective. they did change the officer efficiency reports. they did change those a year's back to make them more accurate and to make sure that there was a better profile and for all of the people in the platoon. that is across the spectrum. they only have so many in a certain block and so many in another block. then i think it was a step in the right direction to rean. so often, the reports do not accurately reflect a person's competency or lack thereof. that is a very subjective thing. >> you can see that tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. it is also available online right now at c-span.org. >> in his address, president obama talks about banks that benefited from the government assistance program. he is followed by the republican weekly address with michael castle. he speaks about restructuring intelligence agencies. >> over the past two years, more than 7 million americans have lost their jobs. cal was businesses have been forced to shut their doors. two families have felt the pain of this recession. that is why we have pushed so hard to rebuild the economy. even as we work tirelessly to dig our way out of this whole, it is important that we addressed less to this mess in the first place. much of the turmoil was caused by the irresponsibility of banks and financial institutions on wall street. these financial firms took huge risks in pursuit of short-term profits and soaring bonuses. they gambled with borrowed money without enough oversight for the common occurrences -- for the consequences. little more than a year ago, many of the largest and oldest financial firms in the world teetered on the brink of collapse. they were overwhelmed by the consequences of their irresponsible decisions. this merely pulled the a tiny -- the entire economy into a second great depression. as a result, the american people were placed in a deeply unfair and unsatisfying position. even though these financial firms were facing a crisis of their own making, their failure could have led to an even greater calamity for the country as a whole. that is why the previous administration began a program to provide these financial institutions with funds to survive the turmoil that they have helped unleash. it was a disgraceful, but necessary thing to do. most of the dollars would be lost forever. when my administration came into office, we put into rivers rules for accountability and transparency that cut the cost of the bailout dramatically. we have now recovered most of the money we provided to the banks. that is good news. but as far as i'm concerned, it is not good enough. we want the taxpayer money back. we will collect every dime. i am proposing a new feed to compensate the american people for the extraordinary assistance provided to the financial industry and the fee would be in place until the american taxpayer is made whole. only the largest financial firms with more than $50 billion in assets will be affected, that community banks. the bigger the firm and more debt that it holds, the larger the speaker did because we are not only going to recover our money and help close our deficit, we're going to attack some of the banking practices that led to the crisis that is important. the fact is, financial firms play an essential role in our economy. it provides capital and credit to families purchasing homes and students started college and that is critical to our recovery. that is why our goal is not to punish the financial industry, our goal is to prevent the abuse and access that nearly led to its collapse. our goal is to permit -- promote fair dealings. it encourages sustain growth while discouraging the bubbles that inevitably burst. ultimately, that is in the shared interest of the financial industry and the american people. unlike the banks to embrace this sense of ritual responsibility. so far, the couple were asleep of financial reform. the industry has even joined forces with the opposition party to match -- to launch a lobbying campaign. like clockwork, the banks and politicians in their favor are trying to stop this fee from going into effect. these very same firms that reaped billions of dollars in profits are handing out more money in bonuses and compensation than ever before in history and they are pleading poverty. that is a sight to see. those that oppose this the say that the banks can not afford to pay back the american people without passing on the cost to shareholders and customers but that is hard to believe. wall street is going to hand out more in bonuses and compensation that the cost of this fee over the next two years. if the big financial firms can afford massive bonuses, they can afford to pay back the american people. those that oppose this the have the audacity to suggest that it is somehow unfair. this willfully ignores the fact that the assistance was extended to aig and homeowners. it ignores a far greater unfairness. sticking a taxpayer with the bill. that is unacceptable to me. we are not going to let wall street take the money and run. we will pass this into law and i will continue to work with congress on reforms to protect people and the economy from the costly and painful crisis that we have been through. after a very tough two years, after a crisis that has caused so much havoc, if there's one lesson the we have learned, we cannot return to business as usual. >> this is congressman mike castle of delaware. as 30,000 additional service members continued to move into afghanistan under the counterinsurgency strategy outlined by the general, americans are remembered about are important role in that region. additional troops will bring our military presence to 100,000 americans. while this increase is essential to our efforts in the region, it ensures that our men and women in the field have the equipment they need to succeed. this was a congressional delegation to see the progress we have made to address the momentum. there is a strong professionalism. particularly, since the surge in afghanistan began, we have seen progress towards helping establish a country that can govern itself and defend its borders. however, we need to remain focused on our goals on what is achievable. this requires double click tiered approach from the u.s. and our allies to train afghan security forces and secure population centers and strengthen afghan and pakistani governments. only with significant growth in these key areas can we expect to prevent this from being a safe haven for radical terrorists once again. for this strategy to succeed, it is essential that afghan security forces must grow in numbers and effectiveness, which serves to provide better local governments. in an effort to improve the training, our -- we establish a local population. it will hopefully make progress in reducing the ramp at opm and narcotics trade in this area. president karzai has pledged to eradicate poppy crops, but there must be development of crops and methods other than poppy's to sustain the people in this country. in southern afghanistan, the u.s. department of state and agriculture is working one to regain its potential. understanding the reality is on the ground in afghanistan and is essential. we urge the president to follow his advice of making strategic decisions. secretary gates has worked to reaffirm our short and long term goals to our troops and continues the sacrifice. this is very important and we thank him. we now know that the u.s. military faces a threat involving forces. instead, terrorist networks employ unconventional uses of force to remain invisible until their attack. to preempt this threat, we rely heavily on our intelligence gathering systems and professionals at home and abroad. this reminded us of the terrorists. the arrest of a terrorist makes clear that there is much to be reviewed in the way intelligence is shared, collected and analyzed. at home, a systemic failure within our intelligence analysis and airport security must be corrected to defeat the ever changing strategy of those who seek to harm americans. we cannot rest on one pattern or a coach -- or approach. progress in afghanistan is dependent on having a strong afghan government. it also falls on the international community to practice vigilance. in a meeting with president karzai, our delegation made clear that the commitment of the united states must be met with by equal determination of the afghan government. the afghan government needs to resolve a date for palminteri elections. this is important to the overall success of our strategy. we can continue to reverse the momentum of the taliban, help build indigenous security forces, just as we did in aflac, and help the people in afghanistan and pakistan with a development assistance. both governments must be able to take on corruption in the institutions of civilian government. there is much to be proud of on the ground in afghanistan. we should all be very thankful for the men and women who were making such sacrifice away from their own families everyday. thank you for listening. >> did you know that the number one free news application for your iphone is c-span radio? now, you can get quick and easy access to audio channels, c-span and radio and c-span there is also a cab with a link to all of our podcasts. it is all free and available from the applications for. >> coming up monday, new virginia gov. bob macdonald did it -- it delivers his state of the commonwealth speech. you can see that on c-span. >> >> the court will decide if the f.c.c.'s indecency policy on the a live program violates the first amendment. this is the second time the court has heard the case. the first was in 2006. the attorneys and judges use words that some may find offensive. viewer discretion is advised. >> here ye, here ye. the united states court of appeals for the second circuit is now open. >> thank you. good afternoon. please be seated. we have one case on our calendar on remand from the supreme court. we will hear first from appellant responsibility ent respond ant, petitioner. >> good afternoon, my name is carter phillips, and i represent fox television as the petitioner in this case. the last time we were here, at the end of the argument, the court in its opinion expressed skepticism that the f.c.c. would be able to defend its fleeting expletive rejim under constitutional attack. for better or worse, we are here to determine whether or not that skepticism may have matured into a firm conviction, that the constitution is violated by the f.c.c.'s -- >> it was clear the supreme court didn't reach the issue of the constitution a lot. -- constitutionality. judge, could not be clearer. the court took no position on that issue. it was very clear that the court was saying nothing about it -- the supreme court on state of mind, didn't you? >> we did. >> and the opinion as i read it from the supreme court doesn't mention that at all. >> no, it doesn't. >> do you have any idea why this attracted so little interest? >> well, i think the court basically took the case up on the f.c.c.'s petition. the f.c.c. was very explicit in the petition and the way it presented the case on the merits, that it wasn't the issue -- they wanted the issue evaluated on the act. since you raised the issue, in fairness to the court, obviously that is a non- constitutional alternative ground on which to set aside the f.c.c.'s order in this case. the order specifically states that fox television in these broadcasts violated section 1462 -- 1464 and both as a matter of statutory interpretation, that statute would require intent. even though it is not stated. the supreme court has a line of cases that state if the criminal statute is silent, you will infer the requirement. and over and above the requirement embedded to begin with. protected activity, and as such -- >> the f.c.c. says we don't need to reach that because they did not order any forfeiture. >> they say that, and i understand that argue, the problem is their opinion specifically says we violated section 1464. i think when a federal agency declares you in violation of a federal criminal statute, that is not a quibble, to suggest that that be set aside. and then in the world where this court has to evaluate the grounds by the commission given its actions, if you take that out of the equation, whether the commission would reach the same result, this can't can't assume it would be. it would ordinarily remand to assess the requirement. i know my colleagues would far prefer the court not simply address that narrow ground and vacate for this specific outcome, that indeed there are broader principles at stake here. we think it is important the court decide the constitution a lot. >> finally and once and for all. >> as justice ginsberg said, hopefully the courts will be in a position to evaluate that first amendment issue. >> do you agree if we turn to the constitutional issue and pacifica is a case that minds -- and finds -- binds us, that we would apply intermediate scrute -- scrutiny? >> i think it is dument to think of something as content specific and not-neutral as the commission has in place as subject to mere intermediate scrute scrutiny, but i don't think it makes a difference. >> tell me where the remand order, the golden globes or the omnibus order. tell me where it fails no compelling government interest or not narrowly taylored. >> i don't think it seas either of those. i don't think there is significant injury to minors by a word. >> the supreme court said it is common sense that these words are bad for kids.- >> i'm not saying the government doesn't have a legitimate state interest. it is important to vault what the court was saying. it is only considering the administrative procedure act in the case. there you are talking about the scrutiny to what the commission does. to say that is seas war the government would have to go in order to justify nonarbitrary making is a leap for me to conclude this is a con pelling -- compelling state interest. i don't think it seas that and then on their narrowly tayloring, it is not narrow. technology out there. but i think it is a mistake for intermediate standards. i think the more appropriate way to analyze the case is look at pacifica and second nice what the supreme court said that is what the first amendment admits. >> a prior decision of our court stated, indeed ruled, that the supreme court in pacifica had implicitly passed with approval on the vagueness of the regulatory scheme. what do you say about that? the dial information services case. >> and the d.c. circuit has taken that view as well. >> right. but -- >> i think the answer is that is not correct although i recognize this panel doesn't have the opportunity to revisit that issue. that is part of the reason why i think it is more sensible for this court to examine what are pacifica allows as a matter ofand if what the f.c.c. puts in place -- then it is unconstitutional. >> the case was in 1991, and it is pacifica case was way back in 1977. >> 1977. >> i wonder, even if the pacifica case did pass on the vagueness as it existed at that time, is it arguable that the vagueness is quite different now as the result of the various rulings the commission has made in the past decade? >> well, i think there are two answers to that. yes, i think you could say that beyond vagueness, there is the separate first amendment principle of granting to the government unbridled discretion, how to apply -- >> at the time of pacifica, what the court ruled was that the commission is authorized to find indecent the filthy words, dirty words broadcast. there is a big difference between that and a passing remark that somebody is a bullsh -- [beep]. or [beep]. those are very, very different things. and the commissions arguably contradictory and bewildering rulings as between words that are and words that are not seem to me to create a kind of bewildering vagueness which arguably results in a chill bad supreme court ruled on in pacifica. >> well, that is absolutely clear, judge leval. -- the only thing they have to turn to was pacifica. this does not engage in a roving specific words. @ @ @ r%@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n tomorrow is the commission decides on a person by person basis. it's interesting we t when you look at this case, rather than going through strict versus intermediate scrutiny. the way to look at it is 0 say clearly the first mend it's amendment precludes it is chill. the only thing they have to turn to is basica and there the supreme court is clear, that we are not inviting the commission to engage in an opportunity to seek out any kind of specific words that they find offensive. today the words are several. who knows what they will be tomorrow as the commission decides on a person-by-better than base basis. we sort of thought we knew what commission's rules might be, although i don't know i could go beyond the bewilderment rule, but it changes. now i don't have the idea what the new commission's idea may be. >> justice ginsberg thought they were tightly cabined, her phrase. but the f.c.c. believes pacifica was just the beginning of a regulatory scheme. that is what it comes down to, how we view pacifica. >> i think that is exactly right and the issue for you to resolve. if you look at the opinion on its face, particularly in light of the opinion of justice powell and the other. >> they made the majority. >> and therefore, what is the narrowest ground on which the constitution has been espoused, in a world where you have a very narrow enforcement rule' applied to repeated statements, intentional, deliberate, everything that depose with that, that is something the commission has the authority to pursue. i might fight that in the supreme court if i had a chance some day. but that is a long way from saying that is where we think the supreme court due the line. the other part of the case is nothing that has happened in the 30-plus years since pacifica was decided should move any court to say we should be expanding the f.c.c.'s regulatory authority. >> actually, the majority opinion said that because broadcast is the only regulatory area, we should be expanding it. that is the same haven for kids. >> but you have to recognize what the court is analyzing in that is the administrative procedures. when you talk about that, sure, discussing it in terms of safe haven might be a rational way to proceed. but when you impose any kind of first amendment scrutiny to that, the notion of creating a safe haven for children and limiting others is something that the that the first amendment doesn't permit. >> basica has stated the question to be nothing other than where a broadcast can be found to be indecent if it not obscene. >> i think the court ought to construe it as narrowly as it intended to be construed and what the f.c.c. has done here should be set aside. >> one of the things that the f.c.c. and the majority opinion below feared is that if fleeting expletives are allowed, we will be undated all the time one at a time. has that happened in the year since pacifica? >> no, and it is important to put that in context. it has been available to broadcasters. the restrictions on use of speech and other restrictions applied here simply don't exist whatsoever. there is no evidence, indeed the networks are very careful even during those hours where they have free arena to use whatever langston they want, they still don't use that langston, not because of the first amendment, but simply as a matter of what does their audience want and how do the satisfy the greatest needs of the audience. that is precisely what you would hope the amendment to do. >> thank you, counsel. three minutes for rebuttal. we will hear from co-counsel. >> thank you, your honor. >> good afternoon, your honor. my name is miguel estrada. i am from nbc universal and i am speaking for the interveners. i have two points. the first one is that the law fullness of the policy is not nearly the commission with respect to the [beep] shows. that is what this court saw and that is was the d.c. first act opinion, just ginsberg saw. both rejected the commission's effort to confine the issue of law fullness to merely the two broadcasts, because as is shown by the presence of the interveners, the entire thrust of the commission's actions is to have a rule that they intend to apply to the broadcasting. >> they said they were issuing it as guidelines. >> correct. and so i am not nearly as confident as my brother, mr. phillips, that the court can simply dispose of the other question. of course it could, without addressing the constitutional argument in the challenge by the interveners. the second thing important to keep in mind is that the commission went to the supreme court in the pacifica case with repeated assurances that he would have a restraint enforcement policy. it is impossible to read what the supreme court wrote in the pacifica case without coming to the conclusion that the restrained enforcement policy was an essential ingredient for the court's to up hold by the barest of margins -- >> what if the present supreme court doesn't agree with that? what if the present supreme court doesn't agree it was a restrained policy and that was the basis of the five-vote majority? >> i don't think there is any basis for this court to conclude that even the present supreme court doesn't agree with that. if there were a question of counting votes, i will point out to you that the commission was very careful to insist on the court dealing only with the question in which the sole issue was the bare ration a lot of its conduct, whether there was a sentient being in the world who thinks this make sense. they actually passed that. but justice kennedy, who was a member of the court for ruling, pointedly declined to join part three e of the pin, which dealt with trying to reject the constitutional misgivings of the dissenters. and another member of the court, of the five, made it as clear as can be that he would rule for the networks on grounds far broader than those urged by the networks in front of this court. >> one of the interveners said if we follow justice thomas' opinions, we would take down red lion together with pacifica. do you agree with that? >> i think we all agree that the question of whether or not the supreme court will continue to follow red lion is for the superman. therefore, the red lion case does not enter in. >> is it a red herring instead of a red lion? >> it is probably that in this case, urns, because the very most that the commission gets out of that line of cases leading up to the pacifica case is intermediate scrutiny, and we can readily demonstrate that the commission's acts in this case intermediate and strict, strict scrutiny. >> what is the gist of the argument that the commission's policy violates the constitution? >> well, at the get-go, it violets a restrict which is impermissible. it is based on complaints to a band of censors who are able through the commission to what amounts to a heckler's votto. and there are no standards as to how the commission comes to what the standards are that are applied. if you ask the commission today, the best they can say, and this is what their order says, they know what the community standards are because they meet people. we the commissioners go out and free throw folks. that is not a judicially manageable standard. finally, once you look at what the commission has done on the entirety of what the policy has been since 2004, it doesn't change. the entirety of the policy boils down to its objective assessment of the commissioner'' view of the artistic worth of or merit of the works. >> so that is why saving private ryan get in and the blues get out? >> right. but the entire system of an expert conferencor is alien to the first amendment. you could say that the policy that the commission urged in the pacifica case was functionally different from the policy that the supreme court struck down in the reno case because of the restrained enforcement policy, which did not go after lit uses and also gave heavyweight to the representative nature, now by discarding the restrained enforcement policy, the commission has essentially made its policy identical to the policy that the supreme court struck down in the reno case. >> it is the same language, isn't it? >> it is the identical language. and in the final analysis, you always have to consider this is a worse case than reno. in reno, the supreme court was willing to strike down the policy so framed because of a fear that it would invite arbitrary enforcement. here we have a number of years of a demonstrated track record of inarguable arbitrary enforcement. we have a track record where the best a court can say out of the work load of the commission is they seem to like spielberg but don't much care for scorsese. there is a whole second -- >> i was wondering. it seemed to me as i entered the argument today on the constitutional issue that to me it seems that the soft underbelly of the commission's position has less to do with the things that you are talking about than with the vagueness and confusing nature of what they have laid down with the consequent chill which, when the commission is applying, is prepared to apply forfeitures to a single utterance and to a fairly trivial and arguable would lead them to suppress a variety of things for which there is no earthly reason to censor, such as sex has been a primary preoccupation of people, and human thought forever. shakespeare's plays are full of references to sex. can a broadcaster make reference to that with confidence that this commission would not find it indecent? >> no. we have a record here that a broadcaster cannot play that the commissioner has ruled are not indecent. the evidence of the chill in this case, involving even saving private ryan, involve a number of cases in which broadcast have been put on television without incident are now turned down by the affiliate because of the enormous pressure of the astronomical fine and the lack of predictable of the commission is such that it is impossible to determine what the standards are or what the consequences are. >> if the commission were to say you can't say -- you can't broadcast the following list of words, except that you may be able to broadcast some of them in dramas about patriotism during a war, but you can't do it in programs about jazz musicians. threat broadcasters would know what they can do and can't do. there might be a different argument. there might be an argument that it was arbitrary and no rational basis for it, but at least they would know what they can and can't broadcast. under the present, i wonder whether they can have any idea what they can broadcast? >> no. in fact, we have said to this court and to the supreme court, and we expect well say to the supreme court again in due course that the system is untenable for all those reasons. there is also the fact that we haven't even discussed today that the technology has advanced so far that the need for this sort of intrusive conduct on the part of the government is really nonexistent. >> if we were to leave this policy in place, would it be the end of any live broadcasts of breaking news? >> well, certainly you would have to accept whether it is a lit end, it would deter coverage of news and other live events, and that it would be felt more harshly in those areas where you need that local station. one of the ironies of this policy is that in any other context, the commission urges localism -- >> but they don't use those words in small towns. >> well, there are some who think that, judge. wells have a whole track record in front of the commission and in front of this court involving the small town football team. this is one of my client's cases, who came up to victory, to beat notre dame. and in the thrill of victory said in the thrill of victory i am so [beep] proud of this team, and the commission did not think it applied to that, and the letter came in the mail. so the notion that you can leave this policy in force in any way, shape or form and not be prepared to except that you are sanctioning censorship and constitutionally covered speech is unfounded. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. you have reserved some time for rebuttal. >> may it please the court, jacob lewis for the f.c.c. >> mr. bruce, your clients were just described as a band of censors. >> thank you, i am happy to be here. i want to present this and ask if the f.c.c.'s position was still the same. i hypothesized this was being broadcast over which the f.c.c. had authority within the hour sarah of the regular news program, and the use of the f word and s word did take place previously, although not in the supreme court. and then i hypothesized that the person reporting on this case displayed to the viewers and the listeners the pack story, and actually broadcast clips of cher and nicole richie from the golden globe awards, and i was told that would not be a violation of the f.c.c. policy even though it was the same language and incident that gave rise to the order. is that still the f.c.c.'s position? >> that is still the f.c.c.'s position. >> what is the basis for that? >> there are two distinctions between doing a news show. one, the clips would be broadcast as part of a news show. >> is there a news exception? >> there is not a news exception, but the commission bends over backwards -- >> do we rely on the commission bending over backwards? >> broadcasters have been able to rely on the fact that with regard to news programming, and long ago there was something that n.p.r. broadcast the tapes of john gotti with expletives. >> what if mr. estrada's example, and i am not aware of it, i missed it i guess i will say. >> they have never issued an order. i think he was referring to a letter of inquiry. >> so no penalty was assessed or contemplated. let's say that was on a sports broadcast and the coach came up and said that. abc news sports, section of abc news. today in a miracle, notre dame got beaten and the coach said, and then they broadcast it live? >> the commission has relied on responsible journalistic practices. i'm not sure how listed your hypothetical to be. one wouldn't have to report the expletive to report the victory. in fact, the broadcasters do apply their own standards -- >> but it was live. as i understand it, this was a live brought cast. >> i thought your honor's hype they will -- >> my hypothetical was rebroadcast. >> at some point the broadcasters apply their own standards, and if they nonetheless decided there was a crucial aspect of the reporting that required the broadcast of the expletive, then they would have a an argument. >> in the words of justice ginsberg, they had emotive content? >> i don't think the commission disputes that. even offensive words have an emotive content. the facts of this case are quite different, and i think the broadcaster's constitutional challenge is foreclosed. to the extent they are challenging the commission's authority to elaborate on indecent regulations. >> wasn't it tightly cabined in the words of justice ginsberg, and weren't the five votes achieved including two people, two members of the court, two justices, who only voted with the majority on the basis of a narrow reading of the case in front of them, the shock value of george carlin? >> there is no question that pacifica itself involved a narrow set of facts. >> every case involves a narrow set of facts. >> well, particularly -- and that is true. and this case is no exception i would like to add. >> but i think your point -- >> i'm sorry. >> go ahead. >> don't you agree the policy is before us as well? >> the change in policy, a relatively modest change that eliminated immunity for fleeting. >> i don't that is the change necessarily being talked about. the change in policy since pacifica has been gigantic. >> well, i'm not sure that is the case, your honor. maybe it is time to talk about the vagueness question, but the definition that the commission employs of patently offensive, description of sexual or other organs, that is the same definition applied in pacifica. our first point is the vagueness challenge is foreclosed by precedent. as this court recognized in dial information services, and as the d.c. circuit recognized, the supreme court application of the definition in pacifica implicitly holds that that definition is not so vague that you can't apply it and therefore unconstitutional. but things have only gotten better in terms of guidance from the commission since pacifica. the commission issued industry guidance in 2001, which goes through many prior positions and lab rates on its framework. in a number of cases, including a number of cases in this very order. section 3-a sets forth a number of cases where the commission has found it is not indecent. it has gotten guidance on specific law -- >> is this the case where you found the person who said bull- [beep] was not label to forfeiture because it was a news program? >> well, i will admit that was the commission bending over backwards to defer to cbs' plausible characterization of the show. >> but do we make a policy based on your characterization of the f.c.c. as bending over backwards? doesn't the first amendment rely on us to rely on you bending over backwards, which is a funny image. maybe even close to the line. already i don't think so, your honor. the commission analysis essentially diverse to broadcasters, in light of the first amendment values concerned with news programming. i don't think the broadcasters have any reason to complain about that policy, and i don't think that is particularly vague. they get a break. that was not really a news segment. they get a break in cases -- >> what about the next time when they don't get a break because the commission thinks talking about survivor is not real news? >> then they will have an argument that the commission didn't explain a change in its policy. the fact is i don't know that that particular example makes the policy any more vague. even apart from the precedent, the broadcasters are being a little bit oblivious i guess to their own standards. here we had a case where nicole richie and cher got up to the podium and uttered the f word and the s word. fox wasn't paralyzed in knowing whether that comported with its standards or. they had a self-play system in play. they tried to bleep out the word, and they missed it in both cases. in later instances, they omitted it. they understood in that kind of program where there was a number of children in the audience -- >> but your position would be substantially different, it seems to me if you were coming to us saying we have made very clear you can't use the f word and you can't use the s worth, and there are a few other words you can't use as well. but that is not what you have done. what you have done is the commission says in addition to the words you can't use, unless it is in a patriotic context, there is this vast miasma of unspecified things and that if they pertain in some way to excretory functioning, it can bring fines on your head. why doesn't the vagueness of that, the capacity resulting from the vagueness and the catastrophic possibilities resulting from the imposition of forfeitures, having the capacity to chill all sorts of references, indirect, direct or otherwise to sex or to excretory functions -- >> you are talking about pambinga. >> basica was extremely narrow, and if you haven't read it enough to know how many times the judges said we are only talking about this case and this extreme thing, read it again. stop telling us pacifica ruled on it. it didn't. give us arguments other than that one. >> all right. the supreme court said the decision to look at patent offensiveness fits with the context-based approach we sanctioned in pacifica. that is at page 1812 of the court's opinion. >> may i remind you what my question is? why doesn't the capacity to chill resulting from the vagueness and all-encompassing potential finding of forfeiture because of some reference to sex or other functions, why doesn't that amount to censorship? >> there is no dispute that the broadcasters knew about the utter ands of the f word did not - >> we are not just talking about these two cases. we are talking about the broadness of the commission's menace. >> and the commission has tried to provide guidance over the years. >> has tried to narrow? >> tried to provide specific guidance -- >> what is the guidance as to whether it would be decent or indecent? >> it sets forth a framework. it has to be sexual or other depictions. . . uidance to which would or wouldn't be -- >> what is the guidance to what is decent or indecent? >> if that's what they brimmer that they have to be depictions or interpretations -- >> it said three standards and they were one, explicitness of the reference, too, and not the the reference, too, and not the repetition, and it was pandering. then in total disregard of that, it goes and imposes forfeiture, not forfeitures but finding of violation where there is neither explicitness of reference because calling somebody a aid bull sugar is using it in a different context. there is no repetition and there is no pandering. so how does that guidance help? >> in this case it did not involve "the early show," but what is the utterance the f-word that under the circumstances of the case was pandering to -- >> the others were not. none of the four, five others, bonneau, "the early show," cher, none of those others are repeated another not explicitly referring to or excretory functions. they're none of the things that the fcc pointed to -- >> the networks are not disputing that the decision in this case satisfied that the commission reasonably explained why in this case the broadcast was indecent within all three of those factors. >> undreamt of the word is graphic -- in that case you have before you >> the case before us is a wide-open case in which we been asked to on the commission standards. >> i don't think the parties would agree with you that each of these incidences meet the task. >> what they didn't agree they could have run that ap arguments in the commission didn't properly make the pundits. they never did that. let me get back to your honor scratch in. the commission tried prior to 1987 a force in policy that essentially said, a few other the seven words that were in the carlin monologue, we'll go after you. otherwise, we take a pass. and they found that enforcement policies simply didn't comply with the responsibilities because what happened? while the creative community which includes radio as well as television simply came up with highly offensive utterances that didn't use any. so in 1987 -- >> such as? >> i can't repeat all of them. i canter member all of them -- >> to give me one. two. >> these are words that were descriptions of sexual activities that were explicit but didn't use either the f-word or the s-word. the ones for television one are quite explicit highly offensive in the commission understood that it simply limiting its policy, which might've been more clear would've had a tremendous cost with regard to the effectiveness of the enforcement of any concept -- >> here we are back to the f-word in the s-word. >> well, your honor, by the way were reversed in the course they will flip the things that you can use the f-word in the s-word. the f-word in the s-word which were in the carlin monologue that broadcasters noticed and indeed their own policies are to set shows of penne to delete the material when it is broadcast within the safe harbor. either way, the commission's indecency regulations have a safe harbor for programming after 10:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m. and the fact is that any broadcaster who is under some confusion in their own mind about whether a particular broadcast would be found in the sand by the commissioner is simply to just put it in the safe harbor. and that's what the decent >> you tell us in your brief that the purpose of the commission's policy is twofold, to protect the physical and psychological well-being of children and to enforce the parents authority over their household. is that correct? >> gas. >> my first question is what are you protecting children from? protect their physical and psychological well-being from what? >> i think the idea is the same point in pacifica that a broad cast with indecent description or indecent language, particularly indecent language in the larger child's vocabulary in an instant. the court found that to be a harm to children in pacifica. the courts that considered this issue sent have found that and indeed the court supreme court last are made specific the point that you don't have to prove a scientific -- >> it is common sense. do you believe that they don't use these words in small towns? >> i'm not sure -- >> because that's also common sense, too. >> your honor, the it suffices and i'm quoting from the supreme court's opinion, mimic the behavior they observed a wealth of behavior that is appropriate. programming with indecent expletives will tend to produce children who choose at least one word indecent expletives. that's always been a sufficient basis for the congressional action in off the rice in the commission to regulate broadcast indecency. and i think that was reaffirmed by the court just last term. so the question of harm -- >> as counsel pointed out, under an apa analysis, not a first amendment analysis. >> that is correct. >> which is more deferential you agree? it was described as a more deferential analysis. >> your honor, from the statement the court may bus turned to relate equally to the first amendment issue. >> really? i thought they didn't touch the first amendment. >> i will read from pages 18, 13, 14. this is where on this harm question the court says we have a case that talks about that the government interest in the well-being -- air quoting from ginsberg, which was a first amendment case justifies the regulations. they were saying in the big ginsberg case they didn't show the harm and then the court went on to say if the constitution itself demands of agencies no more scientifically certain criteria to comply to the first amendment, neither does the apa. in that instance the court was looking to the first amendment law to answer the apa question. so i think it's a mistake to say that nothing in the opinion relates to these constitutional issues. >> you have just contradicted yourself because i misunderstand you. you told me that when the commission tried to rely on listing words, then broadcasters went around the eye referring to sex without using those words. so was it that you're trying to protect children from hearing about sex? or return to protect them from certain words? >> the regulation is of indecency. it can consist of the repeated utterance of words as it was in the carlin monologue or it can be a broadcast that was indecent because it is an actual depiction of sexual or expletives or activities. >> how are you protecting those children from those words when they come up on the 6:00 news when you're broadcasting the clip of nicole -- how are the children figuring this out rocks near her in the four letter word or the 24 letter words that you're trying to protect them from. >> but how do you know? >> it is not different. they are seen in a hypothetical that very feeling that gave rise to this case and that is quite interesting from a civics perspective because it's been here, the fcc, hear up to the supreme court, back here. and mr. estrada said it will go back up. >> the parents can say i'm not going to allow my children to watch a news program because there may be either indecent or other kinds of news coverage that's inappropriate for that child to watch. but this gets to the point, i know you're on to refer to it and the court refused to read, the aspect. the fact that broadcast programming is regulated for indecency gives parents a tool, gives them a place to go where they can be sure -- >> why doesn't the v-chip do this? why doesn't the v-chip hermit parents to disable the receipt of television on any kind of a show that doesn't have the kind of content that they want to watch? if there's going to be a live show, if there's a football game where there's a risk that the microphone they overhear a player saying something offensive or if there is a news program where people are going to appear and you can't know in advance what they're going to say, they can just say sorry kids you can't watch that. you can only watch once that is preapproved content. >> is interesting. the v-chip rating system generally doesn't apply to news or sports program. i was in aspect to voluntary rating system that was -- >> it can't apply? >> the way the statute was adopted with a voluntary system with the industry. >> at it can apply canted? isn't it possible to require broadcasters that they identify shows on which there's going to be no control because it is a live show with participants that would permit people to obscure those? >> under the current statutory structure i don't think the commission has the authority to require broadcasters do anything beyond -- >> they could impose -- they could secure their compliance with it. >> putting that exemption aside, in this case the entertainment program be separating system clearly did encompass the programming. the programming was mistreated to and this is a intractable problem. >> my question is not bad. my question is, can't it be devised in such a manner that his parents don't want to run the risk -- if they're never going to let their children out of doors for fear that they might hear somebody say a nasty, they might also not ever want to let them listen to television where they might hear a nasty. it is a perfectly possible to schedule the v-chip function in a fashion where broadcasters will label their show. they're going to be live participants on this show and we don't know what they're going to say. so it will be blocked. is that not possible? >> i think technologically anything is possible in that respect. the question is, does it disappear and sufficient information to know what is going to be on the show? >> if they know what his life, isn't that enough. you can't control cher. >> the broadcasters have an ability -- they would not be in this case of their audio delay system worked. they had an unsuccessful audio relay system which they themselves put in there. so there is a way of addressing the unexpected utterance on the live programming and that is to put an effect if audio delay system in. but in fact, the record shows here that -- >> so you are saying that a huge network can afford any amount of personnel necessary to put in effect. but what about a local broadcaster that is barely getting by on its budget and sets up a camera and a microphone at a public hearing at some local public hearing? i would assure that somebody who stands up in front of the local planning zoning board would ever doesn't say something that you would find offensive? >> perhaps in a circumstance the local broadcaster would have an argument that they've taken receivable within their resources. >> they just said that the camera and the microphone. >> for example, that it was a local public zoning -- >> or first amendment values to broadcast say a zoning hearing. do you agree? ñ%re first amendment values are at stake. they said this is the zoning plan is the fucking my. >> the commission hasn't addressed but talked about the equities and has an address to the system where broadcaster has no other means >> the commission habit addressed the situation of a broadcaster had no other means to impose an audio delay. but this case illustrates did not - >> we are talking about the policy. you keep talking about this case? >> the policy takes account of this. >> isn't the problem -- or the problem at least as i understand it is that the equities themselves of vague so that the broadcasters aren't sure where the line is. >> but yours, i don't think the lines are vague with regard to audio delay at all. networks have deployed an audio declare mechanism for decades. they had one here, but they knew it was ineffective. it didn't work in the 2002 billboard awards, and now they use it in 2003. now they employ more effective resources to employ an audio delay. >> if i am a network, can i broadcast a program where there is a debate over whether young people should remain a virgin, pure, until marriage, in which one act in favor it and the other against? or say they are experts, and they are going to discuss this in the most serious down sides? can i broadcast? >> i suspect you can. >> you suspect i can? that is very reassuring. >> you could point to a number of decisions that talk about that in the context of sexual education. >> but the best you can't answer my question is you suspect it can. i agree with you, it is the best way, because there is no way of telling, is there? >> no, your honor, that is not true. my broadcast lawyer worth his salt, and they are sitting at that table. could look at that question. prior decisions of the commission and there are some in solving the situations analogous to your honor's question, to the commission's framework for analysis and come to in most cases -- >> you know what a good lawyer will say? if in doubt, don't run it. and that is the shield that we are talking about. >> your honor -- >> i'm going to ask them whether they can be more confident than the commission foyer when i asked the commission foyer. would they say sure, even though the commissioners couldn't answer the question with confidence, we would tell her client to go ahead. >> in fact they point to a situation where broadcast stations did not broadcast affiliates did not broadcast saving private ryan even after the commission. >> or the 9/11 program. >> is broadcasters are not airing programs when the commission authority said that is not indecent there is a little bit of angst going on here. the second point is there is a wide swathe of hypotheticals that one can imagine. and when one talks about vagueness of the constitutional matter there's always going to be cases that the margin that are going to be difficult. the question is, do broadcasters have a sufficient guidance with regard to what the mind run of cases are going to be? and i think the case law here, the d.c. circuit into your own court -- >> but the margin. what about hamlet? can they pay hamlet with impunity without bleeping when hamlet talks about posthaste with dexterity wasted incestuous sheets. can you say that? >> i am the commission foyer. >> what do you suspect? >> i'm sure that the broadcasters can. >> i have two questions. are you prepared to agree that if this policy stays in effect they will not be live broadcast? >> no, your honor. i'm not prepared because -- >> because you're going to bend over backwards? >> there're obviously a lot for life programming can come across. all you are talking about regarding audio delay of a few seconds and their art is is a commission explaining even getting the signal to the home, given the number depending on when the cable subscribers with dvr or whatever. there is already a few seconds delay. the idea that somehow life programming that is crucial for first amendment purposes, that nicole richie be able to get your order is up to the audience in six seconds rather than ten seconds >> are you prepared to give up your claim that this is profane based on your brief in which you say it is duplicative of the definition of decency. >> i think the court has to reached -- >> are we done with profanity as a claim against the petitioners here? >> i am not prepared to give it up yet. i think what we explained -- >> if you duplicate decency, then it is superfluous. >> the commission found these broadcasts profane, but i think for present purposes the court doesn't need to reach that question. >> the question is, does profanities' still exist as one of these arrows in the quiver? >> yes, but it looks very much like the same aero it already has for indecency. >> then it is unnecessary? >> for purposes of this appeal, i won't dispute that. >> would you agree that this is for the benefit of the public as for the speaker? >> i think that both have an interest in them. h that? >> i think both have an interest. >> alright, now, if technology exists that would permit families that are absolutely intent on not having their children ever hear a bunch of words that they don't want them to hear, if the technology exists to enable those families to make sure that their children won't ever hear those words by blocking programs that could conceivably contain them, why should those families, those families that want to impose the highest level of restriction on broadcasting, impose on the entire rest of the country what it is permitted to hear in a manner defined by the commission so vague that broadcasters would have to worry about and probably not broadcast all sorts of things, which they came down to it would not be eligible for punishment or sanction or forfeiture? why should they be deprived of the opportunity to hear all these kinds of programs, because during the daylight hours without having to wait up until the wee hours of the morning to do it, without having the standards of what they are allowed to see and hear on radio and television dictated by the most restricted people who were going to write letters to the ftc? >> that is the difference here. that is the question. that is what the commission found that their ratings, crucial to the v-chip operation is a grading system. there's no such accurate rating system there. your honors ideal-- >> you mean something can sneak through? >> it is not a question of something sneaking through. here the program was rated pg. up there that want to exclude programming for example by use of the v-chip, this program you would have gone straight through that v-chip because it was rated c.v. gp and until there is some system by which the ratings can be accurate the v-chip is not going to be effective and that is the simple answer. rumpf then, there would not be-- >> i don't see why it is a utopia. is now they perfectly simple thing for a broadcaster to identified by some letter or code a program in which people are going to be speaking freely without previously controlled text? >> well, you could add something to say that it is identified as live programming but that wouldn't tell parents-- >> no, but they don't want to run the risk, they say i'm not going to let my children watch live programming. >> the dilemma here, because that solution would require parents to exclude all live programming, like the solution-- >> those words could occur in ebony life programming. if you are saying those parents don't run to-- want to run the risk they are going to deprive the rest of the country of the opportunity to hear stuff that is perfectly appropriate and has nothing wrong with it except the broadcasters are afraid if they broadcasted, the fcc, by whatever its patent offensiveness is going to come down on them. >> ronna that does not serve to force parents to exclude all live programming. for their households are the same way doesn't serve the common interest to exclude television altogether because of the rest that their children-- it doesn't narrow the field much but the point is the v-chip while it is a goodsen concept and practice, in theory it is a good concept and terry parkland practice it is proved not to protect and so it doesn't constitute an alternative much less an alternative and i could just make the point i think counsel conceded that the standard here is the intermediate scrutiny so it is not enough to simply show that the commission's alternative is a less restrictive. the commission can show it is an alternative that satisfies its own policy so the least restrictive alternative test does not apply. >> it is intermediate scrutiny. thank you helsel. mr. philip to have retained three minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you your honor. i don't think it will take the entire three minutes. artists said a couple of points i would like to make. think you quite correctly point to the chilling effect here. judge pooler basa pathetical about the possibility of somebody using the expression as part of the description of the impact of the internet is presley-- precisely the example the new hampshire public broadcasting dealt with when they were going to have a debate among political candidates were one of the candidates had previously used expletives and the decline to televise the debate out of fear this would show up. they don't have the money to bleep out or to protect the audience from that particular language and given the alternative when you are talking about $325,000 for a mistake there's no question what you are going to do. you are going to sell its censor and that is what the offence-- essence and frankly there's nothing the fcc said today that should give any comfort. >> what about bending over backwards? doesn't that give you a lot of comfort? >> let me tell you it is giving me an unpleasant feeling and i will answer the question that is specifically in's, which you advise your clients to run a particular program and my answer is it your network and don't have an extra $65 million lying around my advice to you is the one that particular program rather than run the risk and the reality is and if you look at 8522 in the appendix, and number of the amicus briefs in particular, lissa oddly hulls strain of examples of instances of self censorship and the bottom line here is that we are precluding the audience from a lot of television that is not only at the margins as the fcc lawyers suggest but is up the core of what you think of as first amendment protected activity and the court ought to recognize that and deal with it accordingly. the second proposition that he offered that strikes me as almost mind-boggling is the notion that simply because the commission has issued more guidance that the industry now has somewhat greater understanding of exactly how the commission is going to apply this policy. i mean all we know is at least for one period of time and i don't know what the present commission's view is, the worse of-- the use of the word ti-cat is okay, the use of the word pez is that. those kabal change next week. we don't know how that is going to operate. >> is okay. >> i don't know why. some is okay and some is not in the rationale is unknowable and under those circumstances as judge low ball said this is light years away from what the court was talking about in pacifica and there's simply no basis on the first amendment. >> would you elaborate on what your adversary said about the v-chip? >> i was going to finish on the v-chip. the position there ought to be is is this a reasonable alternative that is less restrictive? is it less restrictive than simply sitting here and punishing the industry? >> they say it just doesn't work. >> of course it works. utt keets focusing on this particular pair broadcast, one of them dpg pinecrest wadah parents on notice of the possibility of the language coming out. therefore but the reality is of course, you can devise a better system of applying the v-chip. most of the reason why doesn't work is the concern of whether the parents are dedicated enough to do it but i think you are absolutely right your honor that parents who are committed to the idea that their children will never hear those words are precisely the parents will figure out how to use the v-chip in order to accomplish that. >> could you have a system which alerted parents to live broadcasts? >> i don't know, we >> we could certainly list every live broadcast as a pg program. >> there is no impediment to doing that. i do not know if it is the least restrictive, but it is a less restrictive approach. it satisfies in the sense that the court held it has adequate as an alternative ground. the last point i wanted to make, i do not know if it is the end of live programming, but it will be a significant limitation on live programming. smaller television stations are going to have to get out of the business. they cannot take that risk. the networks will talk to be extremely careful what they do. the reality is that fox tried to bleep out these words and it did so because of its editorial judgment as the best way to promote its audience's interest. the fcc rides that and asks about the big deal this period of the big deal is that the first amendment protects our right to make those editorial judgment and prohibits the fcc from making those kind of editorial and judgments. i ask you to satisfy the fcc's order. >> mr. estrada? >> thank you, your honor. i would like to start with the v-chip point. the fcc counsel said that the commission found this and that. that would have been of some consequence. under control and the supreme court process president, the law is subject to independent review by the court. he officials on constitutional law are subject to independent review by this court and that includes all the legal theories but also the adequacy of the support, so that insofar as this court must examine what is really the assertions of the commission, the lawyer in this case, and whether this works adequately enough for doesn't work at all, it is for this court to make an independent examination of that respect. >> i think the incorrect in saying with respect to the v-chip the commission gave as one of the reasons for not relying on it that's parents have found it difficult to use or don't, simply don't use it. >> that is right. >> so is it appropriate for parents who could protect their children by using the v-chip, to simply not learn how to use it in their buying impose on the rest of the country not to hear the programming that the rest of the country would like to hear? >> absolutely not in with the supreme court says says it like it's circumstances again and again when that is the nature of the government's problem the government's remedy realize and campaign and try to teach people how to and the court said it in the ashcroft case and in the denver area case so it is an invalid legal reason for saying that the v-chip is not adequate. on the second point, our first brief on nbc did submit a number of the independent studies that are far more reason cited by the commission, including those for 2007 that deal with the v-chip, and of course since last year with the switch to digital, everyone who was watching broadcast tv in this country must have either a tv that has a v-chip or a converter that also has the v-chip. >> sill v-chip's are 100% penetration in this country? >> anybody was watching television in any area of the country as of june 9,-- june 209 should have an ability to use the v-chip. that this there may be some exception in some areas but i think as far as the bulk of the country is concerned, with the switchover to digital, there is either a v-chip equipped television in the home or a converter top that has the v-chip. if i could just say as well leave that-- >> are you saying that the television sets, older television sets simply want function anymore? >> correct. you have, by federal law you have switched over from analog television to digital television. all of the old television sets and lets you have a boxed up to convert the signal, won't function, and under federal law you may be entitled to a subsidy for the conversion but if you take the subsidy come at the box that you get with the v-chip, and my second point is that one of the most striking aspects of the government's arguments is the repeated assertion that the commission will consider the equities in the case. >> ben gover baquet. >> the bend over backwards inequities of the case. the equities of the case makes this thing with equity is. at they best description i have heard of what the commissioner, how the commission actually does this, but ended miscible test for the first amendment. my final point is this. mr. lewis also said in the d.c. circuit, another case is certainly standard for the proposition that the concept of indecency at some level is not so devoid of meaning that it could not be applied in some context and i want to point out that what we have said in this case is that the change in policy is unconstitutional. whether the policy can be applied in the future on facts that are comparable to the common monolog, the supreme court will rule in due course but what has happened here is that the commission went from that sort of policy from a verbal shock and assault to a policy that is unconstitutional and all the networks have asked in this case is for the court to say that as a matter first amendment law, the commission has to go to the policy that prevailed before golden globes. >> it is very simple. the broadcasters and petitioners here think pacifica is the end of the fcc regulation and the fcc thinks it is the beginning. that is what we have to decide. >> right, and the argument is that like so many plants so far away, which may no longer exist but whose light still comes to the earth, it may not even be there and the supreme court will rule on that. >> i think you are imposing too much on this. we don't have to decide that pacific that is the end rather than the beginning. i mean it seems to me, the issue that is being placed by you before us is whether what there is now is illegal under the constitution. we are not being asked and it would be proper for us to rule on all possible regimens that the fcc might devise. the only one that is before us is the one that we have now. you have arguments to us that that one is unconstitutional. i don't see it as appropriate for myself or for us to go and state whether the limits of the fcc's powers. maybe they can devise, if we agree with you and find that the present one is no good, maybe they can come up with another one that is fine, but the present one is what is before us. >> that is true up to a point. >> your argument is a test to comply with pacifica as pacifica was decided. >> correct them and in framing what the constitution requires the commission to do, the government is required to comply not only with the terms of that case, but also with the entire corpus of the first amendment law. >> use surely don't argue to westad and pacific of some of the court, the court ruled that this is the limit and extent of the fcc's power. all the court said was all we are ruling on is this. we are not ruling on anything else. your argument would be no better than the commission's if you argue to us that pacifica, the supreme court somehow imply that that is the limit of the sec's power. >> noland i think actually you made the argument that we have been making which is to say the commission went to the supreme court on the express terms that all that was the issue was the monolog and for them to say that it allows them to do remotely anything else, is wrong and for anything else that they wish to do, they must find support in existing first amendment law elsewhere which we have in our briefs is contrary to everything they are doing. thank you your honor. >> you can watch this program began or of the 2006 oral argument at c-span.org. just click on at "america and the courts." join us next saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," a discussion on the obama administration policies with karen finney and kevin madden. also, and looked at how poorly equipped haiti is for national disasters. also, a discussion with senator paul kirk. washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, here on c- span. tomorrow on "prime minister's questions," gordon brown pledges of humanitarian aid to haiti. also, why the prime minister has not appeared before the iraq war inquiry. that is at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> did you note the number one free news application for your iphone or ipod touched deceased and radio? get quick and easy access to three streaming audio channels. there is also a tab with links to all lavar podcast. it is all free and available from the apps store. >> the communications chief for tony blair testified last week on the iraq war. during the hearing, he denied beefing up the intelligence dossier. this is for hours, 20 minutes. -- mrs. 4 hours, 20 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> good morning, everyone. when we announced this first round of public hearings, we said that the first five weeks would be dedicated to establishing a chronology of the u.k.'s involvement in iraq between 2001-2009, and we have almost completed that face. today, we're moving on to hear from ministers and the most senior decision makers over the next four weeks. we will then take a break over the general election before we begin again in the summer. we have yet to decide which witnesses we will be calling back at that point, and these forthcoming sessions are not the only opportunity to hear from them. our approach in this phase is going to be built on what has already occurred, seeking further information, clarifying points, and exploring the perspectives. already heard to seek further information clarified points and different perspectives. a community has yet to conclude what they will be. today our witness is alastair campbell. you were director of medications of strategy to the prime minister included from the start of her. 2001 that goes back until august august 2003. detectives at today's fiction will be to cover some of the key meetings on uk policy development that mr. campbell was involved in as close adviser to the prime minister. the presentation of the case of the military action including the drafting of the two dossiers of september 02 and february 03 and the presentational concerns surrounding the preparations for the military action and its aftermath. much of this is familiar ground that's already been examined by the work of lord had sent in the butler committee as well as various parliamentary committees many of the relevant documents are already in the public domain so we shall not be declassifying further documents today. we'll to be finished by lunchtime but there's a lot of ground to cover. now, i say this at every hearing. we recognize the witnesses are giving evidence based on the recollection of events that we of course check what we hear against the papers to which we have access. i remind every witness that they will later be asked to sign a transcript of their evidence to the effect of the evidence they've driven is good and accurate. and without we will will begin the questioning. >> mr. campbell, good morning. you worked for mr. blair from 1994 until your resignation on the 29th of august, 2003. did that make you buy 2003 the longest serving of his close advisers? >> no. i'm trying to remember when jonathan powell arrived. i think he was just after me. there were certainly people in the early streets who had been around before i joined tony blair. >> you when jonathan powell were two very long serving advisors. now, in the. 2001 to 2003 which were looking up this morning, u.s. the chairman said with the prime minister's director of two medications and strategy a very broad job description. what was your actual goal? >> how i would define it is my job is to work with the prime minister in particular but also whether ministers and officials to help devise and implement communication strategies for the government and the prime minister, both in relation to overall direction >> just communication strategies? >> political strategies. i would say that in relation to the communications and a strategy bit, it is the key medications i understood, but i think the longer i was with him, the deeper it the understanding of the importance on strategic communications in terms of being the only way to deal with the media as it was changing. it was faster than any of us could have predicted. i would say that was the essence, in my judgment. >> you were not just dealing with communications in the media. war strategy can embrace anything. >> it can. >> you said you wanted traditional communications. you have said that he basically it worth their to do whatever the prime minister ask you to do. is that true? basically would do whatever the prime minister asked you to do. would that be accurate by next >> look, if he asked me to jump off a building i would've done it. if he asked me to do anything improper i wouldn't do it. but he never did. and once more i think that it's really important to set a context for this in terms of when i talked earlier about the changing nature of the media. it is that a significant impact upon policy and policy making, upon government restitution. and i guess my job is to try to advise him and also other ministers and colleagues in government through some of the tricky currents throughout. but, you know -- >> bending your diary on the seventh of april 2002 you wrote of yourself and jonathan powell, we did was largely judging by what tv wanted us to do and what our personalities best allowed us to do. so it's pretty broad. how close would you say to relations were the prime minister? >> very. but i think -- do you know the prime minister and he is somebody who is understood that the job of leadership that he had he could not do it alone. he was dependent upon political colleagues, some of whom he would be personally very close to, others that he wouldn't, but all of who would be giving them something by nature of the job that is trying to do. >> let's go into that and a bit more detail. he talked of yourself and jonathan powell. who apart from the two of you would you have said constituted the circle of the prime minister's closest policy advisers in the period we are talking about? >> in terms of policy advisory is put me ahead of powell. >> he spent more time with the prime minister then you and jonathan? >> i don't know. but i would certainly say that in terms of tony blair when he comes to the inquiry. but i could not speak highly enough of the support -- >> david manning. >> certainly myself and jonathan would probably see the prime minister first thing every morning. we'll probably see him lasting around and we would see him plenty of times in between. i would say than in relation to david and his team are important and in the context of the structure in meetings as they developed over time i would say that john scholar was important i could say richard taylor was important. i would say that in this particular context, just drop in jacqueline would've been seen as often as any other ministers possibly with the exception of john prescott and the different times gordon brown. and the team beyond that -- gordon was important that the prime minister's relation the parliamentary labour party and so forth. but he is somebody who i sometimes talk about his decision-making when i used to call the circular conversation where he's just talking to different people over a timeframe and absorbing different thoughts and influences. in terms of policymaking at never been a policy person or claim to be a policy person, but i would be his person who is always thinking -- >> to some a lot point he told the finance committee, i quote, i was involved in a loud discussions about policy and strategy on iraq. and then there is an adviser to the prime minister. so surely were policy person? >> abbott and there as a part of that discussion and that operation that is thinking the whole time about communications issues. i'll be absolutely frank. when we first won in 97 general election, the the communications systems of the inherited in my view were not fit for purpose. they had to be brought into media range. >> at the bit before our period. >> it explains why i was doing the job i did at the time i did it and how we understood that on some name -- not just on issues to do with foreign affairs and security or any of the major issues you have to have a communications element if you like embedded in those policy discussions. >> so when the circle of people you describe your talked of yourself, jonathan powell, sally morgan, mr. david manning, john's probably, sir richard. did the prime minister seek advice frequently in the period were talking about from peter mandelson? >> notes, sir. he may be from time to time, but i certainly wouldn't have said he was and what you would call it -- >> would it discuss questions about iraq privately or informally with the then chancellor gordon brown? >> absolutely, yes. >> quite a lot? >> yes, at the time this went over a long period of time and there were periods during this whole area you're looking into wednesday's was far more dominant within the public debate. but i would say certainly gordon brown would've been one of the key administers he would've spoken to regularly. >> so is the policy developed, 2001 until 2003, gordon brown would've been very much part of the private circle of consultation. >> i would say so, yeah. and so a john prescott. >> going back to the prime minister's working methods, woody from time to time assemble you the close advisers we talk about for money was wrestling with issues on iraq. would he get to altogether or would he talk to you individually? would have been almost -- how did it work? >> i think in terms -- if i can sort of take you through a week of the work. the prime minister used to work for normally all the weekend in terms of reading not just official papers, but reading history, all sorts of things. he would use the weekend to give himself time for a deeper reflection. and i think you would also then be phoning people, certainly i used to would be found on the weekends than i would know he was phoning other people as well and having lots of conversations in the phony john prescott, gordon brown, charlie faulkner, whoever he might be. lots of different people. he would phone people outside the circle. he would often, not necessarily by making decisions, his constituent agent john bergen with somebody you'd want to know what they said and he would speak to them at what was happening. he would then in terms of a specific discussion, if most mondays used to start with the prime minister having sent a note out to what you would call his inner circle. and i would be the basis for a meeting on monday morning. and when you go to meetings, specifically dealing with iraq, from memory that people would almost certainly be at those would be jack straw, jeff koons, admiral boyce, john scholar, sometimes richard dierdorf and myself probably -- >> that is a formal meeting on iraq. >> about the most of the discussions would be. they would probably send usually in the morning first thing just about getting the day in shape and working out with only changing the tire for that, which phone causes the making, and just started the day here. and through the day, it would be dealing with situations and issues as they arose. >> are these informal discussions, phone calls and so on, other than the minute you say the prime minister might well have delivered over the weekend that you discuss on monday morning, whether would be recorded by >> may approach intended to be that if i've felt there were things arising from those conversations that have been to be communicated to others, because often it would be the prime minister phoning me to do something. could be anything from talking to the media to other politicians, talking to people you just wanted me to talk to to get his view across to them, whatever might be. if there was on the other hand something where i was required to start work on a speech or start to work on an argument that we were developing, it might require me to say the prime minister wants abc. >> which do that but you know? >> i would usually dictate that to the governor after was the weekend and it was during the week i would dictate it to my peer. >> i think you'd be uncertain visors, can you recall anybody the prime minister found particularly helpful as a sounding board or source of information on iraq and the middle east? >> i can't. i'd have to go and think about that. nobody comes immediately to mind. you'd probably be better asking jonathan about it here at >> will pursue that further. just to sort out summarize this discussion before we get more into detail, there is a policy to recapitulate coming you were involved in a lot of discussions about policy strategy on iraq as an advisor to the prime minister as he told the foreign finance committee. that is correct. you also to the foreign affairs committee and is that he just said you attended a huge number of meetings with the prime minister on this subject. and then he played an entity departmental coordinating role on policy communication? that something you describe to lord hutton's inquiry. and what you did, you're a strategy as well as as opposed to medication your role was not restricted to communications. it effectively got you across to what the prime minister wanted you to do so. all of that would be a fair summary. >> can i just make a point about across the departmental committee kaisha. i think this is important. when i talked about the systems that we inherited, it was very much silo driven. it was department by department. it was very difficult to get departments on the communications side to work together. in my approach to this by the time we get to iraq was very much driven by our experience in relation to close the vote where we did ultimately i think quite successfully, put together -- we internationalize arc medications, but also we manage to get a sense of departments working together so that was an understanding that it was leading him to strategy, but there was maximum openness with all the various departments. and then sharing and personnel in trying to bring people, if you like, onto the same page, literally in the same room, where you take an approach to communications that is not here's this departments coming are that apartment, there'll doing the right in. >> i'd like to talk and we will come back later on to the questions of how the government worked in the cab networks. but just to one element that is very relevant i think to just today's fashion. how closely did you work with the intelligence and security agencies? >> how closely did i work? >> yes, you personally. >> i'd say at times very closely. most of my time working for the prime minister or i didn't have that much to do with intelligence agencies. i would say in terms of an intense period of contact or consultation with intelligence services and that they probably 11 and during the iraq crisis they were the two high points i suppose. >> i mean, you told lord hunton and i quote, i over several years now i've worked very closely with the intelligence agencies particularly during this conflict situations. and you had access to highly classified intelligence >> i did not routinely see intelligence reports. what i found was the intelligence

Related Keywords

Haiti , Louisiana , United States , New Hampshire , James River , Virginia , Afghanistan , Dominican Republic , Florida , Delaware , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Syria , Washington , Richmond , Denver , Colorado , Pakistan , United Kingdom , New Orleans , Virginia Beach , Iraq , Norfolk , Cape Henry , Fairfax County , Ireland , Americans , America , Virginians , Pakistani , Afghan , Virginian , Haitians , British , Syrian , Irish , American , Haitian , Paul Kirk , Tim Kaine , Carter Phillips , John Bergen , Bob Mcdonnell , John Smith , Miguel Estrada , David Manning , Mathieu Eugene , John Prescott , Jonathan Powell , Peter Mandelson , Gordon Brown , Richard Taylor , L Douglas Wilder , Barbara Johns , John Gotti , Bob Macdonald , David Manning John , Kevin Madden , George Carlin , Gordon Brown Charlie Faulkner , Nicole Richie , Boyce John , Robert Francis Mcdonald , Alastair Campbell , Michael Castle , Mike Castle , Notre Dame , Patrick Henry , Tony Blair , Karen Finney , Thomas Jefferson , Janet Napolitano , Patrick Gaspard , Like Skelton , Abraham Lincoln , Jack Mcdonnell , Robert Francis Mcdonnell , Karen Finley , Dpg Pinecrest , Frank Gardner ,