tv U.S. Senate CSPAN May 3, 2012 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
international mobility of the capitol global corporate environment in the 86 infil matteo matteo we have to think very hard about that. the of with of course is in the macroenvironment, and i don't know if you want to go just to there without thinking about some sort of a phase in, but i don't think that is a very likely outcome in terms of where we've got. >> i think we have time for one last question. ..
>> we raised sales taxes. we cut income taxes. i think, i think your tax structure and how the incentives lineup matter most. i mean, and we had, so at both ends, as a record as a governor, and i think the roundtable, speaking for our own organization today, we look at the corporate tax rate. our whole discussion with the congress was on what we called the revenue neutral, which we felt was actually supported. the way i would support, significant revenue growth because it was a much better tax code. >> okay. join me in thanking the panelists today. [applause]
also the libertarian party would hold its 2012 convention this weekend in las vegas to pick its presidential nominee. c-span coverage will start tomorrow night at 90s and with the to our debate on the candidates. then at noon eastern saturday the delegates will hear speeches from the candidates and vote on a nominee. that's also live on c-span. >> bin laden was a strategically relevant communicator with various and desperate outfits. to a certain extent i have to confess, while in uniform i worked in unison, and they work in afghanistan, and i worked on the problem of iraq. and we knew bin laden personally was involved in communications to try to corral and bring a big draw out the weary but we knew he was making outreach early on to al-shabaab in somalia. when you he was involved in all these types of things working comedians and other individuals but we knew he was there and doing the. as a consequence, and no surprise when you're talking about a global, been the lot and
was relevant. >> -- bin laden was relevant. >> former officials, analysts and other members continue to wait in dixie what they have just a online at the c-span video library. all archived and searchable. >> the military academy at west point this morning published 17 declassified documents recovered from osama bin laden's compound in pakistan. translated into english, the documents totaled 175 pages and are available on our website. go to c-span.org. >> here on c-span2 the congressional executive commission on china, the commission is looking at the case of chen guangcheng, the blind chinese dissident that took up a refuge in the u.s. embassy in beijing this week only to leave a few days later. that's a tepee in eastern life here on c-span2. >> the federalist society and stanford university law school
recently hosted a discussion on intellectual property and the regulation of technology. among the speakers, facebook general counsel, and lawyers representing communication companies and hollywood artist. this is about two hours. >> this will be looked at as the revolution equivalent to the industrial revolution, or any number of other major shifts in the way in which people live and conduct businesses over time. i would just very, quick story had to slip in, we were trying to recruit somebody at one point from a law school out in east, in the boston area, and i said to the person who works in this area that, of course, you should come you because this is the center of the universe for everything that you hear about. and are some important things are happening. not anything is happening anywhere else, but to no chimeras were like saying some small town in scotland is to go to manchester or london during
the industrial revolution. the american revolution happened and the communist make a decision, do stay in boston or d. go to the new capital and join the new government, and if you're farsighted you go to the new capital and join the government and you become john adams and our major historical figure well remember 250 years later, and if you're sam adams you choose to stay in boston and you become a beer. [laughter] so of course what goes on here is, what goes on with respect to deregulatory state as a matter of enormous concern. what government does or can do that will either enhance or impede the growth of technological innovation and invention is something hugely important and that's what the panel he will discuss. i'm just going to quickly introduce everybody, and then just post a question to everybody about 10 minutes to talk about it and then doc holliday will turn over to you. some going to do this in alphabetical order. so start with richard epstein,
who also hardly needs an introduction. richard is a pivotal figure in the academy and scholarship, he wasn't in it for all become but it has certainly been one of the most important, he is a major skull into the fields to list, but it includes towards, constitutional law, administered law, property and many, many more pigs also i should say, speaking of someone who was is to become a great teacher and mentor. just quickly by way background here, his bachelors from columbia in 64, then got a bachelors in jurisprudence from oxford in 66, yale and 60. he did very well, did not get a supreme court -- when he interviewed for the clerkship with chief justice warren he was asked which of the chiefs opinions he didn't agree with, and he said well, where should i begin? [laughter] not calculated to get a clerkship. instead, then he began teaching at usc where he taught from
60-72. he moved to the university of chicago where he was, he is not at nyu. richard is also one of the rare academics who made the transition to becoming a public intellectual but did so without giving up either his deeper scholarly work or his reputation among people who valued deeper scholarly work and versatility of course or maybe i should just say gumption is shown by his being on this panel as well as several others. next, anthony falzone who is tonight immediately left, my immediate left, you're right for me, is the executive director of the fair use project and a lecture in light of stanford law school. the fair use project is a project that we started about six you to go that is designed to both clarify and expand the boundaries of fair use in copyright. tony came with a really strong background to do this report. he was a 97 graduate of harvard law school, clerked in the southern district of california, and then joined a law firm where
he litigated ip cases before coming to stanford law school in 2007. while directing the fair use project, he has won a number of important cases against the likes of the georgia state and yoko on the, for those of us who are beatles fans, it doesn't matter what side we are take as long as he beat yoko. [laughter] someday i will show you all the press of these that i wanted to put out that no one would let me. he argued unfortunately with less success the goal law case in the supreme court this year. tony has repeatedly been recognized as one of the top lawyers and one of the top ipos in both california and the country. next, mark lemley was at the far end of the table. mark is the william h. newcomb professor of law at stanford law school and also the director of the stanford new program of science and technology. mark earned his ba here at stanford in 88 followed by jd from both in 91. he clerked for dorothy nelson on
the ninth circuit, spent several years in practice before joining the faculty at texas in 94 when he stayed until 2000. he moved to bolt in 2000, then stand in 2000 by. it's actually difficult introduced mark asberry. is israel and one that spilled over to the other side of the card. there's no question that he is the leading academic in the field of patents, he may also be the leading practitioner in the field as well. he is positively post-nine is capacity to get things done. so while publishing seven books and the two volume treatise and 122 full articles, is also a founding partner and maintains a healthy practice having argued countless cases in both the district courts, courts of appeals. the list of awards that marquez earned over the years is actually in fact like too long to read. so what i wrote, just think of every award is given to learn that you might want sunday to earn and marquez received it. a number of them on multiple
occasions. then the far end here, peter thiel, also probably needs no introduction. formally peter is that of clarium capital which is a hedge fund, but as i suspect most of you know, much, much more. peter earned both his ba and jd from stanford, the latter in 1992. he is an original in all respects. he was one of the highest ranked chess players in the united states although i gather -- while he was at stanford he found the stanford review at a time when there is little by way of an outlet for conservative or libertarian voices for students. after law school he clerked for judge edmondson on 11th circuit, spent a short time the credits but then cofounded paypal. the rest is well known. peter treated a place for himself. he also created a place for
himself as a public intellectual and provocateur, and is also well-known for his support of such things as the institute on artificial intelligence, the institute which creates autonomous libertarian communities, and most recently the fellowship for young entrepreneurs which is for young people who may be better served not going to college than doing so. he teaches an occasional class at the law school, actually teach a law school as often as i can persuade him to take the time to do so. the way i conceptualize that class is basically as the world according to peter teal, and i don't care what he does. [laughter] seriously, the idea is if you have a law school, you can put extraordinary minds in front of people and just given the chance to interact. that's a good thing for them and that's why we tried to get peter to teach as often as we can. lastly, speak and people who are at the heart of the ongoing technology and information revolution is ted ulyot to my immediate right was the vice
president, general counsel and secretary of facebook. he earned his ba from harvard in 1990 followed by a year in france and then a jd from the university of chicago in 1994. he can clerked for judge michael in the fourth circuit effort just to scully on the supreme court after his or chip is a lawyer, although he moved to aol time warner in 2001 as associate general counsel and from there became the general counsel of aol time warner europe, as opposed to french. he joined the bush administration 2008. returned to the law firm following the end of the administrative and joined facebook in 2008, where he currently is. so with that, let me open this up to i would just pose the question that coming to come gives everybody a chance to talk a little bit about the issues that we're dealing with you. i think will again start
alphabetically which means we'll start with you richard, and set the tone attendance exactly and no more. so really, i just want people to reflect a little on what is the relationship between technology and regular joystick, and how, if at all should government regulate technological progress, and all the good things that we hope to get out of technology well hopefully eliminating the bad. >> thank you very much are giving us a chance to this. i will start with the question and then try to give an answer to the question slightly refrained. it is certainly a very powerful question about feeding at the relationship of technology to regulation, but there are many regulations that one can think of which do not get involved with the so-called regulatory state, and so the question then is exactly what kinds of regulations desirable and why is it that i think they don't fall within this larger category of regulations which it generally does. the first point is every system
of law needs a system of regulation, even in competitive mortgage of to establish a system of property rights, in the supreme court cases, statute in order to make this thing go and you have to taxes and so forth to support it. so the thought that there is some disembodied free market out there which doesn't depend on government support is it's not a myth, but the key features under the circumstances, what is the point of the system of regulation? what it is designed to do in virtually all these cases, to fortify by reverse engineering a system of competitive markets. strong property rights to protected by regulation, statute of frauds of formalities of contract, prevention against breach of contract and use of force against detracting parties. i don't think that there's anybody who can quarrel with the fact of regulation in these kinds of areas. a sign of regulation and regulatory state. what happens when we come to
technology, there are two important fields i'm going to discuss and each of them requires at least some deviation or at least the modification of the earlier position. the two types of systems you're going to refer to are infected intellectual property system, for which these purposes its copyrights and patents, trademarks and trade secrets and so forth. and the other turned out to be the network industry having to deal with railroads, telecommunications and solar. the issue is what makes these things especially come what's going to be the kind of regulations that we ought to welcome and what other kinds of regulations which are part of the radio to restate that we ought to be very concerned about. let's turn to the first of these things with the intellectual property act and what is so clear about intellectual property is it is not simply enough to allow people to take first possession physical property and announced that they own it. so as early as 1790, i guess it is we start off with the patent act. we start off with copyright act. and the question is what makes the statute at least in large measure the kind of long-term success? the first thing about it is that
neither of these women to be technologically forcing within the respective domain. so with respect to the patent statute, by the law does is it gives you a system whereby if you file for us or invent first, there's a battle as to which of these two things matter. then there will be an examiner who will decide whether not this particular patent is or is not going to be valid, and if it's protected what happens then is it falls into the sphere of ordinary property rights protected computer to be obese by injunction and damages in the event of -- the analog toward the ordinary torts trespass and which allows you the ability to sell and license this thing which is of course the power associate with this kind of rights. i verge of the fact that you have yourself a decentralized system in which anyone can start to play the game, the only real questions that you want to have with respect to this system is just how it is you make it as advantageous as possible. in dealing with this thing i think in 1952 patent act which was the act before the
godforsaken american invention act of this past year, did a pretty good job in trying to figure out what kind of advances, what kind of subject matters were eligible for patent protection, what level of advance over previous things you need in order to get the protection and so on down the line. it was controversial features about the system and the ebay case which weakened the injunctive release question as some of these cases having to do with lg -- i think in general were sorts of negative with respect to its operation. i think that one those fears with respect to property rights under the patent system is that it would be a variety of mistakes but one of them is you can lengthen their terms under which his real problem but a think mark will talk about in connection with copyrights and ted commotion survey oppose to. i don't think that's a real risk in the strategic case budget could make the system sort of convoluted and so forth that you know longer understand its actual boundary. this would include having
elaborate complicated we examine nations, which struck me as a huge mistake. and also requires the fragmentation of patents, started a very special treatment. i think the simplicity and the robustness of the overall system were, in fact, correct. my copyrights continued in some system of registration but there you don't need a system of examination. the two systems of course have widely parted out on the. the question of durability of intellectual property under the copyright system is subject to genuine tension because copyright plans with software, short the things and the shakespearean sonnet need to be longer but you should be very cautious when gratuitous extension to the length of the patent so things like the extension act is in my mind a kind of mistake. and i think for the most part we're trying to get relatively to the model here, and the more we can basically analogize the traditional property, the better we will be. when you swing over to the other side of the line with respect to
the question of how you do with technology under network industry, again, or a whole variety of reasons there's always been the dominant and correct decision that we begin with institutions that have monopoly elements that cannot form competitive types of situations that you must have some system of government regulation. the question is what system is going to be appropriate? in this particular situation the choice of methods can make a huge difference. i'm just going to give one example of a kind of regulation which came a little bit too soon and created trillions of dollars in losses because it managed to get the wrong solution but i think of the 1996 telecommunications out, because to the extent your time to figure out how you run one of these systems, if your fundamental posture is that the local exchange carriers will remain for ever, have the monopoly power, which means that you have to be very complicated and when would you introduce entities and allow one company to buy network elements from another, you have managed to capture the element of the extension technology in 1996,
but by 1990 it was quite clear that the implicit assumption of the act, the dominance of exclusive powers of the local exchange carriers were wrong, and when used with you about the government to force the sale a particular network elements at bargain prices you grid all sorts of distortions in that market which in the end helps nobody. of the great question that you have to worry about when you're dealing with this market is exactly the question, what's the form of regulations that you want? and in that case the mistake was instead of having the government to provide interconnection agreements which could have been relatively easy, they want to the system of forced exchanges that dominate. we are now a new age of what happened in this new particular age is the decline of the local monopolies under these exchange carriers. what you end up with is essentially now becomes a really plausible type of arrangement. that is, instead of trying to force people to interconnect you can let people build out other kinds of networks and in the course of using those particular
networks, into into competition once where in many cases there may be need for interconnection but in many cases there will not be. as for example, a lot of these networks which is designed to transmit huge amounts of data and so forth. and so the question is what's the appropriate system of regulation? i think the fundamental possible that you would want to adopt in cases of this sort runs as follows. if you can see the other way of new technology allows for the facility and the creation of competitive networks, you want to treat this noble with modern ballistic entry with a civil supply and a single player. what you want to do is treat as it appeared to industry and let these people determine the composition of the traffic they take over the networks, and can affect the price is that they will pay for traffic. this means in effect that if these alternative networks are unavailable, the last thing that you want to do is to impose in the kind of network required on these systems because that becomes a very funny kind of wealth transfer for those people put the bikes together, those
people who want to push content over. one of the things we can say about a network neutrality system is that of the fight of the information is relatively margin and the cost of providing is relatively low, there isn't much to be lost by having a program system and, in fact, many cases that's what firms will do it if it turns out that it isn't worth their while to try to engage in any forms of discrimination. but as we've seen the other day from the at&t announcement that if throwing in the towel and it was going to start to put limitations on the maxim about any given customer can throw to a network, there are serious capacity constraints, even in the most capacious network because as they make the pipes larger do people find large things to send over the place. no one would've thought sending hundreds of movies over the pipes in the 1990 but now digitized big enough to do it, the company will come. in this particular point, the differentiation in rate seems to be important because we would like to be able to do it to give
higher value services, higher prices so that the network on the other side can start to organize it so. so the difficulty that you get in running one of these things is you have to first answer the question of is this something that looks remotely like the industry, and then it two or three characters, carriers wednesday yes, one or two clear enough. so forth, and that the dominant strategy in this particular area is not to try to have heavy-handed government regulation which sets prices and mandates, that will make the technology industry look like the health care industry that we talked about at lunch we had mandatory service and so forth. what you want is as exactly the opposite. to try to find ways in which you can't expand the opportunities i think he so that you can reduce the number of opportunities for needs to direct kinds of control that and i think in effect that the way in which this particular choice is going to be adjudicated in the next generation is going to determine for better or for worse whether or not this nation or indeed other nations will be able to keep up the energetic drive.
every time you regulate that stuff on the guys or the tides, you will help the content providers to some exhibit you will retard investment on the other side. i think voluntary arrangements have got to figure out which is the awful way, and i think we don't want to go to the regulatory state in order to run the issue but i think i'm out of time. >> you cut off mid-paragraph, but thank you. that the company by the way. >> thanks. >> tony, same question to you. how should the government think about regulating technological progress? what is the role speak with a couple of general occupations that come to specific examples but i think number one, technology can benefit tremendously from government involvement. regulation may be part of that involvement but he think about it, just in terms of regulation, you obscures an important point. when you start talking about the framework of regulation you're automatically in a paradigm
where technology is a price good and the question becomes well, what is the government going to be to restrict your private use of that particular technology. what i think that obscures is the fact that technology is very often a publicly. that is, something that will be under produced by the private market, and so to get back to the network that matters most wretched, you talk about the internet, that began as a creature of government funded research. it became a platform, a piece of infrastructure that laid the groundwork for all sorts of innovations that nobody could have possibly foreseen in the '60s and '70s when the government was funding the research that led to the internet. nobody could have predicted the wealth it would have created or the invasion that it was going to help foster. but now once the internet grows up, you have problems that you have to do with. and one is network neutrality. so the question there is whether and to what extent we'll let the people who own the infrastructure adopt practices that are going to favor or disfavor certain types of data,
applications, content or certain users. mistakes there, art particularly high because that is where we decided whether the internet is going to remain an open platform, when the people can innovate without permission, and whether we are still going to see the kind of radical disruption that has marked internet technology. if you let incumbents make the rules there, you are not going to get the innovation that you see when you have an open architecture that lets anybody in, whether they have permission from the incumbents or not. when it comes to network neutrality and innovation that is at stake, i asked is there a good market solution? i don't believe there is. since there's no good market solution, i think that's a good place where the government intervenes. its role is to really kind of regulate, to keep the structure open so that new entrants can come in and you have room for new innovation that is not
limited by what we already see on the internet. if you take a different question that the internet poses, one of privacy, you have a different question i think kind of a different answer. and the question there is what they're going to read you what information websites are going to collect and how they can use it. there i see a much bigger potential. i think you can think about disclosure. you can think about competition, and whether it is technology or the development of applications that are better or worse and protecting your privacy. there's some berries to. i think the information cost is very high for years but a lot of users still don't really fully understand some of the privacy implications of data collection. i think it's difficult for them to make trade-offs and really make the balance that the market solution will require. but the fact is it's at least possible to imagine some market-based solutions to privacy problems. so what do we see here?
well, with the new do not try proposal that we saw from the white house in the past few weeks, i think you see what is in some ways the worst possible of all world. and that is because the so-called do not track that you see is really much more like well, we will let some people track and some other people not track. problem being that it utterly confuses consumers. if you have regulations that ostensibly prohibit tracking that act would permit tons of tracking, then i think what you end up with is your local consumer into a false sense of security our complacency, that prevents the market from implementing itself. so in that respect i think that's an example where regulation can really foul up what might otherwise be a perfectly possible market solution. and government regulation is often at its worst when it takes on the sort of pervasive and permanent oversight function.
so, what i would say is if you please technology is a public, it will be under produced, there's a symbiosis between innovators and the government, i think the right model might look something more like seed funding and permanent oversight. i think government is at its best when it cultivates technology and then gets out of the way. number two is important sometimes getting out of the way means not just from the government getting out of the way, but the government playing a role to make sure that incumbents also do not stay out of the way of new inventions and new innovations that is going to grow technology and develop even further. >> mark, actually i am going to pull you a slightly different direction. >> i want to answer these questions. >> you can do that, too. hopefully i can get you to ground this more in things i've been having so we get less abstract and a lot of this comes from conversations i've had with
market, sell unit, you have often talked about the way in which there's been a regulatory turn -- government has started to seize domain name. you have government mandated or encouraged efforts have isps monitor the content of their subscribers account and so. and, of course, told the over network neutrality although slightly different. on these reflects the same. so being a little more, what you make of all of that? can we draw some conclusions also about, can we get government to regulate what we want and not regulate what we don't want? >> i think there's a consensus at least so far on the panel and my guess is on the whole panel, right, that starts from the idea that historically and serving today, technology has forged where market entry is free. if, in fact, people are free to
come up with a new idea is completely different than anything anyone has done before, and inferences doesn't work, and launch it into the marketplace, we get a lot of benefit. people make a lot of money and would change the world. so what we don't want from government is a mother may i regular regime. if we have a regulatory regime that says i need permission to get into the market, i need permission to do this new thing, then we have a probably destined we are, the government is not the end of the district with a i want i think so far to come along the lines with which the would i want to add, it may lives in a different direction, we also don't want a private individual who's got a mother may i control over market entry. the problem is not just the governments might get to decide who can enter the market. the problem is also that particular incumbents can and will have an incentive to impose
those restrictions, if they have the ability to do so. and it's important to remember because it quite often gets lost in the rhetoric around some of these debates, it is not the case that private decision-making is efficient but it is the case that market decision-making is generally efficient but market decision-making agenda deficient largely because a bunch of stupid or greedy or shortsighted private people who make the wrong decisions get thrown out by other people who make the right decision. so for the market, for private decision-making to work there's got to be a market that's competitive. if we have a mother never get her regime, either, impose our income and post, we will not get the. so i get to the specific examples that larry has raised intellectual property i think is hard from this perspective because you can look at intellectual property as richard
does and say oh, it's a property regime, something around which parties can feel he -- free to contact. property regimes in front of returns without a good, so more intellectual property is better. you can also look at intellectual property rights and you can say this is a government restriction on what people can do with the own physical property in their own ideas. government restrictions on what people can do in the marketplace are bad, and the libertarians i think ip rights are bad. the problem is it's false. it is at once the sort of basis around which we can contract and allow the spread of new ideas, and it is a government regular intervention in the marketplace that is designed to restrict in certain circumstances what people can do. what i think we've seen in intellectual property, both copyright and patent, in the last two years, and maybe in the last few decades, is a turn increasingly towards the regulatory side of intellectual property. and away from the kind of free
and open licensing. and in part you see that if you look at the statute. if you look at the copyright statute as it existed in 1975, and you compare to the copyright statute that exist today, i think it's four or five times as long. there were large swaths of the copyright section that really are regulation to the regular price, basic compulsory licenses, they determine which been doing so. it is moving in that direction but most of the main provisions have been sort of, law and their orientation, as richard indicates the new passed statute is deathly a step towards the regulatory peace. but i think we see a not only in the statutory framework, i also think we see in the way in which the law is being applied. so in copyright law after 15 years or so in which government more or less, sometimes by being physically restrained kept its hands off the internet, and we have seen greater and greater
efforts pushed by copyright owners to try to impose regulations on what it is that people can do online. because the copyright owners are rightly concerned that there's a lot of copyright infringement online. so rather than sue for copyright infringement, the move has been instead to say let's decide whether you or not you can put your website up at all. government has ceased and shut down in this country 450 internet domain names, and all of his speech contains there on, without ever giving an adversary hearing and a court order that says that any copyright infringement here, much less the entire site is copyright infringement. that's regulation. that's the mother may i regime. suddenly you're not in business because the government has decided your website is not appropriate. we have seen efforts by the government and by private parties to push technology mandates. your website will be permissible
only if you adopt certain types of filtering technologies, to strip out in proper material. in those cases i think we're moving away from her regime in which people are free to put what they want on the internet and towards a regime in which we tried to impose anti-regulation but i think we see something similar in patent law, and if you're more troubling. and here i know i will disagree with richard. patent law is supposed to increase innovation, the goal of the patent system is to encourage innovation by giving innovators economic rewards. it should worry us that our fastest developing, most innovative industries, the ones that are generated the most new innovations and the most money, by and large hate patents. they do patents as a tax, as a cost of innovation, not as a benefit of innovation. they view them that way i think largely because they are happily
innovating in a world in which they are not restricted by the law, and when the law shows of it shows up to limit what they can do, not to encourage them or help them get economic benefits. so in information technology industries and software industries, where there are lots of patents and where most of that losses are currently filed, the most innovative companies will tell you patents are barred to a problem for us. the people are finding this patents, people are not in the market at all, the so-called patent trolls, or they are the people who are on the market decline. yahoo asserting against facebook capping this week. hey, here are a bunch of patents you have got a license for. the industries which really do need patent protection, and the reason we need strong patent protection for certain parts of industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the biotechnology industry need that patent protection, ironically enough,
because they are regulated industries. the reason we have to strong pharmaceutical industry is because the government says you can't launch a pharmaceutical product until 10 years of review and just spent 900 uzbek now you have to have some way to get the $900 million back. how do you get that $900 million backwards we guarantee you -- so you can make back the money that we may debate in the first place. i think once you take that regulatory system for granted, and it might or might not be a good thing, we are then stuck with some need for a patent system like that. but it's far from ideal. because it's moved as i think a regulatory term. it's about limiting market entry in the service of furthering government regulation. the other piece of what larry asked me and we have heard both from richard and tony is about network neutrality. and i think, think about this mother may i framework makes network neutrality a really hard
problem. network neutrality is a really hard problem because it is unabashedly government regulation in the service of open into, in the service of not letting people stand as gatekeepers to prevent market entry. and i really am on board with the goal of network neutrality. the internet works precisely because if you have a new idea, all you have to do is write code and put on the network and no one can stop you from doing it. we do not want to do that, and there were some powerful people who want to impose limits on the. they are by and large companies in this industry, particularly in the -- that said, i'm also quite a bit nervous about the idea that the government is going to get it right if the government sets a series of rules designed to make sure that this openness continues. and so, i think the sort of hard
trade-offs we're left with in this kind of regulatory term in some sense is the extent to which we impose structural limitations. we keep saying if you're in market a you can't be integrated into market be. or impose very simple bright line rules even though they are inefficient at some level. you must carry all traffic and wouldn't care whether you've got a good argument that that would make it requires you to block traffic. you can charge different prices but you can't discriminate who you are charged if we don't adopt those kinds of rules, the source structural separation from the alternative may be either from the government or from powerful incumbents who don't have significant market checks on them, mother may i regime to think we're seeing increasingly take place. >> thanks, mark.
[applause] >> so next will turn to peter. i also want to ask you to more specific question and although building off of what we've talked about so far because you have spoken quite a bit in a lot of different contexts on innovation and technology and on the death of innovation of certain industries are clearly, i know you agree with us, there's a lot of innovation that has happened and is still happening in the technology computer space. and then you talk about there are other areas where innovation seems not to be happening so much anymore, transportation, agriculture place in which there were bursts of in the past. so the question is why not, is there something different about technology or a we doing something wrong? >> yes, i think the why question is a very difficult one to answer why questions are always difficult to answer. but perhaps it is a good starting point to talk about the what. i believe the what is that we are in a world in which we no
longer living in a technologically accelerating civilization at all. i sort of -- early '60s, i think that was something moral hasbrouck in this country, and the western world more generally. that put us into a zone where others much slow technological process. i think there's in accordance exception with computers, the internet as was financial innovation. i think those are three areas, two areas, computers and finance, where we have a lot of innovation in the last 40 years. finance is probably going to be less going forward. i'll get to that in a second. but i think it is worth reflecting on how all the other areas have slowed down, and the this is everything from transportation to energy to biotechnology, agro tech, on and on down the line. and the most literal version of the question, are we moving
faster, is transportation question but if you think about every decade from 1500 on, people moving faster. a basic measure of how you determine whether a society was progressing. faster sailboats, faster railroad, the faster cars, faster plane, culminated with the concord in 1976, the commission 2003, and today i would submit travel speeds to bagram 1960 levels. the official reason for the slow down in transportation has to do with high energy costs which have done much good if you're in energy innovation. at this point we have never recovered from the oil stops of 73. oil prices today are higher than they were during the carter catastrophe of the late '70s. clean tech has become basically
a toxic word for money-losing investments in silicon valley. and, of course, you look at all the other, the nuclear industry was dead already decades before fukushima and i think would be almost borderline immoral to encourage any undergraduate to study nuclear engine in today as a career with much of a future. if you look at warren buffett, perhaps the savviest investor of our time, a single biggest holding is in the u.s. railroad industry, which is basically a massive that that the transportation energy consumption patterns of the 21st century will involve return to the 19 century. 40% of what gets transport on when it is cold, and so buffett is making a bet that after oil will not go to clean tech, we will go back to goal. will go back to railroads. and i think there is a lot of reasons to think that's the basic trend you were on with respect to that.
the crisis in energy the last decade has brought into more general a commodity crisis. there was a bit in 1911 at a basket of commodities, how they would perform over a decade. simon happened to wind at the ticket if you reprint of reprint of that from 19 and three onward on a rolling decade basis, the other one the debt every year and we're basically living in a increasing -- incredible scarcity because there's not enough innovation to keep pace with him to the green revolution with great agricultural revolution of 50s and '60s increased worldwide production, has massively decided in recent decades, and so when you see events going on in the world through this prism of technological deceleration of the user very different perspective of what's going on. events in the middle east with the so-called green revolutions often contributed to a wonderful information age, and how twitter is helping connect the world, or something like that.
i think it has to be seen really as a direct result of massive technological failure, triggered by food prices which have risen by 50-100% in the previous few years, and basically it is what happens when a desperate people become more hungry than scared. biotechnology, we've had by all rights they should be tremendous progress in biotech and again, we see this pattern of significant failure, about one-third as many drugs fda trial today as they were 15 years ago. the big pharma congress have finally started aspiring all the scientists who have not been able to get things in increasingly set of regulations. and our expectations for the future in all these areas have been dramatically reduced. it would be inconceivable for the u.s. congress to declare war on the war on cancer, even though something like 40% of the
people who are aged 65 have stages of dementia. i think something like this could be repeated in many different areas but if you ask people whether they believe we are living in a technologically accelerating civilization, the straightforward answer is whether people think the next generation of americans were better off than the current generation. and most people no longer think that it's the case. i think that, that somehow forced us to call into question this narrative, incredible technological acceleration to there's been exceptions in computers and finance, and i would submit on the why explanation for this sort of tale of two world's. whether a lot of progress and everything else where things were badly stalled is that basically computers and finance were fairly lightly regulated in the last 40 years, and everything else was very heavily regulated. we're living in a world in which businesses are unregulated and the business of stuff is heavy regulated.
so when people say we need more engineers in the u.s., you would have to start by technology, almost able to win into engineering did very badly the last few decades with exception of the computer engineers. when i went to stanford in the 1980s it was a very bad decision for people who went to mechanical engineer, mechanical engineer, bioengineering, and say nothing of petroleum engineer, civil engineering, aero astro engineering. the reason, the rocket scientist went to work on wall street was not just because they got paid more but also because they were not about to build rockets. and so -- [applause] and so on down the line. so mike, i think there's many different variables that might have come together. my own sense is that we have to think about this very heavy regulatory differential between these areas, and that this is a big, this has been a big driver of the sort of heavy
environmental mentality has driven the regulation, and the world has progressed because it has been relatively unregulated. so again sort of a thought experiment i would give you is if you thought of a company like using to which is farmville, and usable, we have to actually take that through fda approval before we allow them to make again. we have to see whether time we have to have a phase come they will the animal trial but let's go straight to the face-to-face three trials and jetty test for safety. so you have to testament is it safe for people to use, sort of double blind test with lots of different people, and then you have to have a test for efficacy. does it improve your brain function? if it doesn't get you can do. if you change one line of code you have to start all over from scratch. and would not have a video game
industry in this country, or any sort of entertainment industry if you had that. so i think, i think there's been, there's been sort of a catastrophic, catastrophic set of government policies that basically destroyed most of the technological innovation. and we see this manifest itself in an economy which a stagnant wages, meeting wage has been flat since 1973. increasingly a broken political system which is becoming a zero-sum political system, whether it is no growth. there's basically a winner for every loser, a loser for every winner, and, obviously, the political system finds it much harder -- because there's no way to actually craft such conquest and i think that's a basic technological understanding of what's happened. we've been in massive denial about this but i think the denial has manifested itself -- did not quite happen.
i personally think that even the idea of science, of the public good is not quite accurate. some important ways the government played a big role in destroying science as well. a libertarian account of the history of science, we had some very talented scientist who did a lot of good work in the early 20th century. in the '30s and '40s, the government was able to accelerate clients on a one-to-one basis by taking those talents, talented scientist, giving them a lot of money and having them produce more, probably the single biggest thing they produce was a nuclear bomb. and again, i think would be interesting to think what people on the left think of that as the single demonstration of funded science. the op-ed today after hiroshima and 9045 may are used for summer to the one about science being a public good. and i'm sort of coding and now almost verbatim, that there are
people, the people he believes i should be a private matter what type of good had a lot of entry today because the army having directed scientists, has been able to give great invention to the world come into nuclear bo bomb. and this contribution was made in three short years were as pre-madonna scientist working on their own would take perhaps half a century to make that sort of progress. i think the problem is at the tail end of it, science becomes politicized, and you basically have scientists had to fight each other to get the government money. i think, just like the idea of a block, a bit of an oxymoron, i think the idea of the scientists and politician is an oxymoron. great scientist a fundamental difference from great politicians. when you politicized science you in to destroy it altogether but we have 100 times as the scientist as we did in 1920. if there's less round of progress and was in in 1920, its
productivity per science is perhaps less than 1%. i think that's the rough math. i believe that it would be helpful to have a very comprehensive discussion as to how we get out of this, sort of situation we find ourselves in. but i think the first step is to acknowledge that we are finding ourselves, that we been basically in the desert for 40 years but if you want to get out of the desert you have to acknowledge that you are not in some sort of enchanted forest. [applause] >> i want to say, cleanup, whatever -- by actual be curious to get, obviously your perspective as someone who is literally on the trenches for all of these questions in the multimedia since. so let's step back into where we started, and you are passionate
your take on government regulation and its affect on what you're trying to do with technology. >> i guess i start by saying i love having this on our poor because it makes some of the most interesting board meetings possible, as you can imagine. some of these principles come into play. great to be here by the way. peter and i are in the minority. silicon valley generally, and facebook, in a ideological leanings. anyway, i think, i agree with mark that aggregate with a lot of what people since i won't take too much time there, but i will try to get a little bit of a practical reflection. i think the question as i saw in the program, thank you, larry,
was something along the lines of technological progress and why obligatory guidance. unit, i'm with peter on this. i think emphatically not, other than as richard kicked it off with, a basic rule of law. property rights, basic rule of law. i think apart from that day comes when government whether through legislation or regulation, tries to go beyond some of the basic principles and apply i think industry-specific and sector specific rules. i think, for example, tort suit, contract disputes are fine. those are the issues that we can do with all the time to antitrust, that regime is -- council i think for example, a problem like network neutrality without resort to a whole new framework laws governing certain types of pipes and certain types
of alleged natural monopolies, or unnatural monopolies come or private mother may i situations as i believe mark was saying. that's been main when you get legislation regulating that tries to go to the next and try to get too specific. so that i think the question is just technological, why are regulatory -- but for me companies perspective, thinking back to in our careers, being at kirkland working on some of the telecom act stuff, back in the '90s, i think the reality of course is that countries must deal with the reality in america today, and the world today of a robust, a robust regulatory state, and a robust repertory framework. so we can talk about that. on the practical level, i think, i would be with peter of course
extremely -- a few things in particular come to mind on that that i think are real challenges for regulars. and real reasons why i think those return to general principles of law, the long-standing legal frameworks of antitrust in the example is a better way to approach these problems. what is the slow pace of regulation, peter alluded to this with the zynga farmville example. hypothetical that is. there's also the complexity of technology, specific of software these days. you think about, i actually did some work fo for a while and aol time warner back and do anything think about what a love used to ship product and peter can talk about this, given his prior background, but they were more discreet shipments here. today to push his everyday. we push for every single day. new lines of code written every single day at facebook. there are new products rolled out, and subtle changes of products rolled out causally.
and it's very hard for some people in different parts of the company to fully understand what exactly is going on with a product. most of this is irrelevant, it's just background, irrelevant to users but it is, in fact, how things work, how the product actually works. you have to -- very in the week at the country to understand this. it's very difficult almost impossible for regulars to get a good grasp on the. and i think that's different than even 10 years ago, given the software, given the constant could push easy today and that style, just pushing against engineers working on a constantly. and adopting an attitude of hey, let's push it out there and let's keep refining it, keep making it better and better. instead of waiting, just shift to a well 3.2 disc and you'd ever start working towards that deadline. ..
congress was scared of this and said, you know, let's make this the legal and let's make it illegal for a video provider to get records of consumer rental purchases to publicize those unless you get advanced consent from the user prior to every disclosure. today move forward 20, what ever we have come 25 years, 23 years to today. no one is going to video stores, sorry. she hadn't had the recognition that anyone is getting dvds coming to their house anymore, people are getting streaming and people like to do things for example on facebook and netflix. as a learning what their friends are renting on the sites. so as he goes on and says i want to rent films from netflix and tell my friends what i'm watching because i think these are great.
[laughter] i think it would be fine. the problem is we and blockbuster has been hit with class-action lawsuits under the vppa that is absolutely obsolete. but even if the user clicks yes i want to participate in this program it's a violation of the vppa because it's not that the time of, it's not every single time comes of this is my favorite example in our sector of how quickly along that is targeted at specific problem can become obsolete and frustrate the new development. this should be a great way that would help the students. deciding what the studios market their films and gain traction and excitement about their films and have a statute stealing people because of the massive damage, statutory damages. so it is that's an example of the consequences. also regulatory structure i think is another problem obviously with the regulatory
state today and more so than years ago i understand that regulatory arbitrage has by now forever but it to its more sophisticated today. i think every company now has putting facebook we have a lot with far fewer than companies of our size because you try to defend yourself that your competitor might be pushing a regulation or bad stories or bad means on the hill that your opponents are pushing but things should be careful today particularly in our sector. >> i would strongly support what tony said about the privacy realm, market-based solutions are available more so than others today. in our sector alone in the social networking plenty of people have come out and try to position themselves as great
alternatives to us with the social net work on the basis but the privacy protection that is great we welcome that and that's the right solution to that. and that's another thing, social networks have the advance of technology who generally make consumers much more able if on the things like privacy today if coming users comes consumers are able to criticize, organize, complained and ultimately punish companies for actual problems or actual bad experiences rather than theoretical, theoretically bad experiences. there is a bad experience, pat had this thing the other day that can go, that can be publicized and be out there on all the blogs even to the mainstream press within hours and we have the ceo apologizing very quickly far faster than any agency in washington. and far more effectively.
i see judge kavanagh and george griffith here, so another point i would make is critical to any regulatory state is effective system of judicial review. i do think that's something that's important to see the difference in agencies like the fcc and the fda, which are routinely the judiciary versus agencies like the fcc and the ftc that are more rarely challenged. the fcc there's been some in the chamber of commerce and some have been great.
it's been good and actually beneficial because i'm a believer that that sort of aggressive challenge and robust judicial review that makes the agency better the sec keeps trying and they keep losing some of these but i think little by little they are getting better on these and you look at the fcc and the rules are at some level getting better. so that sort of judicial review is very important coming and particularly it's important that there be an atmosphere of lawn retaliation to a company or to an entity that challenges. you can understand why no one wants to challenge the fcc. there will fear with the next steps will become the next chapter our investigation is going to be. there is a similar challenge to the ftc rule making is that effective judicial review is an important piece of the regulatory space and technology.
finally from international harmonization. we operate essentially in every country except dictatorships where we left to operate but we are blocked by the countries in question. so we are forced to deal with it in the legal department in the company with a myriad of absolute hundreds of countries rules addressing the same general and that is a major innovation. as a practical observations. >> thank you. >> i have a million questions, which i will happily ask if you guys don't. let's let the panelists talked to each other for a moment. there's microphone's over there. >> i want to make one comment about particularly what mark said. i think the battle over the internet stuff in the short term
sense it may turn out to be relatively monopolistic but you have the technology going it would be more competitive, and the dynamic element is what inclines towards a slight regulation. i want to pick up on what peter said. i thought this is a panel about technology and the high-tech industry, but i had the misfortune of teaching environmental law and the fda lawyer and a level of public ignorance and disgraces simply too much. pam severin on with respect to insolvent just to get over it. i can't get over it. [applause] let me give you a specific story as to why i cannot. when the fda was founded in 2006 it couldn't regulate the manufacturing in the states. it only got that power in 1938. peter was talking about a level of progress, and i want to talk about one of these particular items. insulin was a drug invented by man who could be described as
let who worked in canada and eventually got the support of eli lilly which was a great company and the time in doing this. this is the process. he figured out basically a nightmare extreme what to do. he was relegated to a basement laboratory. every protection system that he made he managed to screw up and he finally got the form and then promptly forgot it. but nonetheless, from the time he first got this idea to the time that insulin was on the market was a grand total of less than three years, first ten people that to get most of them died, some of them lived. by the time it got to 1930 it was generally used. what is the game, peter was talking about. let me mention. was starvation. slid on the metabolic process and reduce the normal 120 pounds the woman most known for this was a man named melissa, the daughter of charles evans
hughes, she was down to 49 pounds of the age of 15 and they finally got insulin into her it's like lazarus rising from the dead. she lived to the age of 73, she started to gain weight, she married by 1930 had several children. the fda had only one rule, the government only had one will to play in the story coming and that is when they tried to get a tunnell in order to the isolation was brought by provision and the rockefeller family to get influence to allow them to do this because the government regulators felt that it would do just as well so why is a you have to take something? the basic position on dynamic production is as follows colin code that one invention which took three years contributed more to human beings, and their welfare than every single advance with respect to diabetes in the 90 or so years that followed. those have all been very important but they are in order of magnitude difference. what you have to do in
technology is to understand that the first generation as the simple-minded truth gets an huge game and you spend ten times as much and get one tenth of the amount to read what the fda has done is killed that cycle and it's done so because the notion that they are somehow going to protect people from the only things the will save them and because they come with the view that unless you can prove to our satisfaction that individuals cannot make judgments. in fact come here is where judge griffith and i have a disagreement. he wrote in a ligon opinion on abigail's alliance which says people don't have a right to use a drug that passes with title. the question whether or not you can reckon the fda by giving it only the power to control trouville types of activities, after which the voluntary networks of private organizations decisions international work would give you ten times as much information on an absolute updated basis. this is essentially as far as i can see one of the longstanding
public disgraces which causes huge losses with respect to innovation, huge amounts of gratuitous suffering, requires companies to say absolutely nothing less they be retaliation. that is what ted referred to in all of the patients that have to go against all the professionals who know how to do quote on quote science that use the techniques that were 60-years-old and don't even understand what they are about. that is what is at stake in the larger issue about regulation. and unless we fix that up with the fda, the epa, and all of the drugs on chemicals and so forth, we are concerned to a long-term mediocrity. the rest of the world is a little better than we are and some of the issues are worse than others but this is the central issue of the time and we have so locked ourselves and and they are tearing through with the sort of regulatory program in which everybody knows best what to do except the individuals themselves. i mention one thing, the mother-in-law to this woman by the time she figured out what it
was, knew more of out of the disease and treated her. one of the things you do when you stop this kind of information that comes from the accumulation of dispirited system giving up his cult in favor of a bunch of bureaucrats only know how to recharge the state since they don't understand anyhow. this is what we have to fight about. the individual mandate in the grand scheme of things that are on important in selecting the twins significant regulation of managers is the long-term flow in technology and that is what we are killing ourselves. i can't forget about. [applause] >> yes, go ahead. >> with this ties in to peter's question, and peter has talked very persuasively about some of the problems that we have had in
innovation. the story which i think richard picks out or peter has sort of suggested the problem is regulation and richard picks that up directly, it isn't to defend the fda. i actually think that richard may be right on this although i will note that there are some pretty compelling stories on the other side that got the fda involved in this in the first place. the trade-off before from the economic perspective. [laughter] estimate of the decisions that individuals make significant effects on other people in the world whether it is smallpox or the like were the circumstances in which we actually care about not just what individuals decide
how those affect everyone else. but at stretching from the fda in which i agree that the fda has in fact made innovation in the drug industry much harder. the broader question i think is how well we can map the slowdown in the sectors to the regulatory sclerosis. and i'm not sure that the mapping is necessarily there. i'm not saying it's not but there are some things we want to know. one is well, we do have a couple of substantial the exceptions and they are good exceptions. it's a pretty bleak picture that peter painted, but if you could actually just the computer and the internet world and the financial world, there is a heck of a lot of value and wealth created here that was unimaginable 40 years ago in communications but also in terms of of things that computer
technology does in all of those other industries. we have got predicted the gains in lots of industries that seem like they are not innovative industries whether it is the steel industry or anything else, largely because we've had computer innovation. we are innovating and maybe we are innovating and other areas, too. the of got seemingly interesting movements in robotics and seemingly interesting movements in the materials, ten years from now maybe we will look at this and say that was the dawn of the space era comes something we all felt for most of my adult life had been dead but now it seems actually to be may be waking up. there are two other points i will note in the kind of question that says give me some pause. makes me want to think further about this. one is the timeframe that peter identifies as the innovation stopped is largely speaking the time frame of in which regulation started getting really heavy and and what our
lives, as the most part has been the opposite. it almost maps through the ronald reagan revolution to try to back away from too much regulation, and while i don't think that we have in fact significantly reduced the size of government in any meaningful way in a spurt of . it doesn't seem like there's the amount of regulation and a slowdown in these industries, and the final point i guess that is fair to make because regulation is a national thing. technology presumably isn't. it's where are the other countries might expect to see picking up the slack. you can tell stories to some of the countries in europe and what not. but all i remember in the mid-1980s when everybody in the country was absolutely convinced
that by 2000 we are all going to have to speak japanese because japan is going to be running, they are going to eat our lunch and they are drug and technological change and the u.s. is falling behind and it's going to be a disaster. now we see the same thing about china and media will turn out to be true 20 years, but maybe it won't. if the story is a regulatory street, i think you've got to do a fair bit of puzzling about why different countries with very different regulatory regimes dosing to be innovating and please is that we are not. as baquet me give a few answers to the questions you raised. in my mind the basic dichotomy is the world of stuffed regulated by the fda and the was founded in 1971, 1970, close enough for the government work. [laughter] i think i would be a gut issue that i would flag.
i think that the fda began relentlessly more onerous as the decades past and the 70's were also a major inflection point with the fda. i think there's all sorts of other areas that we could point to where the load went up quite a bit of the time. i don't -- not debating about tax policy, and in my opinion we are at the point where marginal tax rates are not the most important thing if he were to reduce tax rates marginally that doesn't solve the problem you need to construct hundreds of new reactors in the country very quickly and i wouldn't mind having slightly higher taxes if i could actually have the freedom to spend the other money on things i would like to spend on, so if we have come as it is, in a country where for many purposes the effective tax rate
is 100%. i'm not allowed to spend any of my money on innovative drugs, model law to spend any of my mother believed the money on supersonic jets and on and on down the line. now i would say i think there was a very important slowdown that took place around that time because you can match the entrée series of other things that shift of culturally. we shifted from the science-fiction of the literary genre, technology is described with things the dangers or that don't work. when was the last positive sci-fi movie that isn't a star trek rerun. so i do think that we need to take this issue very quickly. i think the measurement question of how we measure these is very hard. i suggest an economic model and there's going to be a celebration in wages. i think that the international question is very interesting.
there are some good reasons to hope that we will head towards a more multipolar world and maybe innovation will start picking up in other countries in the decades to come but the reality is most of the world doesn't really need to innovate. the emerging markets are poor countries and they can do well just like copying things that work and that is what the developing world is doing. it is becoming a developed. it is basically a convergent theory of globalization few are a talented person enshrining should open a mcdonald's franchise or coke franchise or something like that. that's the easiest thing to do. the only place people really need to innovate is the developed world and japan, europe, the u.s., all of which suffer from this very heavy regulatory load in one form or another. you are not really living in a world hundreds of countries where people are free to do whatever they can. parenthetically, i think the shift in the language from first world and third world, which is the way the dichotomy existed in the 60's to develop the
developing world is another illustration of the slowdown. first world verses fertile on the question of globalization but generally was positive on the technological innovation on the cold season and on the technology because the different countries of those countries were by definition nothing new could happen. they were developed. >> this is quick and relates to the longer-term flow that richard mentioned. it's about the wife or the watch but what to do and what's enough. it occurred to me that the great innovation that peter talked about the others claim is the rockets. those were a direct function of the substantial government investment as once the internet in this entire industry and
nuclear defense you can say it's become politicized but the question is can you just the politicize it or do you just wish to draw is the government entirely and there's a distinction to be made between investment verses regulation. it's possible to deregulate and still invest. it goes back to what i said before is you cultivate and invest, but then you get out of the way. so what i want to think about is whether the problems here is that we spent so much money doing regulation badly that we've wasted all the money that we might be able to invest sensibly and for that matter plays and everybody's reactions in the government whatsoever because i think if you spend too much time focusing on how bad regulation can be which it very well can be and often as in all the points that have been made so far are right there are other rules for the government to play investment and i think they tend to eclipse what i think this
some potential for a positive role to be played by the government here, deregulation, but not d investment. >> before i let you go, you should if you have questions now would be the time to start lining up. >> just one sentence on tony's but beyond philosophically inclined to that view as well as the government has positive things to do, although i will note in the sense of peter's position that government expenditures in science and technology are by and large in the industries we don't seem to be seeing in the substantial renovation. the government spends lots of money in medical, pharmaceutical, biotech alternative energy and so forth. not in software or internet research particular. >> that's because they have to offset the difficulties. i think what is correct what tony said is the book that you
should read is by bush in 1945 called science the endless frontier and he basically got a right and the one version of it was we subsidize research at the point of the proof of principle and after that we've run it through the system and the government repayment is a nonexclusive license of any technology used with government funds otherwise do with it what you will. but i think is what you said and the way that i best understand. the question is how much comes private and how much public. what's interesting is on the bioscience side of the original grants were quite small and what's happened since then is if you look at public investments now they transfer payments which is the other great thing peter didn't mention. the switchover is enormous and most of the innovation programs and infrastructure are disguised transfer prevoyance to get labor protections and all the other stuff built into these things
taking them totally corrupt. the damage was done by the new deal we have yet to live down and we've managed to manifest and multiplied in the years that follow. >> i will make one last point if i might on the question of whether the government can do something positive on the technology and science area by investing in this strikes me that it depends a great deal on who is in the government to do that. if you look at the 535 people in the u.s. house and senate fifth tv critic by a generous account 45 of them have any background in science and engineering and the rest are sort of living in the middle ages they don't understand they don't work when it's not blowing were sold for power doesn't work at night if you want to have a technocratic government you have to have a government that has fewer lawyers in it as a basic first
cut. [applause] and so we have the sort of very interesting instances for the whole failure specifically with a legal question the critique is all these process violations and the obama defense is the process to allocate the money. but the substantive question is does the science actually work with? it seems like nobody has any confidence to actually eat on debate whether that works, and that's not a question -- that is a question that is above four believe both peoples' dignity to think about. such as a libertarian, i have no problem with lawyers being in government but if you are a liberal person who believes government should be driving science, then you should have some powerful affirmative action for being a government heavily dominated by signings and
technocrats. >> we are going to go but we will stop here. >> president of santa clara university chapter. i'm curious about the silicon valley firms supporting that neutrality because it strikes me as the camel of the nose and i wondered about this because i can't understand the limiting principal if we say that the telco monopoly so therefore we should prevent them from stopping people from getting on. why shouldn't we say facebook has become a defacto were very important monopoly of how people communicate with each other so maybe we should force people to have a principal to senate neutrality during the critical but now that the application player. >> it's the serious problem on this thing. what you have to do under these
circumstances is to give it to the rich literature written by them for years ago called by regulate public utility issued the regulations from the status point of view you are always overregulated and make it difficult for the firms to get in there. the dominant theme of convergence is essentially when you reduce everything to zero and the industry separations have gone and if these guys screwup they will become life magazines and everybody will chip away at their side and take the bits and pieces and so forth that's what happens. let me give you one other example. when mci basically decided to enter into business against the statutory monopoly what they did is created a dedicated life for the information from st. louis to chicago. they didn't need any of the network connectivity and they wanted high-level security. once those guys were able to break off in the subsidy system created under the old network started to crack down and the
last thing you want to do is to say it is important to make sure that we have these subsidies so there for what we have to do is write the break off from taking place and that of course is one of the problems to get with the medical mandate, the damage and how the government defines competition in health care. a volatile of stupendous ignorance saying it can only be on quality but not on the introduction of products otherwise we can't standardize it. that's the long-term stuff on this, so we are facing genuine questions. >> there's a little bit of the mci story and it's important for the net neutrality debate. they did exactly what richard said. they created a dedicated fly into a local call when st. louis and they would truly special lumber that was in mci number they would make a local call in chicago. at&t found out about this and started shutting down all of the mci local numbers because they didn't like the competition.
the way they actually manage to survive was the thing in that filing in antitrust lawsuit because there was a monopoly. the neutrality question i think is this, so it's right to say -- it's hard conceptually if our justification is just this is a monopoly and therefore we should regulate it's hard to distinguish that from google or facebook or in number of other things. i think you need a conceptual justification that's a little bit more direct and difficulty of interest. so, if you're going to distinguish the two it's got to be on the question of something structural about the telecommunications infrastructure and the network people have created that makes it difficult for somebody to come in if you are doing something inefficient. richard suggested, and i think increasingly he may turn out to be right that was absolutely true 25 years ago and it's not
true today. that is we are moving towards a world that has more possible means of alternative communications. we have people that have less control over the network and we need to worry less about it. i'm not persuaded we are there yet because all of those possible means of kim and occasion depend on the government less injured at one stage or another. i've got to get the spectrum from the government or i've got to get the wire permission from the government and so forth. but the world in which we have ten different ways that my information could go from me to you i wouldn't be worried about that. some creditors of to what you're saying and less unanimity among silicon valley people on the net neutrality than we might think. frankly i think the industry got a little down the road into the net neutrality before thinking for some of the issues that you've raised your that are
pretty apparent but i don't think you should take away the idea that silicon valley was alive behind mountain trout ready. there are darfur urgent opinions on that. >> there are actually there isn't one version of what it means. there's many different ways to think about what it is and how you regulate it, so there isn't necessarily an agreement on that. if written 40 years ago the internet or qtr end innovation which would really like to bring to you is a different way to think through the intermediate position to keep benet open fer innovation to go all will be on the correction to the antitrust law. estimate of the empirical fought till i have on the question is you've been having this debate about net neutrality for close to 15 years coming into the innovation seems to be pretty healthy so i think the case for net neutrality empirical we seems much weaker to me than it
was 15 years ago. >> we are in the best of all possible worlds which we are just allowed to impose regulation but we never do coming and because of that people are afraid to exercise power. >> university of michigan she started to answer my question but i would like an opinion on this, given that the judges don't have strong technical backgrounds, can they make good technological regulation and if not should we be encouraging scientists and engineers to enter politics to become lawyers or serve? >> they are lands for the slaughter. [laughter] >> and in fact the single worst government administrator today with that question is steven chu, nobel prize winner, total buffoon and energy regulation. when you need to do is get
people actually noticing the principles property contracts, regulations and so forth and if you get by with it is a technology which is and like peter transformed himself you can't do it peter is qualified to serve in congress and it also makes a huge difference. islamic they want more in congress. >> i want more to understand what the business of government is about right i don't care what their labels or. what i care about is do they know something. start with the president of the united states as a colleague of mine for many years and the basic skill set of dealing with the issues that he managed to accumulate in 14 years of the university of chicago is summed up in a single vision, zero. [applause] >> in the university of chicago. [laughter] i just want to -- >> my question is for
mr. falzone. i appreciate your willingness to say regulation maybe shouldn't be toned down but media investment should be stepped up. my problem is who we invest in comes of the economist said that, you know, the bad economist looks at the scene and a good economist is always looking at what is on scene. so you look at this investment but the problem is that when the government invests it isn't creating the wealth it's having to steal it from people who would actually otherwise create it in other places before then allocating it in the way that the government wants to. so my question is who should -- i get to this very broad but what would you say to that especially as it can to technology, where i feel like the fast pace of it i would trust somebody like mr. thiel to allocate any way i wouldn't trust the government at its pace to keep up with technological innovation. islamic my point is that you shouldn't leave it all to private markets. you sure as heck shouldn't leave off the government to write about the disaster.
my point is that there are certain public components of it that i think the government may play an important role in some instances now as far as stealing anybody's money, we will still anybody's money to provide certain national defence. there are things the government provides for us and that is why we have a tax base. i'm simply -- my only point is is the answer to lots of bad regulation to to let your hands and just deregulate everything? i think not. i think the point is that there may be some terrible, terrible instances of bad regulation that we need to fix and the deregulation is part of the story but just because you are going to do you regulate doesn't mean that you should also. >> the right to think about it seems to me like this. the research universities are useful? i think the answer is yes, but that is a statement basically the research universities are doing research in a substantial part because they are taking the government's money and using it to do basic research that are private companies of going to do because it is a 20 year pay off
if anything down the line. now, there may be ways to do that without government funding. if you can find some other subsidy of alumni generous enough to do it if we are going to charge tuition haughty enough. should the government be competing with private enterprises to fund research? no. are there areas of science that i don't think the market is quite generate research into the level of we might actually benefit from? yes. >> can i make a comment that if you actually look at this there is evidence on how the national institute of science work. the key to the success of the most part was that the small gransta peery viewed by people in the profession and it turned out for the most part those things actually work quite well. when you get a big science you can't quite use this if you have to figure of where to spend $3 billion on putting the reactor of one sort or another.
the project is much worse under that circumstance because at this time it turns out that it's the texas delegation against the illinois delegation of who's going to be able to grant it. so what you need to do is get government guys experts in the evidence and doing it that way on the university saw and what you have to do is since the technology is too expensive, is to figure out how it is that you can pull the joint ventures. to get to the cable, the proton source that runs in chicago coming essentially but they do is the finance this thing by issuing the universities to pay for one of these or a fraction so that you get the private development inside the things we've put in your part is so that the system becomes a highway and then they become the cars and you don't allow the government to decide what to put in but you now have joined financing to create the public good. you can get this done. you don't have to be a complete cynic about the government's support. you have to read the book. this was the guy that organized the science effort in world war
ii. he was the guy that got the los alamos labs and the lab rats up. they knew what they were doing. there is nothing we can't learn from them today to the >> my name is james and i am in the evening division at the university in springfield massachusetts. my question this evening is for mr. thiel. the dichotomy of the one hand of the high finance and the government regulation and great results and you have heavy regulation and poor results. how do you fit the world of works be the stuff, the technology into that theory. do you consider it to be highly regulated or lightly regulated
and how would you change the rigid three scheme to make its more productive etc.. >> i would be in favor of going back to say 1950, 1960 level of regulation in the world of stuff i think even if she were in favor of the government doing things there are many cases the regulations are stopping the government from being able to do things a would like to do. i had a conversation a few years ago some of the people than the obama administration on why the stimulus bill why couldn't they build in the infrastructure and there were no projects you could actually build because it was all regulated they wanted to build windmills north of chicago and you were allowed to build the parallel on the windel of chicago so none of them could be built. the high-speed rail and california couldn't possibly be built because you have all sorts
of local zoning rules. so i think that what's important for us to understand is, you know, that there is no regulation and others like regulation and there is moderate and heavy and insane and self-destructive and we are somewhere between in seen and self-destructive and many of these things on the spectrum and we don't need to ask the questions about should we have privatized the nuclear weapons program and should be privatized rhodes we don't need to deal with those problems. to go back i would say i don't have that much to add but i would say it is certainly while
less regulated its more regulated than it's not unregulated. it is plenty of regulation is increasing. >> there's something about the world where we have to realize that it's a cautionary tale. we have these the slaying all of these golden eggs and technology and they've all been killed and the on the one left is the computer goose. the finance deuce is killed with dodd-frank so the only one left to this point is a computer one. i think a necessary excess of regulation is dangerous. the only thing that's left. it's already been killed off. >> can i make the comment peter is right about one thing and i will explain why it doesn't challenge but strengthens the thesis. environmental regulation is to some extent things when done
with private law that were actionable and will hundred i can say whatever you want to think about the house levels of innovation in 1950 in san marino was and one of the things that you praised. but the big problem with the environmental protection act and the clean water act is not that it chose to regulate, but you have to go down level and figure out what this team of regulation is an you can't answer that by saying i am pro or against, but one of the huge blunders that they all make which is that they felt that they would grandfather all technology and they would regulate new technology. this is the most expensive for on air pollution is the world. nobody thought about it. it's a completely destructive cycle from old to new transitions. regulations on the new saw the biggest area of litigation under the statute is what counts as a modification that allows you to keep open. this has gone on now for 40 years, in which you put all sorts of rattletrap because of
course you don't allow the new stuff to come in under the same thing. when you needed was a system of regulation that replicated the common law in which damages the were caused by externalities' in the pollution when opening carbon dioxide was basically punished because it didn't matter whether you did it through an old plan. and if you had just done that system you would have been able to stop 95% of these problems with a tiny fraction of the incuring cost. so that what happens is it is one thing to say, and peter is right, down the order of magnitude. but when you actually do the regulation, there is a substitute for knowing what's going on inside of an industry particularly in those cases where some regulation is indeed needed and that's where the other piece of information has gone wrong the system designed for the regulation on every area you care to talk about this fatally flawed in the way they put this together. the political stuff on the transition turned out not to be a two year issue but authority
year issue. >> my name is chris from the university of pennsylvania. my question goes all little but a last one, the two industries which mr. thiel discussed the computers and to finance. a lack of regulation in the financial industry in the space of inadequate regulation for the systematic risk and required a strong governmental innovation. what are the major risks or costs from the lack of regulation regarding technology limited simply to restrictions on innovation or the broad rest and then following up on a going to the professor lemley's point about the regulatory system and given the slight mismatching speed which the legislation as test and technology develops how can legislation be flexible enough to address some of the issues we talked about and others will a ride in the future?
>> of this is a very hard problem when you intervene in you can't intervene at some level, to me by and large, and this is in line with what richard is saying, it seems to me for the reasons you suggest, we are generally speaking better served with common-law and flexible rules than the details of the legislative set parameters in part because congress can get them wrong because they don't understand or congress can get them wrong because they have a vested interest in doing particular things that might not be efficient and in part because they just don't change. so, you know, so i think -- for example, in the past i've argued
along with dan burke. the way we need to account for the very different characteristics in the body of industry and is not like passing legislation that is tailored to each of them but it's by having general rules that courts can actually apply with some connectivity to the needs of the different circumstances to respect the key illustration on that is released the common law rule to the innovation commesso if you have this mosaic in the business we give you six months where you pay the royalty but at that time instead of having an instantaneous shutting the thing down and that is a classic illustration where you do that for him but you don't do it for a guy that wants to in french. mark is exactly right.
>> on the first , it seems to me if we are starting to see that there are the two mechanisms mr. to regulate the industry one is hollywood which has a machine and very hard to try to restrict the freedom on the internet precisely because the view that as a danger point to them because a lot of the process and the internet piracy that did not go away with the defeat of sopa and pipa to be the other when people pay less attention to and is a harder colin because you've got to worry about it in some level is cybersecurity. the real nightmare story for the computer regulation is some seriously destructive infrastructure attack on the internet that takes out some critical whether it's the airline network of the electric
grid and of the catastrophic data in its own right i think the idea that computers are largely unregulated area goes away. >> just a quick question. a number of you have touched on this issue of the global marketplace, and i was wondering if you could comment on the creeping danger of harmonizing will allow all and expanding federal regulation. i speak specifically of recent controversies that relate to the european demand that the u.s. about 80 the privacy regime similar to what exists in europe. is this a danger, what is the magnitude, and how can we reconcile these types of demands from a foreign government that we expand our regulatory regime? >> a couple of thoughts about that one because when you talk
about the harmonization, what we actually see isn't so much the harmonization of botching up. it's a one-way ratchet again and again and again thomas especially in the copyright when you see the move from the united states and its domestic copyright existed for a couple hundred years and move into the convention met trips or to see again and again on the international level are the so-called minimum standards of protection so every country has this much that it's free to regulate more and more and more curious of the imbalance that occurs is that you protect more and more about what you leave out or the safety valves that are designed to make sure that the regulations don't go so far as to kill the golden goose and in copyright that is creativity expression. yes you create copyrights' and give certain limited rights but you have a whole bunch of safety valves that other people use the material to do things and so if you ratchet up the protection
constantly and leave behind the protections that are supposed to protect critically important public speech rights, and the harmony is a recipe for eroding the basic balance that we've worked for a couple hundred years to construct ha. >> what they did is by having the harmonization they'll love of the department to nationalize the protection to the cartels in that case was about. that is all the labor cases were about and what happens in the european union that peter didn't mention is the wrecking of the labour market by harmonization which presents the competition has created 40 to 40% unemployment rates in various places because when you have a common market its open subject to a big plus but then you get a protective barrier to keep every body else out and that is essentially what has happened in the american agricultural market we have a common marketing inside the united states subject to the partial regulation.
the reason it's more disastrous in labor than elsewhere is because in leverage the productivity goes down whereas the technological improvements in agriculture on the war and other kind of things was large enough so that it more than offset the monopoly but american labor you go right back to those decisions the national cartels are very efficient and harmonization becomes the center for basically the cartelization because the guys that run in these programs are all committed progressives in the social democrats. estimate on the internet in particular, the problem is it doesn't obey the national boundaries. general harmonization of good ideas is usually a good thing and bad ideas is usually a bad thing. but it doesn't work on the internet because of the worry is that the alternative to some
level of more or less the rational harmonization is that equivalent on the opposite side of what tony is talking about which is the most restrictive regulatory regime ends up controlling. >> while i don't like international governments and international bodies on the other hand, if you are in an internet business you have just a nightmare is as complex local rules in certain areas of the u.s. when we plan to pay paul we had to find ways to comply with the money regulator rules in all 50 states and it was harder than if you have a single one so there are -- it is a complicated question of what is more efficient in different cases. >> also comes up with the standard setting organizations and what happens is now another
report by the ftc announcing the private market so they want to basically get more government included in setting these things. i wrote in the report for qualcomm on the other side of it and i will mention to you one fact which is these organizations all of them in the hundreds of different standard setting organizations and the number of breakdowns when you do it it's very small and the antitrust law the one good set of antitrust rules or who can join the particular group and essentially what you do is you a lot complement but not substitutes to come together because that allows you to overcome the double marginalization problem without creating the cartelization. the classic illustration where they did it right in the 1990's and they are about to do it wrong in the next decade if the new report takes over. estimate a practical observation on the issues in the ever
increasing skilled the danger of the harmonization i think the technology can help pushback, for example as peter diluted to, we have users and so many different companies with many they do not embrace in the american version of free speech comes a we are not just talking about pakistan but places like france and germany and others since the early yahoo! days of 2001 and 2002. the rules were established then that even though you served from doug united states if it is doable in france that is a violation. but the technological when we ratchet by things like i.t. blogging so now we block the ip addresses of the content posted in the illegal pakistan we can block that to the pakistani users without letting pakistan
pose its version. there are many versions of criminalization and conflict of all that doesn't require substantive and among them there are problems that can be solved to the complex rules and problems that require substantive organization and the international government a royalty to the substantive harmonization out of the international level is a qualitative issue here is my question is directed at mr. thiel but others can feel free to answer. what technology essentially be the last area without significantly broader regulations in light of the failure and the current failure and controversy surrounding sopa and pipa and other proposed bills regulating the technology area, how do you feel that the technology structure will ultimately be regulated the vote
for a government or market forces withdrew a combination of the two? >> sorry, go, richard. >> this may be the last chance to disagree. the greatest protection the technology has against regulation is the case of innovation that is the more that you can constantly change and more for product the more difficult it is for people from all sides to to get over and that's when the technology becomes stable like electricity and light telethons and so forth that you can start having very impressive national reregulation is that develop between 1980 to 1940. i don't think he will ever be able to get that in the technology business. so i think it affects as long as you regulate you will never be able to speed up again. >> one elaboration on that. my intuition is that the future
is very sensitive to the initial conditions. you can imagine this model for there's an easy philosophy and politics and get the positive feedback that goes quickly enough. the technology outpaces the political system and we continue to see acceleration, and that is what has happened thus far in the computer area. or you can imagine the case where the political system dampens down things and then you end up with monopoly light industries and you have the arguments like utilities to regulate more heavily and that is what has happened everywhere else. and so because of the positive feedback loop between the technology and politics, which ever one goes faster will dominate the coming and you can imagine radically different in the future, and we can't imagine a world that is completely static or we can have one where you have progress starts to read accelerate and the computers take over everything.
won't be able to. tivo makes it big enough and fast enough that even though the copyright owners want it not to shutdown tivo because it skips commercials and successfully sued a smaller company that hasn't scale fast enough they can't do that. it is impossible as a matter of regulation. >> you invest a commercial in the show. you go through -- that is the advantage. >> or make your commercials better. >> super bowl people prefer it. >> question? >> i am a law student from georgetown. one of the things my friends and i have been considering doing is internet piracy debate, has been
increasing globalization of the me the and in particular movies and television shows, different distribution dates in different countries. so this question is for the panel at large. i know that i have friends who for example down loaded something that was shown in the u.k. three months earlier than it was released here and there are programs that won't ever be released here from other countries. how can corporations work on that? how can regulations work on that? what is more effective in the marketplace? that is something -- personally
distribution is simplified -- >> you can see this hearing in its entire the at c-span.org. now to capitol hill where the congressional executive commission on china is conducting a hearing on chinese dissident chen guangcheng who after 19 months of home detention escape to the u.s. embassy in beijing. he left the embassy yesterday because of threats to his family. this is just getting underway. >> chen guangcheng from illegal confinement nothing short of miraculous and it has taken the world not to mention chinese officials and chen's guards themselves by complete surprise for. was a great relief that i and millions around the world learned of this escape and reaching safety at the american embassy friday morning. yet it is with equally great concern that i see this hearing of the china commission today. having been handed over to
chinese officials by an american diplomat yesterday chen and his wife and the rest of his family and friends appear to be in significant danger. notwithstanding made and potentially empty safety assurances from the chinese side chen has since leaving the american embassy in beijing expressed an earnest desire to gain asylum for himself and his family. questions arise whether or not chen was pressured to leave the u.s. compound. a cnn interview reported by the atlantic says, quote, chen's comments portray the united states as manipulating him, cutting him off from outside communication and encouraging him to leave the embassy rather than seek asylum. he says he was the night request to call friends. he felt embassy officials lied to him says the report. the embassy kept lobbying me he
goes on to say to lead and promise to have people stay with me in the hospital. this afton and as soon as i checked into the hospital room i noticed they were all gone. very disappointed that the u.s. government. i don't think u.s. officials protected human-rights in this case. when asked why he left the embassy rather than seeking asylum the article goes on chen seems to blame embassy officials. at the time i didn't have a lot of information. i wasn't allowed to call my friends from inside the embassy. i couldn't keep up with the news so i didn't do a lot of things that were happening. chen agreed with the cnn reporter who asked him if you stay in china is there no future? he said he tried calling two u.s. embassy officials numerous times but no one had answered. i told the embassy i would like to talk to representative chris smith but they never managed to
arrange it. i feel a little puzzled. for the record are placed the call to chen on may 1st at 9:00 p.m. eastern standard time after being informed by one of chen's american friends that he wants to speak with me. i waited all night until 4:00 p.m. for a call back from the high u.s. officials i was told could arrange that. the call never came. there are many questions and more concerns. how will the united states/china agreement on chen and his family's safety be enforced? what happens to chen or any member of his family suffers retaliation? where is chen's nephew? what happens now if the courageous young woman who drove chen to safety? there are many questions. next week i hope to convene another hearing of this commission on chen in order to
take testimony from the obama administration witnesses and get some answers. our purpose today as we examine this case and discern the likelihood his family and chen and supporters have any opportunity and true freedom and safety going forward or whether it is asylum remaining a viable option. the story is chen guangcheng has been extraordinary and inspirational from the beginning. blinded by childhood illness chen pushed past profound barriers. he became an advocate for the rights of the vulnerable including disabled persons and rural farmers. local villagers told him their stories of forced abortions and sterilization. chen and his wife documented these stories later building 3 for a class-action lawsuit against the officials involved. their efforts gained
international news media attention in 2005 and their challenge to china's draconian population control policies spurred harsh and extended official retaliation including torture and beatings. the commission and other committees examine china's population control policies many times. i had heard from victims, give testimony about that brutal policy. of the woman who ran the program who said -- self-described by day i was an officer and by a wife and mother and told how the full weight of the dictatorship was behind her efforts to insure that children were not born. china sometimes paints a false picture for billable foreigners that the policy is being eased or mitigated. with few exceptions it is not
modified. is roughly personal harsh and brutal and ugly character and chen guangcheng and his wife knew it and face huge retaliation for speaking out against it. for the record family planning officials at the local level maintained extreme turbulence on out of plan children. the phrase they use is family-planning. it is not a family's plan but the state's. these measures mask what they do. what they do is force voluntary sterilization. when another plan takes place they impose fines on the couple. all unwed mothers are compelled to abort. china's many coercive securities this one touches virtually every chinese especially women and children and we know there are missing girls by the tens of millions in china. it was chen guangcheng who challenge to the horrific violations of women's rights and that is when the hammer fell.
chen guangcheng faced enormous government opposition for his efforts but he has refused to back down. he and his family paid a dear price. chen and his wife and mother have been repeatedly harassed and denied basic freedoms for seven years. after serving four years in prison on trumped up charges chen was released in 2010 only to be locked up with his family and 24-hour surveillance. a lot more communication with the outside world. on more than one occasion chen and his wife were severely beaten and denied medical treatment for their injuries. their 6-year-old daughters presented -- prevented from attending school. this was in violation of the child's right to an education and more payback for her parents's actions. in the past few months this little girl has been permitted to attend school but only with three guards with her everywhere
she goes. all of this and more, chen guangcheng and his family have endured this as so-called free citizens under chinese law. it is no wonder when chen felt risking his life to escape this hellish conditions, last week he saw our help, the united states government. three demanded an online video posted were incredibly cogent and urge the chinese government to address that fully and immediately. a senior u.s. official in beijing explained that chen consistently expressed his wish to stay in china and his family and they be insured the lives of normal citizens. it is unclear whether the path to political asylum was discussed seriously or in a hurry or whether presumed pressure in any way at any time in the process to remain in china. especially with the summit that began today. he is away from the embassy
asking for the right to leave. he said we would like to rest in a place outside china. help my family and i leave safely, he told the associated press. the eyes of the world are watching to see his wishes are honored by the chinese government. i and everyone on our commission and in congress are greatly concerned to the well-being and whereabouts of chen's supporters including the one who drove him from his village to beijing on the night of his escape and remains incommunicado. we are concerned about other members of the family. that is why we are convening this important hearing today. i would like to yield to my good friend and colleague, chairman of the human-rights commission, congressman frank wolf. >> i want to thank congressman
chris smith who championed chen's case in congress. this is the latest chapter in the long history of congress and human rights advocacy. it is fitting that chen reportedly requested to speak to congressman smith when he was at the u.s. embassy. one of many questions surrounding chen's case is why the phone call was never facilitated. as the news cycle unfolded yesterday what began as a purported diplomatic triumph evolve into a diplomatic fiasco. the faith of this man and his family hangs in the balance. for details of the emerging, the most generous read of the administration's hand on this case is it was naive except for assurances that well known and documented history of brutally repressing its own people under this government. consider the following. if you think about these things in the last year alone more than 30 monks and nuns including
several who were very young set themselves of flame in desperation at the abuses and dorr by their people. every one of the 25 underground catholic bishops are either in jail or under house arrest or under house serve a month or in hiding. house church leaders are routinely imprisoned and harassed. lawyers that defend them are often given the same fate. when i traveled to china with congressman smith in 2008 before the beijing olympics every single one of the lawyers were warned not to attend except for the person who made it was subsequently placed under house arrest. china presently spends more on public security in attempts to control its population than its own defense. our own state department and human rights report found china is, quote, an authoritarian state where the government
continues to muzzle freedom of speech and rain in civil society. this february the chinese government went so far as to deny a visa to susan johnson cook, for international freedom. every time the vice president of china was meeting with the president of the united states, president obama, the president ambassador for human rights and religious freedom, couldn't even get a visa to go to china. of course the practice of forced abortions and sterilization that chen sought to shine a bright light on. the list goes on. this is not an anomaly but symptomatic of pervasive human rights abuses committed by the chinese government against its own people. as recently as today the washington post reported china, quote, continues its crackdown on people who are believed to
have helped chen. chen's heroism in escaping house arrest is backed only by the brave individuals who at great personal risk to themselves assisted him in breaking free from the captors who tormented and mistreated him for 18 months. several subsequently been detained, arrested or placed under house arrest. in light of the realities and emerging accounts of how chen's wife was treated in the days following the escape that chinese officials detained and threatened to beat her to death if chen did not leave the u.s. embassy. wrong to comprehend why the administration would accept at face value assurances that chen would be safe on exit in u.s. protection. you wonder if there were other forces at work. word came down to resolve the chen situation no matter what prior to the arrival of secretaries clinton and geithner for economic and foreign policy talks? was there a hint of coercion?
was there any coercion? forced coercion or pressure involved? what were the internal state department and white house deliberations? when the dust settled i intend to request all cable traffic, classified or otherwise that surround these negotiations. further the administration has an obligation to release the details of the deal struck for the chinese government especially given how quickly it appears to have happened. it is reported that chen was told the u.s. government official would stay with him at the hospital and according to one news account chen says many americans were with me when i checked into the hospital. lots of them, when i was brought to the hospital room they all left. i don't know where they went. was chen d.c.? was that part of the arrangement? why did chen find himself alone, isolated and fearful just hours
after he left u.s. protection? there are more questions than answers at this juncture. i hope today's witnesses will shed light on the matter especially his friend and a man personally connected to china's most courageous dissidents. even though there's much we do not know the administration, the obama administration has a moral obligation to protect chen and his family. to do anything less would be scandalous. president ronald reagan famously said that the u.s. constitution is a covenant that we have made not only with ourselves but all of mankind. some in washington forget the document -- in 1787 transcends history. freedom loving people of the world know this intuitively to be true. there is a reason student
protesters in tiananmen square war translations of the declaration of independence and cared papier-mache models of the statue of liberty. americans missed an opportunity. america missed an opportunity in tiananmen. will this administration also fail to see the historic moment? reverberations of such failure nearly impossible to calculate. the world is watching. dictators and dissidents. the administration must be bold. the administration must assure chen's safety and that of his family. if news reports are to be believed about chen's which is the administration must grant him and his family asylum and refuse, refused to apologize despite a chinese government demand. for our history america's embassies have been islands of freedom. the siberian seven seeking
religious freedom and the right to immigrate live in the u.s. embassy in moscow for five years beginning in 1978. no way did the carter administration or reagan administration said they had to leave. no one negotiated and said go out and be on your own. they allowed them to stay. five years. customer opponents of communism and defender of religious freedom refuge in a u.s. embassy in budapest for 15 years. he initially found safety in the embassy and now that guarantee is jeopardized. i am confident there will come a day when the communist party's brutal reign will end and the chinese people will experience a new birth of freedom. men like chen who helped facilitate chen's escape represent china's future. their oppressor is a one party structure that will be on the trash heap of history the same
way president reagan said teardown the wall and the evil empire will never fall. the same will happen to the chinese government. until that they comes america should always stand with the chens of the world and i thank the chairman for this hearing and yield back the balance. >> i would like to introduce our very distinguished we had six outstanding human-rights advocates who are testifying today. i will begin with pastor bob fu who was a leader in the 1989 democracy movement in tiananmen square and became a pastor and founder with his wife. in 1996 authorities arrested and imprisoned them for their work. after their release they escaped to the united states in 2002, founded chinaaid association which reports on religious freedom in china and provides a forum for discussion among experts on human rights in china. pastor fu is frequently interviewed by media outlets around world and testified at
u.s. congressional hearings. i know that when mr. wolf and i were in china on one of many trips we contacted bob fu who helped arrange us to be with house church leaders and in a very kidding way that we were heading to tiananmen square unfurled a banner that said human-rights. within an hour our embassy were contacted to say wolf and smith will be deported immediately. here is that man being watched and yet speaks out and has incredible contact inside china. dr. richardson is the chinese human rights director of human rights watch. graduate of university of virginia, in oberlin college. dr. richardson is author of numerous articles on to the political reform, democratization and human rights in cambodia and china, hong kong
and the philippines. she has testified before the european parliament and u.s. senate and house. she provided commentary to the bbc and far eastern economic review, foreign policy public radio, wall street journal and the washington post. dr. richardson is the author of china, cambodia and five principles of peaceful coexistence. december 2009, in-depth examination of china's foreign policy since 1954 geneva conference including a rare interview with policymakers. we will hear from the director of international -- he has testified before the subcommittee on human rights many times and before other house and senate forms. he served as human-rights monitor in many asian countries and bosnia, afghanistan and south africa. he has served as director of
several refugee ships and camps. kumar holds a degree from pennsylvania law school and fought at university academy and human rights humanitarian. mr. kumar was a political visitor for five years in sri lanka for his human rights activities. he was adopted as a prisoner of conscience. he started his legal studies in prison and became an attorney and devoted his entire practice to defending political prisoners which is what he does now. we will then hear from wang xuezhen who is a human-rights advocate and purchasing agent for a furniture business who recently fled to the u.s. to escape constant monitoring and harassment from chinese authorities following ongoing advocacy on behalf of chen guangcheng. along with other human rights
advocates, wang tried to visit chen guangcheng during his 19 months home confinement and participate in numerous activities. the authorities' treatment of her was constant beatings and detention. she and her husband for two weeks in december of 2011 as they were preparing to travel to participate in a free chen luncheon activity. we will then hear from an independent writer, translator and logger about china. she grew up and studied literature in the u.s.. her writings explore aspects of china past and present with heavy emphasis on human rights and the rule of law including multiple pieces on chen guangcheng. she was frequently quoted by mainstream media outlets such as the new york times. she had contact with the least one member of chen's extended
family after chen's escape and has been reporting on family situations. we will hear from michael her would from a senior fellow institute at washington and the hudson institute project for civil justice league and the project for international religious liberty. he served as general counsel for the omb under the reagan administration and university of mississippi and georgetown. he practiced as a partner at national law firms and written frequently on internet issues and human rights topics and holds a b.a. from city college in new york and got his l l b from yale law school. and i know parenthetically that michael horowitz has been the genius behind many human-rights initiatives that found their way into law and religious freedom and north korean human rights act and other initiatives.
we will then hear from regina 18 -- reggie littlejohn, a non-partisan international coalition to oppose forced abortion and sexual slavery in china as well as an expert on china's one child policy. testified before the european and british parliament and the u.s. congress and briefed officials at the white house and department of state and the vatican and shown interviews -- been interviewed on dozens of tv and radio programs and spoken at harvard law school and george washington university and offered severe reports that are in the congressional record. littlejohn represented political asylum of refugees in the united states. i would like to ask pastor fu to proceed. >> thank you, chairman smith and
congressman wolf and other members of congress and your excellent staff. i want to asked to submit my written version. >> without objection your full statement and those of any items you would like to affix to it will be part of the record. >> the president of the china association i am familiar with details of chen guangcheng's escape and contact with the team of people who helped him flee to beijing. i learned chen left his house may twenty-third. after chen left the u.s. embassy i stayed in close contact with the relevant u.s. government
officials and people who were the internets of chen, telephone communication. from them all i have amassed a great deal of firsthand information. the development that led to the current situation which is rather shocking, regretting, disappointing. some important episodes that are confusing and need immediate clarification. first, according to the u.s. department of the u.s. embassy in beijing, at the official chinese announcement, chen guangcheng left the embassy of his own volition. however, according to my conversation last night with mr.
chen and several media reports including the associated press and information from a lawyer and the wife of dissident hu ya, the threat made by the chinese side to threaten his wife and it was after learning of this threat that chen left the brazil no choice but to read -- reluctantly leave the u.s. embassy. the dispute between the accounts of the state department and u.s. negotiators and chen's record with the media how to characterize the conversation on may 2nd before chen walked out
of the u.s. embassy, relayed by the u.s. official, the method seems to suggest -- let me put it this way. chen was parked by a u.s. government official before he stepped out of the embassy and he was told it was the chinese government message that the chinese government want to conveyed the message through the u.s. government official that if he chose not to walk out of the embassy on may 2nd week of little he will not be able to see his wife and children again. his wife and children will be returned to the village which has been held for this family. according to my conversation last night, i tried to verify
the nature of the conversation, what really happened. chen said after hearing that message from the chinese government by a u.s. official, his heart was heavy and feels he has no other twists but to walk out of the u.s. embassy. sounds to him like a 1-way street. either/or he stays in the u.s. embassy but facing a reality that his wife and children would be gone their whole life, not be able to see his wife and their children. of course he didn't know at the time that his wife had been
treated after april 27th when the chinese authority -- chen's wife was immediately taken to a criminal interrogation center where she was tired and beaten and threatened with life. the interrogator told her that if her husband did not walk out of the u.s. embassy, they will kill her. chen learn about that after a he had a reunion with his wife. that was the second phase. that was clear to anyone with reasonable logic, that should
constitute a threat. if that conversation occurred anywhere here that would -- what happened to his wife and their children, is 8-year-old son was not even able to be seen by this couple for two years. what happened to them in the past seven years of this enormous culture of harassment and constant threat to this family, their 6-year-old daughter recounted--his 80-year-old mother was beaten up, wounded and the government would not even allow her to receive medical treatment. in front of us 6-year-old girl.
i don't know if that is a threat or not but to me after hearing what chen told me yesterday i verify over the phone and cakes of my conversation with him, i have a few questions i want to ask the u.s. chief negotiator or whoever, who is the one really that gave information to chen? what exactly is the wording from the chinese government? what was the u.s. response initially to that message and why he had to walk on may 22nd and why there is no other option on the table offered to chen?
why the u.s. embassy would not tell chen that you can stay, we can continue to negotiate with the chinese government to allow your wife and two children to come to the u.s. embassy so you can have a save the environment to discuss your future. why that has to be a 1-way street? this question needs to be answered. i certainly appreciate the administration officials made the right decision in april 26th to allow arbuckle one to have six days pressure time of freedom in seven years but i do want to ask these questions.
i certainly think for some conversation i had yesterday power chen felt he was treated -- preserve time to share but overall chen told me yesterday that both my wife and i feel endangered. we are left alone. we do not have anybody -- as late as 9:00 hour 6-year-old baby girl was crying for food. suffering starvation after they were guaranteed freedom. after somebody called the u.s.
embassy apparently and the u.s. embassy, somebody took chen to the hospital and they were given some food and that accounts, very detailed description written by one of the chen's close friends and his conversation over the phone about what had really happened during that night about their starvation. and secondly, and want to emphasize that chen told me last night very clearly that he does not feel safe over if there. he wants the u.s. to help him and his family to come out of china. he didn't use the exact words in
chinese, seeking asylum or something like that of that nature. remember his wife was not even allowed to walk out of the hospital. not if chen's friends be personally human rights lawyers or human rights defenders, is allowed so far to visit chen. some of them showed up in the hospital and not even allowed to come close so the hospital rooms that chen and his family members are saying became essentially another village under -- in a different form in the capital city of china. i would call upon the u.s. government especially, actually chen specifically requests, talk
about his request to have a phone conversation with you and last night specifically requested again, i want to talk with congressman chris smith. and unfortunately this morning a moment ago when we tried -- we don't know what happened. he promised me he will keep that up, possible for a conversation with you today. secretary clinton, this is the moment to deliver what you have promised, what you have repeatedly said in the past two years. you want to see chen and his family with freedom. you are visiting a dialogue with your counterparts in china, this
is the moment to deliver. i think chen specifically made that appealed to secretary clinton to help negotiate, be engage the chinese government, allow them to have a safe advent. that is his appeal. i want to leave the rest of the time for questions. >> thank you very much. >> mr. fu, thank you for that incredibly and lightning and passionate testimony. of like to ask dr. richardson for her comments. sir >> thank you for your extraordinary tenacious leadership on these issues. is not an accident that chen wanted to speak to you in particular. i want to start with one premise
which is if the chinese government was serious about his commitment to human rights and the rule of law we would not be having these conversations again and again which does not suggest we're not happy to have this discussion with you. the fact that 30 years after chen -- we're still discussing these issues is a powerful statement about the choices the chinese leadership made with respect to political reform and the rule of law. to paint a broad picture, year in and year out we continue to document gross abuses of ethnic minorities and restriction on freedom of religion and association and assembly. chen's case in particular highlights the worst abuses we have seen in recent years including disregard for the law both with respect to chen's effort to challenge illegal
practices and hold people to account but also respect to the treatment of him. certainly gross problems with respect to arbitrary detention which as we discussed often extends to family members including very young children. i find this aspect of the story in particular outrageous, that children should be subject to this kind of treatment. torture and mistreatment in detention. we hurtieard incredible evidenc physical evidence and ability to see him and report on what is happening to him. let's bear in mind that all of this has been in retaliation for work and activities that were entirely consistent with
domestic and international law. that is a very important point to remember. chen did nothing illegal. i think the bottom line is all activists in china regardless of the issue they're working on remain at extraordinary risks at all times. with respect to chen in particular, obviously much depends on clarity about what he and his family wants if indeed they want to leave which seems to be the view now. it is incumbent on the u.s. government to insist on access to him. we are disturbed by the reports in the washington post today that u.s. officials have not been able to have any access to him for 24 hours now. i don't see any particular reason why secretary clinton or secretary geithner and other
officials in beijing can't get in a car and then to the hospital and insist on access to him. if he does opt to stay there is an obligation on the u.s. government to mount a monitoring efforts with respect to chen's treatment and family members treatment of a kind they never imagined before with the tail that the u.s. embassy. in the broader picture with respect to other activists and activism in general in china, there is an enormous responsibility on the u.s. government, and other like-minded governments to watch incredibly closely not just over the next few days, but weeks and
months and years -- we know the machine has swung into action to place restrictions on people who were involved in this case who had nothing to do with this case. it would be a tremendous tragedy if the heightened awareness of human rights abuses in china were to fade when the spotlight shifts after secretary clinton leaves town. that is our collective responsibility in the near and longer term future. thanks. >> thank you very much. i would like mr. kumar. >> congressman wolf. amnesty international is pleased to fight at this important and timely hearing and we want to thank your leadership in promoting and protecting human rights not only in china but
around the world. today what is happening in china is not about the critical individual. it is about the system in china which is geared towards abusing its own citizens, started working on chen's case as initially registered years ago for documenting abuses in the one child policy. as a matter of conscience the reason was it was not used violence or advocated violence but documenting abuses and trying to subvert -- publicize its abuses. some more than four years, during this time he was tortured and abused. then he was released.
everyone thought that the fall guy will come to an end but that is not the case. like many other cases in china he was illegally detained in his house. and abuse of not only him but his family as well. what happened two weeks ago was that he escaped from the detention and ended up coming to the u.s. embassy. now read the situation is getting clear, one thing we know from the u.s. administration official who made public statements that china gave punishment and also in agreement between china and the united states about the treatment of guangcheng chen. i don't know the full context of the agreement.
it is time the u.s. administration make it public by the chinese authorities of real official document should be brought in. i urge the commission to look at that official agreement between the u.s. government and china on chen's treatment. on the context of the strength of the agreement chen chen agreed even though there were other issues involved and difficulty confirming it, that he rented the treatment and suddenly what we are hearing is the same agreement that the united states and china agreed upon has been violated. now he is asking at least according to the media that he wanted asylum to the u.s..
the opportunity that is there, for the political prisoners. secretary clinton is here. u.s. government officials. seeing u.s. government officials can't afford this issue, the u.s. is having a direct -- because of the agreement. to ask a question. what the u.s. can exert or what interest they can do to get improvement in human rights issues in china. that brought the biggest question about human rights in china and u.s. engagement. amnesty international is concerned that even though there are some meaningful improvements taken by different
administrations, dialogue taking place -- economic dialogue is not taking human rights as a serious part of a dialogue. even a basic thing like renaming the economic dialogue and economic and human rights dialogue you don't know where these come from. the administration to the chinese. they do not even renamed the economic right of dialogue and economic and human rights dialogue, there are serious questions about the administration's intentional to put additional questions. that is where we are coming from. secretary clinton should, before she leaves, make a public statement about what she intends to do in chen's case.
and specifically mention the agreement that was given. if there is an agreement to asylum, what steps? when secretary clinton leaves, interests will be down. as reported by the administration official that is not the case. but to make it clear, let secretary clinton make a statement about this case. not only a human rights case but the case is going -- directly involved. the u.s. and political case they have an agreement. let the u.s. stand up and let secretary clinton, why she is in china, stand up and make a clear statement that this will set the tone for future u.s./china agreements or even china policies in promoting and
protecting human rights in china. thank you again for amnesty international. >> thank you. if i could go left to right or your right to left, reggie littlejohn. >> thank you so much for inviting me to this. i have been asked to testify two things. one is what is the underlying issue that got chen guangcheng detained and the other one is what about those who helped him? in particular pearl? something that has been left out of this discussion, a lot of mainstream media, is why is it that chen guangcheng has been the subject of such intense persecution? what is it that set off the
chinese communist party against him? the fact that he was one person in china who dared stand up against one child policy. he and his wife exposed the fact that there were an estimated 130,000 forced abortions and forced sterilizations in one year in 2005 and it was the fact act that got him in d change. he spent four years in jail during which he was tortured, denied medical treatment and now has been under house arrest. obtained the field notes of chen guangcheng, we have the cases that he was working on when he was detained in 2006. we release those at a congressional hearing dec. 6, 2011. it is called the chen guangcheng report. 35 pages of case after case of
or cumin rights abortions. woman was sterilized at seven months. villagers in fields to leave a family planning officials. family planning officials who broke a -- three brooms over the head of a man whose children were suspected of having violated family-planning law. family planning officials who force the grandmother and brother to beat each other because someone in their family had violated the family planning birthed limit. finally the use of quota systems and practice of implication, detention of family members in which if one person in a family is suspected of having violated the one child policy by being pregnant or missing their cervical check up, cervical
check of speetwo in every two and six months depending where they live in china their entire family can get dragged in and there's one account in the chen guangcheng report of a person his extended family, parents and grandparents and cousins all being dragged in and tortured and find 1 hundred yuwans a day for learning class tuitions. it is clear from the chen guangcheng report that the spirit of the red guard is living on in the family planning police today and this is the issue for which he gave his life to china. he gave his life to protect the women of china from forced abortion legal forced sterilization, infanticide and the other implications of the one child policy are gendercide, forced abortion of baby girls.
there are thirty-seven million more men than women in china today and that in turn is driving human trafficking and sexual slavery not only within show -- china but surrounding countries as well. china has the highest female suicide rate of any country in the world. approximately 500 women a day kill themselves in china. there is untold suffering in china because of one child policy. this is the issue that chen had the courage to confront. this is the central policy of the chinese communist party which is why they targeted him so fiercely. some people might ask whether chen guangcheng's report in 2005, whether these things are still happening. they are still happening. just three weeks ago there was a report, a photograph that came across on the chinese
equivalence of twitter where a woman had been forcibly aborted a baby at the ninth month. the baby was born alive, was crying and the family planning officials took that baby and dumped it in a bucket and drowned it. there's a picture of a drowned baby in a bucket. that created outrage. i would also like to say something people don't realize. the coercive birth limit is not only violence against women but men as well and there are many instances in the chen guangcheng report where men were detained and tortured. in one instance there was a farmer who committed suicide because of the oppression. another report i have submitted, there was up man who in 2008 his wife had a second child soa man
wife had a second child so the family planning police came yes them to the peaceful about it. they started a fight and broken bottle over his head. here's a picture of him with his temple that was crushed when the bottle was broken over his head and he is permanently disabled. the second issue i was asked to address was persecution of pearl. she reached out to me six months ago. she was running the free chen guangcheng campaign and she was doing it inside of china.
she and i started e-mailing each other. we felt we were sisters in this cause of freeing chen guangcheng and she is the one that when chen guangcheng made his great escape she drove 20 hours to his village and she disguised herself as a courier, got into the village, full the guard and drove eight hours between there and beijing. ..
i would urge that the discussions that include all times i appreciate the way that congress has been in putting her in the discussions so i'm sure he will not feel free until his main supporter from the outside is also free. thank you. figure for that testimony and for bringing attention to the underlying cause why the full weight of the chinese government came down upon chen and his wife
on the forced abortion issue in reminding the world that the concern we have to have for her well-being. i would now like to yield to mr. horowitz. >> thank you, mr. sherman. last month i was arrested in a respectful demonstration in what i call the china six, and of course was one of them and when the first news came out, send an e-mail to bald and said we are down to the china five and he then sent back an e-mail to me saying soon it will be china's zero, mr. chairman leo beck at the china six and part of is the failure that mr. wolf indicated that back at that hearing the administration when these incoming president of china was here to send a clear signal that the rights of these heroic dissidents represent priority
interests of american human rights in american foreign policy. and so part of what we are witnessing are the fruits of the visit to the united states. the real question is how could this have happened. and i've often thought and said to you, mr. chairman, that one of the things we could do for the pursuit of american interests would be to pursue the state department with the afl-cio because this is an issue of bargaining. anybody that would presume that we would understand what have floated every one of these people were bargaining for the life and freedom of such a growth hero the triet limit of three things. the first thing one does is welcome this man to the embassy and tell him he can stay as long as he wants. to take care of your own client and more importantly to send a signal to china that time is on
our side. mr. chairman, when i'm working for the fire offices of new york city i am to stand one thing. if the other guy needed to sign a deal before i did, he was in my pocket. and the chinese understood that as clearly as possible. so when bargaining went on that score secondly you don't accept verbal promises. you get some action, good faith action before you close the deal and turnover door house or whatever it is for cut the deal for, so the first deal when anybody of any human leader would say you want to do a deal, first thing bring his wife and child here. we don't even talk until she is there with him. that could have been done. and then the most critical thing mr. chairman was not only to
understand the risks that you and your client run, but to put yourself in the head of the other side and run the risk that they run. anybody from any labor union would have said to the chinese listen, we have all the time in the world. the world is watching what's going on. he's become the face of china to the people of the united states and arrest of the world. you spend all this money building in the west and the building goodwill in the united states. every minute that this man and his family that rescued him are at risk is destroying whatever it is the youth build. the leverage that you have from the american business community will be trumped if you continue to let the case faster. so as long as it takes, it takes. but he feels he is comfortable and that is what has happened. instead they were so focused on our needs, our risks and not the
needs and risks and problems of the chinese that they just rush the negotiation. mr. chairman, even if i didn't care one iota for human rights in china for a chance, and all i cared about was the agenda that secretary geithner was pursuing in his visit i would be emphasizing the chen guangcheng case because that is what puts china on the defensive it's not are we, it is their weakness. and of ronald reagan understood that when he dealt with the pawn pat mccaul skulls. as george hershel it's sifry time the russians wanted to negotiate nuclear weapons policies he would say what are you doing about this incident and that a dissident and when are they getting out, and what they began to understand is these dissidents were not in the way of american foreign policy
but they were foreign policy. guess what, ronald reagan was able to negotiate a better deal on weapons, on mobile dollar relations and so forth again, if you focus on your weakness and don't understand the full liability on the other side, you get fired in the first week of the teamsters union and the people that have been negotiating and held the life and the safety and security of these heroes in their hands how sad it makes me a - year due to sheer and utter confidence of the people of the state department reported the bargain. now what do we do to protect them now? mr. chairman, you have that chart up there, in extraordinary charge. as soon as this happened, the chinese created blocks on the internet. the great highway of freedom that the chinese government
understands. i wish we did better. now if you have the word chen tighten it gets locked. if you type in the word blind man in china if you get blocked. the problem with the story about this and this was in yesterday's wall street journal is that they convey a promise to take a with a message to the american people that china has the capacity to control what people in china get to see on the internet. mr. triet, as you know and as mr. wolf or any member of congress knows, that is true only because of our portable misguided policies because the state department has failed to honor congressional intent in getting appropriations and say give this money to groups with a tested capacity to bypass the fire wall, the internet firewall
system of china, of iran, of all the dictatorships. there's a $30 million now sitting in the was appropriated years ago in the state department accounts to tear down the internet firewalls that they haven't spent. there's a board of broadcasting governors sitting there with seven, $800 million. there isn't the reprogram as we easily could and should have done. just 10% of the appropriation in the firewall circumvention for giving money to successful programs to let them scale up so they don't crash on 2 million users today access the system but allow 50 million uses a day to access the system. we have in our capacity, mr. chairman, to allow 50 million chinese at any given second to search the word blind
man any time they want, no matter what the golden shield bureaucracy says coming and we haven't done it. we haven't done it in violation of clear congressional intent coming and we haven't done it because we haven't pushed the bureaucracy of this department, pushed the board of broadcast governors to do it. there's one possible clue. when asked why one of the most successful programs has not received significant support out of the "washington post" the response mr. chairman, and mr. wolfe knows it was, because if we gave him support, china would go ballistic. some said an administration official in the "washington post." so mr. chairman, the way to deal with the protection of all of the others is some late
information in a global promises in the world are winning less he will be isolated and as long as nobody knows, as long as the world chen and a blind man can't be found out by people in china and the rest coming he will be persecuted as he had before and isolated. his spirit will be taken but let's create a world in which will be beaten up it goes out on the internet and everybody in china knows it. we can make this happen, mr. chairman, with funds sitting in state department accounts in two to three months. so i hope one of the things i will come out of it, and if it does i think chen will regard what he's going through is with every second and get all the pain that he endorsed but let it come out of this a determination
on the part of congress to get this administration to carry on the internet firewalls which is the source of the power and protection and the ability of the regime to isolate its people. i close by saying what hu jintao said, and i think we ought to take a clue. he said the stability of the social state has depended on our ability to terrify the internet. we haven't these cannot be done. we broadcast 50 million in china and the rest of the world within ten minutes of the time it happened on the cellphone is any further torture, isolation of chen guangcheng or others like him. so let's honor this man and protect this man by tearing down
the internet firewall with pretty determination. if we do that all of this suffering will not have been in vain. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much for your testimony and your work. it is extraordinary. i would like to introduce our next panelist. if you could proceed and think you again for being here. >> thank you. we represent smith and senator wolf for having the hearing and giving me the opportunity to speak on what i know about chen guangcheng's case and i am the person on friday afternoon, last friday afternoon around 1:30i was on twitter, and i have been
following active on twitter because i work at home, and i saw a tweet somebody from the china tweeted someone they found on the chinese microglock that chen guangcheng's nephew slashed local officials now she's on the run in the field. without hesitation, i grabbed the phone, i called. when i did that, i really didn't expect to reach him because i thought i've lived here long enough wealth, the police would have taken him already by now without knowing the source of
the number, but i find the agitated, scared young man. he's in his early thirties, young father. so i talked to him. he told me what happens on that space and in china time that is the night of the day when the guards and the local authorities find him missing last thursday. so he told me everything and i said colin. let me get my recorder. i want you to speak on report, and i want to get your word with your permission as quickly as possible, and that's what i did. i did just that and i recorded the message. he told me the entire story, what he knew about that day, and i had put on the web site, the
chen guangcheng web site which i am paying with a group of a friend of volunteers. we are all doing this on our own, and i put the recording their, and within 15 hours, i put the chinese and english transcription of the conversation, and i forwarded it to all the media at outlets i could find, so that's why the story is so quickly on the pages in the international news otherwise it would still. i want to tell the hearing what happens after the conversation. after the next day also from twitter i find that the lawyer through his life that night when
i talked to him he was already -- he called immediately the police bureaus and no police were coming. she was surrounding himself, surrounding himself but no authority came to take him coming and he -- then he was on at large, so through his wife, his lawyers quickly formed a team. one of the lawyers contacted him and was able to speak to and he said all i was scared at the time he was away from the media, and at this point she was on the run, so right now we don't have any word from the chinese authority as to where this young man is, what's happened to him,
is he in police custody, isn't the government responsible to know that come to find him? for crying out loud, he surrenders himself, but he did call. so what happened to this young man? he told his lawyers a black car has been following him all around. for police custody then by a bunch because he witnessed how his uncle's farrelly were beaten before, so also from the chinese authorities there is a state response. the second day when chen guangcheng disappeared, one of the noun -- nine counties of the
official web site posted a statement, two sentences, two or three sentences saying that our officials -- that is the integrity of the statement, and we are trying to apprehend him to read now that statement made no mention of chen guangcheng or no mention of why this man come a good man so far slashed a whole bunch of of author ready. that's the chinese government, that's the statement. also from the reliable source a
think it is based in the u.s. that the young man told me that his father who was the eldest brother of chen guangcheng, they took him away that night and it happened after his father was taken away. so so far what we know at least a sister-in-law of the cousin and the son of this cousin in the hands of the authorities. that so far what we want to know. now i want quickly to talk about the state i find this young man
was in. 11 times i personally counted 11 times he mentioned the word law. in terms he was appealing to the law to defend him. another moment he was desperate, she was shaking that he didn't for a moment believe that bill law would defend him. the conversation is if anybody was interested to go to the website which is to read the transcription, but this 1. i answer he said, quote, i left my motherland but look what she gave me, in the of quote, and she also said at the very end of the conversation, she said at the bottom of the society, it is so tragic.
now i also want to quickly give you my impression because after i taught for several days i can't shake off this image in the conversation we ha. on the one hand, she is just a villager. he's what the chinese official propaganda with a life of low-quality people not suitable for democracy, but i find this young man to be reasonable, good heart and an absolute for intelligent be sent to your entry under such some difficult situations given in other words he represented the the government of china just like his uncle. so on the one hand you have to represent the people and on the
one hand you have this government coming and where are we? i'm american. when i say week high in the u.s. to the where are we? who are we standing with? >> now, if you allow me, i'm not listed to speak about this. i want to pick up on dr. richardson and dr. horowitz because i think following a twitter chinese community these are people who are living in china but not the technical savvy to climb all and reactive on twitter. i want to give them a little idea i want you to know because it is of utmost importance now but what are the reactions at
the embassy with. over a billion this believe left on how this could have happened. overwhelming anchor and the sense of the trail. now for six days, five characters in chinese and the u.s. embassy, five directors for six days and for many chinese, is a big country and the one ireland one calls the u.s. embassy was so overjoyed that he got they're come a miracle. we joked the ball that we allow this to happen.
i'm not going to comment on how it happened because others already spoke eloquently. we have to understand what chen guangcheng represents from so many chinese, strangers who went after the chinese medicine, went to the village, got robbed, but lost their job, lost their house afterwards and embracing for doing nothing wrong. why? because they love chen guangcheng. why? because chen guangcheng has a blind man is the source of light. this is no political work. literally it is a source of light and he represents the goodness and the bravery that day supply in the china.
he lives in the poorest village. where on earth did you find such a man? where, tell me? for him we must understand the larger picture i'm an ordinary citizen. in my eyes, my larger picture might not be the same as the larger picture of our state department officials. but the one piece i saw in the larger picture may well be the most significant piece, which is china's per democracy citizens whether they are outspoken not or upon the u.s. for support.
if we fail chen guangcheng this would be a horrible blow for this population that persecution for change in china for the better and that we will suffer the pain for years and years to come and we will lose our credibility. may i read a few quotes i took from twitter. number one, every street for word that u.s. betrayed us. number two, obama has no teeth. number three, this is so recklessly cynical. number four, now that we can't even trust the u.s. embassy, i can't tell you how angry i am. number four, in 2012, they are
unable to rescue a blind man. number 65 after i read the report by cnn the the whole world is talking about this man of the chinese themselves don't know what's going on i am so saddened by this fact. the last quote, this is the very well-known canadian act just. you might know her name. he said the chai chen guangchene is a challenge for the u.s. ideals and also test of america's strength. if the u.s. gave up on protecting chen guangcheng, it's giving up its leadership role in the world in face of the
dictatorship the u.s. will never be able to stand straight up again. she is based in canada and is also a journalist. that's what i'm here to say and i'm happy thank you for this opportunity. thank you. >> ms. yaxue, que for your testimony. it's almost numbing to hear you say what other chinese individuals are saying online so that should be a wake-up call in and of itself to the u.s. government, and especially to this administration. i would like to now yield two wang xuezhen.
>> translator: i'm jury sorry but i can't speak english so i will be speaking chinese through an interpreter. [speaking chinese] >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, but after an. >> [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: i myself am here as a supporter of chen guangcheng and i hope i have helped him and his family, and i
hope that through telling you all a little bit about what has happened to me, myself in the process, you will be able to get a feeling for what he has been through in the past cows will last as accurate as possible a picture of what is in store for him in the future. >> [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]
[speaking chinese] >> translator: on august 26, 2011, i went to help chen guangcheng's daughter be able to attend the school that she should have been attending. and i went with some other people. this trip was very much and good will, and we wanted to show the local government we were coming in peace and goodwill and for that reason we decided to stay at a local spa which was opened at not secret, and also it was far from the county city casinos
and the breeze been able to watch us while we were sleeping. we wanted it to be very clear that the only reason we were there this time, the goal and purpose of our mission was to let his daughter people to attend the school. we didn't get good results. the only thing that happened is while we were asleep there were seven to eight big strong guys that were watching and there were several cars parked outside watching us all the time. we didn't make any progress in getting her to attend the school that she was supposed to be attending. as a matter of fact, when we went to try to visit the family, we were met with violence, and they pulled us all of the car. >> [speaking chinese]
>> translator: the same years of timber 19th, i went with an israeli journalist to complain we were going to the provincial capital to complain about the brutal treatment that we have received induct july also that night before that, there were two women that tried to visit and they were robbed and beaten. they were thrown in cars, taken to another place outside of the city, thrown in the words, and other than the government giving a warning regarding this, there was no explanation at all for what they did.
>> [speaking chinese] >> on the 20th of september, we went to the house, the fourth sign in a speech chen guangcheng's brother we went there to ask whether or not chen guangcheng's daughter had successfully been able to go to the school that she was supposed to be attending and as soon as he arrived, six people rushed in and were not able to carry of the conversation at all. instead what we have to do is leave the school supplies the we were bringing. we left and we were followed by the car.
[speaking chinese] >> translator: on september 21st, we decided that one person should remain in the motel that we were staying at the end of the rest of us would go down to see if there was any progress, but our car was stopped, there were three men on motorcycles waiting for us, and so we left. we didn't go into the schools. we hadn't left for very long. we have just left the school when we were pulled out of our
cars and beaten by the reporter the was with us was ordered away and escorted away but the rest of us were taken to an older empty house on the all skirts of the village, we were body searched in a very insulting and terrible way. we were beaten and we were taken into an old abandoned house. and then at night we were taken to the police station and interrogated for stealing a cow. i refused to sign the statement they prepared for me, and i was sent back. i was in the police station being into getting in that 5 a.m. i was home and then on the 21st as will the person that had remained at the motel was also ordered a way, taken back to that person's home, and the political police stole a lot of stuff, a lot of positions from us. i, myself, went to his report
these crimes and i was there by about noon that day and i called some reporters. as soon as i pulled up the phone to call the reporters there were eight political police that appeared and sent me home. >> [speaking chinese] on the 20th of october, the mcclatchy journalists asked me to come to an interview, and i went to complete about the treatment that i had received
when i had been beaten and harassed, and the only thing i told them about it, the only thing they told me to felt forum and the whole time there were seven or eight strong guys watch me listening to everything i was saying and then after i got in the car and we hadn't even stopped the car was moving it hadn't even stopped in the village and the reporters assistance, the journalist assistant was almost pulled out of the car before the car had been stopped. >> [speaking chinese]
supplies, once again school supplies we were going to bring them to chen guangcheng's brother's tawes and we were followed the entire way from start to finish. then, the county government answered our request and said yes you can go see him. since they said we could go see him we were trying to get police protection and s-corp to go with us. they said we couldn't take our cameras and they also said they wouldn't escort and we were crazy and then they slapped me very hard in the face. of course there was no protection to speak of. we were kicked out of the police station and the next day that a japanese reporter. the political police appeared once again and jail bus and took our clothes off, took our shoes off. they gave us a full body searches after we were
completely naked. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: i was working with a tv station them to the to helping them cover the situation on november 5th, and that was the smoothest time i had ever had trying to go and see chen guangcheng. i didn't encounter too many problems most likely because we were staying in the big city which is very far from and also we had taken of our sulfone batteries and we had taken precautions even though we did that fell, the police worked
>> translator: been on the second of december, i have arranged with several other volunteers to give of gift bags and balloons with his picture on many major cities in the province. and we were in contact with each other to rearrange this. our contact wasn't protected but as soon as we began printing the material, we were detected by technical means by the technology of the police, and there was no due process accorded to us. they searched my house, they beat my husband, she and labor both detained illegally for 14 days, and for about ten of those days, we were in our hometown office which is part of the
party cadre school of the provincial party commission, which was often used to put away political prisoners, and was very dirty. or volunteers that kept their activities as we had planned even after my husband and i had been arrested but they're also getting the legal because they insisted on the balloons and the gift bags and doing it and their detention also wasn't one the was on with any warrant, it was completely legal. >> [speaking chinese]
>> translator: there are hundreds and hundreds of people that have been to see [speaking chinese] and to show their concern. i myself should be considered one of the lucky ones. anything i've encountered is not nearly as violent and short as a lot of other people have encountered. what they've encountered is much more violent than the five encountered. tiffin be terribly berlin, their phones have been broken, and skulls broken. i heard a story of a 16 year high school kid beaten in his genitals. i, myself, i just have a lot of contact with reporters and i'm also a catholic. so, i medium not considered quite as i heard a just so i'm not a subject to quite a struggle with treatment as the others. >> [speaking chinese]
[speaking chinese] >> translator: you can see what happens when you have a brutal regime with the powers and they have no respect for the law into their stomping of people's rights and the law themselves in a speech in and his family commission and his wife had suffered more than i have, and he himself is known all over the world for doing what he did standing up to protect the people's human-rights and here is the father of two today who is trying very hard to protect his family.
the question is what should be done, how should we treat him, what should we do? we need to show him with concrete actions. thank you. >> i want to thank the panel. congressman smith just got a call and we'll be back. but i want to thank the panel. i wish every member of congress could have been here to hear it. i have a number of questions, which i will wait but i have a number of observations that i wanted to make based on the testimony. i want to personally think the media. it's easy in a political business to criticize the media, let if it were not for the media covering the story coming and as the young witness was just referring every time she
referenced it there were some in the country that was with her and i just wonder d.c. 23 the media and also make it clear that we appreciate very much the bravery of the chinese people. and i would hope that they but no particularly as a result of this hearing that the representatives of the state department in do not represent the viewpoint of the american people. there is a distinct difference. third question, is there a representative of the state department here today? is there a representative here? you don't have to identify yourself. will you be getting this information to secure a clinton as soon as you come back? im stand she is there today and also tomorrow. is that correct? the other thing i would say is i
was sitting there listening. when i think of the words ronald reagan with the entire world and congressman smith and iger in beijing prison number one the temmins square demonstrators were there. if president ronald reagan were the president now, the difference that this would be, can you imagine what would be set by president ronald reagan with regards to this administration? last and then i will add some questions of mr. smith doesn't come back. i have been here since 1981. i see a direct parallel with what is taking place today in china with the unraveling of the romanian government, the activities of the chinese government are literally paralleled. it is like if the found the playbook and they didn't know what was happening and are
following his playbook and it's somewhat similar to what took place with regard to russia before it fell. i wanted to ask the question where anyone here can sort of explain can anyone explain the difference between the comment that i heard on the news yesterday that he wanted to kiss secretary clinton if he could versus -- yes, ma'am. >> was the translation problem or was that a -- >> [inaudible] >> okay. i was on twitter come and chen guangcheng had a phone conversation with one of his closest friends. she is -- she is the wife of one
of the most prominent dissidents living in beijing. so chen guangcheng and the wife had a conversation. over the phone call when she told chen guangcheng that we heard on the news that you said you want to kiss secretary clinton, chen guangcheng said no, that's not what i said, i said i want to meet him. so, now in light of this at the time i thought how funny, how convenient that to make this mistake i just thought it's not something significant, but i also don't want to over interpret but over the last 54
-- last two days did they pretend not to hear it? i'm just asking. the congress and ask the same question, but he told his friend he didn't say he wants to kiss clinton, he wants to meet clinton. that is what his friend tweeted on twitter. >> was that put out by chen or by the state department? the comment that he would like to kiss the secretary, was that put out by chen or -- >> no, that was put out by the state department in the media. and the tweets, i can send you the very tweet that clarifies
this confusion. >> yesterday the assistant secretary called me and gave me a briefing which sounded so upbeat and positive and said that he was going to meet with and had gone to the hospital with chen and was granted with chen on thursday and friday. today is thursday. does anyone know if he was with him today? have you spoken? >> who? >> assistant secretary pos mer? i was with him, went to the hospital with him and i would be with him on thursday and friday. nobody knows. do you believe -- in alba
conversations my sense, do you think that the environment change, currently i've heard some positive things about the ambassador. i was going to impose the confirmation to the ambassadorship coming and i told him so and he knew it but he came up later and said i think you will be proud of my activity, and i had heard very positive things about him. do you think that this went south after people came from washington that ambassador glock was basically trying to do the right thing? and then when campbell, who's a member of the committee interesting enough, and others cannot from washington and began to go south and go bad? does anyone have any feeling they were doing the right thing and then washington intervened
it went poorly? does anybody have a comment about that? mr. horovitz? talk >> i think it was written the way that it did and i want to come back to at least my judgment, congressman wolf that this was predictable based on the secretary of bargaining leverage and an absolutely inexcusably poor bargaining that took place. and if it turned out that some of these people in the state department were pleased, michael prisoner, ambassador glock, after the end of a verbal agreement where we indicated to china that we needed to get this wrapped up to send every signal we did. so much more criticism. there may be cables that indicate what it was good will and malice or what on their part but i come back to the notion
that anybody skilled and syria bargaining could have predicted the outcome of a negotiation that took place on the terms that it did. >> you mentioned a positive idea. can you go into detail about since 63 clinton and secretary geithner although i don't think that he's that interested in human rights and freedom, can you talk to the mayor of both sectors clinton and secretary geithner going directly involving themselves personally and going to the hospital to visit, can you tell us why you think it would be important and how that would be helpful? i think it would be very helpful. >> i think it is both the immediate circumstances and longer-term gains so to speak. with every hour that goes by when american officials don't have access cut, and in the
earlier question, the "washington post" as the reporting for several hours but american officials haven't had access to him since they left the hospital. so i think it is a moment that requires some dramatic action on the u.s. part to demonstrate the gravity of the situation and the length is willing to go to rectify it. we and many others have made the point for a long time that unless and until a much broader spectrum of u.s. government officials, even if they don't necessarily a sensibly have a stake in the human rights in my view that is a short list of the vlore agencies the u.s. looks stronger and more coordinated, the broader group of diplomats
raise this issue, so i think in this particular moment when a very visible gesture is likely necessary to get things back speak, but to have not just secretary clinton and not just the ambassador who has been deeply involved in all of this, but to have a broad cross-section of the u.s. government officials to demonstrate the depth and the breadth of concern of human rights issues across the government is one way of really making that point. ..
>> this is a great moment to set a new precedent and have a broader cross-section of diplomats turn up. >> so this is a real test for the obama administration. >> well, i think a lot depends on what happens in the next 48 hours or so. >> i have written every official in the obama administration, the state department, the trade rep comes before my office, my subcommittee funds it. i have asked them to go visit -- not to worship, but to vet -- a house church, an underground church, a catholic church, a protestant church with the buddhist monks to visit, and not one person in the administration, not one person has responded and agreed. and ambassador kirk who we fund in my committee has refused, has
refused to go to any house church or to visit. now, in all fairness the bush administration did not visit either. i wrote all the officials in the bush administration, and they did not visit. but this administration has failed, and we will furnish for the record the letter that we have sent. and when i get back to my office, we will call the state department and ask for secretary clinton to go and try to see chen directly. has the president or the vice president of the united states, president obama or vice president biden who i believe is trying to develop a special relationship for the chinese, have they spoken out, or would it be helpful to have the president go to the rose garden and go the press office and speak out forcefully with regard to this issue within the next several hours? could anyone tell me -- mr. horowitz? >> i think talk is not going to
work anymore. yes, i think it would be marginally useful, but i think the chinese would interpret that as for domestic political consumption only. i think action is very important. i think there are two things in that regard. what you chen said about the tweets coming out of china, this is a sign of weakness, the united states was bastion of hope, a symbol of resistance and so forth, and now they've sold us out, they've let us down. the ironic part is, and i think you've made the point, that that will translate absolutely in the negotiations that secretary geithner wants to do. that was the point sophie just made. if we project weakness and surrender, they will accept that on every level with which they deal with us. and i think the only response, i
come back to what i said and something you have labored on. i've said more than any member of congress, but action counts. and i think there may be other actions. but one that i think is very, very clear and very directly related and directly related to the protection of all of the people caught in this tragedy is for the united states to openly and robustly mount a commitment to tear down the firewalls so that the kind of censorship that now takes place with, not more than a handful of chinese can even tighten the word of chen, let 20 million, 30 million chinese type in the word "chen" and get it on their cell phones, and we can do it in a matter of two to three months as you well know, mr. wolf. that's a response. it will protect chen's family, but it will also send a signal
to china that we are not a weak country, and we are not a surrendering country. and just the speech by the vice president, that's politics, and the chinese will understand that, and it will not effect them, in my judgment, at all. >> in the interest of mr. smith, i think what i'm going to do is to recess the hearing briefly so he can come back in. let's just recess for five minutes, if we can.
knox knox [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> as this hearing is in a recess, we're going to read an article from "the washington post" that says blind lawyer on thursday began a second night isolated in a central beijing hospital as police and security guards barred u.s. diplomats,
journalists and chen supporters from seeing him, and as the activist told various news outlets that he now wants to leave china with his family for asylum in the united states. in an interview with "the washington post," chen clarified he wants to go to the u.s. temporarily and insists on the freedom to return to china. he said he left the u.s. embassy on wednesday of his own free will, but he charged that the chinese government is reneging on promises to u.s. officials to fully restore his freedom. that in "the washington post." [inaudible conversations]
>> and let me -- >> translator: i want to make the request to, um, have my freedom of travel, freedom of travel guaranteed because i'm not -- i can't find the translation. he wants, he said he has not have any, all he wants to come to the u.s. for some time of rest. he has not have any rest in the past ten years already. [speaking chinese] i want to meet with the
secretary clinton. [laughter] [speaking chinese] >> translator: i hope i can get more help from her. [speaking chinese] >> translator: i also want to thank her face to face. [speaking chinese] >> i really fear for my other family members' lives, and we have ip stalled seven video cameras, and even with electric
fence. and now he wanted to, he said, um, those security officers in my house and are, basically, said we want to see what else chen guangcheng can do. [speaking chinese] >> translator: so the thing i'm most concerned right now is the safety of my mother, my brothers, and i really want to know what's going on with them. [speaking chinese] >> translator: thank you very much. >> chen, thank you very much. and as i indicated a moment ago, you have a panel of people who
have just testified on your behalf, all of whom deeply, deeply care about you, your family, as well as those who helped you including hu who we are all desperately concerned about, her whereabouts and her well being, your nephew and others who, again, one person who just spoke, mrs. wang, spoke about her efforts to see you and how she was mistreated repeatedly including strip searches. and i think the word is getting out, and there are a number of members of the national and international press here that your case is the test, the test of the chinese commitment to protect you which they've given, were very dubious about those assurances, but it's also the test of the united states as to whether or not human rights really do matter. so your plea that the secretary
>> and, chen, very quickly before you answer, christian bale, the great actor, called one hour before this hearing to convey his sol dairy and -- solidarity and concern for your well being and the rest of your family. [speaking chinese] >> translator: thank hem. thank him. i thank, yeah, thank him very
much for trying to get to shang dong to try to visit me. [speaking chinese] >> translator: i want to also emphasize that after i was found missing from my home, immediately my daughter's education opportunity was terminated. she was not allowed to go to school anymore. [speaking chinese] >> translator: so i do think all the villagers who are helping me were also receiving retribution. [speaking chinese]
>> translator: i want to thank all of you for your care and for your love. >> chen, we are all praying for you, and we will be unceasing in our efforts to secure your freedom. [speaking chinese] >> translator: thank you, thank you. [speaking chinese] any questions? >> okay, thank you. i want to thank bob fu for setting up that phone call.
and that just absolutely underscores why we're here and why we will be unceasing. i could go to some final questions. mr. wolf, did you ask your questions? mr. horowitz, if i could begin with you. i think you made an excellent point about the willingness to negotiate and to be the last person standing, so to speak. your afl-cio, i think, analogy was a great one. i actually met with the pentacostal seven in 1982 when they were holed up in the russian/u.s. embassy to the soviet union in moscow, and we did stand steadfastly by them, and time was not the issue. so i thought your point was extraordinarily well taken. if you wanted to elaborate that. my hope is, and i know the press have all left, but i think it's very important that the president of the united states,
i would appreciate your views on this, speak out from the perch of the white house. obviously, as the leader of the free world, you know, it's amazing to me that when asked about chen guangcheng, he said he had no comment. if, at the time during the horrible days of appar hide when -- apartheid when mandela, she ran sky, if any president, reagan, bush, were to be asked about those tremendous individuals, they would launch into a defense of those brave men and women, and yet no comment from the president. your thoughts on that, if you could. the concern that we all have about the hurry-up offense. time, as you said quoting, i think, mick jagger, is on our side. we could have worked this painstakingly before allowing chen, who we just heard from, to leave the, leave the 'em bassty.
and -- embassy. and finally, let me just say when chang was in moscow -- another great political leader, father of the democracy movement in china -- i met with him in the early '90s when the chinese wanted olympics 2000. and he was such a high-value political prisoner, they thought if they just gave him up, they would get the olympics. when that didn't happen, they rearrested him. but while he was out, i happened to have been in beijing and had dinner with him. he made a statement that he repeated here when he was finally given freedom under a humanitarian parole scheme that you americans don't understand this, that when you are weak, vacillating and kowtowing, they beat us more in the gulags. when you are tough, fair, transparent, you say what you mean and mean what you say, they beat us less. he said right here, he said it
to me over dinner in beijing, and then he went back to further beatings, sadly, but then was finally let out. but right here in this very room he said why don't you get that? why don't you understand that you need to be tough -- not unreasonable, but tough. and he said that message gets right down to the jailers' level, and they beat us -- because he was beaten for 15 years as kimora knows having been a political prisoner for over five -- they beat for 15 years this man to the point that he almost lost his life just like chen guangcheng. your thoughts on that, if you could. >> well, if i could take -- you gave the example of president bush and president reagan. i think mr. wolf's point at a prior hearing is very well taken. i'd add presidents carter and clinton. as mr. wolf said, when the chief v.a.s took place, all four of those presidents would have met
with some of the wives of the political prisoners, and this president in the name of realism has not done so. and i think he doesn't understand the point. and to get to that point, i think the greatest witness who could be here is george shultz because he constantly tells the story of how the russian ambassador came to him and said, you know, i can't do business with this reagan. every time i try and talk about serious matters, he's always talking about these pentacostals and refuse-niks. and schultz said to the soviet ambassador, hey, i have the same problem. he really takes this seriously. this is what he thinks he's supposed to be doing as president of the united states. well, ronald reagan -- to make the point i've always thought -- was president of the screen actors guild. he was president of a union. he really understood the extraordinary power of these human rights issues to deliver not only on human rights issues, but on every other issue on the
agenda between the soviet union and the united states. so i think that's, that's a critical point. the second thing is during the break, mr. chairman, somebody told me what i had not -- you talk about the so-called hurry-up offense here -- someone told me that general counsel, i forget the formal title now of the chief lawyer at the state department, harold coe, was quoted by "the washington post" when asked why was this agreement not put in writing before this man was released, he said we didn't have time. now, mr. chairman, i hope that he will be called as a witness. this is a man who was dean of the yale law school, a pretty smart lawyer. that is the shallowest justification, rationalization for throwing chen to the wolves
that i have ever heard. and it is even malevolent -- either malevolent on his part or a sign of incompetence. if this is true, in my judgment a respectful request for his immediate resignation is in order. this man, if this statement is true, and i do not know, has forfeited his right to be the chief lawyer of the united states' state department. imagine a lawyer, my goodness, you get disbarred for not putting agreements in writing for the sale of some goods and services. here he had the well being of the united states, the reputation of the united states, the life and the safety of this great hero, and he said what? if he did, we didn't have time to reduce the agreement to writing.
that is the most rank, if true, act of malpractice in public life, and i've been general counsel of a government agency. i believe i have every experience. so i want to ask you, mr. wolf, and you, mr. chairman, to just get on that with all you've got and find out whether this is true, whether that quote is true. get "the washington post" reporter to find out if it's true because if it is, he has, as i say, forfeited his right -- absolutely -- to serve as chief lawyer for the united states' state department. >> anybody else like to comment on that? >> well, the other issue that raises is what was this hard time deadline? what was driving this time guillotine if it wasn't secretary clinton's talks with the chinese concerning trade? and that raises the further issue of was chen a bargaining chip in all of this.
>> i just have to say again, they did it backwards. the fact that the chinese are on the defensive so acutely in advance of this high-level meeting is the reason why time was on our side. as any bargainer would know. and throwing away that leverage on the, on the geithner agenda is itself inexcusable incompetence. so, i mean, to risk this man's life and future over the issue of a timetable that was working on our side and against the chinese is just, is, is just so hard to live with and understand and accept when you hear this man speaking from his hospital room now not knowing the fate of his wife and with television cameras all over his room. >> you know, at one point -- one point mr. chen made moments ago in the earlier conversation
before we broadcasted, one of the points he made was that he was so grateful that the u.s. diplomats were working around the clock and without sleep to which i said that can be seen another way. it can be seen also as they wanted to get this done, off the table and, matter of fact, in her testimony -- without objection, i would ask that it be made part of the record -- chailing who is the head of a group called all girls allowed, a tiananmen square hero who was among the most wanted makes the point, and i quote, last week i and other advocates of freedom in china watched with joy as chen guangcheng made his bid for freedom. and then she goes on and says that now do i want to believe that they willfully misled chen into thinking that this was a possibility -- talking about his freedom -- and then she goes on to talk about how he was a fly to be swatted away before diplomatic talks ensued.
here is someone who, again, has paid with her freedom and has endured great risks being very concerned about this hurry-up offense, this timetable issue. yes, mr. horowitz. >> can i make one other point, mr. chairman, about the treatment of chen guangcheng? you know, one of the things you learn as a lawyer dealing with clients, and we're talking about clients here, i've dealt with clients, mr. chairman, who were facing a criminal charge. they're vulnerable people. >> right. >> they don't know what's going on. that's part of your responsibility. if you're representing somebody, you've got to account for the fact that judgment is impaired, that there is terror here about one's family, about one's self, one doesn't know what's going on. and, again, this is from all appearances this time factor, this hurry-up business only contributes to the ill-at-ease, the sense of isolation, the
sense of vulnerability of somebody. so, i mean, the first thing you do with a client who is out there just terrified that the world's coming to an end or not know what's going on, sit down, take it easy, have a cup of coffee, have a good night's sleep, come back, talk to me. that, too, is representation 101 when you're dealing with someone like that, and they've again gone exactly the opposite in the wrong direction in the dealing with this man. >> i understand, mr. wolf, you want me to yield? >> yes, mr. chairman. i just want to let the committee know that i just spoke to the secretary's office, i spoke to a dana fogerty and told her you had been in conversation with chen and that he had made an official request that the secretary visit him in the hospital, and i asked mr. fogerty would he get that word to the secretary immediately, and he said he would. >> i thank you, mr. wolf. let me ask, ms. wang, you've only been here in the united states for about a month, and i
think we need to underscore, you know, you personally -- i'm not sure how many times, but several times -- you know, undertook trips to visit with chen guangcheng. you talked about, you know, the body searches and the degrading treatment that you endured, and be i think the american public and the world, the western world, frankly, and all people need to be fully aware of just how vulnerable everybody else is who, who have aided and assisted chen. and all the more reason why and as reggie littlejohn underscores with exclamation points, he, why yeng's particular case is so important. if you could just elaborate on what others face. we're very worried about you.
oh, before you go. >> just one thing. somebody just passed this to me, mr. chairman, and i feel like i ought to read it. again, i am told that there's a news story in "the washington post" or one of the major press quoting a u.s. official as explaining that u.s. officials, quote: had to leave chen alone and leave the hospital because hospital official bees told them -- officials told them that visiting hours were over. now, once again, mr. chairman, mr. wolf, in your examination of state department officials i hope that that, too, will be high up on the list and that that official who said it and any official who justified it would have to sit here on this witness table and justify conduct of that kind. talk about leaving a man alone and vulnerable and being certain that that would be the outcome, some guy tells them the visiting hours are over, and you've got to go, and they leave them in
the hands of the security police with all of the tv cameras that have been installed. so i would say excuse me for intervening, but i just got this message. and if this is true, it's something that i hope this committee will investigate and just put any official responsible for it, if it is true -- >> well, there too, mr. horowitz, the visiting hours at least now seem to be permanently over. chen indicated to us that the embassy has been unable to get back into his room to visit with him, to ascertain his well being, and so that raises a very -- i mean, the talk of a durable solution that is that he would be safe in china, there's no safety for any dissidents,ty dent in china. it just doesn't exist -- >> but the point is, they were there. it's a lot harder to get into a room after you've been kicked out of the room, but it's pretty darn hard for the chinese to
forcibly eject an american official who firmly says this man is my responsibility. we gave the honor and the full faith and credit of the united states to see that he would be and feel protected, and i'm not leaving this room. why didn't they say that, mr. chairman, is the relevant question. >> i appreciate that, mr. horowitz. you know, hospital or a police station, it seems to me it's a distinction without a difference. because the hospital is crawling with police. ms. wang, did you want to answer that question? because, again, i think it's underappreciated perhaps by some the risks you personally undertook coupled with the risks that you carry today. [speaking chinese]
[speaking chinese] >> translator: as a supporter of chen guangcheng, i can tell you there are people from all walks of life, from all industries and professions that support him, and a lot of people actually have faced greater risks and have faced greater danger in doing this than i have myself. for instance, government workers, people who work for government enterprises or other types of companies, um, some of them as a result their families have been talked to, their families have been harassed, and also the government comes and checks their books and gets them on economic crimes, financial crimes. [speaking chinese]
>> translator: and then you get some teenagers, 16, 17-year-olds who are curious and went to see chen guangcheng for that very reason, and as a result, um, the authorities went and tried to talk a lot to their parents and harass their parents. the kids were beaten, and the parents couldn't understand what was possibly going on. but there was a lot of emotional damage done to the kids as a result of that. [speaking chinese]
>> translator: i myself am married, so my personal life hasn't been dealt with in such an exaggerated manner as others. for instance, you mentioned -- [inaudible] she is not married, and if she had boyfriends, let's say, she would have, there would be a lot of perm attacks on her personal -- personal attacks on her personal life, and that has also been quite an emotional, taken quite an emotional toll on her. [speaking chinese]
[speaking chinese] >> translator: and then there are a lot of supporters who have had various types of, let's say, equipment or things that they use in the process of trying to show their support for chen guangcheng like any equipment involved or any money that they spent in their efforts. um, the authorities, basically, they just confiscate them, they take them. they've taken their assets. i haven't gone to very tiefy, but i -- verify, but i do know of cases where cameras and other cases that would have been used to document it have been taken away or confiscated. [speaking chinese]
[speaking chinese] >> translator: is a lot of us have tried so hard and put so much effort into this, so what we are looking at today is what it's all come to, i think i'm not resigned to this. it's something i can't accept. i really hope that the media from all over the world will stand up and rise and be tough in the face of what they're facing. i think he needs his freedom, and we owe him this. we've done so much, and if we've done all of this for nothing, it would be as if we'd done it in vain, and what we want to know is it was worth it. we want him to be doing much better. >> thank you. are there any comments that our
distinguished witnesses would like to make? yes, please. >> one of the good things the supporters have done, the supporters who visited or did something concrete is that they quickly write account of their experiences and post online. although very quickly, just as quickly, it'll be deleted. but still, there are, there have been dedicated groups that pass on the messages as quickly as possible, and then there is, and then within minutes it'll be around the repost a thousand times, that sort of thing. so from that i know two, i particularly want to point out two occasions that left a deep impression on me, is that two reporters who were employed by
the state, chinese state-owned media until they tried to visit chen guangcheng or did something. one of the person was, his name is -- [inaudible] he was a local report, regional report based in hunan province in the midlands of china, and he went to visit chen guangcheng as a private person. of course, not representing as an organization. and he was just like many others. he was robbed, his money taken away, his cell phone taken away. he was beaten badly. he had detailed account how he was black -- he was sacked with a black cloth and pulled into a van, and several people beat his head, his body all over. and then they threw him out in
the open, and then he managed to come back and wrote his -- as soon as he returned, his organization fired him. so, and so such a -- there's another reporter. now it just occurred to me, it didn't happen because of chen guangcheng, it happened because of wei. let me just quickly recount it. he is reporter with the global times english version. his name is tommy win, and he had the guts to run a report on global times -- a very tough paper -- on wei's disappearance. and then he was disappeared, this reporter was disappeared for 80-plus days.
80-plus days without his family knowing where he was. and that, this sort of things. >> thank you. would any of you like to conclude with any final comment? okay. mr. wolf? i want to thank you again for sharing your extensive expertise, passion for human rights and deep concern for chen guangcheng and his wife and family at today's hearing. we will continue this effort. i'm going to reapply for another visa which has been turned down since october. would love to meet with him. and his family. but most importantly, to hold the administration to account for what they may or may not have done. i think some of the questions posed by all of you and by bob fu need to be answered, and i think we need to take -- and be i say this to the press -- with a grain of salt when he gushes
with gratitude for efforts made on his behalf. i believe we have dropped the ball significantly. i've been in this business of human rights work for 32 years. i broke my eyeteeth on the soviet issue. my first visit was to leningrad in 1982. i mention today horowitz in response of his mention of the siberian seven, the pentacostal christians, met with them, and we stood firmly, clearly, unambiguously with those who were espousing freedom and democracy and said we are in solidarity with you, and in the case of soviets, we risked superpower confrontation by linking most favored nation status with the release and freedom of soviet jews who were being horribly treated by moscow. we need that same kind of fire in the belly for human rights at the white house. i still find it appalling that president obama had no comment when speaking about chen
guangcheng. he should have gushed about this brave leader's -- and equally his wife's -- commitment to combating the most horrific crime on the face of the earth, forced abortion and forced sterilization, carried out routinely by china. we should stand with chen and not look to facilitate his loss of freedom which it appears to be. there are good people who have tried within the administration, i'm sure, to find a way out. but the timeline issue remains a very troubling issue. this should have been the topic. not even a topic, but the topic at the dialogue. what's the use of having a dialogue on strategic and economic issues if you're not going to link human rights with it and say why should we trust you on intellectual property rights, copyright infringement and the like, if you so maltreat your own people? chen is a hero. this commission will stay focused on him, and we will not
rest until he and his family and great friends are free. the hearing's adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> during this hearing we heard chinese dissident chen guangcheng on the phone speaking from from a hospital in beijing. although chen previously expressed a desire to stay in china fearing for his family's safety, he now wants to come to
the united states, and he says it would be a temporary stay in the country. when asked whether chen would be able to leave with secretary of state clinton, white house press secretary jay carney said today that there are ongoing conversations at the state department on the matter. you can see the hearing tonight on c-span at 8 eastern and right now on c-span.org. [inaudible conversations] >> this week on c-span2, at 7 p.m. eastern q&a on education in america. tonight, andrew ferguson, author of "crazy u: one dad's crash course on getting his kid into college." and friday, mad -- madeleine
sackler. q&a on education every day this week at 7 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. and with the senate in recess this week, booktv is on c-span2 in prime time. tonight, a look at the presidency of james madison. starting at 8 eastern, elizabeth dowling taylor, author of "a slave in the white house: a chronicle of president madison's enslaved servant." at 8:55 author yu howard, and at 9:50 p.m., kevin getsman on his book, "james madison and the making of america." bin laden was a strategically-relevant communicator with various and disparate outfits, and to a certain extent i have to confess that i had insider knowledge. while still in uniform, i worked in centcom and afghanistan, and
we worked on the problem of iraq, and we knew bin laden personally was involve inside communications to try and corral and bring under control zawahiri. we knew he was making outreach early on toal shah a babb in somalia working through immediate qualms and other individuals, but we knew he was there and doing that, and as a consequence and no surprise, bin laden was relevant. >> can how has counterterrorism and national security changed in the year since the death of osama bin laden? former and current administration officials, analysts and intelligence community members continue to weigh in. see what they have to say online at the c-span video library, all around archived -- archived and search bl. >> the military academy at west point this morning published 17 declassified documents recovered from osama bin laden's compound in pakistan. translated into english, the documents total 175 pages. and they're available on our web site, c-span.org.
outgoing world bank president robert zoellick spoke yesterday to a group of international relief and development organizations. he cautioned against top-down approach when it comes to international development, and he called on the u.s. to rein in its budget deficit. this is an hour. >> is this loud enough? if be we could turn it up a little bit in the back? thank you. it is a great pleasure to welcome to the interaction forum mr. bob zoellick who is the president of the world bank group. i think it is telling that during his tenure, and i'll address you as bob since we've known each other for a while, that bob has not only led one of the major multilateral
institutions of the world, but has done so in a manner that has been based on a significant recognition not only of the role of civil society, but of civil society as a fundamental partner and critical player in the development space. as you all know, bob zoellick came from the private sector as the vice chairman of international goldman sachs group, but also someone who has devoted years of public service, whether it's been as the deputy secretary of state or a career in terms of time as the 13th u.s. trade representative. an individual who is, perhaps, the best of what a public servant is, someone with both dedication, knowledge and a vision for change. we're going to have a brief
conversation and thought that we could explore a number of topics before we turn it out to you, our audience, and there'll be some mics for that. perhaps the place to start is as you end a term, a very successful tenure at the world bank, what gave you a sense of, perhaps, legacy, what have been the areas of greaters accomplishment? we've had conversations about accountability, transparency, a more, sort of client approach. as you have to reflect back and look at where do you think you have left a mark, and then we'll turn a little bit to the future after that. >> okay. well, first, sam, let me thank you. you in particular and interaction have been a great partner for the bank. i think we've -- and for the all the people in the audience, i was reminded that i think i participated in this forum from
london in a video conference a couple of years ago. >> right. >> and it's a great forum, and i think you've done, as i understand, a very successful three days in terms of covering a wide variety of topics. and from a brief exchange with sam, i had a sense in some ways what you've been discussing is a similar aspect of what i have been trying to do at the bank over the past five years which is to see how the bank fits into a larger network or ecosystem of partners and how to leverage and draw from one another, and sam has been extremely helpful in many different aspects. so thanks to you. the, i guess when i reflect on my tenure at the bank, i tend to think of three phases. it's been a busy five years, that's for sure. [laughter] the world economy has been a little bit in turmoil.
but the first part was the institution faced its own time of troubles, and so there was an internal turn around that one had to focus on. and as a compliment to the bank staff, my judgment was that the sooner we got people focused on the mission of the bank, the sooner they would move away from the gossip that occurs in every institution, and so i tried to focus people on some core strategic themes, and that judgment turned out to be right which is the reason the people come to the bank, they're deeply committed, want to accomplish important things. there are challenging issues, but getting people refocus bed was an important -- refocused was an important part. secondly, as you know because we work closely on this, i came to the bank in july of 2007. by later that year, we were starting to get some worrisome signs in terms of food prices, and i think we also talked at
the time, there was an article that had come out about nutrition being the underappreciated millennium development goal or subgoal, one. so we quickly had a sequence of food, fuel and financial crisis. and it was very important for the bank not only to respond in a big way, but more flexibly, more quickly. we had about a quarter of a trillion dollars of financial support across all aspects of the bank during that period. but as important as the money was the types of things that we did with interaction and many others and u.n. agencies on the, in the food and seeds area and the flexible type of support that you need to offer for countries that are, frankly, treading virgin ground in terms of the challenges that they face. and then the third phase in a sense was running throughout, but as we've gotten to the past few years we're able to focus on
it which is to try to modernize the institution. one of the themes that i've stressed is the need to modernize multilateralism. i often view things from a historical perspective because i have a great love of history, and so i look at the world bank as one of the bretton woods institutions created in world war ii for one set of functions. if you think about the issues that people were trying to deal with in that era which is currencies and exchange rates, reconstruction, development, trade, those issues haven't gone away although they've been transformed. so the institutions have to change. and so some people feel that, you know, you should do away with institutions. i tend to believe more of an institutionalist, i think that they play a critical role as a thin, interconnecting tissue among sovereign states that still make the decisions, but you have to make them better. and so there's a lot of aspects of that modernization agenda. one was financial, so we've got the first capital increase in
the bank in 22 years in the area for the 79 poorest states we have something called ida, we were able to raise about $90 billion including to reflows for those countries over the past five years. and then a second area is something that i know you feel very strongly about which is to try to, um, open up the institution. and this, we created the first freedom of information act for a multilateral institution. but equally, if not be more important, we've opened up all our data sources, so 7,000 data sets going back to the late '40s, and we continue to expand that. so the idea is not only to make it available, but to help develop applications so people may tap into our household survey data, that going back and maybe adding to it in different aspects. and this is important because
not only does it sort of force the institution to be open to a variety of voices, but it's part of a larger idea that i've been suggesting about the need to democratize development, move it away from sort of elite economists and universities that say thou shalt do this or that, and instead work with people everything from commitments to their capitals to try to figure out how they perceive problems and how we can have an interactive process. and this has huge potential. so if you think about it, you now get on our web site, you can find, you can call up a country, find out what all our projects are, get the data on the projects. before long we want to be interactive so that people with a mobile device in a village can say, well, here's what you think is going on, but this is what we see. so this is transformative, and it has an obvious connection with civil society because as you think about civil society, these are groups that can help you catch corruption, these are
groups that can help you assess the performance of social services, these are groups that can help you determine, um, you know, what are the priorities of the community. so it's a huge shift from the notion of kind of a big, bureaucratic, elite institution in washington to a much more networked system. um, and then there are also other aspects of modernization. we're trying the figure out, as you are, how to interact more with different aspects of the private sector, how to draw private capital in, how to connect this with trade agendas, how to integrate the public goods agenda with an agenda that is normally focused on countries, so whether it's oceans or climate change or some of the other broader issues, how to interconnect those. and i guess what i would summarize it is to say that what i tried to do at the bank is to focus on developing countries as
clients as opposed to objects of policy. so as opposed to saying, you know, here's the development model that, you know, we're going to teach or show you, the idea is to go to clients and say let's understand your problems, and let's try to figure out what we can bring to bear on those problems either from our knowledge or increasingly from the experience of other developing countries. so the other change sam mentioned i was the trade representative in 2001, so over 11 years i've sort of seen this in trade and in finance and in development. the extraordinary changes of developing countries on the world economy, but on other developing countries is just something that has moved with extreme rapidity, and the system is still adapting to it, and we're still adapting to it. >> a rather impressive five years during a very difficult, challenging time. but i think what was interestg