tv Today in Washington CSPAN April 26, 2011 2:00am-5:55am EDT
r statement is identifying those elements that would fall under -- the program. oti, office of transition initiatives, was created on a 1994. it is in the commissioner's colloquy -- there are only six employees there. >> thank you. >> the only thing i wanted to do in closing was to thank my panel members. . . .
>> let me close by saying, you have been in business for a long time now, and you have done i think a superb job. mr. blair, i know you have been working really hard. i do know that you are finding things that need to be found. mr. richardson, i think they have made their biggest contribution in the whole issue of sustainability. i think you are rightly pointed out that there are too many projects that aren't going to be sustainable. i hope you really continue to speak loudly about this because whatever the sustainability problem is in iraq, i think it is many-fold more in afghanistan. we thank all three of you very much, and with that, we'll close this. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
talk about -- will be on c-span2. later in the morning, jim lehrer of the pbs news hour will discuss the future of public broadcasting. the university of the school of journalism hosts the event. >> coming up in just a minute, a discussion on net knew tralt -- nutrality. our first-prize winner. discussion on net neutrality. >> i use the internet every day to talk with friends on websites like twitter and facebook. >> [inaudible] >> i use the internet for
research for school papers. >> the internet is something that our generation takes for granted. we use it every day for research, entertainment, and everything in between. it is always free and open, and most amecans assume that will always will be, but will it? for the open director of the internet coalition is it will not. >> the internet is turning that looks moreething like cable television. >> network neutrality or net neutrality is the idea that all traffic flowing across the internet should be free and not
blocked. most people would agree that the principle of neutrality makes sense. after all, this is the way internet has operated since the start. it is largely the way it still operates now. >> tre is tremendous agreement that right now there is net neutrality in place where nsumers can get the content access of their choice. >> the question is, should the federal government get into the busine of enforcing this principle or should this be lost in the private sector? >> if we keep in the private sector, things will remain as they are now, ateast we hope they would. in forcing net neutrality could be the demise of the internet. >> the technology that they employ to be able to take content and block it and prioritize it is still in the infancy.
that is why we want to have basic rules that say we want to preserve the open and neutral networks that will largely have today. >> however, the chairman of net competiti competition.org belies differently. >> i would have to most respectfully disagree quite stngly with you in discussing this is just preserving the status quo. you do not need legislation to maintain the status quo. >> to get from status quo to the land of net neutrality there are several paths the government can take. first, the federal communications division has to apply the old regulation. that happened in 2008 when they decided to block comcast.
the sec decided to move on to the next one. -- the ftc moved on to the next one. they would then have a legal enforcement mechanism to deal with them affectively. hear the chairman explains one of the three rules that make up the proposed regulation. >> through adopting a band of unreasonable discrimination, it would make it clear are not approving fast lanes for some companies butot others. >> right w the commissioners are poised to take a ve on this proposed regulation. >> that rulemaking may culminate as early as december of this year. >> i am here at d.c.
headquarters where the commissioners of the vote on the regulation on december 21 of 2010. the result was a vote in favor of the regulation. >> so why did the fcc pursuer regulatory past rather than legislative? you may be able to find a clue and the results of the midterm elections. republicans gained control of the house and took away the democrats' supermajority in the senate. we found an interesting fact and the results. out of 95 candidates for congress who pledge their support for net neutrality, not elected. one gottent this did not mean the elections were lost because of the candidates support for a net neutrality. however, disinformation did lead
to an important conclusion. >> what the show is that the people who most support in the neutrality did not have the support of the american people in the election. >> he offered this prediction on the prospects of net neutrality legislation to was in the interview. -- to us in the interview. >> how does this issue affect me? on the one hand, that neutrality would level the playing field between big and small companies. >> and open internet is perhaps as much as anything else the grea equalizer. it allows people with innovative ideas to succeed on the merits of those ideas. >> on the other hand, [inaudible] rather than spurring innovation, it may produce a place for entrepreneurs to start
small businesses. >> when there is no problem, cannot fix it, because basically fixing the problem that does not exist will create many worse problems. >> the issue of net neutrality demonstrates how the federal government can and have influenced the online community. do not let yourself be fooled. the fact that they have approved this does not mean the battle is over. >> many people are calling for a congressional review of the legislation. there is also no doubt the regulation could face serious legal challenges. so americans should expect to hear more and more about net neutrality in the future as the story unfolds. we do not know what will happen, but one thing is clear, whether
you work for or against it, americans cannot afford to stay neutral on net neutrality. >> -- net neutrality. host: over the next few days we want to intduce the winners of the student cam competition. day we are talking to first prize winners in middle schoo you just saw their documentary. they are joining us from nashville, tennessee. they are all in eighth grade. congratulations, lady. -- ladies. how did you decide on this issue? >> we really wanted to choose a topic that was unique and not something that everyone else would do. net neutrality is something that is new. it is not something that the
general public knows a lot about. after researching of line, we a lot of twistsit had and turns. we also felt it was a developing story as the documentary was being made. we have to conantly update and change our documentary, and we thought at was pretty cool. when the fcc pass the new regulation, we ha to update our documentary. even now it is still developing. we just thought it was a really cool topic that would be something that the american people would be interested in. ho: it is not something that a lot of people know abo, the words and that neutrality. tha's on something like the people in washington, d.c. would did youut, so how
hear about it? >> melissa came and told us about the topic. and i decided to research it. i found it is really importa and we have to tell everyone else. and >> when you talk to your family and friends about net neutrality how did you describe it to them? how always explaine would is about to internet openness. they are usually concerned, because it is a confusing topic. it is really important. >> when you sit at your computer at night doing homework or surfing the net, and now you have a different perspective, and are you thinking about net neutrality? guest: dinitely.
when i am on the computer i think about how i cannot take it for granted. host: let me come back to you, melissa, since you are the one that came up with the initial idea. what surprised you when you started to work on this issue? guest: whasurprised me about workinwith this issue is we knew when we chose the topic that it was very abstract and that we would have trouble coming up with good visuals, but i never anticipated it would be so hard. took picture of newspapers and made video collages and made animations, but our video was still dry after that. the solution finally came to me on carnival cruise ship of all
places. i was doing the interview and i realize the government wa trying to arrive at the land of guaranteed net neutralities t through several different paths. that is where we came up with a hand-drawn map. when i had that mind, i knew where the legal challenges came and it cleared everything came up here and one other benefit of the mac is that it showed all reactions of the government coming into play in various stages. host: this year's theme is washington through your lens. and what did you learn about washington? there are three branches of government. what did you learn about it? guest: i learned they each had an important role in this, and i learned all of the different paths that the fcc could take.
they tried to take some of them, and i learned which one they did take. it was really interesting as the story went on to not only tell other people but learned myself as well. did you have an opinion when you first are doing this documentary? did it change at all by the end of the process? guest: it definitely did change. i staed to see the positives and negatives in it. at first i did not know much about it, and now that i do i definitely do see the positives and negatives for it. guest: what do you think, melissa? guest: i really did not have an opinion at the bidding. and ter working with it for so ng, i see both sides of the issue will now. i think i am leaning towards the opponent's side.
the government wants to get something done and they should try to go to congress first. the fcc took the executive path first because they knew they could not get through congress. i am opposed to it. host: you think the market can take care of it by itself? what is your view? you say you agree with the opponents. why? have you think this could be handled? guest: i think people should leave this in the private sector, because it badband providers have to go through fcc every time and ask if this is reasonable, then it would just
make work a whole lot harder. i think they should leave this in the private sector, because it is not a problem. host: i did a googol search on all three of your names. -- a google search on all three of your names. the local newspaper talked about the middle school taking in all sorts of prizes in this contest. honor roll mentioned prizes etc.. total prizes is about $9,250 to the middle school alone. i am just wondering was there a teacher at your school or a that encourage you and others to get involved in this contest? guest: my friends were all
behind me. miss reeter was really encouraging. host: how did she help you with this? guest: she always answered our questions when we needed her. she spent a lot of her own time helping us. sara atkins, along with winning in getting this attention you are getting, there is also prize money that goes along with it. $3,000. what will you do with the money? guest: i will probably save it wanted to go to a jonas bther's concert. host: whenever the coming to tennessee? guest-- when are they coming to
tennessee? guest: i am not sure. guest: i think i am going to save up for college because i want to get the best college education possible. host: where do you wanto gto school? guest: i am interested in math and science. i am not sure. host: katie, what will you do with your portions of the winning? guest: i of also wanted to save money. most of it will go to my urch missionhat i am planning to go on. host: where are you going for your mission? guest: i do not know. they assign it to you. you do not get to choose. host: talking about the prize- winning documentary. they will be with us for the next half an hour.
joining us is lynn stanton. she will help answer questions about net neutrality. let's review what it is. guest: it is the idea that the provider of their product and cannot say what you will see on the intnet and what services and applications you can use. then there are ideas that there should be some kind of safe harbors or limitations or caveat. most people who have broadband service do not want spam, check for viruses, various kinds of a list activity, child pornography, fraud, different issues like this. there is also the issue of
congestion. when the networks become so heavy with traffic that all of the people cannot on it cannot do everything they want to do, some decision has to be made where it will be cut back. whatever happens gets dropped its dropped or whether they say this is a heavyser, let's go after them. host: where did issue stand today? -- where do the issues stand today? guest: right now it is a little bit in limbo. the court ruled earlier this month that challenges to the rule are not yet essentially right. you cannot have a challenge to rules that have not yet taken effect. going to court right now must wait for the rules to effectively say that the rules
and the congress have passed. the house has plaster role saying that those rules as past and any similar kind of roles cannot be effective, but that has to go through the senate on a simple majority. and it would have to eithere signed or allow it to be defined by the president. host: whats the likelihood of it coming up in the senate? guest: fairly low. there are aids that have predicted this is such an issue that people view so negativy that democrats would have to vote for because they have acted beyond their authority that they uld have to vote for it. obviously democrats control the senate and the democrats in general have come out in favor
of net neutrality. host: who are the players? guest: on one hand, for the most part you have broadband internet providers. for rise verizon, at&t, comcast. also, as possible new competitors, especially as we move from 3g to 4g, we have wireless providers. historically the speed have not been competitive with land line speeds and they have been more expensive, so it has been cheaper to go with the land line provider. host: dan joining us from georgia. good morning. caller: i learned a lot just listening to the students. the one question i have is even
if we settle this, what about the internet channels around the world? how would this affect the whole world if we did this? guest: it is a very interesting question. some parties have indicated that how they handle it at home affects the ability to make arguments about should the 0 internet the open around the world, which is something the state department has said they want to see happen,hich would prevent dictators around the world from shutting down the internet which is to organize protest. so on the one hand we want to neutrality, but istnet that allowing the government to come down in an aa we do not
wa them to be, which is a conflict. host: so right now egypt is dealing with this. you are following the debate a little bit. can you explain what they are wrestlg with? guest: they have a different internet economy. here we focus more on trying to promote facility-based competition, which many argue having these rules would undercut because it would th disincentive fis investmen if it would not have much of a say or an ability to profit from what travels over the networks, which is the other halff this debate between content providers and the network providers. and in europe they have focused more on having the competition
be on one set of areas. they are starting from a different point in terms of looking at it. i think it does to a little bit color of the debate or policy issues they have to face. host: one viewer tweets this -- let's go to derrick, a democrat and kansas. caller: i would like to complement the three young ladies that undertook this cam thing. it shows great intelligence. i would like a question answered. can there be a way to get rid of -- the lady mentioned pornography and students talking about other students which is
out there for the whole world to see and things like that -- is there any way for the fcc to undertake that and forget about net neutrality? guest: a first to eliminate child pornography on the internet generally come from outside the fcc and more law enforcement. there are lawsn the books that allow the broadband providers to help law enforcement do that. that would bwithout having to worry about the issue of net neutrality. the other issue -- host: talking about bullying. guest: that seems to be canceled at the school level. a lot of schools have their roles in plays that affect students outside of the schools. they seem to be going aftert that way. the fcc traditionally has not
attended to regulate the actual content that travels, whether it is over cable or the internet. host: lynn stanton is a senior editor with "telemmunications reports." joining us are the first-prize winners of the students who did a documentaryn net neutrality. if your interested in watching the documentary, go to our web site. all of our winners for 2011 of past winners are on the web site. next calller from very, massachusetts. caller: i have a very simple statement question. is net neutrality basically a
government takeover? i am a design engineer. when you start taking away what cannot be viewed, where it is, etc., and now you're talking about also degrading the amount of service -- isn't that a takeover? i really waiting to hear at answer. guest: the supporters would say it is the opposite of a takeover, all they're doing is to not let the user choose what you can watch or see and to some degree not to have your service degraded. historically this has been difficult for iernet subscribers to find out exactly what it is they're supposed to get and what did is they are getting, and why maybe they are not seeing what they think is
equivalent to what they're paying for. d supporters would say they are trying to do all the things you've just accused the government of trying to take away. host: melissa, you heard that calller. he thinks the government takeover. when you were interviewing people for this documentary, did that hadpeople similar viewpoints? when you were entering people for e documentary, did you find there was a similar viewpoint as the callers that it could be a government takeover? guest: no. we interviewed chairman cleveland. he did not think it was a government takeover pierre yen it was justhe government overstepping its authority. host: when you talk to people
when people are not familiar with the issue, did they have that initial reaction that they do not want the government involved? our people mostly on the other side, that they want the government to get involved? guest: there were some people on that side and some on the proponents side. some people were uneasy about the government getting so involved in the internet, because you can go -- because the internet is so open. some people thought the government would over regulate, not a lot of people who were proponents. host: back to phone calls. caller: my comment is i have been following this issue, and i was confused, but the ladies and young girls in tennessee really explained the situation to me.
i send out my thanks to them. i have a questio for the young lady who said she was opposed to the government's involvement. i think just opposite. they really have so much control over what we do in this country. my question is, not so much to the young ladies, but i would like to know what was the issue with comcast that led to the whole issue coming to pass? guest: in the spring of 2009 the fcc directed comcast should not take a particular dealing with congestion that have been using, which was specifically in sight
transmission sessions -- ending transmission sessions. this was going after a specific kind of application, and the idea of net neutrality is your neutral among content and services and applications it would not go after a specific way of using the internet. so they said you cannot do that. comcast challenged it in court. the court said the fcc did not have the authority to do what it has done in terms of directing comcast to not take this path. host: there is a tweet that says this. private companies are monopolies and so they can get a rate. guest: that is certainly an
argument of the opponents. right now we have a duopoly. it is a fairly stable duopoly right now. it is two is better than 1 but not as good as three or five in terms of ctrolling prices. the other side is not just the price to pay for your internet service, but the price to pay for a service like netflix. they have become the poster child in this argument as of late. they would charge not only you for asking for a video and having it sent to you, but possibly charging a company like netflix for delivering the content you asked them to send you. host: wwill go on to vivian, democratic line in austin, texas.
caller: they have brought up the very subject -- it was very short-sighted of the girls. did they ever look at the corporations part in this? i am afraid of those texas text books, but we are in the argument of who controls the message? the government or corporations? it is the lesser of two evils. did they ever look into the part of tha did you look into the part of it that was corporate control? host: part of the roles is that you have to show both sides of the story. do you want to answer that? the calller wanted to know who opposes netd to
neutrality in the documentary? that is ok. let me phrase it a little bit different. part of the rules for the competition is that you talk to both sides of the issue. can you talk about who you all interviewed in this documentary. guest: we interviewed scott clevelanaland. he did not want toegulate it, because he did not think there was a problem. if there was a problem, he would want to regulate it. why fix something if there was not a problem? that was his perspective. host: melissa, who did you talk to that supports the idea of net neutrality? guest: we talked to mark m.
ericsson. he thinks the government needs to get involved in this issue, because he thinks there is a problem, and that with government involvement they can internet open.net ope host: if you want to watch their documentary, go to our web site. jo is an independent in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: what did you think about alan jones in austin, texas, about his views? at if someone disagreed with him and decided he should be banned on the internet? i will listen. thank you. host: talking about limiting people's views on the internet in general. guest: the proponents would say
what there are great for is lowing anybody to express their ideas just as we do in other free-speech irina's. -- arenas. that would be that side of it. even the opponents say that is not what they're interested in doing. they say they're concerned about being able to run the networks in a way that makes sense. i do not think anyone on the opponent's side has said they are interested in controlling what it is to see in rms of coent. host: wanita,republican in kentucky. caller: i just want to make a statement. i think it is the way gernment is trying to close down some talk radio and fox tv. host: have you heard that argument before? guest: this is similar to what
they're doing with the radio. not really, no. there was some people who had concerned with the democrats controlling the fcc might go after that side of broadcast , but i have not heard that they e tried to control the content on the internet, other than the people -- the people that are deeply involved in the policy arguments. host: we are hearing from viewers, a lot of different viewpoints. you say americans can no longer afford to stay neutral. why did you say that? guest: once the government gets involved in the internet, it could affect everyone's internet experience. we all want more innovative technologies on the internet. both sides of the debate argue their position supports
innovation. weo not want thnext youtube or facebook to be hampered by the distance or lack of net neutrality regulations, depending on your viewpoint. host: do you think tt is a selling point for people your age and older, the this is about social media, the sites that they often use? guest: it is about all of the innovative technologies that the internet -- that small businesses are coming up with. host: let's go to emma, democrats and baltimore, maryland. caller: i would like to commend the ladies on an excellent job. i was not familiar with the ise. thank you. i have a question for your guest. i am unclear whether she is for or against net neutrality.
my other question is if you are against it or for it, can you give me an explanation of why? i will hang up and listen to your answer. host: lynn stanton is a reporter. guest: i do not take positions on issues i cover. host: we will keep taking your phone calls. we're talking to middle school winners, first prize. they are joining us from nashville, tennessee. they took home the prize for first place and $3,000 as well. the issue is net neutrality. studentm.org is the website. let me ask you about the whole process of doing a documentary. what advice would you give to a
friend who is thinking about doing this next year? guest: you need to plan ahead, because there is a lot of work you have to do. you need to have a good schedule and be devoted to it as well. you definitely can not procrastinate, because that causes a lot of problems. you really need a good schedule and devotion. host: how much time, can you tell us hours or days that you had to put into this? guest: a lot of time. especially with transcribing the interviews. that took me a long time. like five hours per night at a time, because you have to write it word for word, which is a hard job. a lot of hours. host: net neutrality is the topic th morning. next calller from georgia. caller: i have a question for
the ladies that work for net neutrality. it relates to taxation. do you think if it passes through the congress and senate whether or not taxation would follow and how rapidly would it become a factor? host: melissa, i do not know, is that something that came up while you were doing your work? guest:no, i do not think taxation came up whe we did this. even the net neutrality repeal that is going through congress, that came up after we submitted our documentary. be a: it doesn't seem to huge issue, but obviously there are costs and burdens to the companies in terms of complying with reporting requirements and making their information transparent to potential
subscribers, but that is not typically considered a tax. there is an issue in the budget -- this is tried to get through congress other than the repeal act method that melissa discussed. it is to simply say they cannot spend any money on enforcing the rules. that is another way of going that sort of ties in to the taxation issue. host: and whitaker was quoted as going to letn't these companies use his ties for free." there will have to be some mechanism for these people to use these hikes to pay for the portion they are using. that was a very controversial statement when it was made, and it did get the ball rolling on
discussing net neutrality. guest: although the debate has shifted a little bit, and the idea as he describes it sounds like a direct payment for sending anything over the pipe, we do not see a lot of providers presenting it in quite that way anymore. they focus more on the idea of net manament. host: we will try to get one more phone call in. democratic line. caller: my question was about access to the internet. if you were able to -- companies that were able to pay, we could access it very quickly. whereas others that were not able to pay to put their things on the internet, if we wanted to access it, it would te us forever or something to the effect. i thought it was a degree of access. guest: for starters the
companies to provide this content to pay for their access to the internet just like you as the individual pay for your access. obviously they are paying more for it. they also purchase servers across the internet to get their packages closer. there is also the idea that they should somehow be able to see some return, but only large companies would be able to afford that. so with their content it to you sooner than if you wanted to buy your content from very small companies? host: the next story line is what? what should we be watching for? guest: i think the ball is in congress. they have basically three paths to pursue this. e bill under the congressional review act, which is now waiting for considetion in congress. there is not allowing the fcc to
spend any money. then there is the possibility of a stand-alone bill that might be more nuanced and saying these rules are bad. it could be transparency is ok, but nothing else youant to require is allowed. host: lynn stanton, senior editor. thank you for talking with us today. we wt to thank the ladies and tennessee. eighth graders and first prize winners and that student cm competition this year. -- student cam competition this year. over the next three days we will introduce you to our top prize winners. the grand prize winner will be this wednesday at 9:00 it did. tomorrow we will speak with their first-prize winner in the high school category. --
>> ahead, marion blakey . after that marc rotenberg talks about cell phone locations. >> next we're joined by joe allbaugh. a documentary to look at the government's response to a tornado that hit his hometown. "washington journal" each morning at clock eastern. with the annual caucusses 10 months away, c-span will simulcast radio programs from there. tomorrow it is the jan mickelson show. wednesday, it is the "exchange,"
and thursday it is the "jim fisher show" from davenport. live on c-span. >> topics at monday's white house brief included the economy, syria, and the economy, syria, and the wikileaks document on guantanamo bay. this briefing it 20 minutes. >> i wonder if you could articulate from the white house perspective why syria is
different than libya and why have we not heard president obama, for example, say -- speak about assad. >> i'm sure you saw the president's strong statement friday where he condemned in the strongest possible terms of the use of force by the syrian government by the demonstrators. he referred to an outrageous use he referred to an outrageous use of violence to quell protests. he mentioned how this administration for two months has been repeatedly encouraging president assad and the syrian government to implement meaningful reforms yet they have refused to respect the rights of the syrian people or be respective of their aspirations. the syrian people have called for freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly and the ability to freely choose their leaders. the president said and i say here that we strongly oppose the syrian government's treatment of
its citizens, and we continue to do that. to your questions about the differences, of which there are many, i would simply say that libyaia was a une -- libya was a unique situation. we had large portions of the country out of control. we had a gaddafi regime moving against its own people and was about to assault a large city on the promise that it would show, it the regime, would show that city no mercy. we had an international consensus to act, we had the support of the arab league to act in a multilateral fashion, and we supported that move to save the lives of the people in misrata and elsewhere in libya. so libya was a unique situation. however, we continue to look for ways and are pursuing a range of possible policy options, including targeted sanctions to respond to the crackdown and
respond to the crackdown and make clear this behavior is unacceptable. already you know syria is under significant sanctions, and we are looking at other means to increase the pressure on the riegeeem on the syrian -- regime on the syrian government. as it is for all of these countries, it is up to syria to decide who its leader should be. that's what we believe. and the syrian people should certainly be respected, their rights should be respected. they should not be attacked, they should not be killed as they express their grievances to the syrian government. but again, our position in all these countries has been that it is up to the people of those countries to decide what their leaders are and we call for processes of reform. >> you mention sanctions would be targeted. could you explain what that means and how they could help stop the killing? >> i don't have specifics for you, because we're pursuing a
variety of options and looking at a range of options, including targeted sanctions. what we have seen is that sanction can tut pressure on -- can put pressure on governments and regimes to change their behavior. that would be the goal of this. we continue to encourage president assad and his government to honor the prom promises that president assad has made. to institute reforms. obviously to cease seast the violence -- sees the violence against his own people. >> can you describe -- obviously big decisions coming up. can you explain whether this is a decisional meeting for the president? >> this is not a decisional meeting. this is a regular, monthly meeting run by the president on afghanistan and pakistan with the usual principles involved in that meeting, but it is not decisional. yes?
>> with the sanctions that you mentioned being contemplated against the syrian government, would those target individuals and perhaps even -- i'm not going to get into specifics beyond what i just said, which is to say that we are pursuing a range of possible options including targeted sanctions. i should note for those who don't know, that we have had a fairly aggressive regime of sanctions in place since i believe 2007, and this would be in addition to that. if we were to pursue that course of action. we are certainly looking at different ways to make clear to the syrian government how appalling we find this behavior to be, and to encourage them both as we have by speaking out against it but in other means to stop the violence and to move toward serious reform. you can parse that, but targeted
sanctions. >> looking at targeting crude oil? >> i'll leave it at targeted. >> the administration -- is the administration concerned about what is going to grow weaker on the world market and remain committed? >> i will leave a comment on the dollar to my treasury at the department, secretary gite -- geithner, if i may. >> having an ambassador in syria >> having an ambassador in syria has allowed us to be in syria, basically, in the presence of the government to make our views known directly and not be a long distance. so, yes, it has been useful to have our ambassador there
precisely because we can precisely because we can communicate directly what our positions and views are. and so i think that has been a useful avenue for us to pursue in terms of communicating our points of view. >> not in terms of influencing behavior. >> we condemn the behavior we've seen, so clearly we have not -- do not support what we see the syrian government do to its own citizens. but as a means of communicating directly our points of view, i think it is useful. >> the first quarter g.d.p. growth numbers are expected, and they are not expected to be encouraging. they are supposed to be worse than last quarter. so much of this recovery of the president is psychological. so much about the american people being prepared or allowing the economy to grow has been based on feeling about
whether or not we're headed in the right direction. the president has said that. do you think that the wlouse, the administration in general, has prepared the country sufficiently for what looks to be disappointing g.d.p. numbers? >> jake, i don't think americans judge how they feel personally about their economic circumstances based on a report on g.d. p. .
it is a public security issue. what we're trying to do is change the mechanisms by which in 2008, there were 114,000 criminals removed. trying to change the mechanism so the system catches less people who are identified. those people who have committed crimes as they do pose a greater threat. >> i would have one question. when you say you have an
appropriations mandate, what do you mean? >> congress gives us money to do roughly 400,000 removals in a given year. >> is that a goal for the agency? >> it is not a goal. it is broken down by a target with a third removal costs. it is a mandate to do roughly 400,000. >> i can -- [inaudible] i calculate the cost to remove [inaudible] to remove an alien -- that is
how we reach the numbers for the numbers john mentioned and the number of removals that we are appropriating and we take direction from congress. >> it is not a quota or gold. -- goal. we do not operate that way. it is roughly a mandate. >> thank you. >> one other quick thing. we detained 33,000 the year. we removed 400,000. it is a fraction of those who we are moving -- removing who are detained. that is by public safety determinations. there are other priorities such as individuals who have come across or been removed previous times. it would be misleading to say that the majority are in detention. that is not accurate.
>> i want to mention one thing in response to the introduction. i think it was a comment that i think it was a comment that the emphasis has been on the enforcement and not immigration reform. there has been devotion to enforcement. the department is funded for that and there is an obligation to go forward. it is an enormous amount of work that was done on comprehensive immigration reform from the first week of the administration. however before many meetings with the secretary before members of congress. it proved not possible to put together the right combination largely because of the inability to get a second republican co- sponsor in the senate. there is background work that has been done. it is what -- it is ready whenever the appropriate measures are taken.
there are more steps that we're taking with a lot of hours. i would also take issue and pose a question. i do not think it is quite fair to say it has been a national security issue that has driven the emphasis on enforcement. the 1996 act was enacted before the 911 attacks and before there was major emphasis. there is a rule of law rationale that contributes to the emphasis on enforcement. it is important to understand. there may be a lot of people with unfortunate motives for emphasizing enforcement. they find resonance in the middle because people are concerned that people are here outside of compliance with the law. i think that drives it and that led to a number of exaggerated reactions. stripping away from discretion from immigration judges. you suggested the current
strategy reinforces the link between immigration and crime and national security. how would you change the strategy, given the resources that are provided? given the mandate to spend money on enforcement, would you go back to a more random collection of people who are non-criminals? to throw in with the priority on criminals? >> how would do with that is through legal changes that do with the demand side for and regret workers. a lot of the people we are arresting are people who came here for work. i do not think this works outside a comprehensive framework. we're doing the enforcement side and you will never solve the problem outside of a comprehensive framework. one of my concerns is with the language we use. i was on a panel with david adler -- aguilar, threat.
everyone uses the language of the rat. --what are the border threats? -- the language of threat. what are the border threats? syria's criminality, drugs, and illegal immigration. illegal immigration is not a threat of that magnitude. he loved it together and i think it works against sensible solutions. what you're going to find if we are trying to get a mandate is we will keep defining criminology down. a lot of the criminal offenses, a fair number are rather minor and some are quite severe. those are people we can agree we do not want in this country. to keep hitting those targets and continue to say a higher percentage are criminals, will have to define criminality and i do not think that is a productive way to get at the problem. i would like this administration were committed to the -- more committed to the
comprehensive solution and less focused on the enforcement. i understand will you do it. -- why you do it. you are in a difficult position by do not think it is the right solution. >> our next speaker is the founding national director of the american civil liberties union immigrants rights project and he was referred to me by jim shepherd -- kim shepherd. i just had the pleasure of meeting him. one of the finest legal minds in the nation. >> with that introduction, i'd better have something to say. [laughter] >> i want to respond to a few points and one that underscores something that amy said and david acknowledged. the impact of the 1996 law. we're seeing the confluence of 9/11 and undocumented immigration, but also the 1996 loss in two critical respects. -- 1996 laws in two critical
respects. one is that it did remove an enormous amount of the flexibility that previously existed in law to allow for someone to gain legal status. secondly, it has the perverse consequence of freezing people into undocumented status by virtue of the operation of the law in many ways that are not worth exploiting now but -- not worth explaining now but essentially say that individuals who qualify for legal status are not pursuing it because of the way the law is written, but they in fact are eligible. it is a mistake for the administration to view this as purely a matter that requires statutory changes. because a lot of the operation of the law, while about to be -- while it ought to be changed -- changed and desperately needs to be, it is amenable to administrative and regulatory interpretation.
but administration could undertake in order to address some of these perverse consequences. it could adopt a regulation and adjudication of waivers that would allow individuals to apply safely for the legal immigration status for which they're eligible. it could adopt court interpretations of the detention statutes that allow individuals to get individual hearings at which there -- they're educated -- where there flight risk is adjudicated rather than requiring mandatory detention of people who do not pose that risk. the program has been demonstrated that the agency made no effort to determine who actually needed to be detained and who did not. if it had the resources to do that and a willingness to do that rather than spending the money and attention and -- the money on detention beds and
mandating detention under the law and failing to adopt interpretations, we could have a more efficient system that would authorize the tension when it is -- the tension when it is -- detention when it is needed but not impose a one it is not. one last point is how to reconcile the secure communities program with the enforcement priorities that have been articulated. i wonder how that works in operation. we heard the example of the traffic stop that could have led to the arrest of some of the terrorists but we understand traffic stops do not trigger the secure community if they did. in some places, they do. they lead to the concern about the incentive to engage racial and ethnic profiling in order to bring people -- into the booking system. system. the other thing i would add, the secure communities operation as i understand it, the booking triggers the screening but it
does not mean and in many cases there is not actually a criminal prosecution on the underlying events that led to the arrest in the first place. secondly, i wonder how even if booking is pursued, how that is reconciled with the immigration enforcement priorities. mine understanding is once that secure communities screening is triggered, those dhs not pursue individuals who were brought in if they do not have a prior conviction or are people released by i.c.e., or are we having the local police department setting the party? department setting the party? -- setting the price target? --one last point i wanted to ask -- setting the priority?
ask -- setting the priority? one last point i wanted to ask about, where is secure communities now in relation to those police departments who what like not to participate. there are chiefs of police who prefer not to be engaged in immigration screening who believe that it undermines their ability to engage in community policing. are they allowed to opt out or is it mandated by state agreements or dhs? >> if you want to respond to that. there are two secure communities question. the discretion and the opt out. the discretion and the opt out. >> kindly do speaking to the microphone. -- speak into the microphone. as if you really liked it. [laughter] >> i will start with the opt out. it is the policy of i.c.e. an dhs that the program is not
[unintelligible] there are changes. there is the uniformity issue. it is the reverse argument of 1070 in many ways. the federal government stepped in so we do not want a patchwork of state enforcement laws. the same logic applies to secure communities. we do not want to let local jurisdictions decide immigration policy. there are many of the same arguments there. there are procedural questions. who can decide? is that the state or the city or the county? the policy is it is uniform and rollout nationwide. we want to work with local communities and the
department's position is that they do not arrest victims or witnesses. absent a criminal arrest, you are not going to come across i.c.e. in any way. secure communities is not going to fink you out. if the local jurisdiction has concerns about lower level aliens, you do not need to run the figure prince. virginia excludes classes of misdemeanors. certain towns do where they do not run them through the fbi database. we will never know. we're concerned with the issue. we have -- we're working on taking a look at the policies in place and working on potential policies that might address what to do with witnesses and victims and interactions with local law enforcement.
we do use discretion on important cases of a case by case basis. generally, if you are a match in security committed to is, we -- secure communities, we will take enforcement action. it is a prioritization with that. will define those as level one, level 2, level 3. if you're a level line alien, you are a much higher priority. that is a more serious felony, and more violent felon. level to aliens -- level 3 are misdemeanors and coat there is a prioritization within that who we are going to use our limited space on.
who we will use our limited docket time on. while we do not -- we will take enforcement action, what that action looks like will differ dramatically. and how many resources we expand on that. -- expaend one that. we had 13,000 -- about 40,000 criminals removed in 2010, convicted of a crime. 13,000 non-criminals. our priorities include more than just criminals. people been -- will take a look of those numbers to make sure that we did not have a problem. the majority of those people do fall under of their priorities. fall under of their priorities. someone gets arrested for a do
you lie, say. -- dui, site. the local jurisdiction is set to release the person. discovers that the person had been previously removed from the country and reinstates the final order of removal. prior to the criminal case proceeding, the person is removed from the country. although they are never convicted, it does not mean that they are innocent of the charge. it does not mean they did not fall under our priorities. there are a number of these cases where the local prosecutors make a resource allocation decision. i am not going to spend the money detaining this person in jail. what is not ok are jurisdictions where there are rest designed to trigger the removal proceedings based on stereotypes. we are monitoring the data and we're very sensitive to that end up prepared to take action
should be five jurisdictions >> should we find jurisdictions that are engaged in the behavior. >> are there other questions? one of the inspirations from this event was a distinguished immigration attorney in the area. he deals directly with such cases. would you like to say something? >> [inaudible] i am certainly aware of some departments or much more enforcing the law that others. they do seek pretense to pick people up. i've talked to other lawyers that specialize in the wind -- dui. there are differences between municipalities as what happens with a dui event. >> i think anyone to say
something -- amy wants to say something. >> we do not have said george -- secure communities in new jersey. but we do have a directive that the attorney general issued back in 2007 that requires local police to ask about immigration status when there is an arrest or thank you or for -- court -- or a dui. war for an indictable offense. what we have seen over the last couple years -- i am speaking of this prospective of who we see in detention. i am not doing a statistical analysis. my office provides legal orientation programs for all detainees and over the last three years, we've seen an absolute surge in people who are there for minor traffic violations. a passenger in a car that was pulled over for a broken tail lights.
i appreciate the priorities, but we see on the ground every single day is different. my question, if we are all in agreement that we have a dysfunctional immigration system and we all sit the need for change and we recognize there should be discretion, why such a pushed for secures communities? it is something that is going to force people into what is an unfair deportation system, white -- why is its absolute a mandate to have it in every single jurisdiction by 2013? >> you never knew you had so much power. before you receive all the brunt of the responsibility, let me ask you, are there other questions for john?
i would love to hear from janice. >> [inaudible] >> i swear to hear a little bit more about the work site side of things. i am curious about a couple of. i would like to understand how you think about workplace enforcement now and about the problem of workers been involved in organizing drives and their employers suddenly wants to discover the true status after they have the market at a firm -- after they had been working at firm for a long period of time. we know there is a move to protect those workers and give them some kind of temporary or permanent status if they have been involved in organizing. i'd like for you to say a few words about that. >> the president of princeton
busier -- is here. kevin welts, would you like to add something to this? [unintelligible] >> that the federal level, it is largely mystifying sometimes. i hear what some suggest -- the actual impact that creates the fears and suspicions are quite pervasive and quite intense. we are interested in princeton borough and keeping our local streets under control uncivilized and friendly to wall -- and civilized and friendly to all and to the
extent that to we have a segment of our population that makes itself invisible to us on account of these fears for prosecution and despite the fact that the chief of police has met with the local population to suggest the attorney general's regulation and what they are for these limited amounts of offenses. there are a lot of other things that can get you caught up, also. it causes people to disappear from the civil component of our society. it becomes hard for police to enforce safety because people will not come out to say what date assault on the street -- what they saw happen on the street corner of the night before. we have a series of events like this. at our small level, the numbers you cite, 40,000, well beyond our ability to comprehend. the fear locally is such that it makes it very hard for us to create a secure community.
>> taking the blame. -- take it away. >> we've not been a very good job about talking publicly about secure community is and what it isn't. that would impact your community. if someone has a legitimate fear of being caught up of their community and has an understanding of how it actually works, they should only be fearful if they have committed a violation of the laws. that is not the perception. we need to do a better job of engaging the communities with advocacy groups, to explain how it works. along those lines, if i was an
advocacy group, -- that sounds ice to expand into my community. that sounds counterintuitive, but the reality is, we're going to -- we are firmly committed to a legal change. we're doing 390,000 removals' a year. a variety of other ways -- would you want us to do them at the worksite or in ways that would result in 240,000 non- criminals? or would i you rather have us removing them from the job -- from the jail? the answer has to be the latter. recognizing that in the criminal world, this problem
will go way. criminal convictions are going to be a disqualifying factor. you what expansion because it is a program that enables to get us over the 50% for the first time. it will allow us to get further drop in the depicting -- supporting criminals. -- deporting criminals. in 2010, the numbers do not necessarily support that. we identified 248,000 people in fiscal year 2010. through a secured community. that was when security amenities -- secure communities only were in 620 jurisdictions. it will be greatly enhanced and we can focus our limited resources on removing those individuals and not the people in your community.
not people who have not been arrested for a serious offense. you want to expand secure communities. >> she does not. she clearly does not. she clearly does not. >> >> those people are still getting fed through the system and as long as we had our mandate and there is -- but you want for us to be focusing on the people who have committed a criminal offense in the community. that is the you want us to remove. >> thank you. i agree. >> we are working with the department of labour on a variety of issues. we are very cognizant of and sensitive to those and we will continue to work with the department of labour to ensure that where there allegations of
workplace labor law violations, we just don't march in and remove people. >> would like to intervene at this point? >> i want to make a observation. below context is very important -- the local context is very important for the execution of carrying out the programs, especially in light of the proliferation of state level legislation designed to curb illegal immigration or punish illegal immigration at the state level so that one of the state level so that one of the more -- the clearest example i can think of is th the state of georgia, which has made it a key attainable offense.
driving without a license in the state of georgia is a mandatory 48 hours detention now on the first offense. that is but many immigrants -- that caught many immigrants driving without a driver's license, because the driver's license is not available in the state of georgia to a person who does not have lawful status. that puts that person into the whole immigration database, although it is driving without a license is not a serious offense. previously, it was an offense that could be dispatched with a fine. that kind of local legislation, i think, is increasingly occurring across the country. i just make that observation from my reporting. what is the test doing to ensure that -- dhs doing to ensure that the implementation
will not be vulnerable to the interpretation of local law enforcement? and to the differing severity of local laws? >> timekeeper. let me advise you of two things. there will be overlap with the second panel, so we actually want to take some of these questions for after the break. i would like to know whether it i would like to know whether it -- we have time for a nother intervention, very brief comment to questions from the audience. would you like to say what you have to say? she is the executive director of the latin american and defense and education fund. and education fund. >> i would love to get your feedback.
if we were to have any kind of legislative reform, that would help provide restore some rationality, would reinstate the the most desirable? if so, should be as the representative to try to spearhead the effort? >> i will put that to david martin as well. and then to the audience. >> thank you. >> thank you. i began by saying that i do not think that we should be planning for major changes in immigration law in the coming months. months. the question is, how do we use
what we have? one of the things that i am going to take back to my colleagues on the appropriations committee is that they should make clear to the department that funding sufficient for that number of deportations should not be interpreted as a quota to reach. it is possible that that is what they had in mind, i hope not, and they certainly want to take fact back. i have been listening very closely, and i think i detected a significant difference in the approach to the existing model as discussed by a knee -0- --
amy. i believe you began at the beginning -- everything comes back to you. it is the enforcement agency. it is the enforcement agency. i believe i heard you say that we are targeting populations that pose a security threat. there is a big difference between that way of phrasing and amy's phrasing of individual, individual, individual. that is what they said over and over again. i think it has to do with whether an individual who was picked up is subject to evaluation to determine whether that individual is a security threat.
rather than the other around. rather than the other around. i am not saying that it is profiling, but it is a different approach and i am having a little trouble expressing best, but i thought i heard a different -- difference that makes -- that would be reflected on the street. reflected on the street. i think maybe congressional instructions of what is intended here might be useful. clearly, they want people to -- who pose a security threat to -- and that is what i will try to take back. >> david? >> part of the problem is that it is not easy to identify you -- who is a security threat.
there are security threats and people who will wind up committing much more serious crimes are drawn. -- late autumn -- later on. it is more damaging to be general image of the person who is illegally present is when there is someone who was been in the system before somewhere and commits a serious offense. we've had some very serious ones in virginia. ones in virginia. the rate of a young girl, -- rape of a young girl, a dui, released and then went out and killed another person. the dilemma is how to address those kinds of situations. it is extremely damaging to the effort to get sensible immigration reform. secure committees should go forward. i acknowledged what julius said
about the driver's license offenses. driving without a license is not an automatically 48 detention kind of offense. but dhs cannot effect that. hillary clinton talked against that's as she was a candidate. that's as she was a candidate. that is not something that dhs can solve. that was the point of it from the beginning, to take away discussion that could be used by law-enforcement officers. we try to proceed on that basis. we try to proceed on that basis. it will leave some hard cases underside of the line, but that is where we need to proceed. there could be better ways to
exercise discretion in the system. we may not have overall legislation, but it is very easy to tack it onto an appropriation bill and exercised discretion by agencies can triggered legislative reaction. some of the more ambitious suggestions i fear would trigger a legislative reaction. we had something like that in the 1996 act. immigration judges could exercise, to let someone state even though they had deportable offense. offense. well was in the conference committee, the exercise -- the
issue decision the key members of the conference committee did not like it and they cut thati offer that as a cautionary note to think about that we need to keep our eye on the long run game. create the right kind of image. sometimes, some hard decisions have to be made. >> before john, we will close this part of our meeting. is very pressing question for members of the audience? speak up, please. speak up, please. >> i and the american -- my
husband is under threat of deportation. he is in proceedings now. i filed for relative status like any non-gay couple would. that was rejected last month with the defense of marriage act being disparaging decided -- act being decided -- cited. what policy has been formulated that would fund the activism -- that would respond to the activism that we have done? with the legislative act in the works? >> thank you very much. another question? >> [inaudible]
a lot of people in this room know me. i've been practicing immigration law for almost 20 years. the reality is racial profiling and everybody in this room knows that. if you are a certain color, you get picked up, and it is a real problem in this state. there is a need for discretion. the court is r increased -- to the quotas are increased said that the point is that in new jersey, what happens is there is some discretion. -- no discretion. families are torn apart and you really are not practicing what you preach. come down here and talk to our local ice person and make sure that they do a rights. >> was there a question there?
>> yes. when are you going to do that? [laughter] >> and john, you have the last word. >> the president's directive was to continue to enforce the law -- doma -- until there is a court that it determined that it is unconstitutional. that is where we are going with that. that. there are a couple of instances where we're holding the case is in abeyance. until we get guidance. the reality is, we're going to continue to enforce the law. the anecdotal stories about abuses in securities amenities, -- secure communities, all we can do is modify the numbers overall. we have hired a statistician to take a good look at the numbers. we're looking at patterns before and after. we're looking at this from a thousand different angles.
to make sure we can use it as a tool to identify abusive law enforcement practices. that said, it raises tough questions. we are not seeing any wholesale abuses in the practice. serious violent felony offenses, we are able to remove them from the country. that is a public safety issue. i do not know if there is anything more to add. >> i think i was quoting the attorney general correctly when he said, the president has concluded that section 3 of doma fails to meet the standard and is therefore unconstitutional. the president has instructed
the department not to defend the statute in such cases. i realize he is not talking about deportation cases, but he is not saying, let's wait until law is declared unconstitutional. in certain cases, we will not in force doma. by a fairly easy extension, it could also apply to deportation cases. >> we have been working very hard. since that announcement about a month ago. in terms of the litigation position, the government will longer -- the attorney general mix crystal clear that the executive agencies must continue to enforce a law as they did before. they did before. they have looked into this
issue in the service members cases and other cases and their guidance is quite clear. for a layperson, it seems strange that there is a divide between what you do in court and in terms of practice. we think the attorney general possible guidance is very clear. until either congress repeals section 3 or there is afforded of a judicial caught -- termination, if there is a change, we are ready to implement the change as well. >> thank you very much. we're going to break right now. there is food. i will be asking you to move back into your spot in 15 minutes exactly. thank you very much, all of you.
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> up next on c-span, a conversation on china's foreign policy. on "washington journal," we will talk to the former head the federal aviation administration about the current challenges that the airline industry faces. "washington journal" begins at 7:00 eastern. and later, the jan mickelson
show. that is live at 10:00 eastern. today, virginia is republican governor of mcdonnell will talk about the fiscal condition of his state and the challenges the country is facing. of live coverage from the national press club at 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. later, jim lehrer executives from the -- from in pr talk about the future of public broadcasting. that is also on c-span2. >> the white house correspondents annual black-tie dinner, starting with the red carpet arrivals at 6:45 p.m., and then remarks from president obama and at saturday night
live's seth meyers. streaming at c-span.org and live on c-span. >> now a discussion on chinese internal debate on foreign policy. we will hear about their relationship with its neighbor and the west. this panel organized by george washington university is an hour. >> it was a pleasure sitting down with them today -- yesterday. they are well known to most of you in the audience. i cannot think of to better people to be writing this paper to depict their range in china on foreign policy issues.
in particular, i commend the policy-oriented focus of henry. for those of us who were in the safe academic tank for a while, it is easy to forget how much of value there is in understanding the intellectual landscape in a particular country you are looking at. i thought that henrik's chapter and david then did a very nice job of not only laying out the debate, but trying to talk about the parlance -- policy-oriented focus of them. i thought i would make some brief comments about the paper as the chair and then handed over to david and might. the paper is a great paper, as i anticipated. no better people than them to do this. it is comprehensive and
documented. there's a second paper in just reading the footnotes, and david's stock in trade. you learn a lot at how about seeing who is writing about what in china. providing detailed description about not only the subject being debated in china, harmonious development, but the real development -- the real virtue of the paper is when they lay out the spectrum of discourse in china's foreign policy community. it is a wonderful paper and i think the comments will only make a better. i will make four very brief comments because i am the chair. the first is -- while there is real value in being comprehensive, in some ways this is the story of china. china is a big place, lots of people, very diverse. there is real value in
analytical proximity. i finished the paper thinking, i have a much richer understanding of what is going on in china today, but on the other hand, there is a lot going on in china today. for those of you that have steady china or even in a cursory matter looked at foreign policy debates in china, there is so much going on that at the end of the paper, your left thinking, what really matters? this is something that all of us china specialists struggle with. it is not a weakness of the paper, but to the extent possible, as they try to highlight the dominant trends that would be useful. second comment -- i think that the paper would benefit from some comment about what is not being debated in china. i am dahlson -- often struck by how little discussion about what is not going on.
the choice is china is not making, and in the cases of this particular paper, what is not being debated. even the most disturbing schools of thought which they rightly determined nativist is not a school of thought that from my understanding is articulating a highly revisionist image or agenda of the international system. point number three -- it was very useful if the paper at some point linked the schools of thought from the nativists to the global lusts to the debates talked about in the paper. -- the globalists to the debates talked about in the paper. some think they as i made the transition of acting and trying to devise policy, sometimes
there seems to be a this juncture between what is being debated among scholars and analysts in china and what you actually see in terms of chinese foreign policy behavior. that is not terribly surprising. there are multiple different influences on the behavior of the state. there is bureaucratic politics, public opinion, and other discourse. it would be useful if there was some way to tie the debates going on in china to some of the key decisions that we pay attention to in government. tunney policies on iran, on maritime territorial disputes, especially considering the behavior in the south china sea, and the east china sea. in particular, some of us in government were struck by the fact that we know there is a robust debate going on in china about the whole concept of
political prisoners and what it means for china. and yet at the same time that is going on, uc disconcerting behavior. disconcerting behavior. the key issue is, how the u- shaped chinese behavior once you understand its spectrums of views. we have some evidence to bear on this. over the last 30 years, there's several areas where u.s. policy has had a defining influence on shaping chinese behavior. in particular, chinese behavior on international trade, on non- proliferation, and of course, the chinese approach toward multilateralism, especially in the east asian concept -- context. it is not as easy as reinforcing the voices you like in china and being mean to the guys you do
not like. it is definitely not that simple. i would encourage the authors to look at the mix of incentives and disincentives as a way to reinforce those views that we think are in the u.s. interest and to do the opposite. i m two minutes over. let me handed over to david to discuss the paper. >> thanks very much for getting us started very well. i am sorry if i gave our panel chair a scare by not getting here until 9:30 but the washington metro system being what it is is not as efficient as the beijing metro system and it did not cooperate. i made it. i am here. of really pleased on behalf my colleague and co-author ren- chow who is a professor but for two years, he has been in the chinese embassy in tokyo which
is physically why he is not here. he is one of the growing trend, something the chinese have learned from the united states in a positive way -- academics that going to government and in theory come out. we will see if you come out, evan. [laughter] it is a real strength of the american system. the chinese have more recently begun to adopt that as well. ren-chow is one or five or six people going from academia into government. that is why he is not here. he has left it to me to present our paper. this is difficult to summarize a 13,000-word, 38-page paper. i think this will go into the fifth draft.
i have written any papers but i have never written more drops of a paper than this project has required. there will be at least one more draft and i will incorporate what you just said and what mike is about to. that is the introductory slide. i am technologically challenged. i am not that accustoms to presentations. china, i would argue, maybe i am biased because i am a chinese specialist, but they are the most important rising power. this one, i think, is very important. for a return every day, we see this. we see china gobbling up a global resources, soaking up foreign investment, increasingly investing abroad, recently throwing its weight around in the asian
neighborhood, being the souter and government diplomacy, sailing its navy into new waters, most recently the mediterranean, broadening its global and cultural presence and trying to acquire soft power and managing a mega-economy that is the engine of global growth. this is no ordinary rising growth. maybe it has already risen. how to deal with this rising power is the grand strategic question of our era. what kind of actor will china be on the international stage is really the key question before all of us as analysts or policy practitioners.
there are, indeed, many variables that will answer the second question. this project and this chapter in this project is a slice of one of the many variables. this looks at only one slice of chinese perception. it looks at how the chinese see their own international role. that is different than how the chinese see the united states or how they see brazil or whatever. this chapter is about how the chinese see themselves in the international system. that is a kind of sub-sub set. we argue that china is a conflicted rising power. we lay out in the paper a variety of schools of thought and ways and issues and levels in which china is a conflicted rising power.
we make the point that many others, starting with my colleague mike lampton made several years ago in his book that the foreign-policy process in china is increasingly pluralized. your book was published seven or eight years ago in 2001. 10 years ago. he had prescience in which he noted that the chinese foreign policy was beginning to pluralize and many actors were getting into the act and it was no longer controlled by the foreign ministry. here we are 10 years later and it could not be more true. as analysts, we need to dig deep into this pluralize policy-making process. it is very hard i don't and the people like evan who have to mana a