if there's any suspicion a patient has ha travel history they are immediately sequestered. the there's personal protocol for personal protective equipment and notification of the team and the laboratory specimens are processed through the biocont n biocontainment facilities and deac decontaminated as if they were positive even before we know the results of the pcr. we are doing testing on site and makes it faster and easier, otherwise it would have taken days. >> i would point out that is in a perfect world. in the rough and tumble texas er, all of those protocols would not be immediately available. we'll get back to that. i have to ask you, the typhoid mary analysis you have used, that's the first time i have

heard of that. we all remember typhoid mary of lore and she had the ability to infect people. do your typhoid marys have the ability to infect people when they're asymptomatic? >> we don't know. that's the question. typhoid mary, in the case of her, she was dealing with a bacterial infection. >> right. >> what i do know for a fact, there have been a number of asymptomatic non-febrill people whose blood has been drawn and they tested positive. i think there is something about the pcr test. in medicine, you never say 100%. the thing with ebola, if you don't bat 1 wh00 every day, it' exposed. my point is we need go to africa and fight the disease over there and keep it contained. >> two of your doctors were

infected and weren't sure why. we had two nurses in dallas and were infected and we're not sure why. that underscores there is a lot more not known about this disease and is known and i would extend that to mr. waxman, we all need humility on this. and what you did in dallas to have good discipline to where it almost veered toward being out of control. it took a lot of courage to exercise those control orders on the individuals when you did that. i dwill admit being somewhat surprised turning on the news when that happened. what were some of the things that went through your mind as you developed that? >> we don't take control orders lightly. in texas, i can put a control

order, it's not enforcible until i get a judge to enforce it. we have to get the monitoring done in an event like this. we have to make sure people do not have fever. if i could not get that done the way i needed to protect the public's health, i take the public's health extremely seriously and we put an order in place. if you do that, you need to provide support services around that individual to make sure there's food and other support there to make sure it's as humane as possible. with the nurses following the nurse that became infected we needed to make sure we had monitoring in place. we also, as we looked and stratified risk, it looked to me the biggest risk was being inside that room with mr. duncan. for those individuals we said it's best during this time period you don't go in large public settings, movie theaters

and churches, et cetera. it becomes a very large epidemiological evaluation when that occurs and somebody becomes infected. we were able to work with that staff. they took this very seriously, to be able to limit their movement for the highest risk individuals. >> dr. gold, are your patients reimbursed by insurance or are you reimbursed by insurance when patients are referred to you? >> we are in the process of having those discussions with the insurance carriers and their employers. to date, we have been unsuccessful from any reimbursement from a commercial carrier. i can't really tell you whether anything's happened in the last 24 or 48 hours, of course, but they have not responded. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> mr. waxman, take five minutes. >> thank you. i will take five and maybe an

additional two like we saw from her to congressman. earlier, president obama sent 2$2.5 billion in response to th ebola outbreak and the president's fund is to fight immediate needs in the united states and west africa. you can both speak to the readiness of our public health system in the united states. the president's budget request designated $621 million to cdc for domestic response including funding for state and local preparedness, enhanced laboratory capacity and infection control efforts. it also designates $126 million for hospital preparedness. dr. lakeky, can you comment on the additional need for funding for state and local public health authorities? what are the top funding

priorities? >> thank you. the state public health is having a do a lot of work right now. the laboratory response network, having the laboratory out there to rapidly diagnose individuals is essential to diagnose individuals. the ep deemiidemiologist to dia individuals is important. having the hospital facilities to care for those individuals is very very important. >> this isn't the only event. we had west fertilizer explosion, hurricane ike, et cetera. that system, to be able to rapidly respond is essential. a lot of that is paid for by hpp funds. my budget was reduced by 36% this last year. that pays for training and education things that take place in order for the hospital systems to be ready. want to ask dr. gold for his response. would additional funding assist

in hospital preparedness? give us some areas where additional funding would be helpful? >> i think the additional funding would be helpful to build the educational programs and hospitals gotten up to speed and allow to scale response, in event we need to bring volunteers or others back to the united states. additional funding used to creat created preparedness and other infectious crisis of this nature of which we currently do not have resources, and to build a sustainable infrastructure such as convalescent serum reserves, such as core laboratory testing, et cetera, swheef and sustain a natural preparedness level. >> i want to pivot to funding for internation at efforts. mr. isaac, samaritan's purse has

been there since march and understands the environment there. i want to talk about ngo perspective on continuing needs and efficient use of resources. what are the main priorities on the ground in west africa and what resources are needed to accomplish those efforts? >> if i may add something to what you said. we've actually been there 11 years. the disease broke out in march. we have a large footprint, 350 staff, 20 expatriates, aircraft, a lot of capacity in the country. when the disease broke out we worn 100% focused fighting it. this is very practical but logistics are everything. there is a lot of d discoordination and confusion right now between the un players, and the do.o.d. gainin

access and if cdc goes out into a new area and identifies a new village and 10 or 12 people that test positive they call us in because we assembled rapid response teams we're not able to take the blood samples out by flight we have to move them out by land. a rapid response team is one of the greatest needs. i think if the u.s. military was running the coordination cell things would be done quicker. >> the u.s. is helping -- committed to helping in liberia and provided personnel resources and funding. as we continue our aid efforts we must keep in mind the need for a flexible response. initial reports indicate there are empty beds in ebola treatments in liberia, so the aid efforts have adjusted accordingly to monitor occupancy and only build additional etus as needed. mr. chairman, i hope we can join

something to quickly pass the president's budget request. we heard from this panel and heard from our first panel about the urgency task at time and the what will happen in west africa if we fail to do so. >> i would like to see that happen, too and hope you take a careful look what mr. isaac's group is looking at. they need a bridge to move people back and forth because that's a struggle right now. i recognize mr. long for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you all for being here, not only that but for what you do on a daily basis. i for one really appreciate it. dr. gold, you said -- let me ask you something before that. dr. mar ttin salia wa taken to

yoto -- was taken to your location, is that correct? >> yes. >> i turned on the news and saw there was a doctor very critical my first thought and i probably had the first thought many people had that said he was very critical and he heater deceased a few days later. i apologize i had to step out of the room a few minutes i normally don't do. i'm usually here for the duration of these hearings. was there a reason he was delayed coming to this country for assistance for help? do we know? that seems strange he would be that far gone, so to speak, before they would think about flying him out? >> it's unclear to us what the logistics are that might have delayed it. we were told he had an initial blood test for ebola that was

negative and only three days later did he test positive, at least before we were contacted, i don't know whether the transportation organizations or state department were contacted but from when we were contacted the plans for transfer were put into place virtually immediately. there was also a good deal uncertainty how stable he was immediately prior to transfer. once the decision was made to transfer him, rest assured he got every conceivable treatment. >> i'm sure he did. i wasn't implying -- i was curious why they waited as long to try and get him -- when i heard that first radio report, it said he was very critical. >> i am told it takes time for people to test negative, even when they're symptomatic and we have heard about other people testing positive asymptomatic. this is not 100% certainty

disease. we're learning an awful lot about the spectrum how symptomatic people get versus their viral levels. >> let me stay with you. you said in your written testimony you coordinated extensively with cdc and hhs on readiness treatment. can you talk more about that collaboration and what specific issues have you advised the administration? >> we are working with emory with the cdc and asper standing up on educational protocols and visiting other institutions across the united states to help them enhance their readiness, hosting teams from other discussions across the united states. in nebraska we recently had a team of 9 or 10 people from joh johns hopkins unit. as well as a series of protocols used for certification of readiness and maintenance of readiness. >> when you say you advised the

administration, have you spoken with mr. klein, the ebola czar? >> yes, several times. >> did the administration, did they incorporate your recommendations and did they reject any of your recommendations? >> we're working specifically with dr. lurie, who was your guest here a little bit earlier. we speak probably daily on the development of these protocols. there's a conference call scheduled for friday. >> you feel they are accepting your recommendations? >> thus for a, yes. >> good. >> thus far, yes. >> and dr. isaac, in your testimony, you talked about people in planes being checked temperature-wise every so often. what did you say? >> our staff are under protocol to take their temperature four times a day? >> their own personal

temperature? >> no j. we have staff on our staff force that call them every day and we keep a log-on it. >> i can tell you where every one of your people are. >> you're talking about your staff, not your patients? >> our staff, we're just monitoring their health. >> i misunderstood earlier, and you hear reports we'll check their temperature when they get off the plane. i think we need a travel ban and if they say they take their temperature and be not symptomatic my temperature is probably invalid since you're talking about your staff. thank you for your service and yield. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you all for being here and thank you, mr. isaacs for the work you've been doing there 11 years. samaritans purse is a good organization and appreciate what you've done, not just there but around the world.

in your written comments you said we know how to stop this disease. everything in this current outbreak says we do not know the signs of ebola as well as we think we do. i touched on this earlier in the previous testimony i believe the reservoir species is what the doctor was talking about and we don't know the full extent of the reservoir species. you touched on that as well, can the virus live in other areas such as primates, bats, ro caliber dents and another study related to pigs. did you ask this question because people on your ground asked questions or because it's a blank slate and we really don't have much research on it? >> i think ebola is potentially a much more serious disease than it is given respect for. what we have seen is it is

flexible, deceptive, sneaky, agile and every time somebody thinks they have it figured out it shows us something new. we as a society cannot make asemgss we know what it is. assumptions we know what it is. we have to be careful letting it come on to this shore. while it is true we identified it, isolated it. the truth is, these doctors could tell you, particularly the gentleman from texas, if he had 15 or 20 cases down there, it would consume his capacity to isolate it. while we can isolate it, if it were to get out from under us it would consume our ability. that's why it is extremely to confine to it africa before it gets off that continent in a major way.

>> any of your people concerned about the animals? >> we live ebola 24 hours a day, all we talk about. we talk about it all. we are worried about it. in spain, they thought the little dog, it killed it. in texas, you put it in isolation. i'm glad the lady got her dog back. i'm a big dog guy. who knows? i think there's some science in this. >> i talk to you about a study that came out in 2005 infectious emerging disease, a cdc publication, i'll be happy to get you a copy of it, it's available where they talk about potential of dogs, although dogs can be asymptomatically infected, they don't get the disease, sometimes the science is confused on television, they don't get the disease and sometimes caring the antibodiea. sometimes asystem natic dogs cod

spread outbreaks and could affect some epideem logically related human cases. there are cases in the past in africa they don't have any idea where they come from. i asked dr. frieden and he said maybe bats but don't know what the reservoir species are. in a prior hearing in october, what are we doing about animals coming into this country. it was somewhat laughed off and it is a concern, don't you agree? >> i do agree. i'll tell you why it is so important. this is not the flu, influenza and killed 70% of the people that get it. if you look at what the disease has done this year, 5500 people dead, 13,000 case, that's extraordinary. none of us have swam in these

waters before and i don't think we can use case studies that came from 1976 to today make assumptions about an unprecedented event that crosses national boundaries. the caseload may be going down in nigeria. the caseload is spreading geographically, in sierra leone and mali. >> i appreciate your comments on that and i liked your term "travel management" because i believe we want people to provide huh humanitarian relief like your organization does. i yield back. >> the chairman yields back for five minutes. >> state and local hospitals serve at the front lines for treatment and containment of infectious diseases in the united states. in the case of thomas duncan in dallas, they saw challenges

faced by local health departments and hospitals dealing with an unexpected infectious disease. dr. lakey -- lakey, now that yo have had some time to reflect on that case, what can you tell us about it? >> it is a first time ever rare disease in the united states. everyone was watching what was occurring in africa. to think that was going to occur in your emergency room on a busy night is a challenge. there is a challenge related to a national strategy. i say national because there's experts outside government that review those strategies, infection control. the assumption any community hospital can care for an individual with that much diarrhea, that much vomiting,

that much virus in those fluids, i think, was a faulty assumpt n assumption. it took a really dedicated team to care for that individual. one of the lessons learned is health care nurses, physicians, they take their responsibility extremely seriously and they showed up to take care of mr. duncan and their colleagues. a lot of people were worried health care would not show up but they showed up. i think there was a lesson related to the level of personal protective equipment. that was changed. higher level of personal protective equipment. we learned you don't have to wait for temperature of 105.5 to diagnose the temperature. and we lowered it to identify individuals early and we identify them with 106, 10.8 and in previous guidelines would not

have met the criteria for testing. >> in what ways could dallas texas state headquarters health departments have been better prepared to handle a case of ebola or any infectious disease. >> i think there's several components to that. the necessarity to train. health departments across texas and the nation had been preparing. there was a lot of information we had been sending out. that's different than saying this is a real event and i have to be ready right now. one of the things we're doing right now to improve preparedness, not only making sure all hospitals are ready to think ebola is possible and end the differential diagnosis and isolating and informing those individuals and there is a system across the state to test

them before you get to a level where there's a hospital to care for those individuals. no hospital wants to be an ebola hospital. it's hard getting other individuals into your emergency room if you're labelled the ebola hospital. there's some reluctance across the united states to step up and be the facility. that is one of the things we're working on right now. >> thank you. dr. gold you said the university of nebraska medical enter cente known for readiness to treat ebola patients. you successfully treated ebola patients and recently lost one. can you tell us the protocol to make sure the staff is adequately prepared to care for ebola patients? >> yes, sir. since the unit was set up.

a staff of 45 to 50 people has been in place, to go over procedures and emerging trends in africa, elt st set wherceter team drills four times a year and do exercises with waste disposals and transport and different types of equipment and dialysis, et cetera. all the typical procedures and protocol are not only learned but practices hands on four times a year for everri staff member. >> thank you. i yield back. >> doctor, what are the costs and impacts being prepared when you are preparing and practicing

four times a year when all those pieces within the community are also participating? >> the actual out-of-pocket costs have been calculated between 250 and $300,000 a year to maintain the core team of nursing techs, respiratory therapists, et cetera. that does not count the time our physicians and leaders put into it and the time of the maintenance unit, air handlers, water supply, stock of equipment, et cetera. that's their personnel time that goes into maintaining their readiness. >> in your coachiopening statem opened this with one of my questions to cdc, when you train and practice like this, there should be some maintenance funds

to offset those costs? >> well, we certainly agree with that. i believe that the cdc over time has had a relationship with the emory organization, predominantly to protect the employees of the cdc that work with highly infectious agents in their testing laboratories around the world. we have not had that type of relationship and would think it would be appropriate perhaps for the ur instructor or other vehicle that exists. >> are you being homered? >> sorry? >> emory, being in atlanta and cdc being there, is that -- are they just giving money to the hometown hospital or is there something -- >> i think they did a -- just like we need a way to take care of our employees if something tragic were to happen and they were to become ill, they need a way to manage their employees as well. i think that was the original

basis of that relationship. we would very much enjoy a similar relationship. >> you are equally if not better speaking medically at least. just to maybe pick your brain and maybe somebody has already done this. you had two successful patients that got to hug all the doctors and nurses that helped them. then we had the last patient that came in, appeared from the tv video to be in super critical condition. what in your opinion is the reason that perhaps this later -- this physician latest patient passed away? any takeaways from being how you were able to treat the first patients versus this one that came in a more critical condition? any lessons learned? >> the most important lesson learned the sooner we have

access the better the yield is going to be. this particular patient had renal failure, liver failure, unconscious when he arrived in the united states. what we have learned, those are all very bad predictors of outcome. the earlier patients we cared for did have early organ failure but reversible through good supportive care and all received early medical care as did this patient but i believe the organ systems failure we dealt with over the weekend was far too extreme. >> with this one example, it's probably not certain but is there just a point of no return with an ebola patient? their organs have already shut down? is there a way of making -- of treating them so they can survive or is it just at that point not survivable? >> i don't think it's possible

to predict young people. this gentleman was in his early 40s and thinking it was worth an all out effort to attempt to save them. i don't think if you could take the exact same patient twice you could predict the outcome. >> yeah. very good. appreciate it. dr. gold, you and nebraska medicine and umc make us proud. i appreciate all your efforts. >> we have a great deem. >> you do. with mr. green's daughter. >> mr. green. >> i ask you, ma'am, to place a statement by the american federation of state and county municipal employees asking congress to support the president's request for funding for $6.18 million. i want to charge both panels.

i know the first one is gone. >> can't hear you. >> oh. i just appreciate our witnesses being here. but also for the panel that was put together. that's when our oversight investigation committee is supposed to be doing. i appreciate it. to follow up on my colleague, i'm the first down in history the intelligence from your children went back down the tree. i appreciate that first time in mankind, thank you. >> so noted for the record. i want to thank this panel. you have -- give you 30 seconds here. go ahead. dr. bridges. >> i was going to thank the panel, too. i have been through a number of these hearings. our committee has done hearings. i was allowed to sit in homeland security in a field hearing in dallas and i've sat through a hearing on on for affairs last

september. this has been the most informative panel i have had the pleasure to hear from. i really appreciate it and know it was a long day and made you wait a long time. i really appreciate you guys sticking with us and sharing the information you shared. it's been absolutely critical. i'll yield back. >> thank you. i want to add to that. i almost had the feeling the first panel was spiking the ball, we've got this. we can be confident. i don't agree. after we had our hearing several weeks ago, put forth several recommendations among them we needed some level of travel restrictions, people ought to be isolated for 21 days, what i heard from mr. isaacs and the same with dr. gold, not only did you hear that from your colleagues, your employees didn't complain and i thank them for their selflessness not only there but returning home. from this, several take away, people with level 4 gear can

still get ebola. we don't know all the routes. what we don't want to have is a false sense of security, that everything's fine. i worry that the first hearing this room was packed with cameras and people and the press. at this point in the hearing, what you've told us should still tell us, we have to keep our radar up full alert here. we have major battle for this taking place in africa with very difficult time for getting people in and out of there. if any of those airlines stopped their flights, could happen in a moment, we're at a loss moving people and supplies in and out of it. along those lines i hold to it we should be able to do 21 days restrictions from touching patients when they come back. i'm glad hospitals are doing that anyways. i hate to think what would happen if that did not occur and quite frankly the hospital would have to tell other patients if they did have employees recently with ebola patients. i also want to echo mr. isaacs, will try to work this out, we

ought to have a bridge for people going to and from africa, for your selfless workers and charities and catholic relief and so many things i heard from, doctors without borders, we need a way for them to easily go an come back to help monitor them. this is one less thing to worry about. with all the money going through this, we look at $20 million going to new york city just to monitor the people exposed to that doctor, that would pay for a heck of a lot of flights and we could have a charter system. we will have a charter committee and have questions for you and we ask you respond quick lain timely matter with any questions from the committee. with that, thank you for the panel and this committee hearing is adjourned.

the cato institute hosts a discussion on free speech today. panelists will look at how a 1958 supreme court case dealing with gay rights became a turning point in first amendment law. you can see it live beginning at noon eastern here on c-span3. congressman fred upton, who chairs the energy and commerce committee said he and his colleagues plan to introduce legislation next year aimed at accelerating the process of drugs and medical devices and he spoke on clinical cancer research hosted by the brookings institution. [ applause ] >> good morning. good morning. we're extremely excited about

today's conference and i have a very special honor this morning on behalf of friends of cancer research and brookings to introduce you to chairman fred upton. he likes to be called fred. it's hard because he is the chairman. i will just tell you very briefly about him, very briefly. first of all, he's a true bipartisan player in washington. he gets things done. he's done so much already for this community and all our communities. very briefly, he is the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, representative from michigan 6 district. he has served since 2011 as the head of energy and commerce and played a major roll for nih, part of the bipartisan crowd that did the doubling of the nih. already done things for drug

quality. the most important thing he's doing now in a bipartisan effort is with diana on 20th century cures. it is profound and will change the way we do business and deal with drugs in development in nih and he's doing it in a very bipartisan way and by listening. really listening. they've been all over the country talking and getting facebo feedback from people and i have no doubt this will change the way we deal with innovation and be very very positive. you don't want to hear from me. you want to hear from fred upton. he is going to take questions. we are on c-span. please be sure to give your name and affiliation. there won't be a lot of time.

mostly help me welcome chairman fred upton. [ applause ] >> well, thanks. good morning, everybody. it is really a delight to be here. what i thought is i would take not a lot of time but give a little overview where we are, where we're going. take a couple of questions meaning we don't have votes today which means i'm going to the airport to get on a plane go to the warm state of michigan and spend the rest of the week there. i'm fred upton. i got to say that when i was elected i helped the new freshmen in, republicans and democrats, i remember well one of our republican leaders a

wonderful woman by the name of lynn martin, head of the republican conference, from chicago, she said to the republicans, for 40 years we've been in the minority. it's going to be that way the next 40, probably. wasn't. she was wrong. if you have a good idea, two things will happen. it will either be defeated or stolen. just stay true. i said then, i said, you know what, that's not going to happen to me. i came to make a difference. i will partner with somebody on the other side of the aisle on virtually every bill we work on. i did it. we had a fellow in our class a great guy represented my mother and brother-in-law. the two of us are about as different as you can find with different districts.

the two of us worked on legislation that ended up being enacted, that was hailed as the most important legislation in that congress, helping small businesses. it provided tax assistance, tax across to comply with the americans of small business disabilities act. i can remember grabbing fred's jacket, what have you done to my reputation. i used to be a zero with the chamber of commerce, which was a good thing in the city of baltimore and now i'm hailed as a hero and you have ruined me for life. he later was head of the naacp. as many of you are familiar with, we have spent the last actually a year just about listening to folks around the

country what we can do to expedite the approval of drugs and devices and we're getting close to actually coming up with legislation. ellen, in fact, was one of the first participants in a formal process at a roundtable we had back in may. not the normal committee hearing where we're at this big diaz and q&a but a table we're sitting at asking questions. a very positive experience as we listen to a dialogue between different parties what we can do in terms of what we can do to work together. we're going to continue to have those ideas. i was in new york to get my partner, diana, a long-time friend, democrat from colorado

and the two of us have participated in these round tables in hearings throughout the year. our plan now is to release a discussion draft early next year, probably the second or third week or so in january. ellen, in her normal way, started working out here in the donut line. we're going to have a -- i don't want to say a private meeting but we will have a meeting with a number of you all. she will get a group together of some of the important groups, where we can really sit down and you can look at what our discussion draft does. we want to continue to get that input. we're looking for ideas. maybe we missed something or went too far. really sit down and have a constructive discussion for zero amount of time before we move that bill to the next stage,

which is to introduce it. we have an ambitious goal. there is no more important issue in our committee than moving quickly and expedite the approval of these drugs and devices. 7,000 diseases. we have cures for only 500. it's not a republican or democratic idea. i look at my family. my wife has lupus, my uncle had parkinson's disease, my mom is a survivor of cancer, no different than any other family that's out there. i know we can make a difference for every family as we move on this legislation. i personally have been so impressed with advancements of technology and molecular medicine over the last couple of decades. i took my health team, i call

them my dream team to different places around the country to kick the tires and see what they're doing to listen and figure out what we can do to help in a better way. if we want to save more lives and keep the u.s. the leader in medical innovation we have to acknowledge there is not a major gap between the science of cures and the way we regulate those therapies. that is our goal. we are taking a comprehensive look at accelerating cures from discovery of clues and basic science to streamlining the drug development process to unleashing the power of digital medicine and social media at the treatment delivery phase. bipartisan. one of the first things we did with leader eric cantor, who

tragically has lost the election but mccarthy, who filled his shoes is trying to do that. and steny hoyer, formerly the leader, now number two. also testified the first day at that first roundtable, very interested in making sure the democratic support is there, too, because our goal is to keep this a bipartisan way. know the cycle of discovery developme development and delivery is what sa saves lives. we want to work it faster and more efficiently so patients have better access to patients. needs to be collaborative which means our first step is listening to experts like i, so together we can keep america at the forefront of medicine and discovery.

we learned half of the venture capitalists have left the u.s. they're investing now overseas. we want to bring them back. we want that investment to be here. we have to maintain that leadership role in research and health care that not only produceses jobs but saves lives and so important in the '90s when henry waxman and i put together the democratic and republican authors to double the money for nih president clenton signed into law. we have been work virginia closely with the secretary of hhs, sylvia burwell, she participated, fully engaged, whether working with francis collins or margaret hanburg. we welcome their support as participants around the country,

working with researchers and innovators in the private sector working on research of cures, particularly our new colleagues to the committee that will be fully engaged in what we're trying to do. we want to continue to work well with you. in our committee, we have held four or five d.c.-based round tables in the last couple of months. we had eight committee hearings. francis collins around the country with us. michael mill kins has been wonderful, commissioner handburg, secretary burwell, and andy van erb n erbenback. all have them have been wonderful. we've done well in the south and this great town called kalamazoo, michigan. happens to be where my plane

will land a little later this morning. we've had a number of white papers. i would encourage you to go to our website on our committee, i want to say four or five extensive white papers generating ideas and thoughts. we want input how we can better utilize digital medicine and helping patients with diseases so we know how we can help. the basic framework pillars what we want to see our goals are these. five. keep patients at the ender of the decision-making process. two, modernize clinical trials. three, foster 21st century digital medicine by facilitating data sharing and the use of medical apps. encourage -- four, encourage young scientists to enter the research world, because the reduction, inflation and

everything else, younger scientists aren't getting into that queue, losing interest. we have to bring that back up. fifth is to incentivize new drugs and devices for unmet medical needs. those are five goals. we've seen most recent ly with the ebola outbreak there's a lot of work that needs to be done to develop ac vines and drugs for thousands of diseases. we have to have an ongoing collaborative effort and all hands on deck and we're going to need your help. we really are, because after we sit down in january, our goal is to then introduce legislation within a couple weeks. i'm a regular order guy which means i change the rules of our committee to encourage more bipartisan.

we've seen that happen. i'm delight that frank pallone is my ranking member. he and i have already had a couple of he was selected by th democratic caucus. and he actually told me, he said on the floor when i congratulated him earlier this week, he said, you actually helped me get this job. and, you know, their circle, our circle is the same/different. he said, because i was asked by my colleagues that were voting, can you work with fred upton? he said, absolutely i can. and then they came to you and said, can you work with frank pallone. and you confirmed what i told them. he said, i got a couple of votes that way. it was pretty close vote on their side of the aisle, if you watch that. but i'm anxious to work in a bipartisan way with frank and, obviously, diane as the lead dem sponsor there. but our goal is, again, have a

discussion draft by mid-january or so. not too late after that. then after we sit down with allen, introduce the bill. our idea is to move it through the committee before the end of march. and to have it on the floor before memorial day. we're reaching out to the senate. i had a great meeting with senator hatch yesterday. we've got more meetings scheduled the first week in december to line up bipartisan support over there as well and we expect to formally announced that when that happens. but we're going to need particularly the patient groups and all of the stakeholders we've been working with to really help us, because there are some -- there are some bumps out there. and we also know that the political season gets into high

energy particularly with 2016 right around the horizon. we want to get this bill enacted next year. that is our goal. and that means we're going to -- we need a big vote in the house to help with the senate. they've got different rules over there. be able to work out our differences. hopefully they won't be that many. i don't expect any real problems. but to get it to the president's desk before the end of next year. we have a website. and it's cures, c-u-r-e-s, cures@mail, as in the post office. cures@mail.house.gov. there's a link that will take you to our white papers we've done. it's for anyone watching, now on c-span, but many of our hearings have been held on c-span. obviously, this group in particular, we look forward to

that input, that constructive ideas. and we're very excited about what we're going to be able to do to change the process and save a lot of lives. the secondary effect is we're going to bring a lot of those jobs back to america. and that's not a bad thing. i think i can take a couple of questions before i run to the airport. yeah. >> two things. i failed to mention diane de get who is co-sponsoring the amendment. >> thank you. you can stay up here. >> i thank you so much, chairman upton. my name is nancy goodman. we worked on the pediatric priority review voucher, which as many of you may have heard a

pediatric review voucher just sold for $25 million this week. my question to you is about your concern and the priorities you have for drug development for children. even when drugs are developed for adults that could potentially benefit kids, pediatric drug development is often delayed by many, many years or may not get to kids at all if the drug is not appropriately efficacious on the adult side. >> you raise a very good point. one of the highlights we did earlier this year in this congress was passing a bipartisan pediatric research bill. lowest caps from california was very engaged in that. i was very involved. joe pitts, my chairman on the health subcommittee, eric can r cantor, others, we were able to get it done, signed by the president. i think it ought to be part of where we want to go. you know, that pulls on our

heart strings probably more than about any other group. your successful, $125 million in nontaxpayer dollars, right? yes, the answer's yes. i mean, that's outstanding. congratulations to you and what you all do. we want to work very closely with you to make sure that we're on the right page. >> good morning, chairman upton. my name is -- >> you can call me fred. that was this morning's first rule. >> fred. my name is josh summer, a survivor of a rare form of bone cancer and executive director of the cordoma foundation. my question relates to the role hipa plays in the research and development process. in addition to funding research, one of the things my foundation has done is convened patients at a series of conferences. we ask researchers, what are the

challenges you face and what can we do to help alleviate those challenges? one of the consistent themes that comes up is the impediment hipa poses to learning and advancing research. so, i wonder if given that patient centerness is one of the key tenets of your proposal, to what extent have you considered patient's desires to actually enable researchers to use their data and to learn from their experience adds opposed to simply protect their privacy. >> this is -- i don't to want call it delicate. but it is something that we -- firsthand we know. your story is not unusually my gegs is if we had a chance to have a longer conversation, you would be among the many that say, use me. not only do i want to find a cure for myself, but i want to make sure there is not someone

down -- you know, we can prevent this to happening to somebody else down the road. is there a way that you can use my input in a much better way that hipa doesn't prohibit us from doing it. we're looking to have the right balance, you could say, and to perhaps make some changes. that will be something that we look forward to unveiling. i know that. so, we're out of session this week -- or next week, i should say. diana degett and myself are working together the first week we're back. we'll be looking at where we are so far as we begin to write up our draft but that's an element we'll be trying to consider. and, again, if you can include more numbers as a part of those trials and everything else, we are much better off. and, you know, to reducing the cost of what that ultimate cure

may be. by utilizing greater groups of folks. i look forward to your input on that. make sure you're tied in with ellen. of course, she'll have -- know here is her best friend, right, by the end of the afternoon. but we look forward to your thoughts on this, too. but we're very aware of that. as we try to keep patience at very center of the decision-making process, what is it that we can do that, perhaps, makes some changes that aren't too terribly controversial but move the ball down the field. thank you. some questions in back. >> michael sideler. excellent idea to incorporate incentivizing young scientists to stay in the field and not go

into other fields. the challenge for a young scientist, as we know, is the challenging level of early stage funding opportunities given the challenging budget climate. how to you recognize incentivizing these folks with the budget climate? >> a couple things. this is one of the issues michael milken -- michael had a major conference earlier this week up in new york that diane and i went to. as we did last year as well. first of all, we probably do -- and nih will agree with it, big time. we need more money for research. we're looking for a way to figure that out. with the budget constraints we have today. [ applause ] it is what it is. and i've always been a big supporter of the nih.

france's dr. collins has done some really good work with us, what would make their job easier. and i think find some more money. the second thing is, so i took our team -- so, i'm a wolverine, right? sorry for you all. i know we're playing maryland tomorrow. but i'm a lot better -- i'm a lot happier guy when we win than not. but i took our team to the university of michigan a couple weeks ago. we spent a whole day at the medical school looking at the research they're doing, and it was just outstanding. i can remember going there back in the '90s as well and talking to scientists who actually identified the breast cancer gene and cell. i mean, just blew people away in terms of what he was able to do. we've got to have those young -- you know, we've got to have those researchers in their low

30s to be part of this process. so, whether it's set aside, whatever it is, we're -- we're -- diane and i are very aware of that. i think you'll see some changes to really encourage that younger researcher to be involved and stay involved, rather than looking at the -- just the folks who had been get, two or three grants and they're now in their 60s, whatever. that will be part and parcel of this, too. you know, the other -- some of the other ideas that we're kicking around, and michael mill k milken was talking about this earlier in the week, what can we do -- student loans, they're so high. is there some way if they participate in something, you know, can be some way for forgiveness or -- so, you know, a lot of ideas that are out there that we're going to take a look at.

you can see all of this at c-span.org. we'll leave the last few minutes and take you live to the cato institute in washington. senior fellow walter olson. panelists will look at a supreme court case dealing with gay rights became a turning point in first amendment speech. just getting started. live coverage here on c-span3. >> individual liberties and peace. we have a very active program called the center for constitutional studies, which looks especially at the supreme court and the direction of individual liberties in american juris prudence. and it was through the work of the center for constitutional studies that i first came to realize just how interconnected issues of individual liberties and civil liberties are. if you read cato's wonderful annual supreme court review, for

example, a scholarly work that has been coming out for a couple of decades, you find the connections, connections between equal protection law and the right to keep and bear arms. connection between surveillance and search and seizure. and some of the connections we'll be talking about today. connections where in a 1930's case on the right of patients to select private education for their children. turns out a few decades later to strengthen and support completely different rights having to do with family life. and one of the things i concluded from this supreme court juris prudence on individual liberties needs to be taken away from the red versus blue/left versus right matrix. when you have an important decision about individual rights, usually one side likes it better than the other and within 20 to 30 years they're discovering the other side has reasons to like it, too, and begin citing it. individual liberty is an inheritance we all wind up using in this country.

now, we have a panel on a little known case from 1956 from the supreme court that ought to be much better known. to discuss that i will introduce all three speakers before any of them gets a chance to speak. lisa l nichlt sky is a partner in the new york office of mcdermott will and emery. she litigates cases in product liability, civil rights and many other cases. she's also the partner in charge of firmwide diversity. and has won a number of awards in that area, including the new york city bar association's arthur leonard award. previously she was in the westminster district attorney's office where she was, among other things, chief of child abuse and sex crimes bure rue. speaking second is bob corn-revere a partner in the office of davis wright tremaine,

an adjust scholar at cato institute. he was chief counsel to chairman of the federal communications issue. he's an expert on broadcasting law as well. he's been honored by the american library association through its office of international freedom -- inte will he tuk freedom and freedom to read foundation. finally we'll hear from jonathan rauch whose article in the washington post i recommend to you all. got me interested in this subject earlier this year, about the one, inc case. his writing in about every periodical you can think of. over the years his highly acclaimed books include two of special interest today, "gay marriage why it's good for straights and good for america" and his earlier book reissued under cato auspices "kindly

inqui inquist quiz tore" some say the best modern book on why we need free speech. let me introduce lisa linsky. >> good afternoon. oh, yes, if you would turn off all of your cell phones so we don't have any interruptions during today's program. thank you the madashine society of los angeles formed in 1951. by the way, not to be confused with the society of d.c. this was a nonprofit organization and it was formed to, among other things, educate the public about the scientific, the historic and the critical points of sexual variance. in other words, homosexuality. one of the things that the madachine society chose to do was public a magazine and that

magazine was first published in 1952. it was called "one," the homosexual magazine. now, "one w" was an attempt to open the eyes of the public at a time when homosexuality, any kind of sexual dooef yens, wasn't discussed. it was altruistic in purpose. it was bold. it was evolved. but we can't start a discussion of one magazine and the madachin society and the case of one v.olesen, without stepping back, without going back and taking a historical perspective on what was going on in this country in the 1950s. so, i'm going to start there. the 1950s. some of you in this room are way too young to know anything about

the 1950s. the era of "leave it to beaver" and "the donna reed" show, post world war ii when there was in this country an innocence, a belief, a value system based on the american family. the '50s were also a decade that saw growing tension and competition between the united states and the former soviet union. an intensification, if you will, of the cold war. a struggle between capitalism and communism that preoccupied the american government. for the federal government in this country, the '50s was a time of extreme paranoia, extreme political pichl. it's been referred to as a second red square. a time of government officials, senator mccarthy, fbi director himself jay edgar hoover,

embarked on an anti-communist crusade that encompassed gays and lesbians. it was in 1954 that the postmaster of los angeles declared a ban on the mailability of "one" magazine. the first serious gay magazine of ideas. not pornography and not obscenity. the postmaster's ban came on the heels of president dwight eisenhower's executive order 104.50 in april of 1953. the executive order declared homosexuals -- by the way, it didn't use the word homosexuals. the order used the word sexual perverts, but it declared sexual perversion a national security risk based solely on sexual orientation. and effectively banned gays and lesbians from employment with the federal government.

what we see from the documents that i'm about to show you is a ferocity with which hoover and his cohorts brought the full weight of their authority and the authority of the bureau, the fbi, to bear on anyone who dared out him. these documents that i'm about to show you demonstrate that hoover was willing to bring all of his government authority and then some to interrogate, intimidate, threaten and punish anyone who dared to suggest that he or anyone else in the federal government, particularly the fbi, might be gay. when one magazine had the audacity to run an article suggesting there were homosexuals in the fbi, this man wore on the magazine. so, let's take a look at what the mattachine society of d.c.,

mcdermott will and emery, legal pro bono, discovered. this first slide is dated march of 1952. it was an fbi memo to the director, the director being hoover himself. and the subject was a gentleman by the name of john markanik who worked for the national labor relations board. at the time of this memo, when he was investigated, he had worked for the nlrb for 11 years. what was mr. his crime that spurred an fbi investigation into his life? he was at a dance with his wife. at his table was a gentleman by the name of mr. terry. mr. terry work the at a local bakery. what is significant about this bakery? well, it happened to be across the street from the justice department.

the eyes and ears in a bakery. and what happened is mr mr. markanik made an off-the-cuff remark and said to mr. terry, so, isn't it -- is it true that mr. hoover is a queer? with that the informant, mr. terry, reported this to the fbi. and the next thing we learn is that mr. markanik was the subject of an fbi investigation. now, there are a lot of sections to this memo. i wanted to highlight a few of them for you. note the bullying that went on for anyone who dared mention something like this, something so inflammatory, something so baseless. that was a joke. in talking about the

interrogati interrogation, the fbi agent said he was subjected to vigorous interrogation in which he appeared to be badly frightened. in the next paragraph below,there right over here, basically mr. markinik gets down on his knees and apologizes for making such a foundless comment about the director of the fbi and gives his assurance that this will never again happen. he will never open his mouth and say something about the director or anyone else in the federal government who may be gay. by the way, while the agents questioned him, they asked if he himself was a pervert. takes one to know one? in any event, as the agents reported to director hoover, markini kichlt can been set straight and will not engage in this type of gossip in the future. now, i want to bring your

attention to the handwritten note down here at the bottom of this document. basically what the note says is, let's report markinik to his employer, to the national labor relations board so that they know about his activities. that note, by the way, was signed, and you can't see it there, but trust me, that's clyde toleson, associate director of the fbi and most recently known as hoover's companion. the "yes" was mr. hoover himself let's fast forward. by the way, this was 1952 so this was around the same time that one magazine issued its first edition in 1952. i'm sorry, i can't see that. that was a joke, too. so, now, let's look at these next few documents dealing with

senator alexander wily from wisconsin. now, senator wily happened to pay a visit in april of 1952 to new york city. when he was in new york city, he walked by a news stand and he saw a publication called "one," publish the for and by homosexuals. and he was appalled. dumbfounded, actually, was the word he used, when he realized that such a magazine was being out for public sale, but also it was being sent through the u.s. mails. he took it upon himself, he became a crusader, if you will, and decided to write to the postmaster general, mr mr. somerfeld about the use of the mail to disseminate such trash. this is a document from the u.s. senate attached to -- by the way, sent to a member of the

fbi. a copy of the magazine as well as the letter that was written by senator wily to postmaster general somerfeld. i want to direct your attention to this paragraph right here where he says, senator wily, the purpose of my letter is to convey the most vigorous protest against the use of the united states mails to transmit a so-called magazine devoted to the advancement of sexual perversion. if you look although the next page, he appeals to summerfield's keen sense of moral to give this matter his very prompt attention. indeed, that is what happened because some six months later, after the summerfield letter by wily, what happened? it was october of 1954, 60 impreergz this year, that the october 1954 edition of "one"

was banned from mailability by the los angeles postmaster, otto olesen, thus infringing on the protected amendment of mattachine society and "one" magazine. we have documents which demonstrate the government conspiracy that was brought to bear against this tiny publication. this tiny publication that was not about obscenity but, rather, about the federal government's attempt to silence an emerging gay subculture. a new movement in our country. let me quickly flash through because my timekeepers keep sending me these messages. i told him i wasn't going to stick to the time. about some of these documents. this one in particular from january of 1956, so this was a coup years later. this shows the fbi's

investigation of "one" magazine and the fbi looking into the mattachine society, a homosexual group in l.a. in 1953 you'll see here that the bureau opened an investigation on the mattachine society because of the possibility that the group was communist controlled or infiltrated. by the way, a closing report was later submitted because they couldn't find any evidence of subversion by the mattachine society. what i want to point your attention to is, again, this handwritten note here. i think we should take this crowd on, meaning the homosexuals, the mattachine society, "one" magazine, make them put up or shut up. the comment, i concur by mr. hoover. and what did they do? they brought in lambert, the

chair of the one, inc, board and they accused him of having written the article in which members of the fbi were accused of being gay. what did they say about mr. lambert? mr. lambert is strictly no good and he -- they talked about the mattachine society as well and said they were all no good. this next document from february of 1956 confirms the january on that 1956 document i showed you a moment ago was, in fact, from mr. toleson, i think we should take this crowd on, and the director himself, mr. hoover, i concur. this shows how they close the mattachine society because there was no evidence of any communist infiltration. the last slide i want to show you that has some historic value is this one dated march of 1956.

what's significant about this particular document is that mr. hoover himself wrote to doj, the department of justice, to assistant attorney general warren alney and he said, look, here's a copy of "one" magazine. oh, by the way, here's the october 1954 copy of the magazine. look at it. tell us, is this obscene? so, for the director of the fbi to get down in the weeds and try to influence the mailability of "one" magazine really tells you the extent to which the federal government was hell-bent on making sure that home sexuals did not have the exercise of free speech in this publication. they would not be able to read about homosexuality. what's more, the federal government made sure that the public would not be educated

about homosexuals and homosexuality. these next few documents, i'm going to show them to you real quickly, these are responses from some of the foia requests that the mattachine society of the district of d.c. and mcdermott law firm have worked on in an effort to get documents, historic documents, that we believe the postal service has either destroyed or is not being forthcoming with. as a result, we see that the postal service in response to our foia request said things like, hey, that was a long time ago. that was 61 years ago. we don't know where these documents are. and then when we went back and appealed this decision, which we frankly felt was a denial of our foia request, they came back again and said, sorry, we don't have them. in august we subsequently learn that the national archives did a

search for documents pertaining to "one." guess what? they didn't find postal service documents but they did find 250 pages of doj documents. what does this mean? it means they're out there. it means we have to get our hands on them. and it means that the mattachine society of d.c. is not going to stop until we do. let me very, very quickly -- this is something i hope we discuss after my esteemed colleagues give you their opening remarks, let me talk to you briefly about why we're doing this work. you know, some people have said, well, this is interesting. but it was a long time ago. it doesn't matter. we're on to different issues, marriage equality, parents ride, enda, we have to get enda passed. to that i say to you, ladies and gentlemen, the work of the mattachine society is a testament to history itself. it's a testament to uncovering

deleted histories of lbgt americans. it's a way of give voice to individuals who didn't have the ability to stand up for themselves. dr. pete who was fired from his job with the federal government in 1957 just about the same time that eric juhlberg filed his writ for certar with the supreme court. he was never able to get another paying job for the rest of his career but kept founding and was one of the founders of the mattachine society of d.c. so, there are a lot of reasons why the work we're doing is particularly relevant. educational, accountability and evidentiary. for those who followed the windsor case and the perry case, you may recall that justice roberts, the chief justice, made a remark in his dissent. i believe it was in the windsor

case, and he said that there were snippets of history, snippets. and snippets do not add up to anamous and discrimination and big e bigotry. i'm here to tell you as as partner of mcdermott, and that these are not snippets. we are uncovering critical evidence that show a very lengthy and robust paper trail of anamous and discrimination by the federal government to lbgt americans going as far back as the 1940s and the 1950s. so, with that i'm going to stop. thank you for the courtesy. and turn it over to my colleagues. >> i'm going to step down for a moment to change from one powerpoint presentation to the other. thinking as i do about how lucky

we are to no longer live under an american government capable of retaliating against its political critics through the use of law enforcement. we sure got them with that one, didn't we? i think it's all set up. >> thanks, walter, for the invitation to speak. lisa, it's very nice to meet you. jonathan, to join you, this panel for these issues. i have to say, i find this history of the fbi particularly fascinating. particularly since this is the agency that devoted about two years and the resources of a number of field offices from around the country. to determine whether or not the

song "louis louis" is unseen. it's where two american traditions come together. a tradition of discrimination against homosexuals and a tradition of censorship. i first learned of this case not that long ago when i read jonathan's blog entry about how this was the 60th an verse of one, inc versus olesen. i was surprised i hadn't heard about and then was gratified the issue that was determined to be unmailable and censored the month i was born. i thought, all right, i better look into this. what i find is an interesting recurring theme, though. lisa mentioned it and i saw it in jonathan's blog entry, was the idea that younger people, and maybe there are a few of you out there that weren't around in the 1950s, not that many, but a few. and jonathan wrote, it would be hard for anyone under 40 to understand what life was like

for gay americans a couple of generations ago. i find the same is true of people when we talk about censorship. people have no idea how pervasive it was and infected all aspects of american culture. for example, radio was subject to a great deal of censorship. in fact, all media were. people have an awareness that radio and television are subject to censorship today because we still have an fcc that is busy at work. but it used to be even more active. for example, in 1938 the fcc issued an admonition to nbc for an episode of a program with charlie mccarthy and mae west as a guest star. they were doing a skit as adam and eve. they said there wasn't anything proper about the language but it

was the intoe nations by mae west. so, that was the subject of enforcement. everyone is familiar with george carlin, the seven dwrirt words. there was also pervasiveness of censorship of movies. this happened for a variety of different reasons. in world war i, for example, under the espionage act, the film "spirit of 76" actually the produce was was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for making this movie about the american revolution because it showed british soldiers committing atrocities during the american revolution. this was seen as damaging to the war effort when the british were our allies in 1917. of course, sex was a subject of censorship as well. this continued throughout the history of cinema. it wasn't until 1952 the supreme court decided cinema was entitled to the same first amendment protections as other media.

and it wasn't until 1965 the state that rewoo review films in advance. as a matter of fact, the last censorship board that existed in dallas continued to exist until 1993. poetry was the subject of cen r censorsh censorship. alan ginsberg "howl" was subject so obscenities in 1957. fortunately, lawrence getty who published the film was found to be not guilty of obscenity. ironically, 50 years later you could still not read "howl" on the radio because of fcc regulations. comingdy subject to censorship. our friend lenny bruce who was arrested and prosecuted all over the country, in san francisco, los angeles, chicago and new

york. four of the bluest cities and bluest states in america but in the late '50s and 1960s his act was beyond the pail. he was convicted in chicago and new york. in chicago the convictions was overturned on appeal and new york it wasn't because lenny died of a morphine overdose before his appeal was perfected. but in 2003, governor pataki of new york issued a posthumous pardon for lenny bruce. of course, books have always been subject to senscensorship ranging from books about lesbianism, the well of loneliness to just straight sex with lady chatterly's lover. there's a long and, unfortunately, rich history of censorship of books in america and magazines. it's hard to imagine how pervasive tps. you've heard about some literary classics that were subject to celebrated cases but if you go back to the 1920s, for example, there was one magazine, a literary magazine, that was determined to be unmailable

because one article in the magazine used the word breasts. in 1928, customs officials and postal officials got together in a conference to determine which publications really shouldn't be either imported into the country or allowed to be mailed. they came with a list of 700 titles. that was 19 28g alone. now, the reason for all of this is because of a history of censorship that goes back to the 1970 says, thanks to anthony comstock. he was a driving force in the first regulation of obscenity. he was a former dry goods clerk who first became vigilante and then created the new york society for the suppression of vice. i don't know if you can make it out in the back of the room. it is a remarkable bit of work. it shows one man apprehending a

misgrant and another burning books. that is how the society for suppression of voois wanted to be known. act of sue expression of trade in and articulation of obscene articles of immoral use. now, this was a very broad law. anthony comstock was a pure pure tan. not only in mind and practice. he not only wrote the law he was a special agent of the post office to enforce it. he would actually make arrests. he would break down doors. this is in the day when they banned books. they didn't just prohibit them, they burned them and melted down the plates. you'll notice when you read the text of the law, it isn't just limited to obscenity as people think of it today. it also talks about prohibiting any intervention about prevention of contraception and any information about abortion. it was a very broad law. by the way, still on the books today.

this was a product of victorian morality. queen victoria in 1942. she looks okay. time wasn't very good to her. but it represents sort of the mind set of the times. and also the legal standard that was imported to the united states. this is a british case involving their 1857 obscenity law. but it basically said anything that was obscene was something that would tend to deprave or corrupt the minds who are open to such immoral influences and regardless of any merit of the work. a single passage in a single book to the most susceptible person was the standard for obscenity and that was the standard the united states adopted in the wake of the comstock law so it could be used to suppress anything involving -- anything involving sex.

this changed as american constitutional law began to develop. this is the landmark case roth versus united states decided in 1957. the time is critical for the issues we're discussing today. the case many people when they go to law school is one where supreme court held obscenity is not protected by the first amendment. it holds that but was also a transformation of obscenity law and one that was very speech protective. it would be like saying that "new york times" versus sullivan stands for the proposition that libel is not protected by the first amendment. it does stand for that but it sets a very high constitutional bar before you can punish someone for defamation. in the same way, roth versus united states was a revelation for obscenity in the united states. one thing before i even get into the test it established that i think is remarkable is to read this statement from justice brennan.

where he wrote that sex and obscenity is not synonymous. sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human life has indisputedly been used to absorb interest of mankind through the ages. it it's actually a very sex-positive attitude, even though it recognizes that there is still an area of law beyond the pail. it overruled the hicklin test that american courts have used before this time. it also said instead of looking at the most susceptible person, you look at the average person in the community to determine whether or not something could be considered obscene. you look at the work as a whole, not isolated passages. you also look at whether or not

you're dealing primarily with the parean interest, shameful and morbid interest in sex, and whether or not something is utterly without importance. a piece of work had to meet all of those elements before it could be declared obscene. by the way, the hiklin test is pretty much what the 401(k) uses for indecency rules but that's a different presentation. now, when this change happened in 1957, it was at a critical time for the olesen case, brings us back to today's topic. one versus olesen was decided by the ninth circuit in early 1957. this was a couple of months before the supreme court decided the roth decision. and in the olesen decision in the ninth circuit is expressly relied on the hicklin test. whether the tendency of the matter is used to deprave those minds.

exactly the test that was overruled in roth. so when one versus olesen comes back to the supreme court or reaches the supreme court in 1958, it really just took one line. the court reversed it without opinion and simply said the petition is granted, ninth circuit is reversed and cites roth versus united states. you really didn't have to say anything more. so, was this unique? well, not really because at this time you had a whole series of cases that were reaching the supreme court under the previous test that were effected by what was happening under the new standards. so between 1957 and 1968 there were 13 different obscenity cases that produced 55 separate opinions. needless to say, the court was having to figure out in this b nebulous area of the law they

had to figure out what obscenity means. and a range of departments. justices black and douglas thought the first amendment was absolute. justice potter stewart believed only hard core pornography should be prohibited. justice stewart was famous for his quote in 1964 when he said i may not be able to intel i goably define obscenity, but i know it when i see it. as it turns out, he didn't know it when he saw it later on because he agreed with, sadly, a minority of justices in 1974 that there really shouldn't be obscenity law anymore. justices brennan, the chief justice warren, also justices fortiss and goldberg believed materials short of hard core obscenity -- or pornography, could be banned but only so long as it had redeeming social value. brennan again later reconsidered his position along with justice stewart. and then finally, justice harlan believed the federal role should be limited to hard core pornography but the states could

be given a little more latitude. given this range of opinions on the court, they were facing a quandary when they had these opinions coming up after roth to decide what to do with the cases. in every case where at least five justices could agree, but they couldn't agree on the reason, they would simply reverse the decision below but not issue an opinion. and that's what happened in one versus olesen. you can see, too, between 1967 and 1971, there were 31 rever l reversals in obscenity cases without -- without opinion. here's a representative example of another landmark case that was decided without an obscenity opinion from the court. critically important in the history of free expression but, again, we don't have a supreme court decision to point to. grove press, henry miller's tropic of cancer which was first published in 1934 and there are had been attempts to either import it in the united states

and one attempt to publish it in 1940. this led to a prison sentence of three years for the publisher. finally in 1961 it was published by grove press, which led to 60 different obscenity cases in 21 states. again, all pre-roth, after the roth decision this was reversed without opinion in 1964. it was -- the opinion was actually issued on the same day as jackal bell is versus ohio and all the justices referred to their separate opinions saying, this is why we're reversing this case. highway did the court deal with the love that dare not speak its name. just because they didn't issue an opinion in one, inc, doesn't mean they didn't want to talk about the case. manual enterprises versus day in 1962. this involved the prosecution of three gay magazines, beefcake

magazines, one called manual, one called trim and this one called grecian gold pictorial. here again it was a post-roth decision where the court had a fragmented series of opinions. couldn't agree on a majority of opinion for the court. but justice harlan wrote the magazines in question, taken as a whole, applying the roth standard, cannot under any permissible constitutional standard be deemed to be beyond the pail of contemporary notions of rudimentary decency. even though you're talking about gay skin magazines, you have the court finally in 1962 saying, whatever else you might say about these magazines, they are not patently offensive. but probably couldn't resist adding, but they're not to my taste. so justice harlan also wrote our own independent examination of the magazines leads us to conclude that the most that can be said of them is that they are dismally unpleasant on truth and

taudry but that is not enough to make them obscene. so, that was one opinion on the court representing two of the justices. justices brennan, the chief justice, and i forget who the third was. took the opinion that the post office simply shouldn't have this power to declare magazines to be unmailable. so, that's sort of the underlying history of where these two traditions come together, both the restriction on gay rights as well as censorship. i think because we have recognized greater freedom for both, we have greater human liberty overall. even though we've attempted to use morality as an excuse to justice repression in the past. whether you're talking about speech or human relationships, freedom is really the true morality. [ applause ]

>> my job is easy today. as henry vii said to katherine vagagan, i won't be keeping you long. the folks in the audience today are an extraordinary group. i wish i could call out and introduce all of you. but i would like to dedicate my next five minutes of comments to two people who cannot be here today. one is frank camani. more about him in a bit. he decide in 2011. the other is a man named eric jolber, the attorney who took on the one versus olesen case in 1954, took it to the supreme court on behalf of "one" magazine. he was a heterosexual man. he turns out is alive and well. he's living in southern california. i think in a nursing home. is that right? and charles francis, who is here today, has gone out to speak to him and to thank him for his work on this case. so, when we think about this as ancient history, it's actually

not. the principle is alive and well. we may be in, as soon as this june be able to get a supreme court decision saying that same-sex marriage is a federal constitutional right. if that happens, it will be the most important gay rights case in history, but until it happens or unless it happens, there is no doubt in my mind that one versus olesen, from the point of view of gay americans, is the most important civil rights case that we've ever had. i would argue, it's the most important civil rights case you've never heard of, period, because no one knows about it. yet what happened in 1958 essentially put gay people on the path to freedom. all we had in 1954 when the

mattachine society of los angeles when they started publishing "one" magazine, all we had were our voices, no money, no votes, our people were deep in their closets. the powers of raid against us were mind-boggling huge, powerful and intense. you've heard two people show you just what was a raid against homosexual americans. like all minorities in that situation, in a majoratarian society, we had one and only one thing, our ideas. and the ability to transmit those ideas and our aiblt to step forward and freely proclaim those ideas admittedly at great personal risk. "one" magazine did so. it turns out to have been -- this blows my mind -- in the early '50s is published a case for gay marriage. unbelievable.

it also published an issue in which an article called, i think, safo revisited, a short story appeared. it attracted the attention of the postmaster who banned it from the mails. now in 1953, being banned from the mails meant you were totally silenced if you were a magazine. there were no internet. there were no fax machines. there was absolutely nothing you could do. you had been shut down. but an interesting point about that particular issue of "one" magazine that was banned by the l.a. postmaster was not safo remembered, the fiction inside which was declared obscene, it was the cover story. the cover article was called "you can't say that" and it was an article criticizing the united states government's censorship. i'm not making it up. it could not be more perfect. what the federal government was,

in fact, censoring was criticism of federal censorship. what could be more classic than that? the author of that article that was censored, by the way, was one eric jolbert. yes, the same. in the context of the '50s, in the context today of africa, of eastern europe, which my colleague has covered admirably. he's here today. we see again and again that the first thing you do to repress, repress, persecute and harass a society is silence it. you make it impossible for them to speak. then it is, of course, very easy to demonize us. that's precisely what was done in those years. that's true of all minorities. it's even more true for gay people. because the fundamental weapon used against homosexuals from time in memorial is what we called the closet. we were not harassed.

some of the time f we would agree to pretend we were straight and live completely out of public view. in other words, we lived a life of shame, denial and shadow. the only way out for gay people was to challenge the closet. that means by definition a few brave people come forward and that is what the "one" decision allowed. that one sentence from the supreme court, precurium, they should do more of that, in my opinion. that one sentence set us free. if you need confirmation of that, it so happens by one of these wonderful historic coincidences, that right at same time -- i think the same month, in fact, that the supreme court issued its decision in one v. olesen, another man named frank camani received the letter from the u.s. civil service commission announcing he had not

only been fired from his government job, but was banned from government employment. because he was a pervert. camani was unusual, unlike other people in that day, he was not intimidated. he appealed the decision through the federal bureaucracy. he lost. he then filed the first major gay rights brief before the u.s. supreme court. the supreme court denied cert. he went on to challenge the ban in his employment and other people's employment through congress. he became the first openly gay person to run for congress in 1970. he challenged, again, using words, his graid great weapon, he challenged the psychiatric ban on the psychiatric condemnation of home mow section actually as a disease of 1952. i could go on and on.

this man who did not live long enough to receive the formal apology from the u.s. government. remember frank specifically for a few words in his supreme court brief. this is 1961. he's representing himself because no one else would do it. and notice what he tells the supreme court in two crucial passages. he's arguing that his loss of employment on grounds of being a homosexual are unconstitutional. he doesn't in this passage talk about the 14th amendment, and, of course, there were no anti-discrimination laws and federal civil rights statutes on the books. what does he talk about? two quotations. in world war ii, he writes, petitioner did not hesitate to fight the germans with bullets

in order to help preserve his rights and freedoms and liberties and those of others. in 1960 it is ironically necessary that he fight the americans with words in order to preserve against a tyrannical government some of those same rights, freedoms, and liberties for himself and others. notice the key two words there, "with words." he knows its his weapon, he knows its his only weapon. he wields it very effectively, and what are the grounds, what is the fundamental denial of right that happened with this firing? is it his job, his livelihood, his income? it's all of those things, but frank goes somewhere that to me is unexpected and profound, something deeper. the commission's regulation as it stands is unconstitutional,

he tells the court, in that by establishing a tyranny over the mind of its citizen, it is inconsistent with and violates the provisions, stipulations, spirit, and intent of the first amendment to the federal constitution. i read that the first time, and i did a double take. establishing a tyranny over the mind. what frank is saying is this is not just about expression, and it's certainly not just about making a living. this is about whether we can be free as human beings to live our lives as who we really are and to be sovereign over our own minds, which, of course, also means over our own loves. as you can hear, i still get a bit choked up when i think about

what frank knew and understood, and i hate to think what would have happened if one v. olesen had gone the other way, if the supreme court had denied cert, if roth had not come down the year before. frankc camini would have been i jail for his advocacy and the people who came after him would have taken, what, another generation to get to where we are today? and the idea that i could now be married in the state of virginia recognized by the federal government and by the state of virginia to a man and that the supreme court will not only hear us today but may rule in our favor, this i believe all dates to that fateful decision in 1958, and that is why i am so happy to be here with this amazing group, not just those

who are here with me, but all of you and especially charles francis whose work has done so much to dig this up. i am so happy to be celebrating it with you today. this is a case, i believe, which after languishing for 60 years since its inception will never be forgotten again. thank you. [ applause ] >> we're moving now into general discussion, and you will all be coming up with excellent pointed questions, but while you think those up, let me, first, ask charles francis to stand up if he could, since he's been mentioned four or five times. [ applause [ applause ] the driving force behind the effort to redocument this case with thelp. i would like the panel to react if they'd like to each other presentations. lisa, why don't you start.

>> well, i was very moved to hear such a scholarly discussion of the standard, the obscenity standard, was informative and helpful because it does show how things change, even when we're at our most desperate and we think that our government and our courts are really not getting it, it is helpful to remember that things do change. it takes work, it takes advocacy, it takes unstoppable force like the mad sheen society of d.c. and charles and pate and so many others but we can make change happen, and as to jonathan's comments, they were lovely and he's right. this is a very -- one v. olesen is a significant case that, frankly, hasn't had its due. it hasn't had its place in history, and we're all very grateful to walter and to the

cato institute for shining a spotlight on this very important case and at this time when it's been 60 years since that postal service ban on the october 1954 edition of "one." >> bob? >> i'd just briefly add that it's fascinating to hear the broader perspectives of the history with the documents unearthed with freedom of information act requests, the context that jonathan brings to it as well. when you read cases, you often miss that important context because they focus on a slice of history. when you broaden out to see what else was going on at the time, it really gives you a better sense of what kind of social change is taking place. the only other thing i'd add at this point is a plug because jonathan was too modest to say anything, but if you have not gotten his book "kindly inquisitors," please do that, it is one of the best reads you

will have on free ex preparation iss issues and his presentation today was just a small slice of what you can expect. >> i have to disagree with bob. it is not one of the best things you will read. >> a few ground rules on the question and answer period. please raise your hand, wait for me to call on you. when i do, don't start in right away. wait for one of the helpful people who bring a microphone. that looks like the helpful person, and when you get the microphone, then go ahead and announce your name and affiliation if you feel like it. remember that we have a broadcast audience, so be clear and also be brief. make it a real question, rising inflection at the end. yes, in the back we have a question to start off. >> yes. my name is cami burt.

i write for the pakistani spectator, and my question is obama's rise to implement these values and tradition in foreign policy. given that gay lifestyle is very prevalent in indian army and pakistani army and in afghanistan as a society, it's very norm for guys who have social status to have two or three guys as dancer, even he has married with a woman. so we are fighting for these very values in afghanistan, so do you think obama has every right to devote more resources to bring these kind of reform or changes in afghanistan. thanks. >> i think jonathan may have written a little bit about the emphasis in american foreign policy to try to reach out on issues of persecuted minorities like this. do you have any particular comment on the overall program, which is controversial in eastern europe and other countries as well. >> i don't know the facts about the cases or countries you

describe. i know that secretary clinton working for president obama has been far and away the most aggressive advocate for same-sex rights and equality around the world, and that's something very new. it's really an amazingly recent change. until fairly recently the u.s. state department used to drum out people who were homosexuals. we've got some distance to go in our country, but, yes, the administration has changed postures, and i think it will make a difference. that said, one of the big surprises to me about gay marriage is the predicted backlash in the united states has been much smaller than one might have thought. on the other hand, a backlash has occurred overseas, africa, eastern europe, russia, and part of that is justified in the name of anti-colonialism and as resistance to an overweaning united states trying to impose its values on others. so we do have a lot of work to

do there overseas, and that i think is going to be one of the next big jobs of work, of civil rights activists here and elsewhere. >> more questions. rick, second row. >> rick sincere with gays and lesbians for individual liberty. this question is for miss lynns lynnski. one of the memos you showed said the fbi had finished an investigation in 1953 of the mad sheen society and found no security threat. does it say something about the competence of the fbi investigators that they didn't notice that harry hey and will gear and other members were, in fact, communists? >> i haven't come across that in any of our documents, but how about that? >>