they will lend a hand sposhgtsupporting hand. all of that there is not on the ground. no cam subpoena populated now. they all moved out of camps. they are living in populated areas. they have their own society so as to say. and a lot of terrorists coming from across the border and even from within the front here use the camps -- use these avenues to carry out terrorist activities in pakistan. it is going to take time. we'll have serious financial

problems taking them back. the agreement to let them remain in pakistan runs out in december 2015. the bottom line is that although we're concerned about the role of some of these camps which is being played as far as the security of pakistan is concerned, we are also conscious of the fact that we'll not do anything that can be an area of concern for the new afghan government. so we work with them to work out a time line and a schedule for the eventual repatriation. in the meantime, how do we handle them within pakistan after the registration is over. we then promised the government to sit with them and work out a mutually agreed timetable for the repatriation of the unregistered events in the first place and discuss the eventual withdraw of the idps and the

afghan refugees closer to december 2015. >> okay. finally, minister one specific question on the police. you see how to make the police do a better job. what can do you with the police per se? theret front line of terrorism control. >> well, as you rightly said it is a police -- if the police is able to somehow we're able to in the shortest possible term carry out an exercise of capacity strengthening, i think that will do wonders.

there was time, financing, training, the police in pakistan, as you know is not equipped or trained for counter-terrorism. it is for normal activity. the little help and support that was available internationally that thinldned out now. so we have now engaged the military and capacity building of the police. and the first force of the police which passed out just recently in punjab that was entirely supported by the military. so in the short term, we are getting their support not only in terms of training but also in recruiting some personnel from the military. all people who left the army and are now willing to join the police force. it is going to be a bit of

mixture of police and retired army officials. >> there is one last filing. there is some concern here and otherwise about international presence in pakistan. there is this new bill to regulate ngos. one other question is asked what is the pakistani state outlook towards ingos who are doing very good work in pakistan for a number of years. and whether there is going to be a lesser space perhaps for them to operator is this bill and the current sort of structure or the effort just to bring them into the mainstream because there seems to be some concern with this new sort of ngo bill and

sort of movement around it. there should be in concern on that score. the idea is to for the government to know which area particular ngo is operating. for it to be concerned for its oeb area of responsibility. and it is simply the idea is to bring about clarity in the system, no to the bring any kind of restriction on any ngo. >> minister, let me thank you. let me, before we end also invite our vice president andrew

whiler to present with you a momento momento. we wish you the very best luck. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you for braving the cold and for joining us and for those that joined online. also i want to take the time to thank the minister for joining us to day. there is a topic that we can talk about for quite a long time. but we have run out of time. small memory of your visit to usip more importantly pakistan's counter-terrorism challenge also signed by yousef we would like to present you for your visit here. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> the most memorable moment of this week is hearing senatory cory gardener at our lunch yesterday say you need to be firm in your principles but flexible in the details.

i think it really reflects like the solution like the harsh polarization we're seeing across our country and a methodology that if all the senators if all the congressmen and women and all the state legislatures can adopt, we can really come together as a country and solve many of our pertinent issues. >> my favorite quote came from julie adam. she said remember to be humble and have a strong work ethic because the people you meet on the way up you'll meet them on the way back down. >> i think in particular in congress itself oftentimes we have a lack of true statesmen. as much as i may disagree with him, john mccain did something impressive last year. he committed to the veterans affairs reform bill. in reading the senate torture report and maintaining how staying away from torture is essential to the character of our democracy, i think at the point where we have people who are willing to cross the aisle, who are willing to make these decisions with people who they may not often agree with that's

essentially what we need to maintain the security the integrity of our nation as we go on. >> high school students who generally rank academically in the top 1% of their states were in washington, d.c., as part of the united states senate uj program. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. coming up next, highlights from last month's cpac conference in washington. you'll see discussions on property broadening the conservative base and hear from joanie earnst and oliver north. >> what is an idea? advances in science, technology transportation, even entertainme in. entertainment.

what would happen if you couldn't own your own ideas? creativity itself would stop. the framers knew this. that's why in article i section viii they wrote to promote the progress of science and arts and giving authors right to their writings and discoveries. as john loch said the government is morally obliged to serve people mainly by protecting life, liberty and property. but what if the government no longer protects that property? it's your idea. your property. protect it. >> you built it. but do you own it? that's what this panel is going to discuss today. it's one of the most important questions pending before congress. proeb's pushing for massive changes to the way you use and interact with technology today. in fact as we speak and i

literally mean as we speak the federal communications commission is voting on president obama's neutrality proposal. what is an actual property? it's the invented ideas that people have a pat enlt on. but whether an author pens a work, they own that idea. they own that technology. so now congress has work to do on president obama's changes.

there is concerns about copyright review and about trade. some say that these protections harm innovation. others say that they are the engine that grows the economy. i have about three leading experts from the -- in the country today. adam mozof, co-director of the protection of property rights. i have mark shultz another co-director of the center and also professor at the university -- southern illinois university. and then maureen nohouse en one of the two strong conservetives at the federal trade commission. adam is going to start off by giving us some context on this issue. >> thank you. thank you. >> and i will -- so it used to be the case if you mentioned interlekt you'll property such as patents on new inventions and ideas or copy writes on creative works of art or writings very

few people would have been aware of this. but because of the digital revolution of the past couple decades, the great advances in biotechnology and medicine all of there is brought to us by the patent system, copy writes and trade secrets. people become much more aware of the issues and they become to take front and center. so you hear about issues now in newspapers. you read about them on the internet. that the patents are alleged to hold up innovation. people claim that there are these creatures known as patent troll who's have patent who's sue manufacturers, copyright and digital content books and music and movies is alleged to have stifle free speech or hold up creative develop. and new creative art. and so on and so on.

so the courts are considering wide-ranging limitations on patents and copy writes and other ip rights. they're seeking to weaken the property rights and make it easier for people to use other people's created inventions other people's created works of art and music. so as dan mentioned congress is considering legislation that will significantly weaken patents that very moment. they are considering to make changes to copyright to make more use of copyrighted works by the nonowners. and the courts, especially the supreme court have handed down a slew of cases, in fact the supreme court is deciding in particular patent cases but intellectual case mores generally at a rate that we have not seen since the late 19th century. and so it's very significant. there is a lot of political and

legal activity surrounding what are our rights today. that's important to remind ourselves what are property rights and why these are property rights that served a fundamental role in the smern experience that began over 200 years ago. we happen to forget this. many people don't remember that part of american exceptionalism part of the american revolution wasn't just the creation of a government that represented the rights of all individuals to their life liberty and property. but it also extended into all spheres of activities including intellectual property. thus the founders put interlekt you'll property into the constitution itself authorizing congress to enact the patent laws and copyright laws to secure to inventers and authors and other creators their valuable creations. they did so under the long

standing view of such great thinkers like john lock who endorsed could bey write, who encoursed inventions and recognized that these are the fruits of people's labors their intellectual labors and in fact these come from a source that is the source of everything, our minds. and thus is rooted not even in the tangible world but actually in the new ideas that people come up with. and thus the united states did something unique that was not done by any other country at that time. we took serious the idea that interleblgt -- intellectual property is a property right. so other countries at that time we protect the these not as special grants of privilege but as property rights. and the result as we all well know and we're living it to this very day was the explosive growth in the industrial revolution in the united states

founded on amazing innovation in the mechanic anized reaper the cotton gin the telephone, the light bulb, airplanes radios, lasers and today our computer technology itself. and so it's very important to remember that key to the united states' success both its free market, its innovation economy and to the very notion of what it means to secure property in america and to secure to everyone life, liberty and property that must include the protection of people's rights to the fruits of their labors and inventions and books that they have come up with. and as i said this is important to remember because today these very ideas are under attack. and they're under attack not just from the left. unfortunately, many people who are advocates for the free market and for limited

government have themselves become confused about what it means to secure intellectual property to inventers and authors and other creators. and they have -- and thus become -- they have begun to think that we must roll back these rights in some way shape or form. and, therefore, we must remind them that these are important these are strong protection of these property rights are key to the success of america's innovation, economy, growth of our jobs to the growth of all of the great technology and our computers and our medical treatment that we now experience today. that even 10 or 15 or 20 years ago was pure science fiction. and, yet, is brought us to by the great innovators who rely upon our pat enlt system and copyright system and will continue to do so hopefully in the future. thank you.

>> when i think we should or must protect intellectual property, i'm reminded of something president ronald reagan said when i was a young conservative in the 1980s. he said "freedom is right. freedom works." it wasn't the most famous quote or he has hundreds more he will owe consequent ones, but it stuck with me. because in those five words, freedom is right. freedom works. it summarizes the value of our conservative principles. our principles are right because they recognize the intrin jent value of every human life. people are endo youed by creator with rights life, liberty and property number human being is a means to the end of another. no human being's work should be taken or appropriated by another whether a government or another.

and our principles work. they work for the same reason they're right. they work because they recognize the intrin sick value of people. when we have individual liberty, we work harder to do -- to get the things we need, to support ourselves and our families. and in working harder, we innovate and create and benefit all society. and by the same principle, by the same understanding, property rights are essential because they are also rights. they insure thaefr individual can own the fruits of their labor. own and enjoy them and thus secure the things they need to support themselves and their families. but also to really live fulfilling lives, to have the means to live fulfilling lives. and not just that but true

freedom. government handouts and freedom are inkpapable. property rights give us the freedom to be truly independent. property rights work. and interlekt you'll property is the same. intellectual property is right. interlekt you'll property works. it is right because it's property like any other property. and it's most important ways. when we look at the work of a farmer who is plowing a field, who creates something out of nothing, they're much the same in these important ways as an inventor who creates a smart phone. they bring something out of nothing. and each needs and deserves to own the fruits of their labor, to support themselves and their family. to be truly economically independent. and this principle is the same

whether it comes to the architect who designs a building and the carpenter who works on it. the wedding photographer who takes photos and the baker who bakes the wedding cake, the animator who draws the movie and the movie theater owner who sells the tickets. in each case. they need and deserve their property rights. they need them to support their families and themselves. they need them to be truly free. and we can see in this way that intellectual property rights are right. and they work and speak support freedom in important ways. they support economic independence like any other property rights. what we have to -- we all value owning a home, for example. because of the independence it gives us. we value businesses having property rights. a business like hobby lobby or

chick fa-let can close on sunday because they make their own rules because they own the property. similarly, a filmmaker like clinlt east wood with make a movie, choose to make a movie about chris kyle "american sniper." he wouldn't get the opportunity to make that movie if he had to go to a government board and ask bureaucrats to fund it. instead, he has property rights and the free market gives him the opportunity to make that movie. finally, consider the importance of intellectual property rights in securing a free society. all property rights disperse and distribute power. the more people who own property, the more freedom there is distributed through a society. and this holds true just the same for intellectual property. copyright owners have the independence they need to choose to speak how they want and the economy opportunity to pursue

the right to speak and thus, the copyright has been called by the supreme court the engine of free expression. similarly, an inventor can walk their own path. inventors often are doubted before they're harolded. people can't believe that their inventions will work. irwin jacobs, the company that made the mobile telecommunications revolution pos ib was told his invention violated the laws of physics. well we all stand testament today using our phones that that's not true. but luckily, he didn't have to convince a board of scientists or government to fund his project. he had patents. and the patents gave him the property rights that secured the opportunity to build this invention that we all enjoy today. so remember interllectual

property rights are both right and they work. thank you. [ applause ] >> it's a pleasure to be speaking at cpac about the fight over ip rights that is going on right now in d.c. and all over the world. on one side of the debate, we have companies and some foreign governments, those are net buyers or licensees of ip looking to make ip cheaper for them to license to use in their products. on the other side of the debate, we have companies and small inventors that on balance focus their time and energy on idea development and patent licensing to make money. they, of course want enforceable property rights to justify all the risk and effort needed to create valuable new ideas. i agree with adam and mark that it's critical for america to

promote strong ip rights. to begin with, our belief in individual property rights sets us apart from so many other people around the world. as thomas jefferson wisely observed, the true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management. the fruit of your intellectual labor is individual property that should be as strongly protected from theft or trespass as your home. and that is true whether the trance gres trans gresor is the government or private party. but in addition to these reasons, as if we really needed more, as an ftc commissioner and as a republican, i also see this as a debate about competition policy and how to keep america prosperous in the years ahead. a modern economy needs both innovation and commercialization to promote widespread gains for

its citizens. now some tension exists between these two ingredients for a strong economy because coming up with valuable ideas requires investment and risk taking focused on future possibilities. some ideas or inventions will fail. while turning ideas into successful products requires capitalizing on already existing ideas. the trick is to balance one with the other. so that we can produce the products of today efficiently and at the same time invest in creating the products of tomorrow. both our competition and intellectual property laws play a role in balancing our goals for today and the others just over the horizon. our laws promote our economic goals for the near term with an eye in particular on producing efficiencies. we ensure level playing field by eliminating anti-competitive

conduct and help create incentives for businesses to enter and compete as efficiently and as aggressively as possible. this competition translates into lower prices and higher quality for consumers and can even yield long term gains by reinforcing the drive to innovate and beat competitors over time. as the supreme court wrote just yesterday, federal anti-trust law is the central safeguard for the nation's free market structures. in this regard it is as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free enterprise system as the bill of rights is to the protection of our funneleddamental personal freedoms. on the other hand, the intellectual property lies are designed for an eye to future competition in economic growth. the supreme court said our ip system is important to create an incentive to inventors to risk the often enormous kofltscosts in

terms of time, research and development. the effort fostered will have a positive effect on society through the interduction of new products an manufacture into the economy. in exchange for the reward for inventions, the patent laws require the inventors to disclose his or her idea so after their period of exclusivist requires, the knowledge of the invention goes to the people who are thus enabled without restriction to practice it and profit by its use. combining strong ip rights with smart competition enforcement can promote a strong economy with both innovation and commercialization. let me close by noting that there is an international dimension to all of this that people should keep in mind. many countries are far behind the united states in terms of developing valuable intellectual property. this is especially true of

countries with emerging economies that are oriented to manufacturing and exports like china. these countries are actively evaluating how to treat ip rights and importantly ip rights and importantly some of these nations are focused on how to reduce the control by american firms of ip that serves input into the goods made in those overseas markets. this emerging markets have the most to gain from efforts in america to weaken intellectual property rights. as it will offer their governments cover to minimize ip protections, lower the costs of goods for their domestic companies. and reduce payments to potential competitors and ip owners here in the u.s. i think that people should keep that in mind the next time they consider devaluing patents here, as that action may have unintended consequences globally. thank you. [ applause ]

for some of you who have just joined us or are joining us this is about intellectual property. it's the stuff that makes up the things that we use every day and our three panelists have made interesting comments much. i own a house and if somebody wants to come into my house and i don't want them to i can call the police and say, please take this individual off my property this person does not have my permission. i know that with intellectual property, people can hire a lawyer. and there's been some discussion about something called a patent troll. what -- when is it appropriate for somebody to hire a lawyer to say please protect my property

and when is that lawyer merely a troll feeding off the lives of others? >> that's a great question you hear this phrase used a lot today, in discussions about patents and patent innovation. one of the real problems with this term is that its not really defined in anyway shape or form. and by the way, there's an interesting correlation here in the same way that you often heard about robber barons at the turn of the 20th century with the rise of the importance of the industrial property. we now have a new term to attack the creators and owners of intellectual property patent innovation, being used to drive legislation and regulations. and this term is basically used to protect a patent, who brings a lawsuit against someone who infringes their patent innovation, it's been use edd with

charles goodyear, nicola tesla. >> what do you mean used? >> the term is use edd. >> they would be included. yes. and it's part of a rhetorical push to try to weaken patents. because when people infringe your property rights, just like you have to call a policeman to defend your home you have to contact a lawyer to bring a lawsuit to stop them. the same way your ability to use your home is your ability to kick people off if you don't want them in your home. >> there's a definition of patent troll anyone who's sueing

me for patent infringement is a patent troll that's the most sure fire way to define it, we have to keep in mind that this legislation that limits access the access of inventors and patent owners to the courtroom hurts the little guys, not the big guys. they can overcome those obstacles, big companies, they have the money to enforce their rights. it's the little -- the garage inventors, the little guys who can't afford to enforce their rights, and that's why some big companies are behind this bush because they know it will make it easier for them to do business because it will make the input of their businesses cheaper, they don't have to innovate, they can take others innovations and not worry about those little guys suing them. >> as in so many issues, there's a colonel of truth being raised. there's a very small number of entities, law firms, who have

tried to blanket small businesses mom-and-pop coffee shops with false claims that they were infringing some kind of patent. i think the question there is, to look at that type of firm and address it directly the ftc is actually sued a patent assertion entity that sent out abusive and demand letters with small businesses. we reached a settlement with them. >> when you say the ftc, that's the federal trade commission. >> we're on a commissioner. that's something where we already have the tools on hand to address that abusive behavior. >> maureen's comments are very well made it's exactly the point, there's always a colonel of truth, which is used to leverage the rhetoric that's always used to weaken property rights. the grumpy old man who owns his home, who terrorizes people in the neighborhood. we don't decide, we're going to weaken everyone's property rights in the entire country because there's a particular

individual who's being abusive with respect to his property rights and his land, and yet that's exactly what they're doing with respect to the patent system. >> you made a very interesting comment that the more people who own property, the more freedom there is in society. some property is you know, the thought process of the writer who writes a novel, a good script, what if i want to see batman fighting a marvel character. how can i make that happen if there are certain copyrights that prevent that. >> they say they need to use other's expressions to express themselves, here's the thing, we need to understand, when we talk

about, we're worried about patent litigation. we're worried about copyright lawsuits talking about a small part of the intellectual property system. you invite your friends over to your house every day. people go. you're part of a congregation the congregation owns a church, you worship there every sunday. that's what property rights are for. they enable us to cooperate and enjoy our property. every once in a while we have to go to court to defend them. if somebody wants to see spiderman team up with batman. those two companies can get together and make a deal. and it's happened many times before as a kid i collected those comments. that kind of private cooperation happens. people want to use the property rights. not stop other people from enjoying them. >> look, i want to tease out two interesting things here, that

i -- on one hand people deserve the right to own the fruits of their labor, i heard that from all three of you, the fruits of your labor. which i think was john lock who wrote it you put your hand to. that becomes yours. something to that effect. yet at the same time, we want everybody to have access to the benefit that's created by these inventions. how do we strike that balance? well, the commercial market is what enables that access. we all know this right? the reason a free economy gives us so much choice is because of that freedom. because there are many different products from which to choose. that's what facilitates action, access, that's what gets people to create new drugs, to write new songs and new books.

that's how you get access to the great products of intellectual labor by giving people freedom and property rights. >> property rights are the foundation of a flourishing, healthy free market. property rights. and what is it -- what does property make possible? cooperation. consensual exchanges in the marketplace, this is what people don't see. we hear about the losses apple versus samsung. what you don't hear about are the billions of dollars that exchanges hands daily between inventors, small companies and large companies with the deals they're entering into to bring products and services to the marketplace. this is why james madison said that copyrights and patents where private claims coincide fully with the public good history has proven that again and again and again.

>> looking to a competitive market, some property owners may choose to share their intellectual property freely. and some may choose to do it through some kind of license for money, and some may do it for ways where they -- it's an agreement to share intellectual property across companies. my view is, i shouldn't be picking favorites among those business models. that's something for the market to decide. the market will decide who's the winner and loser, there can be a wide variety of business models that all thrive. >> i know we need to wrap up it's clear this is a very important topic. what can people do that are concerned about this issue. >> get involved, become aware of the actual truth and facts. let your congressperson's know, especially republicans, do not weaken property rights. the foundations of our free market and innovation and economy.