on a series of new bills and laws now that have been introduced around the country called ag-gag legislation. now, in the last few years there have been a series of damning undercover investigations by groups like the humane society, mercy for animals and compassion over killing that have really rocked the agricultural industry. they've exposed heinous abuses and illegal activity, but they've also exposed standard industry practices. they've led to the largest meat recall in u.s. history. in this case, the slaughterhouse was taking sick cows, cows that were too sick to even walk, moving them with bulldozers with the hope of getting that last bit of money out of these sick animals. those cows were being turned into meat and being fed to children as part of the national school lunch program. that's illegal, it's also very dangerous abuse of this industry in terms of consumer health violations. led to the largest meat recall in u.s. history.

it would only have been possible through the work of undercover investigators. in north carolina investigators exposed workers beating turkeys with metal pipes, abuse so horrendous in a big ag state that it actually led to felony prosecution. on top of that, it exposed a coordination between the top ag official in the state and butterball who tried to tip off corporations hours before the raid that this was going to be happening. well, investigators also found out about this. she resigned in a massive political scandal. criminal prosecution and really began to rewrite the national dialogue about how agriculture operates, where we get our food. and the third way the is, i think, the most important. body slamming pig lets to death humane, pork be experts say. so it's not about the aberrant

criminal behavior. this is about business as usual, and the industry is trying desperately to defend what happens every single day as it's being exposed to millions of people. .. on top of all that, 25 states carve out specific exemptions for customary practices, and they're defined by industry itself as whatever they see as

business as usual. so, in other words, between eight and nine billion animals are killed every single year for food by an industry with no oversight and no accountability, and i say this because it puts this work of undercover investigator in a different light. they're the only meaningful checks and balances on the entire industry. the only way that we can know what is going on behind closed doors. so the response to these investigations by industry has not been to change animal welfare standards or change abusive practices, it's been to outlaw the people who are exposing them. so last year there were ten bills introduced that specifically criminalize undercover investigations of factory farms and slaughterhouses. they include language about banning photography, videotape,

and enhanced criminal penalties for that. actually passed in several states in wisconsin, utah, and missouri, which are green on the map in 2013, 12 bills have been introduced that have been defeated fortunately in every state, in tennessee it actually got to the governor's desk in part due to the work of people like the humane society and people like carrie underwood, the country music star, led to a really shocking in money opinion, governor's veto of the legislation. in tennessee. that's how toxic this legislation became. and i'll talk about this a little bit later. still one bill bending in north carolina, a state thats by far the worst one introduced. so these ag bills have really evolved into three different types you should know about. the bread and butter, the standard, has been criminalizing

photography, and includes language like this: anyone who records an image or sound from a factory farm, anyone who uploads, downloaded, transfers or otherwise sends it, over the internet, or any medium. so back to what you just heard. it's not just obtaining the information. it's distributing it. the second type of bill is what i call a mandatory reporting requirement. so, the industry is trying to say, we're not trying to outlaw these investigations. we care how animals are treated. so if workers see this, you have to report it in 24 hours. if 'er not familiar with these issues it sounds halfway reasonable. if you see workers beating turk questions with pipes you should tell somebody about it. but see something, say something. we're all kind of -- right? and those are the catch phrases used. but the important thing to remember is this is an industry that is reliant on some of the most marginalized and

disenfranchised population. not native english speakers, undocumented in many case, don't have easy access to attorneys or legal representation, people whose louvrely hood depends on the work, and the thought of blowing the whistle on these abuses, while they can lose their jobs and not be able to provide for their family and don't know how to go about doing that, it's an unfair burden on whistle-blowers. the third part, the third type of bill, focuses on misrepresentations. that's an attempt to go of people who are applying for work lawfully and then the industry really gets punked on this. they didn't realize who was apply for the job. and then they try to go after them in hindsight as being an animal activist or have something intention of fraudulently applying for a job. now, the important thing to remember is, it's one thing to pad your resume applying for a

job. applying for a job here at the university, i'm sure there's some professors have done that, enhanced their cv, and that is totally appropriate to investigate and ask questions about. not something that is appropriate to go to jail for five years. you al heard of alex, the american -- exchange council, a group of in other 203 they had an animal terrorism act. and it's a corporate front group, and the way it operates is corporations give tens of thousands of dollars to the organization, and then in exchange they get a seat at the table in drafting model legislation. and then those model bills are taken back by state lawmakers around the country, and introduced where their colleagues have no idea they were actually written by the cattlemen's association,

monsanto, enron, the union busting bills in wisconsin were alex, the stand your ground laws in florida. so this animal ecological terrory. act was written by these industries and the bill includes undercover investigations and includes dangerous language about materially or financially supporting people who are doing things like this. in order to encourage plans to carry out and promote these activities. this kind of material support language is not just about undercover investigators and arsonists or the animal liberation front. it's about people like us. make no mistake about the intent of the language. it's about people who are sharing this information online in writing about it, and people like me, who are speaking out in a sense of political prisoner. this all has to be viewed in this post 9/11 con ticket.

from a freedom of information action from the fbi, the bureau was considering prosecutions against undercover investigators back to 2003. this is before the animal enterprise terrorism act was passed. this isn't about property destruction, not about arson, about people taking photographs. this is from another fa request. this is given to new fbi special agents. one page on animal rights and ecoactivists and notice the emphasis on information about them being engaged in a public relations war, how meet ya is vital to eave part of their campaign. god forbid media sometimes even slant it in their favor and sometimes they use celebrities. this rhetoric in addition to being a top fbi priority of a

terrorism threat, it's also been embraced by corporations and, of course, politicians. when that meat recall happened in california, and soon after, another investigation shut down a slaughterhouse. the industry put pressure on local lawmakers. members of congress. who in turn sent a letter to the usda in which they said undercover investigation were an act of, quote, economic terrorism. thesing things that protected public safety and exposed illegal activity. now, the industry is just gone off the deep end how they talk about these things. they're comparing them to hate crimes, and it's no different than carving out special legislation to go after people who are burning crosses, and attacking people at mosques. there's kind of a difference. the difference being that one is

about exposing information in order to benefit the public and empower us as consumers and individuals in a democracy. the other is instilling fear and using violence against disenfranchised groups. now all of this being said, of there's any message to leave you all with, through this presentation, -- i think it's a positive one, and i say that because these ag ed bills have overwhelming he backfield across the country. this is a really good example of it. the chronicle had an editorial talking about how this was the worst pr gaff since new coke. and i would have chosen crystal pepsi. i think that reflects how bad this was for industry. this is the stuff hat take place when these bills are introduced. the youtube videos appear on, and everytime i've debated

some industry hack or talking to someone, as they're speaking, say, way care so much about animals, this is all about compassion, this footage is rolling behind him. unbelievable how much this backfield. not only people like carrie underwood but a mainstream develop graphic that's it not left, not animal rights, not radicals, that's outraged by this. i think a fantastic example of this -- of how toxic sunshine is to this industry and these bills is the first prosecution which happened in utah. the first prosecution under any of this legislation. a woman named amy miles was charged for filming a slaughterhouse from the public easement. she went to this place because she knew because was happening. she heard that cows were being push around by bulldozers. much like that situation that led to the largest meat install

u.s. history. she had a reasonable interest in seeing what was happening. i have her video. i'll put it up in the next couple of days on my site. it shows heavy equipment using -- moving the sick animals. and she was charged through this legislation, and i wrote an article about it, out and it up on my web site, and within 24 hours i was getting hundreds of thousands of views. went up on read it and brought the site down because it was getting several hundred unique visitors per second in several hours. so within 24 hours after this made the -- that word viral doesn't mean anything. this legitimately went viral. sad. the prosecutor was like, we're going to drop the charges. think about what that reflects. this is criminal activity, up until the point people know what is going on, and get pissed off and then it's, oh, no, no, we didn't mean to do that.

amy miles won't be prosecuted. now, this north carolina bill that is still pending, is not beside agriculture. it's not about factory farming on slaughter housed. it's so broad it includes every industry, and i'm not being hyper pollic there. it's the commerce protection act and it includes timber and mining and agriculture and processing, it includes anyone from someone exposing worker's rights violations at an automobile plant to someone exposing food safety issues at a cream cheese processor. i don't know why i pick these examples but it could be anything. i picked monsanto just because everyone is talking about monsanto. everyone is outraged. they're wrapped up in this legislation as well. so it's really a reflection of how well this is expanding radically and also expanding overseas. europe has lifted undercover investigator in the terrorism

threat assess independent 2011, refers to them as -- interesting lange -- language, and these are showing up in spain, austria, finland, france, the uk. so to wrap this up and leave time for question and answer, i think we need to disspell this rhetoric of terrorism apparatus only being used against people that are criminals, because what we're seeing if you're effective enough, if you're organized enough, if you're ambitious and bold enough and actually threatening corporate profits, criminal activity is redefined. and i think that really is a scene throughout all the presentations you just heard, and to me i think that's incredibly inspiring. focus on dark and depressing and horrible stuff as my chosen area

of focus, and it's not the most uplifting work, talking about people going to prison and draconian legislation but this gives me a whole lot of hope, and that's because you have a group of people that have a couple hundred dollars worth of video and oddey equipment, that are rattling the industry to their core. we all have this. some of the biggest industries can on the planet or terrified of this, video documentation. what you heard -- they're also terrified not only about that but then sharing it easily, cheaply, excessively online. if upton sinclair he would have had a you youtube page so i see a lot of potential so in that spirit, thank you for having me here. [applause]

>> well, thanks to everyone. i want to ask a couple of questions of the panel and then we're going to open it up. we have about 40 minutes left. so we're good on time. i wanted to ask, just to the -- specifically -- i'd be curious to hear other people's communities -- the cfaa seems to be a law that has taken over and usurped any other laws in terms of this type of activism for hackers. the ag gag. they don't need it when they have the cfaa. can you talk about how the u.s. is going after hackers and these time of activists as opposed to other countries? >> so, one of the really interesting things that happened as part of the case is that it was an international group of nones, who were found out to be

members of lfac, and two people who were lifted on the u.s. indictment from ireland and two people from england on the indictment. and there was jeremy hammond from the u.s. and what happens was in ireland, the two people were spoken with by the police there, and then sort of let go, and -- in ireland? yeah. the word -- [inaudible] -- well, anyway, i guess i'm misinformed. in england there was just the people who were arrested eventually pled guilty and were sentenced to between no time, probation, and 30 months, and in england 30 months means 15 months and just as a practicing attorney in the u.s. i just kind

of couldn't believe it. but your time in prison is counted if you're on house arrest. so, one of the people was on -- they were all on house arrest during the time so basically all of their time is already served, and i think that the u.s. is probably not going to extradite theme here if u but if they came here they would face 40 years in prison. and with jeremy, the time he has been incarcerated without bail, the judge denied him any bail, other hackers are always granted bail. and he was just not allowed out at all under any circumstances. and so he has already served the same amount of time in prison that his codefendants will serve or could have served. so, it's just a totally out of whack move in the united states from an international perspective. it's just completely different.

in the uk, the news also was saying how they received these really, really harsh sentences that amounted to maybe 30 days in prison and they were such extreme sentences, and i was talking with avian, and it's going to be really high, these sentences -- >> the judge kept saying, this is aggrieve obvious crimes and terrible what you all did and it was like, 30 months, and in the u.s. that's like, you let them off easy. >> yeah, yeah. i think the same is true kind of throughout the u.s. criminal justice system. we would be remiss to not point out that the drug war has been happening and young black and brown men have been going to prison on bogus conspiracy charges for decades. it's been happening for decades and they've been going to prison for decades, and i think that right now we have an opportunity to draw a knew kind of group of people's attention to that, but the u.s. prison industrial complex is out of control in many ways, and we're seeing that

with the tsa and seeing the targeting of political people, but it's happening throughout the country. >> ireland? you want to talk about that? >> i mean, it looks like two guys are going to trial in july, but the expectation is that the sentencing will be minimal to nothing. >> i want to -- you addressed how the terrorism moniker has been used against animal rights and ecoactivists, and we're starting to see more and more -- it's obvious to me, at least, they want to do that with the anons, with the hackers.

their cybercrimes unit and they're saying in much the same way that ten years -- ten or so years ago they said that environmental, ecological activists are the number one domestic terrorism threat. now they're talking cyberterrorrism. the new word they're getting. ad up on. and so -- getting. a.m.ed up on, and how do you see that affecting the future of the anonymous activityists online world? >> i'm focused on this because of the potential for these tactics being easily applied to wide range of other social issues. government repreparation is nothing -- re repression, but how they're being used, were

really pioneers, because they were marginalized, and easy to breck off, and moving forward with other movements, some of the things things to look out fe not only how this rhetoric is being used in the press, because that's how the foundation is really laid. but how it begins to creep into league paroleddings, whether or not it's in an official capacity or people are actually charged under a terrorism enhancement, but it's ways of injecting that language as much as possible. and then a dramatic shift happens, which i anticipate in the next couple of years, with groups like anonymous, and carving new legislation specifically targeting people because of their politics and action. legislation like the nail enterprise terrorism act. talked about how existing legislation is being used and misused in a way to go after internet activists today. i think there's without a doubtings in that's going to be

coming down the pike specifically targeting that brand of activism and political organizing, and when you have that foundation, when people are being been skewered in the press and pushing the limits of existing laws in the courtroom and new laws are being drafted, that's when the full weight of the apparatus is coming down on the movements and we're seeing those elements escalate very quickly with everything we heard about. >> it's interesting with anonymous. do you remember the photo i showed of the polish parliamentarians who were donning the mask? a few days later there was a "wall street journal" report with headlines the nsa claims anonymous will have the capable to take down the power grid in a couple of years. and i was not surprised at the timing of that because when the

polish parliamentarians were using the mask, it's clear the mask became a signal for popular discontent and unrest. not terrorism. and in some way it just felt like a kind of propaganda of some sort, and the story didn't stick. everyone -- subsequent news reports discounted it. they were like, come on, why would anonymous want to take down the very thing that allows them to organize in at the first place? so ridiculous. right? and their m.o. is not about endangering lives at all. it points the fact that -- again their misunderstood, a handful of news reports that call them terrorists but they have won the media relations battle but that's one of the ropes why the legal brown has -- background has to be particularly strong because that becomes a very effective way of scaring the heck out of future and current

activist from moving forward. the hammer would be very strong because the history of the computer fraud and abuse act is one which becomes stronger and stronger with each passing year because they've amended the bill many, many times. but it does point to the fact that -- that's what i really liked about will's presentation, is that people are outraged, and see the benefits of these different movements, and people are seeing the benefits of them and the media is not delegitimating them. even the mainstream media is going to freak out government officials and corporations, and we have to watch out because they're going to be crafty in their response, given the fact that these movements are acceptable to some degree. >> i think one of the other things that we saw was after aaron swartz died, there were calls all throughout the internet to reform the cfaa, and

when everyone was talking about that. , they were talking about reducing the charges, and what had been proposed right up until his death was to kind of double all of the charges. so, if you were -- did the same thing, twice as long, and right now there's $500 -- you have to be accused of $500 worth of damage. they wanted to lower that to $200. and so there are all these reforms, kind of maneuvers in the works going to make it an even worse law. so when he died and all these calls for reform, everyone was saying, reform it, make it a a better law and what came back was make it a worse law. and i think that it was kind of disheartening to watch and predictable that is what lawmakers would return with, and will is right and the knowledge of prior movements and precursors so this is

illustrative for people watching the cfaa. >> great. so, nathan? we're going to open up for questions. because we don't have audio in here, you have to wait until it's your turn and speak into the microphone. >> before you open it up to questions, i'm part of a group that -- and i wanted to encourage people to go to their web sites of the activists, give -- [inaudible] -- jeremy's twin brother has a -- asking judge to basically ask-say time served instead of getting ten years. asking people let these people go. this is not okay. these are people who are doing this for you. write to them. jeremy has over 80 days of confinement.

no family. he was -- no family was able to see him. months and months of no phone calls. he was vic. brown was going through withdrawal and was left in his cell, not getting anything. and jerren -- no one is talking about him but he is appealing the cfaa but he is not -- [inaudible] -- he is the one that did the electronic foundation, and -- >> there's a lot of folks -- a lot of cases going on. i think -- thank you. thank you. >> jeremy's web site is free jeremy.net. >> thanks to prism, we know that the fbi, et cetera, had access

to everything about manning, as his attorney, do you have a right to ask how much -- what data -- not just that they used but all of the data that they proved to pick exactly what they wanted. as his attorney shouldn't you have that right? >> you should. the discovery rules in the southern district are not what you would wish they were, so as an attorney you try to get more information and that's part of your job, is to litigate for that, and so hopefully is all i'll say to that. ...

prosecutors have this amazing change of heart and they agree to take the plea agreements without them snitching on their friends in order to quash the motion so it wouldn't move forward. i say this because it is really unique element not a lot of people know about that i have a very strong suspicion that illegal surveillance is working its way into many court cases and there's a lot of pressure on prosecutors on the government to make sure the extent of that isn't released.

>> howdy. i had a question about prosecutions of folks convicted of cyberterrorism in the future. you talk about anonymous taking out the power grid which is a silly idea. then you also have like israel and the u.s. government working on stots next together and infrastructure technology is notoriously insecure. the actual occurrence could happen. i was wondering about the possibilities of finding a space to defend against sort of cracking down on the cases we want while there's real cases that are probably not going to be fund that start to happen in the future? >> i mean i think it's important, one of the messages as activists to get across, yeah, we need good security for these infrastructures. you know what i mean. and try to shift the message to that as opposed to, look at these hackers causing this damage. no, if, corporations aren't held

accountable for their infrastructure or the public works projects, right, then there is going to be real damage at some level and it does seem like the conversation does acknowledge that as well and there has been more robust discussion and thanks in part to anonymous, that 50-day hacking spree. a lot of hackers in the community who tend to work for corporations and governments to create secure systems were thrilled, were thrilled that, because often times that corporations are not putting in the money needed to create secure systems which is important for public safety and consumers and so, you know, the more we could make that the conversation as opposed to, you know, the hackers doing crazy things i think, you know, it's better for the public. >> one of the really interesting things about the cfaa is that,

so if you're found to have violated the cfaa, the damages requirement as i mentioned is $500. how that can be calculated is by incorporating the amount of money it took the company to secure its systems so they leave a door wide open. someone gets information and then they're hiring of an i.t. guy to fiction it goes into your damages and you're responsible for paying for that i.t. guy to when the i.t. guy should have been hired bit company if they're going to put their stuff online. i think this is, the internet is new and everyone is using it for everything and people are not investing in, you know, it's not like bridge building where there are engineering practices in the same way. it is kind of like, it's a lot more loose and standards are not tight and they're not followed, industrywide standards.

it is kind of where we are right now, a lot of systems are really insecure. drawing attention to that, as people giving our credit cards to these companies, that's the problem is that we're trusting them and they're not really trustworthy with our data so. >> i would say actually, to answer your question i think that we have the opposite problem, right? we have these laws that are fully capable going after the real bad guys but what we're doing is discouraging actual people who are not the real bad guys from even, you know, so the case is perfect example. it was not infrastructure but a completely negligently built system by at&t that any person could enter a number and get user data back, right? instead of a creating a new, we're only using the cfaa to go after at&t and make them put up a better server, they said, no, we'll go after the guy who exposed it. that is the dynamic we see over and over and over again. that is the political question

because the prosecutors, literally as professor orin kure, who is very conservative law professor any internet user could be targeted for a cfaa violation if the prosecutors chose to so that's a political decision. >> hi. i was just wondering if you could explain just what kind of legal jargon is being used in the steubenville, exposed to the steubenville rapest. i'm confused how the kids were tweeting about it the entire time and yet with the non-bringing more attention to what these kids already exposed themselves doing and i'm kind of confused how the state can say that what he did was illegal when these kids were documenting their own illegal activity themselves? i wonder if you can explain some of that? >> i. no, that is really good question because the most effective part of the anonymous campaign was

locating videos and tweets that were erase the. since they were cached, they were refound and circulated and brought renewed tanks to a case going to trial but many people felt there wasn't going to be a fair trial because there was such support for the football team. there was one hack that happened with the football team mailing list and e-mail accounts. so that is where the cfa really enters the picture. there was a kind of a hack that was involved. i don't know actually if this hack led to accessing the videos and tweets? i don't actually don't think it was. a lot of stuff was gotten from facebook and some private accounts but there was a hack that was involved in that case. >> [inaudible]? >> as well. which would require hacking too. >> one of the things i found

really interesting is like at the same time that like rhetoric about oh, no, the cyber, cyber, cyber threat is, there's also been -- >> one more cyber. >> yes. there is also been this appropriation in embracing of hacker rhetoric and culture by big government and by this, what i consider worst aspects of start-up culture and, i'm curious like how that can be both, if you can talk about how that could be made more helpful or ifif its ultimately too harmful because like, i worry about it becomes a smoke screen? >> you're talking about the national day of hacking and things like that? >> yeah. totally ironic, the weekend before the nsa leaks was like national civic hacking day. >> so on the one hand, there are two different, issues we could talk about. one of which is the white house

government has embraced hacking is a moniker for some moves to open update at that in the government and apparently from what i heard, getting that term hacking approved was laborious and difficult as you can imagine. on one hand i think it is actually a positive move, right? just because hacking is just so seen as so nefarious. you say hacker, people think about that hooded guy who is at a keyboard and why someone would have a full ski mask while on a keyboard i don't know. you're indoors. so i think on one hand it is slightly positive but then it's a perfect moment to call the government out and go, look on one hand, great, you're opening update at that but that, you know, the best that hacking has to offer is both civil disobedience as well as, fully legal stuff as well. so it's a good opportunity to intervene and in that moments. the other side of that is some

companies also hold like hackathon where they are opening it up to the public and basically exploiting free labor. it is kind after gentryification going on. in that case it is also good to expose what is going on as well. recently there was a great website that did it that maybe you can talk about. >> oh, it was national day of hacking dot info. in new orleans they had part of a a national civic day of hacking, hack the national murder rate. someone lives in new orleans that software development could really affect the enormous social structures that are leading to a high murder rate of, lack after good education system and lack of mental health care and things like that, that a bunch of people with laptops were going to come in and solve those problems is really just very offensive.

someone made a satirical site, national hacking day.info because of this. >> hackers have a really valuable contribution to politics. on the other hand there is a trend in silicon valley, what moore's office called technological solutionism. we're not turning to the government for services. technology will solve the problem. sometimes some of these hackathons feed into that. it is problematic and good to call it out as well. >> sort of like a charity complex in a way instead of -- >> something that really all social movements face when they come into their own. look at the civil rights movement. millions and millions of dollars spent on martin luther king, jr. memorial by mcdonald's and burger king and all the companies. they don't care about civil rights at all. environmental movement with green washing or animal rights movement and under cover investigations with corporations saying everything is humane and

cage-free. those words don't mean anything. i think as the movements grow there is pressure to sanitize them and divorce them from like ad call political critique and make it something that can be bought and sold by start-ups or by monsanto or by cargill as being humane. >> this is a question sort of more for will but i'm sure anybody else would have good feedback on it. there was a really great panel yesterday here about environmental genocide and there was a philly-area doctor, named dr. walter soo talking about physicians to have to sign nondisclosure agreements if their patients were being slowly killed by things that were, you know, because of fracking and they had to sign these. it was a gag law very similar to what you were talking about. when i was thinking about that, as i wanted to ask as far as the, the types of people making

these legislations, as far as the laws and i know that they may be very different on the surface, as far as different industries like food and as culture and public health and medicine, do you find a lot of overlap with types of legislation that has people making the legislature? is it sort of cut from the same cloth as far as these gag laws? >> absolutely and i think we're seeing some direct overlap right now. i mean the focus on ag gag has been a necessity by this industry because they're undersuch attack but we're seeing similar rhetoric legislation and legal battles show up with animal experimentation. at universities across the country they're trying to show they're exempt from the freedom of information act using all the same kind of rhetoric. i think it is easily shifts but, more broadly i think a lot of politicians who are beholden to big ag, are also in a lot of ways beholden to the pharmaceutical industry. it is not a handful of people.

this is how the entire political structure works, right? but there are handfuls of people that are the most kind of vanguard in the defense of corporate interests. that is where a lot of this starts. and then it gets bipartisan support and kind of branches out to others as well. >> thank you. so the short version of my question is, how much of this is the media's fault? and the long verse of the question is, i'm someone who has done advocacy projects to support info very cats. i'm a member of media. i still struggle with legal jargon and unpacking the technical specifics for people to differentiate what we did versus property destruction, versus all of this i'm wondering if there is any roadmap for someone who wants to do this right? people who want to do it well. also as journalist i can protect people who are brave and speak out to me.

>> those are great questions. it is extremely daunting the technical jargon and details and complexities and do they matter. they matter for legal cases and matter for reporting and it's certainly the case groups like wired and slate, who have dedicated tech reporters usually get it all right, you know, because that's what they're working on but, you know, obviously in even extremely well-respected newspapers journalists move from topic to topic and it's very difficult to, you know, get all the information. i would just say reaching, one really good source and this has been very interesting is that there's been actually explosion of staff technologists at organizations like eff and the aclu and you can contact them an they can kind of give you information and they're happy,

and they do, they do talk to reporters. i know the staffing technologist at one nonprofit, i won't name his name, has educated so many reporters at "the wall street journal" and "new york times" so that is one really important element. and i will say just on the media's role, i mean it's a complicated topic when you're looking at all these different issues from manning to anonymous to the ag gag rules but i think they were so complicit with the bradley manning case where bradley manning was kind of portrayed as not really fully politicalally grown, you know what i mean? as someone who was immature and confused about his sexuality and it was really damaging to his case and it wasn't until the kind of relates to the animal liberation stuff, when we finally heard his voice at some level, the media narrative dramatically shifted.

oh, wow, he is really intelligent. he is really doing this for political reasons, right? and i don't know how, you know, how great advice about how to hold our media accountable but they definitely have a huge role in framing the issues. >> i have, one of the things that comes to mind is that this is the same problem that lawyers face, you know. a lot of lawyers who are great defense attorneys have really know idea about any of this technology so there's a learning curve for everyone and i think it is just important to recognize that and we're operating in a new kind of regime here. and the other i just wanted to bring up, yes, i think it is partly the media's fault. yesterday in the "new york times" we have all this nsa expose' stuff and the article on the front page was, the obama administration says that one time, this nsa spying was really helpful. that's the article. it is unbelievable. so i think, yeah, a lot of

corporate media, avi showed his graph the media is owned by five companies. >> [inaudible] >> five years ago. >> so yeah, i think they are responsible for a lot of this mischaracterization. things that come up in these cases are, that people are stealing data and stealing, you know, legally has, as an intent to deprive. when you're copying information there is no intent to deprive the owner of it. these are gray areas and they're nuances and they're subtle and they're complicated but that's where we are now. you know, is this same as taking your laptop and not letting you have it? you know, no. i think subtlety is important and i think the media's generally missing it and missing it in favor of kind of corporations and the government. >> or they only report on it for two weeks and then, you know, an opportunity is lost. that's what i'm afraid is going to happen with this surveillance

stuff, that you know, it needs to be reported for at least like a few months. and also there's something called strong box? is that what it is called? the "new yorker" released, something that aaron schwartz was working on prior to his death and it's a tool for sources to, sort of like wikileaks's front end where you're secure and giving your information. >> right. >> hopefully. >> i would still do research on it. i don't want to say it is fully secure. that is one of the problems with encryption. we're still in its early stages. >> i think it is really important that we not cede any ground to this idea of, the mainstream press are just journalism across the board being this sunken ship. there is this kind of systemically changes going on in journalism where investigative news outlets are being shut down. entire magazines and newspapers are being shut down. 30 years ago we used to have multiple newspapers in one town.

now you have wire services feeding, kind of cookie cutter. and but, as the lone journalist on the panel, i will say we're not all bad. >> i agree. definitely. >> you want to be like, you want to stir things up and you want to educate and expose and people are stuck in this structure in trying to navigate it just as we're trying to navigate it, trying to find the outside looking in. so i think it's really frustrating and there are all these systemically problems but there is also a lot of potential. i think the ag gag case is a good example of that we can't underestimate or willingness or power of mainstream press to get on board on these issues. in some cases it is ignorance or not being formed. in other cases they need a little prodding or assistance. >> no, definitely. i think there's a good lesson in anonymous for groups. they should think about their media strategy.

anonymous doesn't think about it and it works but that is just because they're so good at imagery and they have internally-built system for mystery and it helps. think about your media strategy where you can appeal to the worst and best of the media structurally as well that is matters. >> it is called dead drop. by the way. >> not strong box. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. >> that is another one. >> that is another one. >> they're trying to get at -- >> to what extent would it be useful to make sure that all state and as well as local legators have all of their legislation as it's introduced become available instantly or whatever digitally, including when it has been changed and, you know, after passing through the process so you could find out. there are enough people on the internet, oh, here's alec, things like that?

what is the possibility of something like that? >> i think, as, just as working reporter i would really appreciate that because it would make my job a lot easier in some senses but i think we need to remember there is inherent elitism to that. to me that is the wrong word. i don't know if that is the wrong word or not. there is very small amount of people that are willing to do that type of reading. but they exist and they're really important. so i would kind of counter that, those people are going to be willing to search out that information and make it easier and people have a right to public information but the real challenge is, kind of taking that a couple steps forward and making people care. i mean, striking to me with you will at prison stuff in last couple days i heard some people and seen so many people stay online, well, i'm not surprised by this great but there is implication that, therefore you shouldn't care or shouldn't fight about it. so i think that's kind of where the battle really is.

people know but with this ag gag stuff and labeling activists as terrorists. i was never meant anyone shocked by it, never in any speaking event, telling me how little faith people have in the political system right now. the question is how to tap into that and how to mobilize that. >> two more questions. >> is there some bill or law that you all support that would help you, that we could get behind? 66. >> i don't have any. i think it is, how to phrase this tackfully? i would put much more faith organizing horizontally outside of political structures. those systems are powerful enough the political structure will reflect that out of necessity rather than looking to people in power to help us. >> [inaudible] >> we fight back. >> hire me.

>> hire you. >> i just wanted to, can you guys hear me? cool. i wanted to go off what you were say about elitism. i know it will probably be obvious but i haven't heard it discussed this room. there are not very many people willing to sit down and do that sort of referencings. there are people who don't have internet and cultural access to necessarily think of that as a tool that could be used in obtaining and disseminating this information. this entire weekend i've been thinking from the forum how my parents, they're wonderful, critical, intelligent people, who have zero access to any of the discourses or any of the tools we're talking about or even be like, they're like cultural and idealogical perception that these tools are things that could be used. so i wanted to point that out how we think about disseminating

information and how we insure we don't just talk to each other, particularly because, this is my, just like, racial analysis that i'm sure you probably heard it before but the only, the only reason people are able to go after like, ecological terrorists and like information hackers, is because they have been separated from an aggregate of humanity. they are something different. they are something exceptional. and the same ways which they're being separated and targeted and prosecuted and rendered invisible through prisons are the exact same way as you mentioned earlier folks that look like me are constantly being silenced and put into prison for having different opinions of certain capital. in terms of actually building coalitions to render a change effective we need to think about how to transfer those sort of like highly technological tools to different cultural contexts in ways that can be used to build a broader movement. >> i think that is a great

reminder of, when you're in environments like this, away from facebook, away from discussion forums how about everyone before you leave today, introduce yourself to one or two other people in the room? i grew up in the catholic church and the one thing i remember -- [laughter] we split ways but, father beaumont always made us introduce ourselves to people around you. that speaks to what you're saying. if you remind yourself to engage with people in real ways, it helps as an organizing model also. >> not to be dehumanized by other people if you're constantly asserting your humanity with other people. >> you bring up a great point. i have seen natural coalitions starting with here. when you look at the terrorism framework. we all know terrorism means muslims, right? that's what it means. it is shocking there are these

nice white people and they're terrorists right? that is on tray into a whole new dialogue what it means to be a terrorist and actual political motivations and underpinnings of that as a and these tactics. as grainne mentioned also, war on drugs that is war on black people, a war on brown people, right? but the tactics are being brought to other, now political enemies right? so it's a natural, it's a natural way to expand the coalition and expand the issues through these kind of cutting-edge activist movements to bring in the broader system problems. >> you know that is interesting as an anthropologist there is this big tension between the fact that people are, u.n., made by both culture and particular experiences and idea of universality has itsly.

s. -- limits. on the other hand there are ways people have common experience, whether life, death, sickness or more particular things that, a way a society treats its prisoners. so i think we often have to leverage what particular groups can provide. in such a way that then is always, always, always, always, mindful of coalitions, translations and connections at the same time. the final thing i will say though, i do think that, you know, technology, programing, technical knowledge, will become particularly important for political interventions. and it's so skewed along gender lines, that it is astounding, that when you look at, further at minorities as well as it becomes even more skewed. and, it has to be addressed at the kind of primary and secondary school in order to

remedy it. they're really good initiatives doing this. if that doesn't happen, both the economic and political landscape is going to be heavily, heavily, heavily skewed towards males. >> i think that we're out of time here but -- [applause] buy will's book. he has his. >> he is ready to sell. >> good work, guys. >> you're talking leader, right? cool. i might, i don't know if i will be there but i'm there in spirit. thank you for coming though. all right. saw you sleeping.

. .

we are still going to be looking at a world that is dominated by a traditional packaging. people have waited for years to see the package blow apart. it's starting to happen though. you are starting to see erosion around the edges not through a seismic change in the business model or technology, but for the leakage of people in the system that every slow at accumulating rates. over ten years will be a very large audience that the programmers and the entertainment industry will have to address and serve. >> we are trying to set up an opportunity for broadcasters to term and some of their rights if they choose to for the channel share or a different part of the spectrum. and then in return get a part of the proceeds in the spectrum, turn around and sell it to the wireless company for flexible use which could be mobile broadband.

next a conversation about china with american author and journalist sidney rittenberg, who was sent to china as a linguist for the u.s. army during world war ii. after the war's and he remained in china for more than 30 years becoming politically active. he was imprisoned twice by the government for 16 years during china's cultural revolution for accusations of being a foreign spy. sidney rittenberg is the co-author of the book "the man who stayed behind." the washington state china relations council hosted this one-hour event in seattle. >> thank you very much, dennis a. and michael and everyone for coming and the washington council, our sponsors tvw in c-span. we have been looking forward to this. this is something if you have been paying attention to china

in the recent decades or america's relationship, there is nobody would want to hear from more than sidney rittenberg when we are going to be having this conversation with for a few minutes. there is nobody who has the personal range of experience that sidney has had in its rise and hardships during his years in prison. there is no intellectual stand we've had as a marxist and a believer in the chinese communist party seeing how the country has evolved in the years since then and no one has the historical range he has. having been there before there was the people's republic of china and being there celebrating the 33rd and 634. >> there is a sense i'm in seattle we should talk before this gathering. what should we cover? we got a very detailed note that

exceeds the expectation of what you will read in any of the newspapers. so it is a pleasure. most of what we are going to cover this evening is the suggestion in thecurre state of china, the politics, the economic culture and as we look forward things that we can expect. but i'm going to do something he hoped i wouldn't do. but anybody in the audience that has led some of these wonderful books, "the man who stayed behind," the part of the national audience, too, would think of me crazy if i didn't ask this question. i hope if you haven't read that you will. it's a great book. its insightful and irving and dramatic and tells you about parts of china that are different than they are now and parts of it are very much the same. a part of it is also in the reporting of 16 years and in two separate episodes of sultry confinement in chinese prisons. and that's something that most of us or at least i don't think that i could take.

there was one time that i was in korea about ten years ago and i realized there was nothing around me in a language i could read. nothing in english or japanese or chinese characters. i thought in 24 hours i can go crazy because i had no way to bring in extra information. for 16 years, you were in this kind of circumstance. what did you learn about life by giving this? then you want to tell us, those of us that have not had this. what can you give us about what you learned about yourself in 16 years on your own? >> i think there are two different kinds of things. first is there are the things i of originally thought were so important that i couldn't live without. most of them or not that

important at all. and the one thing that i couldn't live without coming and now we get into the second kind of thing was something that comes down to the general having the integrity which is a unity of what you think, what you say and what you do. and also as a part of this, the ability to learn to use reason based on a practical situation that you are in to use reason to modulate your mood and the motion and harness your emotions to get behind positive ideas and keep them from dragging you down. you know, you learn this over a long period of time and number of lessons and you gain in

strength and it is a great thing to have. second there is an ongoing fema in literature and philosophy of people looking back on life and wishing that they could tell people that for example people are looking back and wishing that they could tell that still living to enjoy the ordinary pleasures of their day. as you walk around and see people that haven't been through what you've been through, do you want to say to them pay attention to this committee want to give lessons to all of us? [laughter] >> i wouldn't mind doing that and i have been teaching the the fact is it's not something you can insert into somebody else. you can try to create conditions and incentives for them to train themselves and hope that they will do it, but you can't really put it into someone else.

it's interesting because i thought a lot especially in the second time in prison during the cultural revolution i thought about another book called heaven is my estimation, about a young man who was long term in a brothel but all the time he thought it was a charitable home for ladies. [laughter] >> looking on the bright side. we may return to this later on that now i'm going to go into the current events. as you know, you've written and discussed there is a new leadership in china for heuvel hope in china itself is quite high in beijing for the last week as we were discussing lots of university students and talking about yes they are going to do the things that are necessary for china's next step.

basically the argument is whether these leaders are able to change the system or whether the system is bigger than any people within. how should we think about that? >> incidentally i already explained that i do actually own a blazer but i'm not wearing it out of respect he doesn't like to wear coats. i think -- what can we reasonably expect from the new team, and what can we not expect? and my view, we can and expect they are going to work very hard and probably succeed in some substantial economic reform like opening credit from the big state banks to private industry. up to the present, the private

enterprise in china, which is the fastest growing and the most profitable sector by far in order to get funding to meet your payroll, you cannot typically get it in the big banks. you have to go to the underground bank which it charges from each team and half to 35% interest. so if you can't make that then you are probably going out of business. so i think that will change. another thing, i think they have determined to size only shrink the amount of economic growth that comes from the state investment. for all kind of reasons it is enormously wasteful and unproductive. to build out the capitol market which would include absorbing more funds in the investment into the capitol market. so that in the future hopefully most chinese enterprises will go

to the equities and fixed-income instruments and so on to finance their goals rather than relying to put up money. these are very big changes. also, i think they will continue to try to move the focus away from exports and on to serving the domestic market. that is a market of probably 750 million urban and rural people who were still not really part of the modern marketplace. and they will become so in the next 11 years i think it is they plan to move another several hundred million people from the villages into urban communities. not all big cities but many of the big cities.

they think that is one of the ways out of poverty. so i think these things are going to be very difficult to put through because the big conglomerates, the big state-owned monopolies are usually against them because they are doing very well and they don't want anything to change, and they certainly don't want more competition from either china or abroad. but i think they will be able to push through. i think that he's a very energetic man his father was a very close friend, and his father was a very fine man. he was the one who said of the special economic that has been so successful. he said it up and he fought for the conditions for the idea when he was in charge of the

province. he's also the only one of all of the leaders who openly spoke up against suppression around trademark and minn square in 1989. and therefore he is always in trouble. [laughter] - enough of the father rubbed off on the sun to give him some reason to hope. and also as it was pointed out, his style that he brought into the office with him has already managed to begin to overcome the terrible political cynicism that is hung up like a poem over the chinese people, especially young people for quite a long time. there is beginning to be a spirit. i think on the other side of the

ledger we don't know there is a marked expression of nationalism in his policies and his remarks. the emphasis on the chinese dream and on the resurgence of the great chinese nation, and also as it has been manifest in the sort of attitude towards sovereignty in the south china sea as opposed to some of the southeast asian countries and in dealing with japan as those pieces of rock out there so this is something i find a little alarming because she uses the national experience to motivate people and it makes sense but how far will it go and how well will you be able to manage it is the question that i have in my

mind. >> i would like to come back to these issues in a moment. first i want to know the extra value of the father of the new president of china was a close friend. i was in beijing last week where people were saying the restaurants were less crowded and the traffic was milder than before because of this antiostentation campaign that suggests how many of the cars must have been big shot cars if there is a difference for traffic. let me ask about the question of political trust. as you know there's been a lot of argument as you said, too the questions of corruption and inequality of a game and the widening gap in the chinese system had a camp that said this in just can't be sustained. but unless he can really transform people's trust in the system, then it's going to be another kind of crisis for the

chinese government. how do you view that kind of analysis? >> i think it can be sustained. he has made some moves, some of of the ministerial level which is encouraging to people. but there is no way that you are going to eliminate corruption today. it's not great to happen. nobody here is old enough to remember we used to have a lot of jokes and one of the stories was little audrey took her mother's toothpaste and squeeze all of the toothpaste out of the tube. so her mother came in and put her over her knee and spanked her. but as she was, little audrey laughed because she knew her mother would never get that toothpaste back in the tube

again made and that's the way that it's so part of the system. however, the fact that the team apparently has been selected, all seven of them partly because they all have a record of working against corruption. and they had put probably the most capable of all of all of the vice prime minister's in charge of the fight against corruption. probably quite a lot will happen but it's not going to fundamentally the detector. but it would show the public that these guys are trying, that they mean what they say. and so to judge how they are realizing those ambitions, four or five years from now when a second term as coming and there is another five-year plan, what will be the benchmark that you would look at and say yes he is unable to make good on some of these reforms such as things

that show he's not able to make progress. >> well, i don't -- i don't expect a whole lot to happen in the political reform. i mean, the political system is not going to substantially change i don't think. and after all, you know, the thinking is that it's created miracles in history in these 30 years in terms of growth and improving people's lives. so why should we change it? that there are lots of things that are wrong that must be changed. and i think if they are able to carry out these economic reforms, if they are able to make corruption, you know, to give it a very, very bad orders of it has to be much more secret , and to make some moves against powerful people who are corrupt, i think they will have

moved a great deal forward. i think as a result probably the economy is going to continue to grow to the estimate i think the first time we talked is when i was interviewing for a story on the atlantic about a puzzle that remained in my mind still. you were clarifying it them but it's still a puzzle. the puzzle is why does china and the chinese government do such a bad job of protecting the reality to the world, and then connecting to the political reform? skin and there is it seems to me the greatest soft power china would have is if more people went there and solve a variety of the place and the life of the people and all the things that are exciting and making things yes this is horrible in many ways but it is more vivid and appealing and things like that, but of course the government makes it hard. they keep people out and they have a sort of official

propaganda. remember during the olympic ceremony, part of the foreign ministry of an of an official protest zone for people and then they arrested people to apply to the protest. so, the question that i was asking you is why does the balance get obscured what others say of china? >> america would look at the world if cheney were in charge of our foreign presence and they have the upper hand in terms of not letting the country relax. can you see china relaxing at some point? >> i think that is a very important point because for so long not so much in the recent years but for a long time, the big bogeyman that people were told about is the threat of peaceful evolution being carried

out in china. i remember asking what is it that your concern of the vaulting out of peacefully clacks they said if you are talking about elements of socialism, it seems to me that we have more here in the united states than they have in china. so this has sort of been dropped as far as i can see. but i think the problem you have is largely cultural. this is a country that has been blocked off from the outside world for millennia, not just centuries but a millennia and the culture concept i think is very deeply imbedded in lots of people not that foreigners are necessarily barbarian but that

we are normal and they aren't really normal. i mean, they are okay. but they are what is normal and therefore the idea of letting the not quite normal people get deep into the chinese affairs and interlock to much and be involved too closely is a foreign idea to lots of people. i hope we will see fewer of cheney in china. if i were gone for the day i would abolish the propaganda, i'm sorry, the public security and all that. hopefully it will get better with time and fewer and fewer will get shot in the eye. >> to bring this to a specific

case as you know i've been holding on for a long time it does seem to me that censorship of the internet is both an illustration of the phenomenon and a much more important phenomenon than she used because if china is aspiring to have the first great universities. the people that can build those things aren't going to go where they can't use the internet. how would this be resolved? >> that's the problem. there are people, we have to realize there are people that are against this and try to work against it, but you are up against a very powerful group like that propaganda people and the security people who are very much for it and who think that the statement has been made on the national security and they have to tighten up and control the internet and guidance of the

opinion. so there is a tension between people that understand it and want to open up to it but i think historic we the more liberal open up have been winning. i give an example when the pc first came out it was banned in the soviet union and in many of these other countries and in china the security people were set on banning it in china accept for the highly controlled high-tech people and the education people and they said no you want everyone in china to have a computer and a one. >> so to be clear about this you said recently you don't think that the multi-party democracy is the right thing for china now and some of our own trivial

illustrational they might be afraid of. do you think they have a legitimate reason of being fearful of the uncontrolled expression on the internet if you were in charge would you say opened up or not? >> i don't think so because you can prove that there are thousands and thousands of chat rooms in china and some of them are really extreme. some of the more extreme left and extreme right, extreme the against the government. but nothing happens. there has been chaos because of that and lots of disturbances because the bad policy or crooked people but not because of this and i am certain and we say every time we go to china if you allow the press which is totally party owned to have an open debate on the political and theoretical questions it will release the tension.

this happened in 1978 because they shut it down and it didn't create trouble at all. >> one more question as you know the member of documented uprisings is a huge number across china. there have always been appeals to salvation against the local oppressors. you view these as a safety valve or a sign of discontent cracks >> noeth i think. the vice minister of agriculture several years ago said t.r. against disturbances but there is a good side to them and that is they bring our attention to the bad things going on that we of the allies wouldn't know about and then we can deal with them. that is a rather sunshine

statement that you can't deal with all of them. but i think that's true and it's very significant. not more than 100,000 a year public strikes, protests, marches, petitions, campaigns to read not one of them is and the central authority in the party of the government. as you say to get the input is to send people down to deal with local bad guys. so you can see it partly as a bet and also as an element of stability in a system that has a serious lacking political. >> the central government is becoming more tolerant or more draconian dealing with these? >> not only more powerful but the fundamentally change their

way of managing them. half a dozen years ago they would still expose a strike or demonstration and antiyearly suppress it and succeed. now they don't. they keep hands off, but they send people in to negotiate. even three years ago the very serious truckdriver strike in shanghai that blocked the main arteries of transportation and caused great losses they didn't dump on anybody. they send people down until they got a deal that was acceptable. >> the nationalism question now. as you know, we were in japan for a number of years in the 1980's and we had to nationalistic questions. one is you very eloquently point

out in your locale you were very inside the chinese system coming your speaking chinese, but there were certain points that you were for that and there was a barrier that you encountered and still i always thought how much more permeable the chinese society was then the japanese society because it is so big and shambling and there is more room than there would be in japan's of the question is would you agree or disagree and then in the 25 years going back and forth from china to japan i have been really struck by the level of anti-japanese hatred is going up and up. how should we think about the origins and the potential consequences? >> the terse thing, there is as much difference between the chinese and japanese mind set if you like as there is japanese-american. on the surface it might appear quite similar but it's very,

very different. if you go to china and you deal with your diet or whoever is but talking partner, once you become acquainted and relaxed, they will tease you and they have nicknames for you and so on. you can live in japan for 40 years and -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> on the other side about the mounting tensions and the rall japanese sentiment? >> it comes mainly now from people that never suffered and that have had a very few if any

dealings with the japanese. >> and not many of the elders are still around. so you have to conclude that this is manufactured to date they are getting the textbooks in schools and if you watch chinese tv there is a cost everyday there are more stories of the chinese fighting and some of them really go back. this is manufactured and is kept up and that is a part of what i was saying about it makes sense to call with a national spirit but if it gets into the cultivating hatred for other people, then it could be ready dangerous. and in china it is interesting. when the japanese campaigns in

the last decade let's say they start coming to the way they are supported by the government, at least by the local government. but after it grows to a certain amount of power the government begins to even crack down. five or six years ago the last big outbreak ended when they arrested i think 27 of the spokes people in shanghai so there is no fuss about that. so it is a double-edged sword and the demand of the effect on foreign policy. and it's dangerous because it could be a vehicle to which disgruntled people could attack the chinese government. >> i have a sort of test you cannot live and you go to japan or china. you mentioned when you get to

know somebody where king and and and joking. this was 1986. from the airport in tokyo the baggage handlers were vowing to the plan etc. and the airport in beijing they were planning tad and every time i've been at the airport it's the same thing. they're always playing games with each other. would you agree with that? >> a psychological question to you that is related to this. in many ways experiences in china sort of come from your own experience about your own personal hardship. you said it isn't worth dwelling on and it's something you do yourself. when we talk to veterans and of the cultural revolution is a practical mind of why dwell on this, let's move ahead. on the letter and you come across people dwelling on what was done to their grandparents years ago by the japanese, the

100 years of two mediation etc. but as the great dwelling on the historical site? i know the contradictions are bound but would you talk about these contradictions? >> i think for one thing the chinese philosophy has always stressed the self cultivation of the individual. there's these positive and negative forces and you want to use your own strong points to deal with the weak points and that is the engine of progress and this is the force and the concept dealing with what happens to me i think lots of people draw on that tradition. on the other hand, hands off my

country. that is a different story. the great slogan being the resistance of the japanese invasion, the great slogan was give back my mountains and rivers. get out of my country. it's a very powerful feeling and so in practical terms is the current skirmish between japan and china dangerous or not? >> i think it's extremely that he did i don't think that the danger is because neither japan or china has any intention of going to the war with anybody nowadays and they are not the kind of people that can be catapulted into a strategy that they oppose.

since there are incidences' and miscalculations they get over them. i think the toxic effect however is i think it has turned a great portion of the japanese public against china which is absolutely unnecessary. i think that most had a family feeling towards china and now they feel like what's going on why are you sending ships to threaten us gindin at china it stimulates the naturalism so it's hard to see why anybody thinks this would be a good move. it's part of the general feeling

that has grown in the past few years now we are a great power and we have to show the world we are a great power. we have to stand up and be noticed but not the united states -- >> you anticipate my next question. >> i think we are very clear that one of the cornerstones of the foreign policy is to avoid confrontation in the united states almost at any cost. >> we talked about the relationship between china and japan which are becoming somewhere and hostile. i would offer to you the certain polyester - presentation that the united states and china have made things much better than they might well have been.

>> i think there is the general sense of in the national interest. now it doesn't make sense that it could be a very dangerous and stupid. one. they have the policy in the white house i think it is quite different. by and large it has been a steady policy of finding common ground and expanding the relationships in the u.s.-china relationship. there is a living in beijing during the financial collapse and 08 and 09.

not being able to rebound more quickly than others and simply justify the combination of the financial shenanigans in the sense the bataan had passed. the believe there was that for a while? >> there were the critics that were saying that and are quite happy about because 1.3 trillion. then there's the time that britain and france and portugal, spain, holland the of the moments. what you think the chinese

strategic long-term view of their interest in the u.s. or. >> deride a stable international environment. it is economical and you can't think about that without getting involved. they should build a new type of relationship between the great powers, the major powers. you should show the world that the emergence doesn't necessarily where chaos and so on. and very interested in this trying to build it and that's why the american politicians get

a great welcome even the ones so friendly. >> there is a member of senior security officials including the length uniforms. it's really interesting and one of the things that came through this strategic mistrust. for example in iraq and afghanistan a large number of american troops have been killed accidentally hit in the u.k. and nobody accept them thinks this is on purpose or the reason for a crisis between the u.s. and england that they said that anything between the u.s. and china notably the embassy balkan was taken as having been purposeful and it is accepted. what do you think are the main grounds for the chinese strategic mistrust for us and the american strategic mistrust with china cracks

>> i think in the case they went through a period of 27 years 1949 to the end of the cultural revolution in which everything along with the world was attributable to the american policy and people grew up with that idea and later starting in 1960 we shared the. so the relationship fundamentally changed. but it takes time i think for that kind of mistrust to wear off. however i feel very strongly that at no time during the worst stage in the corrine and war and after at no time did you find

ordinary chinese personally hostile to americans. there's an instant i went with him to trademark and -- tiananmen square and they were there were some agitation against the u.s. imperialism as usual. and so felix wanted to go out under and film the rally. so i sort of guide them through. then they stopped us and asked me who this was and i said he is an american journalist. they immediately fell back and opened the car to go out there

and tell. i think the americans and canadians all this time have been favored in china. when they come out and see. >> they never had any based on my own personal traits but not my nationality. but what is the legitimate mistrust about china now? >> i think that the u.s. -- we are talking about china, basically they do not understand china. they really do not understand. i mean, if you spend time and china, the growth of china including a certain degree of

expansion of the military forces this poses a military threat for the united states it sounds way out on the left field. there is no school of thought in china. they're never has been a school of thought that argues the problems we need to go out and conquer other countries. the parts that used to be long, they're has been some back-and-forth but i don't think that the chinese think that way unlike japan that had that problem. so we don't understand that and we don't understand the intentions. we know that it's still called communist coming and we don't understand that it has nothing to do it communism whatsoever. it has a lot more to do with

capitalism. and also unfortunately our china policy. it tends to be based not on our national interest but what they think is going to play and that's the tragedy. so for some people when they went to shanghai the had the conversations. you couldn't find anybody more reasonable and so on. but back in washington. >> i was the editor of the college paper so we had a certain tasks. >> the one area where the opinion is now the most focused

is the cyber threat where they seem to be different from other states sponsored espionage. what is your view of that? >> i had the opportunity to talk with a person in the fbi who was one of the people in charge of the cyber warfare. and i said to him there is an influence on silo warfare meaning from china. so afterwards i said is it true [inaudible] [laughter] but we don't talk about that. >> i agree. people made that same point, too. i don't think the u.s. uses the state cyber for the commercial ends. it seems to be the distinctive trade.

they used the nuclear weapons and the soviet union with confidence-building measures and all that. let me ask you different -- >> we are just having the two sides. the chinese -- last week the falafel of the response was the sort of thing that we never heard of the second was to be open to this kind of negotiation my view on the biggest threat to china's continued development and the biggest problem they create for the rest of the world is environmental of all kinds and certainly what is happening in china now is the same kind that happened in germany and london and l.a. when i was a kid but the scale is different from anything the world has seen before. can you argue the ground for optimism in the dealing with this environmental problem? >> i think the ground for optimism is they now take it

very seriously which they did not before. they are spending billions and billions to deal with it. however, it is already a presence, so you don't get rid of it just by spending money overnight. but i think they will be able to deal with it in time. it's critical now. it is a danger to your health. if you check the hospital you can see it manifest. >> i have been witness to some of the efforts of people in the room. there is the connection the to the cooperative efforts in the u.s. and china on this front. however there are cancer epidemics and it is threatening the stability of the regime and other things. if the regime is very positive

and persistent. i suppose there would be the factor of confidence. one thing he keeps saying is we estimate to the lightning round of the discussion we have a few minutes for the public before we turn to all of you. how should we think about the future of the mainland china and taiwan. there are some who say the status quo can go on indefinitely and others say that it would be provoked as a crisis where the u.s. and china can't agree. what do you think years from now of the relationship. >> they will gradually move to some sort of confederation agreement. it is to become an actual

province of china and is difficult to to the long time but that's not really necessary. whether this is published or not there is one national anthem, one flag, one title for china and the officials and other officials will safeguard the government and that's okay. it may move in that direction. the way it is today it seems to be okay. >> moving from the region can china be doing more to control north korea? >> i don't think it's about

control. they have cut off some of the banking and financing and they've stopped the exports, not fewer of them and so long and they've made unpleasant noises showing a dissatisfaction. but it seems to me that what we are working towards and the situation is they do the best working on their side of the street and we work our side of the street. it seems to me that the key is what the ambassador dennis rodman -- [laughter] that is we need to talk with them. it doesn't make any sense not to talk with people just because you disagree with them. that is exactly the time you

need to talk. that to me didn't make any sense. this guy needs recognition, he needs recognition mainly from us. so what it cost to get a little recognition in terms of diplomatic talks and so on. it seems there is much more hope there than the fervor kunkel from china. what the chinese are afraid of, the same thing washington is afraid of. they are afraid that if you put too much pressure they will collapse and then we will have millions of refugees and they are mindful of what happened in germany when east germany collapsed. they don't want that to happen. >> how about the more broadly defined responsibility as a major power in the world? there's north korea, syria,

iran, sudan. will the chinese leadership become more naturally accepting of the international request to do the right thing in those areas? >> i think they will. it's been a process where we have been sort of trying to push them out not to fear the influence, but to hope for them to put the debate in the solution of international issues that don't necessarily treacly involve them. in the middle east that directly involves them, so you don't have to invite them there and north korea and so on. but it is a process because the tradition has been not to get involved if you can help it meet the old chinese saying that it's better to have one less thing than one more thing. so i think it is gradually changing. also, the have to learn how to

do, how to get involved in a positive way. it's not something that you are born with. >> what can the international community do in tibet to increase because of religious liberties? >> i think you investigate the actual situation publicize things the community feels wrong i don't think anybody should suffer from the delusion that tibet is going to leave china and become independent. the dalai lama for almost two decades now has been saying we don't want independence, we want a general autonomy. the problem is if you examine the proposal that they have

made, then it would amount to the actual independence without being called independent and would take away about 25% of the territory of china. so it's not that easy to do. i think it is just going to go along. some things will get worse and some things will get better until tibet is basically assimilated in the distant future. they are operating full blast. the only problem is the monasteries are controlled by the committees of the communist party who are supposedly the acs -- atheist. these things i think can change, and i think pressure really, really fact-based targeted pressure to change these things

can be effective. but i don't think support from the tibeten independence. >> one more question and would ask a wrapping of question to the chinese university arts are expanding at a ferocious pace than the rest of the world combined etc. there is a view that this is an expansion to a volume that is never going to be obtained in the national quality level as under the current political system that with a censorship and control of the internet and the press you can't have the first grade university. how do you view that if you? >> you can't just have the quality. the quantity of many can't be compared to that. that's true. all the other hand, a really brilliant people come out of the school. in all areas of high tech

whether it is man of science or electronics or whatever it is really impressive and not the graduates of engineering schools but the high school graduates who have learned stuff on their own and are really phenomenal. this is the chance to give us the big picture which we are going to set up this way. did you were born and raised in south carolina, you to the university of south carolina. you were very involved in the racial justice battles and labor justice battles and all the rest. so you have seen your original home country over this stan -- >> taking you to the floor of the senate where members are gaveling and after the week-long break to the chamber will be in a period of general speeches until 5:00 eastern. they will take up the nomination of the attorney general gregory phillips to serve on the tenth circuit court of appeals. members this week will also be

expected to work on 2014 federal spending bills but they haven't announced which ones they will be considering. the senate will take up legislation to address the double when interest rates on federal subsidized student loans which took effect last week. live now to the senate floor here on c-span2.e chaplain, dr., will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord god, our refuge and strength, continue to shower your blessings upon humanity. turn sorrow into gladness, doubt into faith, and despair into hope. may our senators use all the circumstances

of their lives to produce fruits of holiness. let them use disappointment as material for patience, danger as material for courage, praise as material for humility, and pain as material for perseverance. guide their thinking, as you bind them together in unity. for you, o god, are peace in our pressure, guidance in our confusion. and hope in our helplessness. we pray in your merciful name.

many. many. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 124, s. 1238, senator reed of rhode island's student loan bill. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: senator reed moves to amend the higher education act of 1956 to extend the current reduced interest rate for direct stafford loans for one year, to modify required distribution rules for pension plans, and for other purposes.

mr. reid: mr. president, 5:00 p.m. today, the senate will proceed to ciewftion to provide the consideration of nomination of gregory phillips of wyoming for united states district judge for the tenth circuit. there will be a roll call vote on the confirmation of the phillips nomination. mr. president, i certainly welcome back the presiding officer, the president pro tem of the senate. i hope that he and all my colleagues had a restful and productive week, with our in-state work that we did during the ten days that we were gone. it was a pleasure to spend time with my constituents in nevada toafer break and with my family. i had a wonderful time with my family, four of my children were there, actually five were there for a short period of time, all five of them. we had a wonderful fourth of july at one of my sons' home, everyone was there, neighbors, it was a great party, my

grandson set off the fireworks, i'm not going to ask where he got them but there were a lot of fireworks, a lot of fun. it was a real celebration. but, mr. president, everywhere i went i saw the im-- immense enthusiasm for this historic immigration bill we passed. they saw bipartisanship blossom and that's happened far too rarely in recent years. americans of all political stripes are united behind the need for commonsense reform. even a large majority of republicans believe immigration reform would be good for the economy and good for national security. and, mr. president, i as everyone knows here, i don't often tout the accomplishments of president bush, the bush number two, but i really

appreciate what he did, the first public event at his new library in texas was an event honoring into our country new immigrants to become citizens. after the event the president spoke about the need for mafg the senate bill. the president when he was president did everything he could to try to get it done but republicans would not follow the direction that he felt we should go. the senate republicans did follow that in the last vote we had, we had 68 votes, and 14 of my republican colleagues voted with us. and i appreciate that. i appreciate what president bush did to focus attention on this again. i appreciate all the groups around the country from the chamber of commerce to other conservative groups who are running paid advertisements on television say they, the republicans here in the house, should pass this legislation that we passed here.

mr. president, the only republicans who aren't yet convinced are here in washington. in the house of representatives. republicans around the country believe that it was important that we do this immigration reform legislation. as i indicated, 68 senators voted for this historic reform. but our responsibility didn't end with that vote. now it's our duty to convince our colleagues in the house yes, they should vote with us. bipartisan immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship makes economic and political sense. unfortunately speaker boehner has taken a different route, ignoring the needs of the american people. rarng moving to the center of events, to appeal to moderates, speaker boehner has repeatedly tried to pass legislation with only republican votes. the hastert rule, named after a recent republican speaker, says

that passing only bills that have the support of the majority and the majority is only thing that they'll let help but it doesn't work. and it's bad for the country. any major legislation passed by the house of representatives with only republican votes has no hope of advancing over here, mr. president. in order to be signed into law by the president. so i hope the speaker has learned his lesson from recent failures of a shortsighted hastert rule. post office, farm bill, online sales tax, immigration. eventually he'll be forced to take up the bill that we passed here. or the country will be left with no immigration reform at all which is a bad, bad outcome. the speaker should despent with the posturing and do the right thing and do it now. he should take up the senate farm bill that speaker -- i'm sorry, chairman stabenow worked so hard on. should pass that bill. they should take you were over there and pass it. the farmers are waiting.

all the nutrition groups around the country are waiting. he should do that right now. he should take up the senate immigration bill. i say that for the second or third time here today. these measures, the farm bill, passed overwhelmingly on bipartisan votes in this chamber. and the passing the farm bill would create jobs and reduce the debt by some $23 billion. and it will be important to note that there are reforms in the farm and food stamp programs without balancing the budget on the backs of hungry americans. in fact, it goes a long way to reducing our debt. passing the immigration bill would help 11 million people who are already contributing to our economy and society get right with the law. and would boost our economy and make our country safer, reducing the deficit by about a trillion dollars over the next two decades. i remind the speaker there is no shame in passing bills both

parties can support. americans want their elected officials to work together to fix the nation's problems. that's what we did in the senate. i promise the formula will work in the house of representatives as well. the speaker should try that. sticking to the hastert rule is preventing the house from passing legislation to reform the ailing postal service. he refused to even take it up last congress. didn't even take it up. sticking to the hastert rule prevented the house from passing a measure that would give brick-and-mortar stores parity. we passed it on a bipartisan vote here, mr. president. i mean it's heartbreaking all over america, i see it in nevada to go by these strip malls and you see these places that if they had the advantage of not having to pay sales tax -- that's what happens on line -- they would be in

business. they would go back into business if the online -- the sales tax would have to be paid by the people who sell their goods over the internet. they have -- it's unfair. why he doesn't take that up, i don't know. we already know that sticking to the hastert rule prevented the house from passing a farm bill last month and last year. and this month sticking to the hastert rule will prevent are the house from passing immigration reform. this that would become law. insisting on the hastert rule prevented spieb from reaching across -- speaker boehner from signed finding a resolution to rising student loan interest rates. right gnaw now what they're doing is worse for students than doing nothing at paul. the legislation passed by the house would balance the budget on the backs of struggling students, would attempt to balance it at least.

the house legislation is worse for students than doing nothing at all. under the house plan as interest rates rise, student loan rates rise with them. soon loan wraits raits will be more than double. i met with the white house on -- one of the president's assistants. i said tell me what happens in three years. and he had to acknowledge the rates would be well over 6.8%. to find a solution to the student loan issue and every slew facing this congress the speaker should work with us and his democratic colleagues this the house instead of against them and he should rebound reb the only way to pass meaningful legislation in either chamber is to do votes with reasonable democrats and reasonable republicans. i'm told the speaker is going to come out with a statement today saying we passed our student

loan legislation, now why can't the senate pass it? mr. president, i repeat, the speaker's student loan legislation that passed the house is worse than doing nothing. the hastert rule has been bad for this country and speaker boehner should get away from it. i ask unanimous consent that senators -- we go to a period of morning business, with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each with execution at 5:00 p.m. with the exception of senator scott who is giving his maiden speech today. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina.

mr. scott: i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. it is indeed a humbling honor to serve the great people of south carolina in the united states senate. i am so grateful for the support that i have received from south carolinians, the success of the palmetto state can be measured in many ways but let me share the success of our economic engines, jobs like otis elevators, in florence, south carolina or companies like b.m.w. in the upstate continue to expand. miclelin, continental homes in summer the, sm south carolina and more than 5,000 new jobs jobs on the coast of south carolina because of bowing and let's not forget akin, south carolina where blue simonestone has made a new home. south carolina is and will continue to be a leading manufacturing engine for

america. i stand on the shoulders of two virginia ved amazing americans. one has company gone home to be with the lord, the other is my hero, my mother, frances scott. growing up in a single-parent household, my mother would work 16-hour days to keep me and my brother off of welfare. she wanted us to have a good comample for us to follow. my mother used to tell me if you shoot for the moon and you miss, you'll be among the stars. but i didn't always listen to my mother. i'm not sure if you know how that works sometimes. by the time i was a freshman in high school i was drifting. have you noticed you don't drift in the right direction? the freshman in high school i failed out. i failed world geography, i think i'm the only united states senator to ever fail civics. i also failed spanish and english. mr. president, when you fail spanish and english, they don't call you bilingual, sir.

they do not. they call you biignorant. you can't speak in any language. that's where i found myself, mr. president. i will tell you that i found myself in a very strong and hard position but good fortune strikes strieks. i had two blessings, one was a mother who believes love has to come at the end of a switch. and for those of you who are not aware of a switch, it is a motivational apparatus, encouraged me a lot. i will tell you that along with my mentor, john, came along as a sophomore, i found my way back on the path. john with us the chick-fil-a operator who made such an impact. john came along as i was a sophomore in high school and taught me very, very valuable lessons. a couple of those lessons john started teaching me early on was about being a business owner. john believed that you could literally think your way out of poverty. you didn't have to be an

entertainer, or an athlete, but you could become an entrepreneur. so john started teaching me the lessons of being a business owner. having a job, this is a good thing. but creating jobs, is even better. john would teach me later that earning an income, you have done well. but if you can learn to create a profit, you've done fantastic. he taught me some other lessons about individual responsibility. john once fold m told me that iu don't like where you are, look in the mirror -- blame yourself. you see, john was trying to teach me some very valuable lessons about individual responsibility. i learned very quickly from john that if you were a part of the problem, you were also part of the promise. that, in fact, if you saw yourself as a part of your obstacle, you may have just found the key ingredient to your opportunities. it took a little time before the lessons of my mentor and the strong discipline of my mother started to germinate in my soil

but it finally did. and after four years of having john as my mentor, something very tragic happened. at the young age of 38, john suddenly passed away. and i will remember the day before his funeral like it was yesterday. i sat down and i wrote out my mission statement to positively impact the lives of a billion people with a message of hope and opportunity. hope being my frai faith in chrt jesus and opportunity being the lessons of financial literacy and financial independence that i learned from my mentor, john monice. while i decided to follow in the footsteps of my mentor john, i started my own business and i learned very quickly the challenges of signing the front of the paycheck when you could not sign the back for yourself. and over the last two decades as a business owner and as an elected firm, whether it was as a member of county council or as a member of the south county house of representatives or being eye electricity to the united states congress -- being

elected to the united states congress, i've used as my foundation the lessons that i've learned from my mentor and my mother. during my time here in the senate, i will focus on a few key issues, including education, economic empowerment and controlling our spending addiction. as a small business owner over the last 15 years, i can tell you firsthand that our tax code is broken. but the highest corporate tax -- with the highest corporate tax rate in all the world and the taxing of small and family-owned businesses at an alarming rate, we will continue to produce a slow-growth economy. and the regulatory nightmare facing our small business owners today is only worsened by the unaffordable care act, as my good friend, congressman kusinich said yesterday. further, with over 70,000 pages of new regulations in the last five years, the compliance costs for small businesses is staggering. we do not simply need a delay in

the employer mandate. we need a repeal of the employer mandate. on education, i will tell you as a poor kid, by the time i was in the fourth grade, i had already attended four schools. it is very difficult for us to fund the right school but sometimes the transient nature of poverty, you have to move a lot. i believe that the system and the people closest to the child are in the best position to provide the highest quality of education for that child. so there's no way a bureaucrat in washington, d.c. can better educate a child in lexington county than that child's parents and the teachers who are so involved in that education. we need a national debate on education. parents need more choices so that their kids will have a chance. so let's debate it. let's debate charter schools, mr. president. let's debate public school choice, private school choice,

tax credits, high school, homecoolers, whatever it takes -- homeschoolers, whatever it takes to improve our education system should be on the table for discussion. let me close with this. if we create a competitive tax code and a fair, sensible regulatory environment, as well as a world-class education system, we will create the best economy known to man just like we have in times past. you see, mr. president, the best and the brightest days are still ahead for america. our strongest moments, our strongest stands are still in our future. i believe in the greatness of america because i have experienced the goodness of her people. in america, an ordinary guy like me can be blessed with an extraordinary opportunity like this. thank you, and god bless america.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i just wanted to congratulate our good friend from south carolina on his maiden speech and the opportunity to obviously learn more about his inspirational early life and the bbilingual nature of your beginnings and the way you interpreted those lessons, both from your mother and from your mentor and to the extraordinary success you've had, both in the private sector and in the public sector. and i just would like to say on behalf of my colleagues, it's an honor to serve with you. a senator: thank you, mr. leader. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to join the republican leader in expressing my appreciation for senator scott. today it's a day not just for his maiden speech but we have new pages on the senator floor. it is their first time. and i see the bright eyes of

these young people looking up to the senator as he gives his maiden speech because he talks about the next generation. and i was thinking a bit because i saw an editorial that the senator had written, published sunday a week ago, called "i.r.s. targeting scandal shows need for reform." so i was happy to hear the senator talk about some of the things that are happening there, because he talks about responsibility, accountability, the kind of things we heard in the -- in this maiden speech today. he writes in a concise way, also a courageous way. so i want to join the republican leader in welcoming the new senator and his comments and look forward to working with him for many, many years to come. thank you, mr. president. mr. scott: thank you, senator. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i want to join my colleagues in congratulating our recently arrived colleague from south carolina on his maiden speech. it strikes me that we all want

the same thing pretty much. we want an opportunity, we want to make sure that our kids get the best quality of education so they can compete in a global economy. but to be honest about it, we do have different approaches on how to achieve those goals, it strikes me, across the aisle. those who believe that government should play a bigger, more expansive role. they have their own ideas and approach. those of us who believe in limited government and that that is most consistent with individual freedom and the opportunity to strive, work hard and succeed, the notion of earned success, we have a different approach. and i know the senator from south carolina agrees with that. i also believe he's -- the senator from south carolina has been a tremendous addition because of his background and his upbringing. we don't -- some people might say we don't need more lawyers

in -- in the senate and he certainly is not one of those. but he is somebody who's succeeded in the private sector, been marvelously successful now in -- both in the house and here in the senate, and it's great to have him as part of the senate and contributing his unique perspective and being able to articulate, as he does so well, how small government, limited government principles apply to that concept of earned success that all of us want not only for ourselves but for our families as well. mr. scott: thank you, sir. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i want to join my colleagues in complimenting the senator from south carolina. i'll turn around this way so i can see him. number one, because of his work ethic. i have the privilege of being ranking member, republican member of the committee that has maybe the broadest jurisdiction, the most diversity of any of our committees, health, education, labor and pensions.

and i've watched senator scott in the first several months as a senator and how hard he works, how well prepared he is. he's spoken out on labor issues. he made a major contribution to the debate we had on whether we need a national school board or local control on elementary and secondary education. when other senators are doing other things, he's right there at the -- at the committee hearing. so he's made a -- a quiet, effective, principled, studious contribution to the united states senate, in my experience, these first few -- these first few months, and i'm delighted to have him here. he's done so well that i've invited him to come to tennessee on friday and speak to one of the largest gatherings we have annually in the state and he's -- he's agreed to come and we're grateful for that. and finally, i'd compliment him on one other thing. sometimes i like to tell stories about the person for whom i came

to the senate to work for, senator howard baker. and when he first came, i would say to the senator from south carolina, when senator baker came to the senate in 1967, the republican leader was his father-in-law, everett dirksen. and senator baker made his maiden speech probably from a back row about like you're making yours. and his father-in-law was sitting right there where senator mcconnell sits listening to the whole thing. and it went on and it went on and it went on. it went on for nearly about an hour. and after it was over, senator dirksen came over to senator baker and senator baker said to his father-in-law, "well, how'd i do, senator dirksen?" and the republican leader said to the new senator, he said, maybe, howard, you should occasionally try to enjoy the luxury of an unexpressed thoug thought. so i -- i congratulate senator scott for a succinct maiden

address. he's not only effective and studious and diligent, he knows how to speak his words clearly and succinctly and it's wonderful to see him here. mr. scott: thank you, senator.

a senator: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arkansas is recognized. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, my colleagues and i are often at odds when trying to solve some of our nation's most pressing and difficult problems. however, one thing that we can all agree on is that the men and women who wear our nation's uniforms are selfless heroes who embody the american spirit of courage and patriotism. we must continue to honor the

sacrifice and service of our troops who have fought to protect and defend our freedoms. today i'm here to pay my respects to army specialist robert a. pierce an arkansas soldier who gave his life while in support of operation enduring freedom. specialist he graduated from penceville high school. a former coworker described him as the best stake cooker ever. specialist pierce's friends say the money earned at his part-time job went to fixing his truck, his love of auto mechanics led him to do most of the work himself. specialist pierce's family said he joined the military in 2011 to make a difference. he served in south korea before his assignment at fort campbell.

he was a member of a company first battalion, 506th infantry regiment, 101st airborne division, fort campbell, kentucky. specialist robert pierce was only 20 when he gave his life for his country last month while on patrol in afghanistan. mr. president, specialist pierce is a true american hero who made the ultimate sacrifice. i ask my colleagues to keep his wife christian and the rest of his family and friends in their thoughts and prayers. on behalf of a grateful nation, i humbly offer my sincerest gratitude for his patriotism and selfless sacrifice. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i ask that rachel murphy and others of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, on monday, july 1, 2013, joseph c. mcwaite was laid to rest with full military honors in the fort logan national cemetery in denver, colorado. a proud world war ii veteran, joseph "big joe" mcwaite will

rest beside his brother john mcwaite, also a world war ii veteran. joe was one of the most unique, memorable persons i have ever known in my lifetime. he was also my brother-in-law. joe was born on march 16, 1919, in the family farmhouse near stewart, iowa. a proud irishman, joe always noted that his birthday was one day before st. patrick's day. joe, his two brothers and sister, were born and raised in a loving but very poor family. his father willie was a self-taught, accomplished musician, playing the fiddle and piano in local bands around iowa. from an early age, joe was always known as big joe, quote, big joe, because he was a big bear of a man, standing 6'4" and tipping the scales around 240 pounds, all muscle and bone. he used to show off his strength by tearing phone books and decks

of cards in half like they were just pieces of paper. this always impressed a lot of young kids. joe also liked to balance heavy, unwieldy objects like lawnmowers on his chin. but it wasn't just large, heavy objects. he was the only person i have ever seen who could balance a broom straw on his nose. so what i'm saying is he could entertain a group of kids for hours by doing these kinds of tricks. when the great depression hit the midwest, joe's family, like so many others, was in dire economic straits, so joe at the age of 16 went to work in the civilian conservation corps, the c.c.c. now, the legal age was 18, but because of joe's size and the poverty at home, joe said he was 18 and thus joined the c.c.c. young men left home, lived in c.c.c. camps, worked on building dams and dikes, clearing roads

in winter, cleaning up after floods, creating state parks and recreation areas. the c.c.c. camps were run in a semi military fashion. now, joe worked at the c.c.c. camps for three years, making $36 a month. as joe remembered, he sent $30 home and kept $6 for himself. he often said that the c.c.c. was president roosevelt's best program. the day after the attack on pearl harbor, joe went right down to the recruiting office and signed up for military duty. he joined the navy and spent most of the war years as a boatsman's mate first class, escorting troop ships and cargo ships from the united states to russia, england and north africa. his ship, the u.s.s. marchand, sank several german u-boats and rescued survivors of cargo and

troop ships sunk by enemy torpedos. joe was present at normandy on d-day, again protecting the big ships and cruisers from enemy submarines. after the war in europe ended, joe was sent to the pacific on a troop ship headed to the philippines. during this voyage, joe's ship was attacked by japanese kamikaze planes. as the acting chief boatsman's mate, joe got all the antiaircraft guns manned, and they brought down all the enemy aircraft and not one hit the ship. joe remembered how one plane crashed in the water so close that ocean spray and parts of the aircraft landed on the ship's deck. sometime after that, on their way to the philippines, joe piped, using his pipe, he piped all hands on deck for an important announcement from the captain. the captain said that after dropping two atom bombs on japan that wiped out two cities,

president harry s. truman said the japanese have surrendered and the war was over. there was unrestrained cheering and back slapping among the troops and sailors. joe asked the captain if he should use his pipe to call them to order. the captain said no, no, let them go. they refueled at sea and headed back to honolulu. after nearly four straight years at sea, dodging and sinking u-boats in the north atlantic, surviving kamikaze attacks in the pacific, joe was back in iowa with a chest full of medals and his beloved boatsan's pipe. for his life thereafter, big joe could keep you entranced with his war stories, what ship life was like on the frigid waters of the north atlantic. joe was so proud of his service and his fellow world war ii comrades. he was truly one of the greatest generation of young americans.

joe passed away on january 31, 2013, with his loving wife june by his side. he was just about two months shy of his 94th birthday. and up to his 93rd birthday, joe always marched every year in the veterans day parade wearing his original world war ii navy blues, a white sailor's cap jauntily placed on his head, a chest full of ribbons and medals and his cherished pipe hung around his neck. at age 88 he participated in one of the honor flights from denver to washington, d.c. for world war ii veterans to see the world war ii memorial. after my mother died and joe had married my sister, sylvia, wint to live with them and joe became almost a surrogate father to me. i was 13 years old. but as we both grew older we took many trips together and he became more like my older

brother. joe was so unique. he was a gifted observer of human behavior and interactions, he could fix anything, make beautiful objects out of wood some of which i still have in my home, and he was the best story teller i've ever met. many years of a my sister died of cancer, joe met and married june, a talented art nist her own right and they had a wonderful life together. joe is survived by his wife june, his sister, mary an, his four grandchildren, sean, ryan, aaron and seera and four step grandchildren. so big joe led a full and challenging and interesting life. he was truly one of our greatest generation. a truly patriot who loved his country, his family, and his many friends.

he helped to make america a better nation for all. mr. president, with that i note the absence of a quorum. yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. murphy: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: and i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. we are now deep in the heart of summer vacation for millions of families and millions of students all across this country. it's a wonderful time, something that families look forward to. maybe some parents more so than others. but it's a very strange summer in newtown, connecticut. it's the first summer that 20 families are waking up every morning without a six- or seven-year-old that they planned on spending days at the beach or afternoons at the park or mornings getting their kids

ready for what would have been their second grade year. it is a very different summer, this summer in newtown, connecticut. a lot of people ask me how's the community recovering? how are they coming back from this? and while there is some raoebd happening -- rebound happening, it is still very much a community in crisis. when students go back to school in the fall, they're not going to be going back to sandy hook elementary school. that school is going to be knocked down. we're going to have to build a new one. there is no way families, teachers, administrations can return that place. once again this fall the students of sandy hook elementary school will be bused one town over to a school that was up until january of this last year a place that none of them had seen. they will once again be in a year of transition, once again

for many families still a year of crisis. and i'm not sure that any of those families could imagine in the days and weeks after the shooting on december 14 of last year that when they sent their kids back to school, their surviving brothers and sisters in the fall of 2013, i don't think that very many of them could have imagined that in that intervening time, in response to the most vicious mass school shooting in this country's history that the response from the united states congress would be nothing. zippo. zero. this is a summer of crisis in newtown. it will be another difficult fall. but what really leaves people in

newtown shaking their heads is that this place has done absolutely nothing. that when their kids return back to school,he laws of t nation will be no different, will do nothing more to protect their sons and daughters when they return, as will millions of other kids across the country, to school in september. and it's not like we haven't seen since newtown more evidence for why we need to change our laws. madam president, i've come down to the floor virtually every week since this horrific incident to remind people that the tragedy has not ended, that since december 14, 5,893 people have been senselessly killed by guns.

5,893 people since december 14 have been killed through gun violence. and so, madam president, i think that we should continue to talk about who these people are, that we should give voices to these victims so that it's not just the 20 six- and seven-year olds that you have all heard so much about, about jack pinto and dylan hockley and noah posener, grace mcdonald. you know these kids and i'll continue to talk about who they were and who they could have been. every day we lose about 30 more people to gun violence. last june we saw a gun shooting that was eerily similar to the one in newtown, a mass shooting in santa monica, california, in which five people were killed: the father and the brother of the gunman, but also three

completely unrelated and innocent bystanders who just happened to be in and around the school when this young man, 23 years old, deeply disturbed, just started firing almost indiscriminately and randomly on his way to and at the campus. it was eerily similar because once again it was an assault weapon, an ar-15 model, the weapon of choice for mass assailants in this country these days. and once again he had high-capacity magazines reportedly 1,300 rounds of ammunition were on his person. now, every case is unique. but over and over and over again these mass shootings are occurring with the same type of weapons and the same type of high-capacity ammunition. and we do nothing to acknowledge this trend.

so let me just talk to you for a second about who these people were that were killed that day in california, because they have stories that aren't unlike the 5,800-plus stories that i could tell on the floor if we had time with respect to the people who died since november 14. carlos franko, 68 years old, the grounds keeper at the college for 22 years. he was dedicated to two things above all: that college and his family. that's whaet president of the college said -- what the president of the college said after his death. everything he did was for the college and his family. he was truly a family man, the president of the college said. he was a dedicated husband, father, an integral part of santa monica's family. he dedicated his work to campus

grounds which was enjoyed by students and visitors for two decades. he was with his daughter that day, marcellus franko, 26 years old, she was pursuing a degree at california state university. she registered to take summer classes at the school where her father worked. and she was on her way with her father to buy textbooks that day. she initially survived the gunfire, but she never regained consciousness after the attack. she was described by her aunt as smart, beautiful, and outgoing. her aunt said -- quote -- "she was daddy's girl." so the blessing is they went together. marguerite gomez was the same age as carlos navarro franko. she lost her life that day. she was fondly referred to on campus as the recycle lady

because you could see her almost every day weekday walking around campus rolling her cart, picking up used bottles and cans, flopping them in her cart and then bringing them to get recycled. obviously most people thought that she was homeless and that she was collecting these bottles and cans as a means to be able to survive. it wasn't the case. she had actually been diagnosed with diabetes, and it was her doctor's recommendation that she exercise more. she was also an active member of the senior latino club that met every thursday at virginia avenue park, and she was very interested in the st. jude's children's research hospital cause, a charity that the senior latino club happened to give money to. and so she put these two things together -- a recommendation

that she should exercise more and an interest in helping the club and the charity it was affiliated with -- and so she decided that she would take this cart, take it around town for exercise, pick up cans and bottles, recycle them and donate the money to charity. the recycle lady, margarita gomez, was walking around campus that day picking up cans and bottles so that she could take the money to help sick kids, and she was gunned down by an assault weapon using high-capacity ammunition clips. it's a pretty unbelievable story. these three special individuals, along with the father and the son, are amongst the 5,893. but, madam president, it's not just the mat shootings we're talking -- the mass shootings we're talking about here. frankly, the vast, vast majority

of these killings are won off deals over some of the most petty arguments or disputes you could imagine. but because guns are so easily found, so readily accessible in our neighborhoods, these silly arguments end up in deaths. like one that happened in my state of connecticut just a couple of weeks ago on june 16. isaac smith was a couple days away from graduating from britain high school. he was a great athlete, played football and baseball, and he was hoping to ten playing those sports after high school as he went to college. he talked to his friends a lot, apparently, about how proud he was going to be to graduate. well, the might of june 16, police received a call around midnight of gunshots. they arrived at the scene and

found isaac smith, a couple days away from graduation, in his driveway with a gunshot wound to the back of his head. police are still trying to figure out what happened, but apparently he was involved in a transaction for a pair of high-end sneakers when something went wrong, and the other guy that he was either selling the sneakers to or buying the sneakers from, 26-year-old jonathan gibbs of meridan, shot him over a pair of sneakers. i'd say these 5,893 people are victims of mass violence, they are victims of senseless gunfire but they all share something in common, which is that they deserve a response from the united states senate and the house of representatives. they deserve us doing something more than nothing. now, at least the senate brought

a bill up on the floor earlier this year. we got 55 votes for a bill that wasn't perfect but at least said you know what? criminals shouldn't have guns and we should have a system that makes sure that's the case. gun trafficking when you buy a mess load of guns legally and sell them illegally on our streets, that should be a crime. that we should have more resources in our mental health system that take care of people who want and need help. they got 55 votes for that, which is pretty unbelievable that more than 95% of the american public support all those things. but the house of representatives has done nothing at all, hasn't even had a debate. and these numbers will just continue to mount. next week i will be down here and the number will probably be north of 6,000. and then back after the october recess, it will be creeping up to 7,000. you know what? we can't get rid of every single one of these deaths.

i will admit to you this guy jonathan gibbs who shot isaac smith, he was a legal gun owner. he didn't actually have a criminal history. but the fact is that, well, not every single one of these deaths is preventable, many of them are. many of them are. and so, madam president, i will continue to come down and talk about these voices of victims with the hope that someday, perhaps this fall, perhaps next year, perhaps the year after, we can take action in the united states senate that will not stop the rate of growth of this number but will at least slow its acceleration. i yield back the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: madam president, may i speak for five minutes? the presiding officer: the senate is currently in a quorum call. ms. warren: i ask that the

quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you, madam president. the interest rate on student loans doubled on july 1 because congress failed to act, our lowest income students are now paying twice as much on these new loans, and while students are paying more, the federal government is boosting its own profits. $51 billion in profits from the student loan programs in 2013 alone. this is just plain wrong. the government is making obscene profits on these loans, profits we can and should cut back on to help our kids who are strugging to -- struggling to pay for college, but republicans have repeatedly blocked our efforts to get a short-term fix that would save students from higher interest rates. this week, the senate will vote to fix this problem.

the bill, the keeping student loans affordable act, was introduced by senators jack reed and kay hagan. it would drop the rate on direct student loans back down to 3.4% for one year, retroactively as of july 1, and give congress time to develop a plan to do the three things we really need to do -- reform student loan debt interest rates on the new loans, refinance a trillion dollars in existing debt, and lower college costs for all of our kids. republicans have a different approach. despite the obscene profits of the current program, they propose to make even more money from students. their current proposal would bring in an extra billion dollars in profits off the backs of our students. listen to the numbers. new loans will produce

$184 billion in profits for the u.s. government over the next ten years. that includes the 6.8% interest on direct loans, all the borrowing costs, all the administrative costs and all the bad debt losses for the program. let me say that again. the new student loans, including the direct loans at 6.8%, will make $184 billion in profits from the government over the next ten years, and the republican solution is to increase those profits for the u.s. government. in other words, their solution to the rising interest rate problem is to make the students pay even more. some of my colleagues are telling students that the plan they have is a great deal, but

their argument is the same argument that was used by the slick operators who sold teaser rate mortgages and the ones who sold zero interest rate credit cards. sure, the first couple of years will be cheaper, but they don't want anyone to look at what happens after that. fortunately, our students are smarter than that. they read the fine print. they know that in the end, this debate boils down to simple math, math that our students understand even if some people in congress wish they didn't. our students sent a letter to majority leader reid and minority leader mcconnell with a clear message -- a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. our students need a plan that costs them less money, not a plan that costs them more. i talk a lot about math, but the senate's decision about student loans is a decision about our

values and a decision about how we build a future. investing in our students will allow them to get good jobs and give them a shot to make it in america, but that same investment will also create new industries and grow the economy for everyone. we shouldn't treat our students like a profit center. we shouldn't ask them to pay an interest tax to go to school. and we shouldn't try to trick them by shuffling numbers around, hitting them with teaser rates and declaring the problem as solved while students just keep paying more and more. there are real problems in higher education today. skyrocketing college costs, historic levels of student debt and high borrowing rates. it's going to take time to develop a solution that really works, and there is no magic math that will make student loan profits disappear or make

college tuitions shrink without some sacrifice, but right now students are the only ones who are sacrificing. they are giving up the dream of owning a home or being able to retire just so they can keep paying for college. congress can ease the burden on our students, and we should be committed to doing just that because this is how we build a stronger middle class. this is how we build a better future for our entire country. it's a first step but it's a good one. congress can pass the keeping student loans affordable act. it's a short-term patch to keep the interest rates on new loans from doubling for one year while congress develops a plan to reform student loans and to make college more affordable. i support the measure and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: