tv Washington This Week CSPAN January 15, 2012 1:00am-6:00am EST
collecting this information. for the last 15 years. some of you may have taken our course. we can now give credit to that course. that goes back to 1995. let's talk about as big a t,he law. people talk about as big not but they don't know what law is. that played out in june, 2010, when we have the 10 russian illegals who are arrested in the united states and a the editorial pundits to ask why
they ever did not arrest these people are as big guys? the did not understand a lot lessecause it is. this was a great collection capability case. it was long-term operations which intelligence svices run to have one man as an illegal since 1976 deployed to penetrate the united states. >> we want an attorney barry i have a right to an attorney. . but they knew our legal system. this is annoying. this is what we found out. we're talking with emily.
are you goingo college? >> yes. >> what will you major in? >> i don't know. i will decide soon. i tried to avoid the question. >> young people get in trouble with law and everybody knows their rights. what does it mean to pass the bar? >> like lawyers. my brother-in-law is taking in now. > you have to pass set to go to law school. nick.ere to nui skin what do you know about your rights? have you ever been arrested? >> for a dui. >> w perjury? >> when u.s. stewart -- you had
been triggered what did you say? >> i said yes. >> homany beers to do telecopier add them up two or three. how many does really have? 12 or 30 a. what does it mean to perjure oneself? perjure? i don't know like for what? -- like throw up? >> i am studying business. >> what does it mean if you are a big domestic? >> -- a bigamist. is that a wedding ring? why is it not on your finger? i'm a basketball official in cannot wear jewelry.
>> what is bigamy. >> that is when you have more than one wife. >> what is the penalty? >> getting popped by the other white. >> you have to have a sense of humor about the law. what is as the knowledge? it is a very specific crime. it is always different every country. it does that have to be the same definition. we have a sense that we're talking about the traders and people acquiring information covertly that they are not supposed to have bought from a legal standpoint it is a specific thing. in the united states and other societies, there is great expectation when an espionage case services. it is usually onhe front page and what happens there is an expectation for the media that they have to show something.
we used to refer to as the super bowl prosecution. we set up a program just to conduct the as denies interview because it is a crime to void ab is because there it should be no evidence that took place. you still build cases of espionage. this has been forgotten by many commentators about the russian illegals, in the united states, does it require the passage of classified information? what is the law that authorizes the united states to classified information? there is no law. a secret service act like great britain. can you classify the information? next on your a claque -- cocktail party estimates that. authority is invested in the president of united states. in the constitution, he is the chief diplomat and chief war fighter.
he conducts all foreign affairs as the commander in chief. endeavor to be the chief diplomat, the psident can withhold strict information from people. when we pay taxes, we by the information supplied by the intelligence community. to protect the citizenry, they prevent us from seeing it. the president protected so that as the authority -- so that is the authority. when we say somethinis classified, i used to say it means no fair telling gar. p.s. denies -- the espionage law does not speak of classified information. there are two laws, little has been nice and big and espionage.
little has been lost is for people who should not receive information. the people takennto mission and retested and is prepared to pass it on. it is a lesser offense. almost everybody who has been convicted of espionage is also charged with this crime. that is little as denies. paige: espionage does unauthorized transmittal of national defense information to a foreign nation or power or political faction with intent to aid that foreign power against the united states. to give you an example of law, law says you have to have authorized transmittal of national defense infmation to an individual not authorized to receive it. there's a case that took place the 1940's3 heimie had a hugempact in
espionage. he was a german who had emigrated to the united states. they instructed him to go to the library in new york and obtained information on production, national defense information. obtained technical books and rode up and passed it on. that was uncovered by the fbi. he was arrested in june, 1941 and charged with espionage. he was found guilty of espionage and foreign agents registration act and appealed. he was passing national defense information was getting from the public library. he was determined not to be guilty of espionage because the interpretation of law that you
had to have natnal defense information that is protected. that is thnature of the information you have to protect for espione. big espionage, is unauthorized transmittal of national defense information that is protected. that is the legal standard to a foreign power or agent with intent to injure the united states or eight a foreign power or political faction. when i say somebody is charged with 794, you can go to jail for the rest of your life. you can be executed. lyall espionage you could get 10 years. little as be a notch -- little espionage you can only get 10 years. people who are arrested are often charged with both. in a federal prosecution, who
decides if it is protecting national defense information? that is a decision made by the jury, t the judge. most people in and give us are charged with conspirac conspiracy is not arime by itself. it is conspiracy to commit espionage. when two or may people or more people decide to conduct these functions, that is conspiracy. most people are charged with espionage, conspiracy to commit espionage because the most difficult thing to prove as the transmittal of information. in espionage statute, the
unauthorized transmittal is the most of the building to peru. on whatever was charged with conspiracy. we track everyone of these cases and we put legal documents and to them. you'll find often that we use the crime a fara. it is foreign agents registration act passed in 1938. it says if you are an agent for a foreign power like a lawyer or an advertiser or do anything for a foreign power, you have to go down to the department of justice within 10 days and register. if you don't do it, you go to jail for 10 years. most people who are spies, will not go down to the department of justice and say i have been
recruited as a spy for such and such intelligence service. if i find out you are an agent of a foreign power and you have not gone to the department of justice, you'll go jail for 10 years. as a great loss. that was used for the russian illegals. there were agents of a foreign power and that is why l of pl themed 10 years. there's another great little used in the espionage world and it is called section 101. if a law enforcement officer -- you cannot lie to me. if you like to me, you go to jail for five years for every live. if i go to in bridge to interview anybody and start the interview and lied to me, i would say stop. you just committed a felony and could go to jail for five years so let's start all over again.
you don't want to lie to me. if you like to a federal officer, for every like, you get five years. in spite cases, they almost never confessed. a chart 1 in with001. it is a gridlock. -- it is a great loss. don't ever lied to a federal officer. each line is five years. let me tell aboutspyepedia. we'll update this every single day. the man who runs this is sitting here. he does this every day. he has a staff of masters people to update this information every single day. everything i am about to tell you comes from spyapedia.
1945-2011, the past 66 yrs, the cases i want to show your based on feign nationals who were arrested and espionage- related crimes. if i start looking at those questions about how damaging espionage has been and who is the most damaging spy, i like to say there are 10 people -- 20 people in my top-10 list and that is as funny as i get. to make people want to get on the list of spies. b believeob hansen is the most damaging spy in our history. they represent different genders and ethnicities.
everyone is an individual who chose to become a betrayal. the department of defense in a steady, but the list of 173. if i ask you how many people have been arrested since 1945 through today, the answer is 423 people. the average is 6.23 per year. you have to look at these cases two ways -- any case related to espionage you have to say this -- is this a be troyer case or a collector case? the russian a legal case or collectors. they did not pass information. did not have security clearance. collectors made and communicate with agents that agents are the betrayers and agents provide the secrets and collectors receive the secret. you have to figure out what you are looking at. huckabee traders feel the
secrets and pass the secrets and have no protection ve. when you look at a case, you have to say what you are looking at, a.b. troyer case or a collector case and you get different answers. 8 b troyer a b --etrayer case are a collector case. we're having a flood of as benign as cases in the united states. it is as if it is happening below are conscious level. if we look at economic espionage cases, there have been one of the 25 people at least to have been arrested for economic espionage. the trend line is going up. we see more and more of those cases targeting the private sector. some of that this last year turned out to the investment information current there are
two cases which are very interesting and new. in the last four years, 94 people have been arrested for espionage-related crimes. that means 22.2% of all the arrests in the last 66 years have taken place the last four years. we have an explosion. we see a far more aggressive chinese collection activity and we have more people working in counterintelligencehat we did before. how many countries have been involved? in 1992, the federal government counterintelligence program changed its strategy. it went from looking only at people who are enemies of america to anybody who collected against us.
there are at least 31 countries who have been identified as being involved with recruiting somebody who was trying to be traded the access they had. here's what the numbers look like. the top numbers are russia and the ussr. some of those come from the old days during the cold war. we have 341 cases of agents were in for a foreign entity. he did the government does not identify who the collector was for a collectorad not been identified by the time the person is arrested.
someone might decide this by and they haven't cided forwhom. the look of the numbers and it says it has been scattered around it is true to say that china has been coming up fast on the outside. it has been a 2001 phomenon. the first chinese arrest was made in 1985. since then, the numbers have exploded. the vast majority of these are taking place in the private sector. if you look at every single one of the cases in the last five years, every single one of these cases have been digital theft. even though we live in a digital age, espionage continues as it did before. in the past, someone may have taken a document and copied it.
today, they visually get the document. in every case, the insider -- if you look at the problem of collection against this, you have to look like a fourth. fort. and they tried to get inside your system. if you set up a good security system, you can deal with that kind of the external attack against you. we tracked the in thespyapedia. we track the cyber attacks. we keep a good track of those cases. that is half the problem. a lot of that is going on. then you have the other problem and that is the spy on the inside. they don't have to get through the firewall. those individuals to acquire the
information get it out either em byail or the have and an external hard drive and copy it. it isimple if you have the right system to detect those two things. some organizations are doing a great job in their commitment to understand the insider threat a lot of discussion today is about the insider threat. there is nothing new about that. it is just using a different media. these are looking a chinese cases, there have been 67 age p of therc arrested -- there of about 67 of the prc arrested since 1985. russias in red and the cases are in blue and the prc is in green. if we say what is the employment status of the individuals who were arrested, you can see
they're coming out of the private sector because of economic cases and foreign nationals and then we start going down to navy, army, contractors. e navy has an aggressive counterespionage programs, one of the best ones and the government. they have a serious commitment to catching spies. they have more than any other government agency. where the spies are coming from. the level of astronauts sometimes take our breath away. -- the level of espionage sometimes takes our breath away. there were 541 spies in this time from inside the u.s. government or private sector during world war two. thatncludes literally every u.s. government agency was penetrated during that timeframe
by our allies. we know this through thewinona decrypts and his wonderful book by highly recommend a ",speies: the rise and fall of the kgb." we listed the spy wi is andnona which was the description program have put that together and what you find is where these people were. 541 by name and organizaon. every place in the united states was penetrated. that tells you that you do not invest in this and take it serious, it is like getting cancer. it will spread like a virus. when i show you the numbers today, we still have less
numbers but it still goes on. even 38 spies inside the media were also agents in this timeframe. we have many of their names. you will not find tt list anywhere else. let's turn to 2011 in the united states. the other cases that were sentenced. wrote one of them was interesting which was and rarely -- a st israeliing case. it has to do with this guy. he was a massachusetts and very unhappy with his wife and worked on an internet delivery service and decided to send an e-mail to the israelis, to the consulate in israel. -- in new england, i'm sorry. he volunteered by e-mail. the israelis passed all along
to the f. they looked at this guy and this is what he writes -- he goes on volunteering that he wants to spy for israel because he is jewish. a year later, the fbi response to him and they begin to correspond. during that time, he says i want to help our home land and our war against our enemies. not a bad things can happen to her, he talks about his ex-wife. the it w not real at the mi the formerssus and they asked for a little bit of money. there is a silly -- a series of dead drops between the fbi anddoxer and he thinks this is the israeli government and they do this 62 times.
this relates to computer systems. he is arrested and in august of this year, he pled guilty to one count of economic espionage. charges were dismissed any faced 15 years in august of this year. he got six months in prison and six months in home confinement and find $230,000. that was finalized today. this was another case that took place involving the prc. it is a new trend we have never seen. glen duffy shriver. >> a man sat buildup in international in trading in houston taking tens of thousands of dollars from chinese intelligence and is now charged with lying to the cia. >> neighbors said they had not
seen him in several years. >> i saw him occasionally getting in his car. >> the 28-year-old lived with his mother ithis quiet neighborhood. the last was heard, he was living in california trying to get a job and law enforcement. >> it's scary. >> the interview of the neighbors are always interesting. they're always not sure and i never thought he was a spy. this case was interesting because here is going to grand valley state cards and have a big international program and he goes to china and they have 24,000 students there any studies abroad in shanghai and lights china. they put 4000 students overseas.
the light china. -- keylay to china. anything he said in a tunnel was very pro-peeress the entire one. he studied his junior and came back here in 2004 and studied mandarin and looked to work. he did some advertising. he did an advertisement in english for someone to write a political paper. the woman who responded to this was a man there who hired him. she paid in $200 and recruited relations between china and taiwan. that is the key issue between china and the prc. he then --amanda sets up a meeting with the chinese intelligence service. they suggested he might be interested to go to work for the
state department or the cia. he says he would be interested. they arrested the do that and get some secret documents. he said that sounds like a good plan. he said he was willing to do that. he applied to the state department and got on the internet and took the service test in shanghai. it is very difficult to pass and he failed. they gave him $10,000 for trying, for his friendship, we have never seen that before. what happens next? one year later, he takes the test again and he fails again. they pay and $20,000 for taking it a second time. he's got $30,000 for failing to serve -- the foreign service test. after that, he submits an online application to the national clandestine service of the cia.
he does that in 2007 and he then fls to shanghai and meets with the prc officers during that time. they pd and $40,000 for having made the application. he now has $70,000 in his pocket and he has not been hired by anybody yet. it is rare in the spy business for anyone to be paid for future. it is almost always after the fact and we have never seen this from china before. in december, he is advised to report to the cia in washington for his final employment processing. that means taking a polygraph. in february, he felt as al statesf-86. when it fills out the form, as he committed a crime? the cry ms.10021, he is lying on
an official document. he takes a polygraph and he admits to everything. he could of said the sun is did this to him but he continued and tried to do with a dead end in june, he had a criminal indictment. he is indicted for 1001 which is lying five times. he is facing 25 years. now they sit down and have a conversation with them. he chooses to corrate and pleads guilty to 793 which is prepared to react which is little as benign as which is 10 years.
he pleads guilty to that end at the end of last year, beginning of this year, he is sentenced to 48 months and now is a convicted felon. it is remarkable case. there is another big prc staying case at the end of 2010 that led to a conviction this year that had to do with brian mtin. he is a navy reversed -- reservist at fort bragg. he is a defense dia agent -- >> this happened at three different hotels. >> this is difficult for our country. >> that is the reaction we got for a lot of folks around here for espionage is unthinkable
around here. >> it breaks my heart. >> brian martin delivered military files to undercover agents several times. he thought he was beating an intelligence officer from a foreign -- meeting and intelligence officer from a foreign country. the documents say it he was seeking "long-term financial reimbursement." he was given at $1,500 in cash. later, on november 19, march and met the undercover agent again, this time at this holiday inn expres 51 pages of documents, marked seet or top secret, and again paid another $1,500. like a lot of other americans, in and out of uniform tonight --
>> we were interviewed at a bar turn out to be a spy, right? he was arrested in a sting operation by ncis and fbi. none of these were passed for foreign nationals but he was charged with 794, big espionage ghe did it in a court martial setting, and long-term financial reimbursements was what he said -- this man comes from mexico. -- mexico, new york. this year he plead guilty to 11 counts of attempted espionage for trying to sell classified material. he is sentenced to 48 years due to pretrial agreement. he is facing the 34 years of the federal charge in fort leavenworth. he says, "meizell was blinded by
greed." -- my soul was blinded by greed." he is facing 34 years of federal time. there is no parole for federal time did 34 years is 34 years. you never want to get charged federally. 10 is 10. yesterday, a young man here got convicted by the fed and got 100 years for multiple rapes, plus 27 years. 100 years federal time but that is 100 years federal time. this guy got 34 years that a time for doing that. other one, another man who was trying to volunteer to the israelis -- he did this in 2009. this year he pled guilty to 794, big espionage.
13 years for trying to do that. the case broke in 2009. new case of 2011. this was a very interesting case, remarkable that it went to trial. this went on foan activity that went on from 1990 to 200 it broke in july of this year in washington, d.c. kashmiri american council, located in washington, d.c. just down from where we are. he had over 5000 meetings with them. he was funneling money from the pakistanis to this organization. more than 4000 times with isi intelligence officers in washington, d.c. at the result washis.
>> the isi agent has pleaded guilty to charges of spying for the pakistani intelligence agency, isi. he has pleaded guilty to receiving millions of dolls from the isi for 1990 to 2001. he is charged with illegally lobbyingnd pakistan to influence u.s. policy in kashmir. >> it is an interesting one. he whawill probably get 10 years. another one broker in the fall of this year. brian underwood was a consulate guard in china. he tried to spy -- he sent letters to the prc with
information on the new consulate being build and the photographs he took inside the consulate. he gets arrested twice in september, because the first arrest, he is questioned by the fbi concerning the contents of the letter and the photographs. what did he do? he lied about it. he committed 1001. arrested on two counts of making a false statement. thatas in september 1st. he is supposed to appear in cot, same month in december, and he flees. they arrest him in l.a., and look what the charge is. they charged him with the 794, big espionage. he is facing life imprisonment for espionage if convicted of that, or he pleads guilty of that. that took place in september
here in washington, d.c. this is a remarkable case. he is arrested in october 11, 2011, as an agent of the syrian intelligence service. >> quiet role street in leesburg, virginia, residents watched as federal agents raided his home yesterday. according to neighbors, he, his wife, and children rented a house for two years. no one knew em very well. >> there were a lot of the vehicles up and down the road. obviously, threatening materials, kinds of things. >> he told a federal judge in his first court appearance that he wanted to hire his own attorney. for now, he will remain in federal custody. in a 15-page indictment, soueid
had a video and audio of people protestinghe syrian government. the indictment describes a recent trip to syria, a meeting between soueid and president bashar al-assad, and a meeting at the syrian embassy in washington, d.c. this is a photograph taken from his twitter page print there are only five tweets, all from last january. he worked at a friday of car dealerships across northern virginia -- a variety of car dealerships across northern virginia. >> he is going out t demonstrations that have taken place since the crackdowns began in syria his videotaping them, audio taping them. anti-syrian protesters in the
u.s., and eventually syria. he provided to the intelligence service, and that is used to intimidate families in syria. he recruits a netwk of individuals to help him in the united states to collect information on demonstrators in the united states, the protesters. and then he conspires to provide this information to the syrian intelligence service. these are targets of his demonstrations. these demonstrations have been going on. maybe you missed them, i'm not sure. the information is sent to an unidentified co-conspirator, and he is providing the reports by e-mail andin -- emailing them to the syrian embassy in
washington, d.c. audio recordings, links to web pages for protesters in the united states. a list of who is missing and dead date demonstrations that he is collected. a collection of telephone numbers, email of the protesters in the united states, the kind of information that would beof great value for the syrians to crack down, which they did. a good example of the things -- the cause and effect -- syrian composer and pianist in washington, demonstrating for protestersn july. and they went into his house, and this is what they did to his mother and father. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
they have actually come to the united states, the mother and father. they are still alive. the violations against protesters, he said, was justified. any methods used agait protesters -- these are his words justifying what he is doing. he is acting as an agent of the syrian intellince service, and when the fbi goes to talk to him, he lives. he is facing -- he lies. he is facing 40 years. 15 years for arms purchases, which he also made by falsifying his records -- called "piling on." he is facing 40 years for what he was doing in 2011. he must be held until trial.
in its first trial, the judge did not to stand -- they let him out on bond, the next judge said no, you cannot be doing that. he is scheduled to go on trial in may 2012. here is another case that broke in october of this year. >> the fbi says a young american soldiers stationed in alaska has been charged with eionage. the 22-year-old is a military policeman from kentucky. he is stationed at a joint army air force base in anchorage. >> this broke in anchorage. it was real quiet when it started. he is a military police officer, at an air force-army base in alaska, and he volunteers to an unidentified country. his group is called the arctic gladiators. it appears that he may have done
this bause his unit was deployed in he was left behind. unclear but not much has come out about this particular case, other than that he is under arrest. he tried to translate -- transmit unclassified information to a person he thought was a foreign agent. every so often you see this service, or someone tries to get a sub-agent. this was his home in kentucky. he had been in iraq previously, and that he was assigned in alaska in of this year, and then arrested in fall of this year. attempted espionage, failure to obey general orders, contact with a foreign official, soliciting statements and
communicating defense information. he wil be court-martialed, because he is in uniform. interesting to watch how this case unfolds. being investigated -- the three of them are working this case. that is what we have had in national security cases 2011. nine people involved in the united states in economic espionage cases. a couple of them are particularly interesting to highlight. chinese prc nationals who did not have diplomatic immunity, toward trying -- who were trying to violate the arms control act for munitions list items designed for satellite use.
they represented a company in the united states. they were eventually arrested in hungary, but it was an export case. it was extraditable. arrested in september 2010, but returned to the united states in april 2011. chinese nationals arrested here. in june, they pled guilty to smuggling microchips to companies controlled by beijing. that is what they got them on the crimes forbid they pled guilty, and have yet to be sentenced -- that is what they got them on the crimes for. they pled guilty, and have yet to be sentenced. these were giving information to iran, transportati technology information. they were doing shipping for information they could not send it to iran, but they were sending it to dubai for final
delivery to iran. the affidavit said they were using this to purchase millions of dollars worth of laptop computers, going ot dubai and then being diverted. the agent in dubai was arrested himself and sort of gave them up. this is pending trial in the united states. a non-criminal case, but economic case, a man and his father or conspiring with at packing company against amor packing, using aarketing data to compete against them. that was made of this year. this is interesting because of what he had access to. ethnic chinese in thenited states, a senior software engineer, 49 years old, a
national. it is not clear to me with the key is a nationalized american --whether he is a natio nalized american or born american, ph.d., worked in commodities trading pit they wanted to set up another company to do commodity trading in ina. he was getting the methodology used by his company to take after the company they were setting up in china. what did he do? he got the information, he downloaded as thousands of files onis thumb drive, transferred these stolen documents to his personal computer. he goes on, puts them on his email,ends them to china as
attachments. source codes, proprietary information. he was going to go to china in july. arrested on the first of july. he faces 20 years for doing -- for this economic espionage case. here is another case, with this man from colombia, very polite, involved with citadel investment. he is criminally charged and federally charged. >> a case that sounds like a spy novel. along with charges of corporate espionage, there are secret informants and scuba divers in canals. how it evolves around and i believe the financial whiz -- around an ivy league fincial
whiz. >> it is a caper that would rival anything you see in "mission: impossible." 24, a couple of years out of cornell. with billions in assets, citadel is one of the world's biggest hedge fund managers. the firm goes to great lengths to secure its employees and the computer network they use. the secret trading coats are known as alphas. this employee went out to steal those valuable goods by bypassing the company's intricate security protocols, then transferring the files to external devices. and questioned by his superiors, claiming he was merely downloading academic papers and music files. officials did not buy it, saying that pu was stealing trade
secrets. after he was caught,ederal agents were told that the 24- year-old computer whiz had come to some of the evidence into a sanitary pan out near the harbor. divers discoved computer equipment in the water here that contained the alphas, the building blocks of the firm's success. >> i want to move to overseas. if i might, let me go overseas and to show examples of things that are taking place there. first of all, if we look at what happened there, two european cases that are really interesting. one was in the netherlands, and it broke in march of this last year, where a 37-year-old pilot, a jet pilot, he was charged with spying for belarus, the belarus kgb.
it was made public in april 2008. our originally, this captain was arrested by the secret service as he was trying to pass state secrets to the belarus kgb. as the case began to unfold, we realized he had been working royal naval air force, no longer working for the service. this is a man who acknowledge that he had financial problems, that he had worked for defense for 13 years, and he had been on bombing raids in afghanistan. in a war fighter for them. -- he had been a war fighter for them to he wanted to do business with a resident of belarus. by the way, they still call that the kgb. there is a close relationship between belarus and today's russia sbrfsb.
it turns out it was a gru case. he was arrested at a meeting with the defense attache for the military. it seemshat in august, its serviceshat he had even more circuits -- it surfaces that he had even more secrets that they thought. when he was originally arrested, they did not say he had this much. he had in this and a container that was being shipped to the united arab emirates. that is where his material was, which was iluded in files and cd-roms. he attempted to pass the information, $500,000 of euros, and he was convicted in
december. he would have given up five more years. i have talked to europeans -- colonials a sensitive test and i should have had great debates about that. -- colonials are sensitive to espionage. i have had great debates about that. spy scandals -- great britain had won this year. the thought that after the and enchantment case, -- the anna chapman case, they had to have a big one. katia was working for a man in the parliament. it was a big issue in england. >> officials in london have been allowed to contact a young russian woman and arrested
almost a week ago on suspicion of spyg. she now faces deportation. she was an assistant to a british mp. the uk says she was gathering information on nuclear facilities. providead refuwssed to information about the rest, and had initially blocked access to the woman. >> she had been called a honey trap, a blond bombshell, and a russian spy working at the heart of british government. who is katia? her family moved to another part of southern russia to escape conflict. she attended this specialist language school, and like many
good students, kept in tou with their teacher, said in photographs from our trips and other mementos. >> she was a very hard-working student. i cannot believe it was all about katia until i saw her photo. >> unfortunately for katia, this is the type of story that the british pss loves. they dug up ever titillating detail about a woman who loved short skirts and high heels. france report and other side -- friends report another side to katia. >> part of the program was to test the international experts. a bright young woman who has the education, knowledge, loves our country, but is willing and ready to g abroad and share that experience but also gain more experience.
>> she had limited access to email in the detention facility where she is being held. she is appealing against the deportation order. >> she was held, there were going to deport her, it was news all this year. december of this year, they addea deportation hearing. >> very happy, thank you. >> katia has always protested her innocence, and she remains in the u.k. for this appeal. the immigration appeals commission has exonerated katia and overturned the deportation order. the panel found that katia is not, in the woods, a russian spy. -- in other words, a russioan
spy. the case was said to be wanting at every stage. >> it must have been very disappointing, with the great anticipation in this case, that it turns out to become according to this hearing, nothing. that is not true with the other one i am going to talk about it there is an ongoing spy war going on in asia. thailand, cambodia, korean spy wars. if you get involved in working the china issue and you have anything to do with taiwan, you will certainly know the intelligence service. we are still engaged in "a war without gunfire." if you look at what is going on, he is absolutely right. the national security branch,
which is like the foren intelligence service, the military intelligence bureau, and the minister of justice investigation bureau, there counter intelligence bureaus similar to the fbi. that is what constitutes the time and his intelligence service. -- taiwanese intelligence service. they are aggressive, they use official cover, and they agessively target prc students in the united states and around the world. the minister of justice investigation bureau is the one countering internal disorder. it does counterintelligence with in time what -- within taiwan. the military intelligence collects military intelligence information -- once again, big deal in china. what you find when you study
this by business, cases do not stand alone. each case it gets another case. that is what we see happening here. prc court-martial executed two of its own officers. these were a success with it taiwan intelligence service. spying for taiwan. that is 1999. they had been providing information onissiles. they were talking about the capability, and information, did not carry warheadat some times. missiles over taiwan has caused a lot of concern for taiwan. a good book to read on this is "assessing the threat."
it is out a lot more detail than i have time to talk to about. there have been 14 a very high- profile spies for the prc. look at these individuals, look at their rank, that it would they work. a retired colonel, petty officer, retired colonel from the military intelligence branch, civilian high-tech organization, mib, in essence of the organization of their intellence services penetrated, leading up to a case this year. it was almost like a crescendo. in september, a captain and his wife for capturing intelligence for the prc. he is arrested in 2002. they had recorded their son as a decoder for the navy and used
them also. this is a family affair, if you wod. they used their information to email. son would pass to dad, passes it to prc. the petty officer, when he was arrested for espionage, he got a life sentence. father was arrested on smuggling, released after allegedly agreeing to spy for china. that is how he became a prc spy. now he is working back against them. he took over $10,000 hong kong, a month. you don't find a lot of money exchanges in prc cases in the united states. you see economic cases i talked
about, but you don't see the kinds of high-cost things. but you do in this spy war that's going on. military bank officers were arrested. one was a colonel passing information, the other was a lieutenant colonel pasng information. these were the men were compromised the officers that i told you were executed in 1999. these were the sources. it led to these two officers being killed. this is a high-tech spy case. 2003. espionage scandals -- one of the biggest espionage of scandals ever in the island. he was released, and he never went to trial for smuggling for the prc he got away with it. primary research and development institute for the defense and armament range.
-- branch. announced that it came to taiwanese -- it had detained 24 taiwanese, and they at all confessed during the same time, high-profile individuals or arrested. this particular one was arrested in 2005, went to trial in 2007, sentenced to death. he, along with his co- conspirator, who was in china, prc national, who wo had recruited to work for them, they were both executed in 2008. he had graduated from medical school in 1981, said on a scholarship to germany, and he was living in germany, he got his medical degree, retained austrian citizenship, and began to visit the prc on a regular
basis. in 1989, he was recruited by the military intelligence branch, soviet natural access to -- so he had natural access to the prc. this was as early as 1989. he developed a network of the main man, spent about $300,00 with his wife setting up a restaurant. it was an important source for taiwan military intelligence penetrating the prc. he finds the man he knew was a relative of his, and he recruited him. a missile technology expert, and he provided information on strategic missiles. the question became how did they get a compromise. one member of the service made this comment, which i don't necessarily buy into,ut he
said that the sars outbreak of 2002 was a biological warfare for lemula by the prc. i don't buy that at all, but it is the kind of comment going on between them. who compromised these individuals? this colonel -- he paed the information, and another lieutenant colonel. but military intelligence. they were the sources of these two men who were executed then you have the counterintelligence service. he retired in 1997, and then recruited a friend of his who was still in the service. not un, and in these chinese cases. the -- were arrested in -- not uncommon in tse tiny spaces. they were arrested in 2007. he became a businessman in
china. there he was recruited by the prc, went back and reuid one of his friends. this goes on over and over again, people who go back and forth between the prc and china. this one was a section chief of the military intellince bridge. he went back to china too business, record once again. we are seeing it over and over again. is his motivation. china recruited him, saying who do you know in the organization. high level penetration. here is one who worked for the legislative arm, and the one that i find interesting, the adviser, the office of the president was recruited as a source, a former senior adviser to the office of the president. you can image what would
happen if that was in the united states. the prc has been very successful in penetrating taiwan in this spy war going on, and they had this high level access. >> aigh-ranking military official arrested on monday for supplying intelligence to the chinese regime. prosecutors believe this began in 2007. it is the highest case of espionage in taiwan in 20 years. arrested on charges of supplying intelligence to the chinese regime. the colonel is in charge of building taiwan's spy network in china and the intelligence bureau. he was recruited in 2004 to serve as a source in china. he told prosecutors -- [unintelligible] he returned to taiwan to get
formation from the colel. they say trachinese inteigence paid as much as one order thousand u.s. dollars. -- 100,000 u.s. dollars. >> the minister of national defence and covered it. this has been handed it to prosecutors. mib is doing damage control based on the situation. >> despite the major-general's reassurance, some consider these spies a serious danger. >> that was in the beginning -- end of 2010. the colonel was recruited by his
agent. he had been one his agents. he was pt of a network. he had worked for the colonel in 2003, 2005. eventually, the taiwanese thought he might be controlled. paid him off $50,000 for doing it they dropped him as a spy. in july 2006, they went back and recruited him and asked him to redeem himself, because he is living in china, contact his handler who was in taiwan, which he did. they say they were using the reception operation also. interestingly, because he was paid $46,000 by the prc, what was the end result?
the couple posted classified information 12 times, paid $100,000 for his action. he used the information to get himself promoted in his own organization. he ended up getting sentenced to life plus 21 years. it led them to the big one, and this is the big one that took place this year. >> taiwan detained a major general for allegedly spying for china. officials say he was promoted to general in 2008 but was recruited by china in 2004. >> i taiwanese major general has been detained for handing over military information to china. officials's military confirmed this on a wednesday. he spied for china for at least six years. >> the general was posted
overseas from 2000 to-- from 2002 to 2005. he was recruited by china in 2004. >> he says the military court searched his residence last month and detained a major general to provide the risk of him escaping, destroying evidence, or threatening military security. >> at that end of october last year, 2010, the defense ministry and national security department cooperated to obtain leads in the investigations. >> the defense ministry says that all should be cautious of china's intentions, even with the apparent warming of cross straight ties. taiwan officials say beijing has
about 1900 missiles aimed at the island, just 100 miles away. the major-general is the highest-ranking military official to be charged with espionage activities. >> this has been quite a remarkable case, because he had been providing iormation in 2004, he was a major general since 2008 . hhe turned on information on apache sales made by boeing, and the optical cable network, which we built for them, was compromised by him. it was in bangkok that he gets recorded by t -- recruited by the prc. in what appears to be a love relationship, he recruits this woman, and his last job, as you
can see, is military, electronic, and information department. he had intimate knowledge and privileged access to management systems, electronic codes, crucial military secrets. very significant for the defense of that area. he also had access to joint electronic warfare communications, as well as a special project on technology for encrypting communications with the island. part of the system was built by lockheed martin. all this information he could compromise. he was recruit -- he recruit a woman, initially pretend to be working in import-export trade, he met her and was recruited as a prc agenet. -- agent. paid as much as a million dollars. china does not pay that kind of
money except as it relates to china. he maintained contact with this woman even after he left taiwan, and there was se reporting that she had come to the unite states to meet him when he was here. he was not assigned here, but the woman was a high-ranking chinese aged to w station and had contact with him. that is un and aerospace confirmed. in april of this year, -he got u -- that is unconfirmed. in april of this year, he got life in prison. in june, another high-tech case -- prc tasking him for information related to military secrets also. >> i taiwanese software engineer has been sentenced to jail for a year-and-a-half after he was caught spying for the chinese regime. we spoke to one a time when he's lawmaker who said that the
prison sentence is too light -- one taiwanese lawmaker who said that the prison sentence is too light. >> the taiwan-cambodia border war -- you may not be aware that this is going on. there is a contentious border that exists between them. in february, a high-profile activi in taiwan's network, and his secretary, entered into cambodia from thailand, arrested,, unlawful entry,oing to a military base, and espionage. he got eight years, she got six months. another one was right on the border, where these three nationals -- thai, cambodia, vietnamese -- got caught spying on the border. there handler, a colonel,
apparently was not arrested. the three got o years in jail in september of this year ganother spy war going on. they were providing information that they saw. just military operation. it culminated this year. i want to talk about the spy wars up north and south korea. nobody espies and does things like the north koreans. two in july, 2010 -- two north koreans who had come into the south were sentenced by the court to 10 years for attempting to assassinate the former secrary of the north korean ruling communist party. this is a man in charge of their communist organization. he himself had defected to the
south in 1997. this has been a real problem for north korea. and they said an assassination team to track him down and to kill him. two of them were arrested in july 2010. this particular colonel, a career reconnaissance bureau, was in charge of the assassination operation, and they cut his head off. they are not pleased with him. a third career and was jailed and given 10 years for plotting to assassinate -- third korean was jailed and given 10 years for plotting to assassinate hthe same man. multiple accounts to track down the head of the communist party and assassinate him. another one took place in
september of this year. with the arab spring in bloom, south koreans said that this is something that the north korean- controlled society should know about. the south korean national intelligence service updetained a man on a platform. ark, the main in the photograph, was himself in north korean defector, he defected in 2000. he is a member of an organization called fighters for a free north korea. there were some 20 members who were sending him helium baloons into the north with propaganda leaflets concerning the arab spring, along with dollar bills and radios. they wanted the north to know what was going on in the world, because the north is so
isolated. obviously, the north is getting these plans, and this man was -- getting these baloons, and this man was a defector, so what do they do? they sent an assassination team. he was supposed to meet him at a transition, subway platform, and he was interdicted and arrested. when they arrested him, he was where didoison t, and the assassin come from? the assassin is also a defector. he had also defected to the south. the north contacted him and said that if you don't carry out this sassination attempt, we are going to kill yo family. what am i supped to do? they are going to kill my family.
he was arrested trying to commit is assassination. only in korea would use these kinds of things unfolding. he was trying to car this out before he was arrested. there was another defector, head of a christian group, they were trying to assassinate. another man with free north korean radio they were trying to assassinate. anothe man was part of the education center for unification that they were trying to assassinate. assassination is alive and well. north. defections have been an issue for some time. 22,000 north koreans have been at defected, 200 have been returned. you normally don't see that and other parts of the world, but you do see that there. one last black male case of this
year that i want to tell you a -- about. -- one last blackmail case of this year i want to tell you about. he was in bangladesh for a conference in october. he got involved with a woman. they approached him to recruit him. all indications are that he did not work with the pakistanis, but he turned himself in. he went back to india, and they are deciding whether to prosecute him or not. it became public just before christmas, and it is being done by the best whitby road -- is being done by the investigative bureau for in the ipad espionage is alive and well -- the investigative bureau for india. espionage is alive and well. there is two hours of the beginning of espionage for 2011.
i am open to any questions you have in the time have. yes, please. >> who do you think is killing the iranian scientists? >> ok, i have no inside knowledge on that whatsoever. but who has the capability and motivation for doing that? only one organization i think that would have the capability of doing that, the israeli intelligence servi. i do not believe that there would be any americans involved, contrary to what the iranians are saying. it could be iranian dissident organizations who are also upset. they may have been agents acting on their own, or with the support of israelis. i ve not seen any evidence to pinpoint a particular country. that would be my educated guess at this point. i retain the opportunity to
change my mind. but no one else has the capability or the willingness to do that. when they get you may find interesting -- last year there was an assassination that took place inubai, and it had all the earmarks of how israel operates. they did the assassinations, and two of them, when they flew out of dubai, flew to iran. that is like say i can come into your country, leang our country, and you don't even know. i am. -- and you don't even know i'm doing it. that is my educated guess at this time, with no inside knowledge whatsoever. any other questionyou have? >> going back to your definition
of espionage, little espionage, big espionage, is a man from what we think we know in the public domain -- assuming what we know in the public domain is true about julian assange and wikileaks, could a case be made against him for espionage? he is not an american, did not commit these acts in the u.s. on the other hand, he released this protected information to foreign powers. looking from espionage one of you, julian assange, want to sort of riff on that. >> assange and manning -- bradley is going to be charged in a court martial. they just at hearings on that -- article 34 review of the case. i think is going to go to trial. assange is another problem,
because even if you wanted to charge him, how would you get him here? theft of government property? he did not steal it, he received it. it also has a huge political dimension to it. that is always a consideration in these cases. tactically, technically, if he was in the united states and he received that information, he could and charged with 793, rention of information. you have the legal arguments, and if you follow closely, which i am sure you have, the documents that were made in the preliminary hearings, is the case or the following closely in the united states. in practical terms, i do not see him being charged in the united states, because i don't see any way you could practically do anything with the case because it is not in the united states. you have to talk to the department of justice about
whether they want to take that case, anyway, because of all the political dimensions. yes, please. >[unintelligible] >> to i think what? do i believe state-owned companies -- >> is there potential there? a potential for state-owned companies, say they hire a lawyer -- >> oh, those people to register. those people acting for the government -- you have to register. a french company and not related to the government, they do not have to register. there is many people who come to the department of justice and
minister. -- and register. lawyers and businessmen of all types and to register. within 10 days you go out and register as an agent of a foreign power. remember jimmy carter's brother billy acting for the libyans? he did not go and register when he was working with the libyans. it was a bit of a snafu. if it is a state-owned company, you are acting for the state and you have to register. naturally, i would go to my attorney for the final answer. [laughter] how about that? any other questions? >> if i remember correctly, the iranians have a u.s. stealth
drone. what are they going to do with that? >> i don't know. what you think? the matter of time you -- of can you spoof it -- i don't think it is a big deal. it. use technology, then you can jus -- you lose technology, then you can change the technology. yes, it is interesting, and we haa great debate here on what is the difference between selling or getting a drone and getting a fighter pilot? you can make it cheaper, which is one of the issues. but i don't think that is as big a deal in the long term. but that is my personal opinion, don't hold me to. >> thank you so much.
has beea wonderful evening. i think we are all [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> next, south carolina congressman tim scott leads a town hall meeting with undecided voters. then a discussion on president obama's proposal to consolidate some federal agencies. then the supreme court ruling on the sec and fox television. >> and look at climate change
and scientists behind the research. >> there are research scientists who have manipulated data. >> what i'd do is break different comments by politicians on a 1-4 scale. if you say something that is really outrageous that is a telephone -- that is unfounded, you get four pinocchios. whether or not they're deliberately lying -- i mean, i do think that if a politician says the same thing over and over again, even when it has been pointed out that it is untrue, but they know the piercing something untrue and they will just say it anyway. >> glenn kessler sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> next, tim scott hosts a
presidential town hall meeting in myrtle beach south carolina. it is one in a series of meetings he is hosting for undecided voters on a series of issues. joining congressman scott is the virginia gov. bob mcdonnell. he offers his views on the presidential field and his role in the campaign. this is about an hour. >> one more announcement. these police that you see around you, they are armed and dangerous. i would like to introduce someone that i have gotten to know over the last year. i have worked with probably 100 members of congress now and some are better than others. and you should be very proud. and you should -- there must have been some sort of divine
intervention because something good happened in the first congressional district of south carolina. i have had the chance to get to know the congressman now. he understands policy. he understands people. and he understands the country and what it needs. there is a lot of anxiety and a lot of anger in this country right now. and a lot of division. and if there's anyone that i know from this new class that has the capability to bring people together and to get them to be optimistic again and confident again and believe that their children will inherit a better country just as we did from our parents it is because of congressman tim scott. please welcome him. [applause] >> good evening, myrtle beach, south carolina.
this kind of reminds me of my thoughhigh school football daysa crisp chilly evening, thinking about what needs to happen next to get us back on track to win the game in america. we are planning for the state that matters. this is probably the most important presidential election in all of our lifetime [applause] we need a president that may need to read the notes, but hewe have had a series of town be hall meetings. i thought to myself, i would love for my constituents to hear from a governor who understands how to actually cut spending. a new concept in washington. a cut is off of the imaginary number that never exactly
existed. we will cut spending from where it might go but up from where it is. challenging math that is only understood in washington, d.c. but in virginia we have a governor that took a $6 billion shortfall and turned it into a $1 billion surplus. how many of you like i-73? we have a governor who understands the necessity of infrastructure and make decisions on investing in it. we have with us the next speaker he will hear, not only is he the governor of virginia, bob mcdonnell, but he may just be the balancing act necessary to bring the white house back to our site. he may be the next vice- president. you never know. let's hear it for governor bob mcdonnell. [applause] thank you. >> how great to be back. i was telling tim when i was a
young kid, my parents would bring the family down here every year. how many of you remember the old crescent beach? that is where we were every year for about a decade through the 1960's and early 1970's. i have some money fund -- fond memories. that is why 73 was a pretty good idea because i remember how long it took to get here. thank you for hosting these town halls and allowing me to be here. you have had so many presidential candidates here already to give south carolinian is a firsthand look at the candidates. i cannot tell you how much i appreciate what he has done. he can to campaign for some of our candidates in 2009 and 2010 in virginia. he is a great conservative vote in the united states congress who sticks to his guns. it is why he has already taken the stand to do things we need to do like cutting the
corporate income tax rates so we can have more american dollars to be reinvested and being able to expand them around the world. thank you for your leadership to get a you have done a great job in a short period of time. [applause] doctor frank luntz who has done a great job with some of the focus groups over the years and has been helpful to me and has given me advice. i have already run into five virginians. thank you for coming. on behalf of the 8 million people in virginia, i want to deputize all of you as honorary virginians. i come from the state or the first two governor's where patrick henry and thomas
jefferson. that is the get i got. i know that you guys are all freedom loving people who understand the american dream. all of you by those gas lamps, i suggest to be a little careful. it uses natural gas which is a terrible fossil fuel. we may have the epa come down here and put us out of business. i've brought a couple of people down here with me. my campaign manager when i ran for governor who is now the executive director of the american governors association, that is phil cox. thank you for coming. i am from the government and i am here to help. ronald reagan said that and i thought it would be a good opening line. i know what he meant.
it is only helpful when it knows the will of the people and respects the constitution of the united states of america.we take that seriously in virginia. we were the first state to file against obama-care a year ago. i know your attention is on the critically important goal of winning back the united states senate. and more importantly, elected a new commander in chief. i think it is our top priority for our country. i think there are three things that will determine the outcome that are vitally important. one, we need to get the greatest country in the world back to work.
this chronic unemployment rate that has been over 9% for 32 months is just unacceptable and unsustainable. it quashes the ability of the american people to pursue the american dream. this president's policies on jobs are horrible -- new spending, new taxes, new regulation. failing to recognize is the brilliance of the entrepreneur that really gives access to the american dream. we realize that are in a virginia. we made jobs are top priority. our campaign bumper sticker was bob for jobs. we have the lowest unemployment rate in the se, 6.2%. we are the most business friendly state in america. we get it. if you keep taxes and litigation low, and say the risk takers and people there want to
have health is good, then we will have people that will invest in your state. secondly, we have more debt and more deficits with this president than have been racked up than any other three-year period with this president's leadership. that is absolutely the wrong thing to do. we are mortgaging the future of our kids. we are $15 trillion in debt. there is no way to spend our way out of this problem. we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. we need to say what is right for our country and spend accordingly. [applause] so we will realize that. we have a $6 billion budget deficit. when i became governor, my former governor was tim kaine, who was head of the democratic national committee at the same
time, left me with a $6 billion deficit and a tax increase to try to spend it. we said no. we cut spending, and balance the budget. we have $1 billion in surpluses. that is what can be done with leadership like tim's in congress. the third thing is the most important and that is leadership. leadership really does matter. who sets the rules for our country really does matter. that is why these elections are so important. the outcome really does matter. this president has blamed all the problems, whether unemployment our jobs, it is the fault of the tea party or the house republicans. i say, mr. president, you are the commander in chief, take responsibility. set priorities, cut spending and get results. that is what you should be doing. we need a leader that wants to
put in place results oriented conservatism. that is to stick to your guns but quit making excuses. get things done. what americans want is people that will get the basic services, the statutes and convert -- plus a togiola requirements -- constitutional requirements done well and then stay out of their way so people can be free to use their god- given talents to pursue the american. that is what we need to do. i look forward to your questions and participating in this town hall. when all this hot air from is politicians, we will warm this place up pretty quickly. thank you very much. >> we have just been joined by the chairman of the south carolina gop. [applause]
the way the format works is pretty simple. u.s. the questions, i am your conduit, -- u.s. the questions. and i will articulator to the guy out there. -- you ask the questions. the first question comes from michael and tracie griffin. thank you for being here. mr. vice-president -- [laughter] i would like to get used to the new titles. recently, the president has talked about downsizing the government. what are your thoughts on whether or not he is sincere, and how would you encourage those of us on the right to join him in an attempt to reduce the size of government? >> thank you for that question, because talk is cheap. actions and results matter.
what we have seen over the last three years, congressman, despite your best efforts and your colleagues, particular your freshman i made a house, we have three from virginia -- i hope they are helping you -- is just the opposite. we have seen some of the greatest expansion of government power in history. look at what he tried to do it in south carolina with the nlrb. could not get things done like card check. so he tried to do administratively with three unelected people in the nlrb and try to stop blowing from coming to the west coast to south carolina. the obama-care legislation creates i do not know how many dozens and dozens of new agencies and programs. so what we have seeing is more spending, more government solutions. and so here we are 10 months
away from an election, i think we will see him go to the middle to create common sense policies, because everybody knows we have to do it. we are broke. $15 trillion in debt. i have to say over the last decade, republicans have contributed to some of that debt in the early part of this decade. we have not want to turn the clock back. if we go from where we were when obama took office and to almost $5 trillion of additional debt in three years is unbelievable. it is more taxation, more regulation, more unionization. these of the things the president has promoted. it is the opposite of what you need to do to encourage the entrepreneur to take risks and grow, borrow capital and create jobs. while i've heard he wants to consolidate the small business administration, department of commerce and elevated to cabinet level position and create efficiencies, and if he
is serious about it he says it will save $3 billion over 10 years. then fine, i applaud him. but that is a drop in a the bucket compared to what needs to be done. as long as he does not change his view that we cannot cut entitlements, it will not work. everybody knows you cannot balance this horrific $1.50 trillion a year deficit if you are not serious about entitlement reform and government reform across the spectrum. and so i hope he is serious. i hope that when he is right, that we find that common ground and cut government, but there is so much more to do. i do not think on the big stuff the president has a real interest in reducing government. most of the solutions are just the opposite -- a big government, as opposed to more freedom. >> thank you, governor. one of the great challenges we have had over the last year is
that we like 80% of what he says, but we 89% of what he does. next question comes from victoria williams. victoria? thank you for being here. victorious says, virginia has done a fantastic job as relates to the unemployment rate -- 6%. our state is 10%. our nation is at 8.5%. how can we model our economic attitude and our behavior is after the great state of virginia? >> i love the softball questions. thank you so much. keep throwing them up here. honestly, i do not think it is that hard. we know what works. we have been the greatest country on earth since our foundation 235 years ago. we understand these basic principles of freedom and federalism and limited government and understanding that free people, where we promise opportunity.
that is what we guarantee -- opportunity. we do not guarantee outcome. a fundamental difference between us and other socialist- style country. we promise opportunity to pursue the american dream. so i think that is what we need to do. the best way we can do that is some of the kinds of things that you do. we have the second highest corporate income tax in all of the world. no wonder capital is fleeing america for europe and asia. you've had one of the great ideas with your rising tide legislation to cut that 35% federal income tax so we do not force american businesses to go to singapore or china or taiwan or some other country, where those rates are lower. the president of coke said a couple of months ago says it is easier to do business in china then to do business in america with this president. shocking.
i was in china on a trade mission six months ago, and they want to do business with america. they are cutting bureaucracy and trying to find ways to model themselves after what we do in america. they are learning a lot from us. so we should not be having the kinds of policies. so what we have done is we have tried to cut taxes in those areas that impair the ability of businesses to create and grow access to capital. we tried to create some targeted incentives by looking at what is virginia good at. we are guided advanced manufacturing and cyber security and modeling and simulation and wine and tourism and film. we just had that steven spielberg do his lincoln movie in virginia. imagined a liberal democrat during a movie about a conservative republican president. we thought it was great. we are promoting new incentives focused on those industries. you know what is most important
right now? this president is spending most of this time attacking people that are successful. the president is a nice guy. he is a good family man. his wife was just in virginia with my wife doing things for veterans. that was common ground. but his policies are just flat wrong. he is attacking people that are successful. creating this class warfare argument that if you have been successful in taking risks and been blessed in return, that somehow you are stomping on other people's rights. we should condemn the. that is absolutely wrong. that is not the american formula for success. tim, what i say is, look, if you want to come to virginia and relocate your business, we love you. come on. we have people from california, people like hilton and northrop grumman and other major companies that have relocated because they do not get it when it comes to taxes and regulation and we do. we know this is a competitive marketplace, not only for ideas
but also for jobs. the more you can make your state business and family friendly and bring in those job creators, the better off you are going to be. these are pretty elementary concepts. tim gets it. we put them in place in virginia. your governor is trying to do that. chris christie and rick scott are doing that in their states. that is why you see that some of the most pro-business states in america are headed by republican governors. virginia has been ranked number one this year, but those other republican governors are doing the same things. >> thank you, governor. another amazing challenge comes from jason watson. are you here? thank you. he is a commercial fisherman. a lot of time, he deals with the regulatory environment that is getting worse and worse on commerce.
specifically, catch limits of that impacts offshore fishing, but more important is the regulatory environment that has stifled growth throughout this nation is doing it more because in the last 12 months we added 70,000 pages of the compliance cost of $95 billion just to comply. could you talk about that? >> yes. i mentioned i think the great cancer that undermines entrepreneurship is regulation. in some cases, it is unionization. because he cannot do certain things done on various environmental front like cap and trade and certain union areas like card check, he tried to use the administrative process act with bureaucrats, but you try to get them to pass
of volumes of the regulation that enact some of these policies. i think some of these are beyond the scope of what congress intended and permitted our people to do. so regulations, as long as they have of valid consumer protection or public safety impact and do it in the least intrusive way, upon the citizens, then it makes sense. but some of the regulations we have seen over these last couple years, particularly with the gobs of them being promulgated for obama-care are a hidden tax. they add to the cost of doing business. and who pays for it? you do, because it is passed on as part of the cost of doing business from the businessman. it is the same thing in the
fishing area. i think we do need to balance the sensible goal of protecting our environment and protecting our natural resources with the needs of commerce. and for a long time in most states in the nation we realize there has to be some limits on catches of all kinds of things. we have some of those limits in virginia. if they become excessive to achieve a political objective on behalf of people that are far left to it comes to environmental protection, then you stifle entrepreneurship. that's should be our goal. >> our next question comes from tom middleton. here's a question about voter fraud and the federal intrusion.
in south carolina, our immigration law, our voter id, are some areas where we see the federal government coming into our state or suing us were trying to steal our jobs. his question is, how do we stop the voter fraud and how do we stop the intrusion that the federal government seems to be doing rapidly throughout this nation? >> one of the great hallmarks of the american republic is that for the most part, people have confidence in the outcome of elections. you see these horrible images and other countries that were these totalitarian regimes get 99% of the vote and everybody knows what is going on there. and having that principle of one man, one vote, be counted is so important to our founders. it was one of the things our revolution was about -- those colonists were denied
representation. they decided they would make their stand and fight for it. so making sure that everybody cast one vote and not more than one vote is also important. we have done some things like some basic voter identification requirements at the polls, just to prove who you are without doing anything to suppress voter turnout. it is a common-sense way to do it. i think a lot of states are doing that. with regard to the overbearing federal government, that would take the rest of this town hall and beyond. you know, when the 10th amendment was adopted, it meant something. it meant that article i section 8 of the constitution was the box the federal government was suppose to be in. that articulated those limited powers of what washington was supposed to do. when the federal government gets outside of that box and
tries to be all things to all people or to do what ever the courts allow them to do, it really tramples on what the 10th amendment was all about which says what ever they cannot do it is left to you, the people and the states respectively. i think an important part of what we are trying to do at the republican governors' association is to help to re- balance those powers between state and federal government. what madison and mason and jefferson and others wrote a lot about. limiting the federal government is a lot of what those first 10 amendments were about. it is to guarantee those individual liberties to the citizens and to the states respectively. i think we need to have a louder voice. we will be doing a lot of that
at the republican governors association, especially when we see the results that states are getting individually with republican governors compared to what we are seeing coming out of this administration. individual governors are closer to the people. that is what jefferson really believe, the government closest to the people really does work. it is more responsive, more attentive. just like these meetings we are having here. tim believes that. these limitations that go into the constitution really do mean something and we should restore them. .
>> if they did an excerpt from "hair," could they televise that? >> i think it would raise serious questions. i think nudity is going to raise very serious questions, and i think -- >> in the opera in the "metropolis" case there's a scene where a woman is seen nude entering a bathtub. suppose that were shown, that scene from the opera. >> well, i don't -- i think, justice ginsburg, that in a context-based approach, there's not going to be perfect clarity. we recognize that. but i do think with respect to this broadcast, and that's the question before the court, whether fox -excuse me, whether abc was on fair
notice of whether this broadcast would bring them within the rule. >> what -- what you're saying is, is that there is a public value in having a particular segment of the media with different standards than other segments. and forget radio. let's just talk about television. but -- you know, in the briefs, it says how much -- how many cable stations there are, and you, what do you call it, you surf the -- you go through all the channels. and it's not apparent to many people which are broadcast and which are not. but you're saying that there's still a value, an importance, in having a higher standard or different standard for broadcast media on the television. why is that, when there are so many other options, and -- and when it's not apparent to many viewers which of the two they're watching? just because it's an important symbol for our society that we aspire to a culture that's not
vulgar in -- in a very small segment? >> two points in response to that, justice kennedy. first, i think the court's previous decision in this case goes a long way to providing an answer, that yes, it does make a difference to preserve a safe haven where if parents want to put their kids down in front of the television at 8:00 p.m., they know that there's a segment of what's available that -- where they're not going to have to worry about whether the kids are going to get bombarded with curse words or nudity. >> well, but -- >> but this goes >> and then there's -- and then there's the chip that's available. and of course, you ask your 15- year-old, or your 10-year-old, how to turn off of the chip. they're the only ones that know how to do it. [laughter] that does point out the problem with the v-chip, of course, the v-chip is not new. it's been around for more than a decade, and the -- the broadcasters have tried to encourage uptake.
the government has tried to encourage uptake. but -- but is your point is that the chip technology works better if you have this differentiation between broadcast and cable media? >> no, a different point. i think that -- i want to get to what i think is the fundamental point here, that whatever may be the case with respect to the ability of a viewer to differentiate whether something is a broadcast channel or a cable channel, the reality is that broadcasters are in a different position by virtue of the fact that they have a license from the government that comes with this enforceable public obligation that allows the government to create this safe haven, and that puts them in a different position. >> well, in a way, that's circular. that's what we're here to argue about. i'm asking, is there a functional, pragmatic, practical difference between the two? >> is there -- well, i'm sorry, justice kennedy. the v-chip works with both broadcast and cable
transmissions, to the extent it works. the -- what the briefs have pointed out -- and i would suggest in particular that the court look at the brief from the american academy of pediatrics, which does a very thorough job in explaining the many ways in which the v-chip has proven to be a deficient technology. a lot of it goes to the inaccuracy and incompleteness of the codes, the labels that the programmers put in to begin with, which have to be there in order for the v-chip to decide what gets through and what doesn't. and i would point out in this very case, for example, with respect to the -- for example, the 2003 billboard music awards broadcast with the paris hilton-nicole richie back and forth, one would never have known from the code affixed for the v-chip purpose that that broadcast was going to have those kinds of words in them. >> what will happen when when we get to the point where
-- when there are only a handful of people in the entire country who are still receiving television programs via the airwaves? >> well, i do think we're not there now, as we've said in our brief. >> we're almost there, right? 10 percent? >> but that -- but i think that really makes what i think is one of the most fundamental points here, is that the broadcasters want to have it both ways, right? they -- the spectrum licenses they have are worth billions and billions of dollars. spectrum is staggeringly, staggeringly scarce, and -- and they're sitting on an enormously valuable resource which they got for free, and then they have a statutory benefit of must-carry, which gets them on cable systems automatically, and a further statutory benefit of preferred channel placement on -- on those -- >> sign -- sign me up as supporting justice kennedy's
notion that this has a symbolic value, just as we require a certain modicum of dress for the people that attend this court and the people that attend other federal courts. it's a symbolic matter. and if this is -- these are public airwaves, the government is entitled to insist upon a certain modicum of decency. i'm not sure it even has to relate to juveniles, to tell you the truth. >> and we certainly agree, justice scalia, with the point that was made in the court's previous decision in this case, that -- for example, the words that are in the fox broadcast, teachers don't use those words with students. you don't hear those words in churches or synagogues. you -there are many, many contexts -- >> well, you do more and more. you do more and more, since there's -- [laughter] since there's so much of it on -- >> if i think if i may --
>> you are saying that the standard can still be symbolic, as justice scalia said. we want the king's english -- for the very children we're talking about when they go on the street, when they -- their big brother says something to them, it is -- the words that were, the expletives, are in common parlance today. i mean, it is -- i think that children -- the children are not going to be shocked by them the way they might have been a generation ago. >> justice ginsburg, something this court said in its prior decision is right on the mark with respect to this issue, which is it's a question of whether it's portrayed as appropriate. and when it is -- it's one thing when your 13-year-old brother is saying it to you or some bully in the schoolyard's saying it to you. it's another when it's presented to you in this medium as an appropriate means of communication. that's true with respect to words, and it's also true with
respect to nudity. if i might reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, general. mr. phillips. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- i'd like to respond initially to some of general verrilli's general observations. first of all, he talks about indecency as somehow serving as the core of the overall understanding of the regulatory deal that was made here. and it's difficult for me to accept that notion when there was no effort whatsoever to enforce the standard of indecency between 1927 and 1975. >> well, that's because broadcasts didn't commonly have this sort of -- these sorts of words or these sorts of images. >> well, maybe, maybe not. we don't know. all we know is that for a period of 50 years, nothing happened, so the idea -- >> we know. we know. we can -- it was not the case from 1927 until whenever you -- what, 1970-something -- that nudity commonly appeared on broadcast television or the various words we're dealing with here commonly appeared.
so it seems a bit much to say well, they didn't bring any cases for that period. there were no cases to be brought. >> the only point i'm trying to make, chief justice, is that if you're talking about this as sort of the core understanding between the parties, it simply played a fairly minor role in the process through the bulk of the regulatory period we're talking about. and indeed, if you put it in context, this is a statute that prohibits obscenity, profanity and indecency. and while the fcc spent a lot of time writing about profanity as somehow being offended by what went on in this omnibus order, the commission has completely abandoned that under the -- >> how about this, mr. phillips -- look, you've been given a privilege and that gives the government at least somewhat more leeway to impose obligation on you. not -- can't impose everything, but at least has a bit more leeway. and here we've had something that's very historically grounded. we've had this for decades and decades that the broadcast is -- the broadcaster is treated differently. it seems to work and it -- it seems to be a good thing that there is some safe haven, even
if the old technological bases for that safe haven don't exist anymore. so why not just keep it as it is? >> well, first of all, justice kagan, it was important to catch the answer to your question when you asked it of general verrilli, which was, you're not saying that we lose all of our first amendment rights. so clearly we retain our first amendment rights. and under those circumstances, it seems to me you've got just two ways. first of all, the idea that it, quote, "worked," it worked perfectly fine from all the way up until 2001, even i would say until 2004, when the commission wildly changed its approach. and it's only become dysfunctional since 2004. and as we sit here today, literally facing thousands and thousands of ginned-up computer-generated complaints that are holding up literally hundreds of tv license renewals, so that the whole system has come to a screeching halt because of the difficulty of trying to resolve these issues. so to say that the system is
working well seems to me, at least from the broadcasters' perspective, is to suggest that's just not true. >> well, you want us to overrule a decision of this court, pacifica? >> yes, justice. >> now, as to radio, what has changed? >> i'm not here -- >> -- to justify that? well, could we hold that the policy is invalid as to -- on first amendment grounds as to tv but not as to radio? >> absolutely, your honor, because there are fundamentally different media and there are different protections and the circumstances are different and the court has recognized that media have to be evaluated individually. but what has happened over the 30 years with respect to the broadcast side of television is a very fundamental change. cable is now equally pervasive. cable is now equally accessible to tv, satellite equally accessible to tv. >> but that cuts both ways. people who want to watch broadcasts where these words or expose their children to
broadcasts where these words are used, where there is nudity, there are 800 channels where they can go for that. all we are asking for, what the government is asking for, is a few channels where you can say i'm not going to -- they are not going to hear the s word, the f word. they are not going to see nudity. so the proliferation of other media it seems to me cuts against you. >> well, it seems to me there are two answers to that. first of all the notion that one medium operates in a certain way in the exercise of its first amendment rights can be used as an explanation for taking away or for restricting the first amendment rights of another medium is flatly inconsistent with what this court has said across the board in the first amendment context. you don't balance off one speaker against another and give one favored status and give another unfavored status. >> well, that's your argument there, is that it's not a legitimate objective to have a safe harbor. >> well, you can get a safe harbor, and indeed there are a number of safe harbors that are out there. first of all, there are a ton of
cable networks that are aimed exclusively at children. there are five, six, eight stations that i guarantee you where you will see none of that language. and second of all, it's always available to the united states government to decide to hold this -to create its own license for the united states to be a broadcaster and to ensure that the broadcasts of the united states public network exclude anything they want to exclude, because that's government speech, and it is in no way restricted by what the first amendment would provide. >> but if we rule in your favor on first amendment grounds, what will -- people who watch fox be seeing between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.? are they going to be seeing a lot of people parading around in the nude and a stream of expletives? >> not under the guidelines that fox has used consistently from 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. and candidly that all of the other networks follow. the truth is the advertisers and the audiences that have to be responded to by the networks insist on some measure of
restraint, not a measure of restraint -- >> so what will you put on that you are not able to put on now? >> well, some of the things that we could at least wonder about is "saving private ryan," "catch-22," perhaps the beginning of the olympics. there is a whole slew of questions, i mean. and if you go beyond that and you think about what speech has been chilled, the tillman memorial service is not broadcast because of fear of what's going to be said there. football games, basketball games, local news events -- >> all right, so suppose we take that particular line. you didn't argue -- i mean, fox didn't argue -- fox was worried about the fleeting expletive policy in golden globe. i doubt in golden globe, when it was before the commission, they raised all these vagueness challenges to the whole 2001 policy. so why -- here you have taken a much broader stance, now, though you didn't before. i mean do you want to say
anything about what i think is the basic issue that fox raises? we don't have to overrule pacifica. what fox was penalized for was two women on television who basically used a fleeting expletive which seems to be naturally part of their vocabulary. [laughter] >> and we're worried about small stations that cannot censor people because they don't know what they are going to say. all right, that is what we wrote, i think in my opinion, anyway. we were worried about that. >> right. >> are you abandoning that argument? >> no, no, no, of course not. but you have to realize, justice breyer, i mean the second circuit, because it didn't have available to it sort of what to do precisely with pacifica, tended to focus on the question of vagueness. vagueness was certainly an argument that we made there, but -- >> it's an a, b, c argument primarily. but you made that argument in the second circuit. what i am fishing with, you don't have to comment more, but -- is do we have to reach that argument? it's -- >> no -- >> it's very, very broad. >> no.
it's absolutely clear to me that if this court wants to say we decided the outer limits of the 1st amendment in pacifica and it goes to the verbal shock treatment that justice powell described in a separate opinion, and this doesn't come anywhere near that, and therefore this is beyond what the 1st amendment provides, the court can clearly hold that way and -- >> well, that's not really clear. i mean, if you want us to be really clear you should ask the fcc to simply outlaw any fleeting use of the f word or the s word, any shots of any nudity in any movie, buttocks included. that would give you all of the notice that you need. why don't you propose that? boy, that's certain as can be. >> well, our basic argument would then -- i mean, obviously what -- you would be taking away the vagueness argument, but that would just bring you back then, justice scalia, to the core pacifica argument and the question of how far can the -- how is it permissible to allow the fcc to regulate the broadcast networks on standards that are
fundamentally different than cable, the internet and every other medium that exists? i would be perfectly happy if they want to try to adopt those kinds of standards and subject them to the strict scrutiny requirements that this court applies to every other medium because the truth is those requirements will not withstand scrutiny under those particular standards. >> well, broadcast tv is living on borrowed time. it is not going to be long before it goes the way of vinyl records and 8 track tapes. >> i hope that -- i'm sure my client is not thrilled to have you say that. >> well, i'm sure -- i'm sure your clients will continue to make billions of dollars on their programs which are transmitted by cable and by satellite and by internet. but to the extent they are making money from people who are using rabbit ears, that is disappearing. do you disagree with that? >> no, i -- it would be -- you know, obviously not, because that's why we are not uniquely accessible or uniquely
pervasive. >> yeah. so why not let this die a natural death? or why do you want us to intervene -- >> well, because -- well, we didn't ask you to intervene, actually the fcc is going to ask you to intervene -- >> but you are asking us to intervene by overruling a prior precedent. >> well, i believe -- well, i think once the issue is before the court it ought to decide the 1st amendment question that's presented here. and the 1st amendment question says what can the fcc do under these circumstances. it seems to me there are probably 4 different ways you can go about it, all of which says what the fcc did here is wrong. you can say pacifica is an exceedingly narrow decision and it goes to the outer limits of what the 1st amendment allows the fcc to do. what they have done here is unconstitutional. >> but isn't the inevitable consequence or this precise consequence that you're arguing for on this fleeting expletive portion of this case, that every celebrity or want to be celebrity that is interviewed can feel free to use one of these words. we will just expect it as a
matter of course, if you prevail. isn't that the necessary consequence of this case? >> well, that they will use it, perhaps. but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't continue to try to bleep it out as best we could. because we have our own -- >> well, i mean even you did in this one, you said now remember you're on television, which was just -- giving an added incentive for these vulgar comments. >> well, that was clearly not -- i mean from fox's perspective it was not scripted to set it up that way. but, remember, the first -- the first expletive -- >> but, i mean, isn't it inevitable that this will happen? >> it is inevitable that -well, i think it's inevitable regardless that people are going to continue to use language that they would naturally use. so yes, i do think you can expect on cable and any other forum in which you have humans speaking that this kind of language will expand. i don't know that it -- and it will probably be the case that in some context, particularly live television, which is really what is placed in jeopardy by this, that you will
have less live television because your concern is people will continue to use this language. on a lot of awards shows i think it's candidly easier to go ahead and bleep this. it's not always -- it's not foolproof, but the stations are committed to doing that. they have all got their standards and that was applied in this particular case. so while there may be some marginal increase in it, if you compare it to the use of this language beyond the broadcast context, it is just the narrowest of slivers of entry -- >> do you think that there is a difference between what a person sees on broadcast channels and what a person sees on basic cable? basic cable now? >> can the average child understand of the difference between the two -- >> no, in content. is there a difference in content? because basic cable channels are not restricted by these rules,
and i am just wondering whether you think there is a difference. because it has not been apparent to me that there is. >> well, i mean, in some show -- i think it probably depends on which -- which channels you -- you look at, and even in the basic channels. but the -- there is a cartoon that is significantly more adult that is on the cable channels than the cartoons that you might see on the -- on the fox television. so yes, i think there is probably a certain edgierness to it, but that said, it's still clear that -- that as long as you have advertising revenue that -- that drives a significant amount of the decision-making here, you are going to have the kind of self- restraint that frankly ought to cause the court to say we should no -- we no longer need to treat the broadcast medium as the weak sister of -- of the media. and therefore they ought to have the same protections that everybody else has, and that they will engage in the same restrained approach to these kinds of issues that newspapers do -- i mean, the post doesn't run the language of the case that's - that's being argued before it -- that cable does, all of those media do, because there are natural restraints. you don't need the federal
communications commission any longer to ensure under these circumstances. >> what you acknowledge to be the vulgarity of cable suggests otherwise, doesn't it? >> well, i'm not suggesting that there is -- there is some kind of wildly different approach. all i am suggesting is that there -- that in general most people who -- who rely upon advertising and have to play to a particular audience in order to make their money, it's going to -- it's going to obviously be restrained. >> well, that depends what your audience -- >> but at a minimum broadcasting will be -- >> it depends on what audience you're -- you're trying to get, and the demographic. if you are trying to get an audience that is older, maybe you will decide this is what is going to attract them. they don't want sanitized language. they want to hear the -- the -- all those other words. if your target is a much younger audience, maybe that will happen. but the idea that you're -- the problem is going to go away because you are going to be good as you can be, that seems an odd way to analyze first amendment problems.
>> well, no, i think it ought to go -- it ought to be analyzed the exact opposite, which is that -- that the -- the obligation, the burden rests on the federal communications commission and congress to show that there is a real problem that needs to be solved and that this is narrowly tailored to achieve that. thank you. >> thank you, mr. phillips. mr. waxman. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- when the issue is the content-based regulation of speech, it is the government, not the speaker, that must steer, quote, "far wide of the prohibited zone." that foundational principle is nowhere in evidence in the fcc's current enforcement regime, which not only intrudes into the prohibited zone but also enforces the indecency ban in a starkly inconsistent manner.
a regime in which government officials decide years after the fact that 7 seconds of rear nudity in this particular episode of "nypd blue" is indecent, but 40 seconds of nudity including full frontal nudity in "catch-22" is not, that expletives in a documentary about blues musicians is indecent, but even more of those expletives in a fictional movie about world war ii is not, is constitutionally intolerable. >> people understand -- what you have demonstrated i think is that the context matters. people understand that, including children. when they hear a bad word when someone hits their thumb with a hammer, they understand that's different than having an adult stand in normal conversations and use the words. and it seems to me that your position is saying that the government cannot regulate with an understanding of what takes
place in the real world. the government's effort is to try to understand the context. that's why you get a different rule in "saving private ryan" than you get with paris hilton and nicole richie. and what your argument seems to be is they can't take context into account. >> on -- quite the contrary. this court made clear, in particularly justice powell's concurrence in pacifica, that context is all-important. and just look at this case. despite -- and this goes directly to some of these questions about nudity -despite decades of denying complaints about televised nudity, the commission chose this case for the first time to sanction nudity on television in a serious drama that had been on for 10 years that had featured over -- >> but this wasn't -- i mean, i -- don't know about this instance. it's called "nude awakening," it's about the sexual awakening of a child.
you ran it, your client, after 10:00 on both coasts and they choose to run it at 9:00 for some unknown reason in the midwest. maybe they thought -- i don't know, whatever. >> i -- >> but my point is what the fcc terribly told you to do was run it 1 hour later in the midwest, just as you did on the coast. >> yes. >> and -- and why is that not -- i'm not saying, taking this point of view, but i'm saying why -- isn't that just time, manner and circumstance that puts you to very little trouble, and allows everybody to see it, and therefore is constitutional? >> the -- this is not some sort of obscure, unknown reason. this show was run across the country in the last hour of prime time which happens to be from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. in the midwest and mountain time zones. >> because you wanted to make more money from it, i understand
that. and maybe people would have been a little bit inconvenienced, but the inconvenience -- they made a judgment that looking at this show is not like "private ryan," it's about sexual awakening. they are showing a part of a nude woman, the viewer is supposed to put himself in the position of the boy who is seeing her, and the whole thing was titillating. now they might be wrong. there are two sides to that argument. and so i guess what you are arguing is, if i were to say is that a reasonable view -- i guess i would have to say it. but you have to say much -- you are telling me i have to say much more than that. >> well, number -- yes. number one, it is not a reasonable view, for reasons i will explain. it was not sexual awakening. this was a portrayal in the context of a story line about the difficulties and embarrassments of blended families. this was an exploration of one of the things that happens, which is a little boy stumbles in and watches a woman in the
quotidian activity of preparing her morning shower. in any event, the commission for years had been adjudicating complaints about nudity, and i -- >> all right. >> it is simply untrue -- it is simply untrue that this had never occurred before. "nypd blue" itself was in its tenth season. the very first episode which caused a lot of media attention included a nude scene of love making. it was the subject of any number of complaints. >> you're going off the question. >> okay. >> which -- you haven't seen where i'm going. i wanted you to say just exactly what you said, and you did, which i thank you -- [laughter] >> and -- and my question, which i have been trying to get so you would see very precisely what it is, is why don't i just say, if you are right, just what you said? and say this is an instance, case-by-case, in which, for the
reasons and i quote you, that the first amendment forbids the application of a good guideline to this case. in other words, what i'm driving at is the basic thing that's worrying me here -- does this case in front of us really call for the earthshaking decision that you all have argued for in the -- in the briefs? and that's what i'm trying to figure out, and that's why i am particularly worried about whether or not this whole big argument here was presented to the fcc about whether we have to reach that far. now do you see where i was trying to get? >> i think so. >> all right. >> and if not, i -- i hope you will tell me. first of all, the -- the -- both the first amendment and fifth amendment issues were fully argued in front of the commission, and the commission addressed them in its decision in the abc case. we, of course, didn't ask the -- or suggest to the commission that it should no longer apply pacifica because the factual predicates for more relaxed
scrutiny didn't apply, as we didn't in the second circuit, because only this court can reconsider the application of that standard. so that's an argument we are making here. that argument is not necessary to resolving this case, either on first or fifth amendment grounds. this broadcast -- and particularly in light of the ubiquitous v-chip, this broadcast is not actionably indecent under pacifica, number one. with respect to notice or the vagueness of the application to this show, clearly this was a shot out of the blue. the commission cannot identify -- i challenge the commission to identify a single decision of the commission issued before this was broadcast in 2003 in which it had sanctioned any display of nudity, and i'm going all the way back to 1978.
>> by -- by sanctioned, you mean punished as rather -- as opposed to sanctions? >> yes, yes, yes. sanctioned in the "ouch" sense. [laughter] >> how many displays -- how many displays of nudity were there that -- that went unsanctioned? >> well, for -- i can't tell you, but i can tell you -- >> well, i mean, if there are very few, it's -- it's not a very powerful argument. >> well, i -- i think it's a powerful argument. let me explain the ones that i know of. 1978, the commission's decision in wgbh, which complained about scenes of explicit nudity in "monty python's flying circus" -- denied. "catch-22," 40 seconds of nudity, including 10 seconds of full frontal female nudity -- denied. the four or five decisions that we cite -that we discuss on page 18 of our brief, and that are appended to the merits brief of the abc affiliates -- i can't remember whether it's 12 or 16, but more than a dozen episodes of "nypd
blue" itself that included displays -- graphic displays of nudity during the prior nine seasons. complained about and not adjudicated. that is the backdrop against which - >> but i -- >> that's what you've got -- >> -- looked and found 17, looked and -- i'm sorry. >> that's what you've got over 85 years. >> well, first of all, we don't have television broadcasts over 85 years, and since there were no reported decisions of any indecency enforcement until pacifica, i think it's only fair, as you pointed out yourself, to look at what the commission has been addressing. they're right now -- i mean, you know, i've cited the ones that are the subject of commission decisions. i haven't cited the ones -- i haven't attempted to hypothesize about all the other instances, but let's just look at what's at stake here. because the issue, justice breyer, is not just notice to
abc in this case, the question is whether the standards -- the commission's standards as it's currently applying them are so vague and capacious that they not only permit arbitrary action, but they are engaging in arbitrary action. right now, as -- as mr. phillips suggested, the commission has pending before it, which it has not denied for years, complaints about the opening episode of the last olympics, which included a statue very much like some of the statues that are here in this courtroom, that had bare breasts and buttocks. it -- it has refused to say that "catch-22" -- it's "catch- 22" -- right over here, justice scalia. [laughter] >> well, there's a bare buttock there, and there's a bare buttock here. and there may be more that i hadn't seen. but frankly, i had never focused on it before. but the point -- >> me neither. [laughter]
>> could -- could abc or anybody else rebroadcast the "roots" series? could it rebroadcast "catch- 22," which the commission is now here saying, oh, no, no, no, that was just our staff, that wasn't us. in the "saving private ryan" context, where the commission did say as a commission -- not actionably indecent. >> but your only conclusion from that is that they can't have any rule. >> no. >> what is -- i looked through the briefs. i don't see what you're -- tell me where in these briefs do you suggest what the rule ought to be. >> in our brief, we don't suggest what the rule ought to be, because a, it's not our burden, b, it's not yours, and c, there are any number of options. >> well, we -- well, we have to anticipate what the natural results or consequences of our decision will be. >> sure. >> as i understand it, the same rules that we apply to obscenity for printed material under your view would apply to television.
>> well, those rules certainly would apply. and before i -- >> in other words, if it's -- if it's not obscene, you can publish it. period. >> no, no, no. i'm not suggesting that the indecency proscription in the statute cannot be applied in a constitutional way. i can give you four different -- >> well, i thought that was the whole gravamen of your argument. >> no, our -- our arbitrariness argument is that we now have a standard that employs nonexclusive factors that use capacious, vague words that can be balanced any way the commission wants to without explanation for what all the factors are. >> but isn't that inherent in a context-based approach? unless you have an approach that says there are certain body parts you can never show, then aren't you going to get into -- isn't someone going to be able to come up and say you have this broadcast and you said that's okay, and this one, you said is not okay? >> it certainly is not. and i can offer the court or perhaps the commission four
approaches it could take to reduce the astonishing vagueness of the current - >> are they in the briefs? can you just cite the pages where i will find the alternatives to the present system that don't jump obscenity alone. >> i don't know the pages. let me just -- i can't remember the pages. let me just outline what i think four different things that could ameliorate the vagueness of the current regime. first of all, the fcc could revert back to it's quote "emphatically narrow enforcement regime," which acknowledged one, that it had to defer to reasonable judgments of the broadcasters, and not exercise the -- an editorial eye looking at camera angles, whether something was or wasn't necessary to the message. number 2 -- >> i -- i'm going to let you get all four out. but on that, the reasonable deference to the broadcasters, your policy was not to allow people in the situation of paris hilton and nicole richie to use those words.
so if they deferred to your reasonable judgment, your friend's reasonable judgment, they would sanction those. >> i am not owning nicole richie, and i think the best answer to the nicole richie point is that there is a scienter requirement in the statute that, you know, would preclude the application to a good-faith effort. but let me just -- >> okay. go on to number 2. >> i'll just go back. well, no. there are three parts to number 1. i'm not being -- [laughter] >> your time's -- i think you are. your time is about to expire. if you want to get your four points out, you'd better move. >> okay. the first one is to revert back to the prior enforcement regime that existed before 2004, which deferred to reasonable judgments, was restricted to material that is not momentary exposure but is dwelled upon. and that as pacifica explained, was egregious material akin to depictions of erotic activity. the second thing they could do is make this three-factor test
-- or however many factors it is -- a test, not just a nonexclusive list of an infinite number of factors that could or couldn't be balanced in any way the commission wants to. even if it wants to leave it as factors -- and this is number 3 -- it could at least identify what they are, and apply them consistency -consistently through adjudication that explains why one over-balances the other, which it certainly did not do in this case. and it also could clean up the actual form of the words that it uses, referring, for example, to sexually explicit or excretory activities. thank you, mr. chief justice. >> thank you, counsel. general verrilli, you have 4 minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. first with respect to the notion of self restraint on the part of broadcasters, i think a little history is in order here.
the commission started with the rule that came out of pacifica. what it faced in the 1980's, with that being the outer bound of the commission's authority, was the explosion of the shock jock phenomenon, howard stern and bubba the love sponge and the rest of it which didn't use any of the seven words in the carlin monologue, but which was highly vile and lewd, and it required the commission to make a judgment. now, that was all advertising sponsored broadcast. and so i do think the risk of the race to the bottom is real, and i think history is showing it. >> general, i think that the networks really are saying, well, even if some regulation is permissible, the kind of regulation that the fcc has done here is regulation that gives it complete discretion as to what kind of speech to go after and what not to go after, that it has not tied itself in any way to any kinds of standards. and, it's, you know, evident in
the notion that this -- the way that this policy seems to work, it's like nobody can use dirty words or nudity except for steven spielberg and that there's a lot of room here for fcc enforcement on the basis of what speech they think is kind of nice and proper and good. and so that's a serious first amendment issue. >> i -- well, i disagree. first, that's the lens problem again. we are talking about a tiny, tiny number of the broadcasts that occur in a month, much less a year, much less a decade. so the idea that there's a significant first amendment problem that encompasses a wide variety of broadcast expression, i just don't think comports with the facts. second, i do think if one looks at the corpus of decisions that the commission has made about what is indecent and what isn't, i think one can see with respect to the large majority of them, the vast majority of them that it is clear which side of
the line something fell on. yes, there is isn't perfect clarity, there are going to be some hard cases, but they really have identified where is, in the great scheme of things, a trivial number of hard cases. i don't think one can say that this is a situation like in reno which there is effectively no standard at all. in reno, this court distinguished the pacifica situation eight ways to sunday, and i think we've identified them in our brief and those are valid. i do think there is a significant problem with thinking about pacifica as the outer bound of the commission's authority under the first amendment in addition to the shock jock problem. of course -- >> even though the justices involved said this is a narrow decision, both justice stevens and justice powell. >> yes, and, justice ginsburg, that is true and the principles the commission continues to apply are narrow principles. this is not -- this is not something that covers a vast array of speech on broadcast. it's a tiny fraction. and so -- and i do think if you are talking about pacifica as
the outer bound, the consequences of the shock jocks are fine. the super bowl halftime episode with janet jackson is fine. you can have as many of these seven second episodes of "nypd blue" as you want. that's all fine. in fact, anything that isn't at that extreme level -- >> but on the other side, you'd better be careful about calling certain people, certain artists to be interviewed because we know it's unscripted. they are going to risk that they are going to say something they shouldn't say. >> but i -- a couple answers there. one is the delaying bleeping technology, justice ginsburg, and the other one is that there is a scienter requirement under the commission's enforcement authority here. and so in that situation, it seems highly unlikely you had would have the requisite scienter that could lead to a forfeiture. >> maybe the third is you shouldn't interview these people. >> let me spend, if i could, a minute on the "nypd blue" broadcast. the -- abc hinges a lot on the notion, justice breyer, that this is a non-sexualized
episode. i mean, i guess one could make up ones own mind looking at the video. the commission decided that that was -- it was essentially voyeurism. the -- >> finish your sentence, please. >> thank you. the little boy walks into the room at the very end of that -- of that segment of nudity, and i do think that fully vindicates the commission's judgment with respect to the nature of that broadcast. >> thank you, general. >> 10 scott leads a town hall meeting with town hall meeting -- with undecided voters. later, your comments on "washington journal." >> in this issue about that check, we will let it rick perry's comments on climate change in the research behind the size. >> fell are a substantial
number of scientists who have manipulated data. >> high rate different comments by politicians on a 1-4 scale. if you say something really a our riches, you're going to get four pinocchios. if you say something slightly misleading, you will get in as low as one pinocchio. >> rating that truthfulness of political figures and others. >> i do think that if a politician says the same thing over and over again, even when it has been pointed out as untrue, that they know that they are saying something untrue, and they're just going to say it anyway. >> glenn kessler tonight at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> next, u.s. representative tim scott host of presidential town hall meeting in little beach, -- myrtle beach, south carolina. it is one in a series of voters
south carolina. i had the chance to get to know the congressman. he understands policy, he understands people, and he understands the country and what it needs and there is a lot of anxiety and a lot of anger in this country right now. a lot of division. and that there is anyone that i know from this new class that has the capability to bring people together and to get them to be optimistic again and confident again and believe that that children will inherit a better country, because of congressman tim scott. please welcome him. [applause] >> thank you. good evening in myrtle beach, south carolina. what a great evening. i will tell you, this kind of reminds me of my high school football days. a little nervous thinking about what needs to happen next to
get us on track to win the game in america, we are playing for the state that matters. how many of you realize this is probably the most important presidential election in all of our lifetimes? [applause] we need a president that may need to read the notes, but he would not need a teleprompter. we have had a series of town hall meetings. i thought to myself, i would love for my constituents to hear from a governor who understands how to actually cut spending. a new concept in washington. a cut is off of the imaginary number that never exactly existed. we will cut spending from where it might go but up from where it is. challenging math that is only understood in washington, d.c. but in virginia we have a governor that took a $6 billion shortfall and turned it into a
$1 billion surplus. how many of you like i-73? we have a governor who understands the necessity of infrastructure and make decisions on investing in it. we have with us the next speaker he will hear, not only is he the governor of virginia, bob mcdonnell, but he may just be the balancing act necessary to bring the white house back to our site. he may be the next vice- president. you never know. bobs hear it for governor mcdonnell. [applause] thank you. >> how great to be back. i was telling tim when i was a young kid, my parents would bring the family down here every
year. how many of you remember the old crescent beach? that is where we were every year for about a decade through the 1960's and early 1970's. i have some money fund -- fond memories. that is why 73 was a pretty good idea because i remember how long it took to get here. thank you for hosting these town halls and allowing me to be here. you have had so many presidential candidates here already to give south carolinian is a firsthand look at the candidates. i cannot tell you how much i appreciate what he has done. he can to campaign for some of our candidates in 2009 and 2010 in virginia. he is a great conservative vote in the united states congress who sticks to his guns. it is why he has already taken the stand to do things we need to do like cutting the corporate income tax rates so we
can have more american dollars to be reinvested and being able to expand them around the world. thank you for your leadership to get a you have done a great job in a short period of time. [applause] doctor frank luntz who has done a great job with some of the focus groups over the years and has been helpful to me and has given me advice. i have already run into five virginians. thank you for coming. on behalf of the 8 million people in virginia, i want to deputize all of you as honorary virginians. i come from the state or the first two governor's where patrick henry and thomas jefferson. that is the get i got. i know that you guys are all freedom loving people who
understand the american dream. all of you by those gas lamps, i suggest to be a little careful. it uses natural gas which is a terrible fossil fuel. we may have the epa come down here and put us out of business. i've brought a couple of people down here with me. my campaign manager when i ran for governor who is now the executive director of the american governors association, that is phil cox. thank you for coming. i am from the government and i am here to help. ronald reagan said that and i thought it would be a good opening line. i know what he meant. it is only helpful when it knows the will of the people and respects the constitution of
the united states of america. we take that seriously in virginia. we were the first state to file against obama-care a year ago. i know your attention is on the critically important goal of winning back the united states senate. and more importantly, elected a new commander in chief. i think it is our top priority for our country. i think there are three things that will determine the outcome that are vitally important. one, we need to get the greatest country in the world back to work. this chronic unemployment rate that has been over 9% for 32 months is just unacceptable and
unsustainable. it quashes the ability of the american people to pursue the american dream. this president's policies on jobs are horrible -- new spending, new taxes, new regulation. failing to recognize is the brilliance of the entrepreneur that really gives access to the american dream. we realize that are in a virginia. we made jobs are top priority. our campaign bumper sticker was bob for jobs. we have the lowest unemployment rate in the se, 6.2%. we are the most business friendly state in america. we get it. if you keep taxes and litigation low, and say the risk takers and people there want to have health is good, then we will have people that will invest in your state.
secondly, we have more debt and more deficits with this president than have been racked up than any other three-year period with this president's leadership. that is absolutely the wrong thing to do. we are mortgaging the future of our kids. we are $15 trillion in debt. there is no way to spend our way out of this problem. we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. we need to say what is right for our country and spend accordingly. [applause] so we will realize that. we have a $6 billion budget deficit. when i became governor, my former governor was tim kaine, who was head of the democratic national committee at the same time, left me with a $6 billion deficit and a tax increase to try to spend it.
we said no. we cut spending, and balance the budget. we have $1 billion in surpluses. that is what can be done with leadership like tim's in congress. the third thing is the most important and that is leadership. leadership really does matter. who sets the rules for our country really does matter. that is why these elections are so important. the outcome really does matter. this president has blamed all the problems, whether unemployment our jobs, it is the fault of the tea party or the house republicans. i say, mr. president, you are the commander in chief, take responsibility. set priorities, cut spending and get results. that is what you should be doing. we need a leader that wants to put in place results oriented conservatism.
that is to stick to your guns but quit making excuses. get things done. what americans want is people that will get the basic services, the statutes and convert -- plus a togiola requirements -- constitutional requirements done well and then stay out of their way so people can be free to use their god- given talents to pursue the american. that is what we need to do. i look forward to your questions and participating in this town hall. when all this hot air from is politicians, we will warm this place up pretty quickly. thank you very much. >> we have just been joined by the chairman of the south carolina gop. [applause] the way the format works is pretty simple. u.s. the questions, i am your
conduit, -- u.s. the questions. and i will articulator to the guy out there. -- you ask the questions. the first question comes from michael and tracie griffin. thank you for being here. mr. vice-president -- [laughter] i would like to get used to the new titles. recently, the president has talked about downsizing the government. what are your thoughts on whether or not he is sincere, and how would you encourage those of us on the right to join him in an attempt to reduce the size of government? >> thank you for that question, because talk is cheap. actions and results matter. what we have seen over the last three years, congressman, despite your best efforts and your colleagues, particular
your freshman i made a house, we have three from virginia -- i hope they are helping you -- is just the opposite. we have seen some of the greatest expansion of government power in history. look at what he tried to do it in south carolina with the nlrb. could not get things done like card check. so he tried to do administratively with three unelected people in the nlrb and try to stop blowing from coming to the west coast to south carolina. the obama-care legislation creates i do not know how many dozens and dozens of new agencies and programs. so what we have seeing is more spending, more government solutions. and so here we are 10 months away from an election, i think we will see him go to the middle to create common sense
policies, because everybody knows we have to do it. we are broke. $15 trillion in debt. i have to say over the last decade, republicans have contributed to some of that debt in the early part of this decade. we have not want to turn the clock back. if we go from where we were when obama took office and to almost $5 trillion of additional debt in three years is unbelievable. it is more taxation, more regulation, more unionization. these of the things the president has promoted. it is the opposite of what you need to do to encourage the entrepreneur to take risks and grow, borrow capital and create jobs. while i've heard he wants to consolidate the small business administration, department of commerce and elevated to cabinet level position and create efficiencies, and if he is serious about it he says it will save $3 billion over 10 years. then fine, i applaud him.