and they try to emphasize this was going to be a large-scale government effort, multi- billions of dollars. what they discovered a state driven r&d is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp and military intelligence. that is not how it happens. they were failing in some key sectors. the only place they could turn if they could not squeeze that out of the multinationals by forcing them to build r&d labs in china, if they could not squeeze the tech transfer out the companies competing for market share and being increasingly forced by regulatory ministries that were partnered with those national champion companies to squeeze that technology transfer out, the remaining option that they had frankly was to steal it. and unlike 20 years earlier

where you would have had to physically steal it from a plant, you would have had to smuggle the blueprint out of a shop, you would have had to take apart and run out of the door, unfortunately our move toward connectivity and putting all of this information online allowed them to steal that at great distances. that would not have been true in a pre-internet era. of unfortunately now a lot companies for a lot of reasonable reasons have been putting the information online and unfortunately it made it all that much easier for people to steal it from particularly china. >> senator, talk about your experience and year -- in your report and give us thought, including senator levin's legislation, what should we be doing in this body and house of representatives? quite correctly when he said we are half blind at least in determining how much it really is and what is going on. because lots of companies either

see no point in saying that they have been stolen from or think it would make it worse or lose what markets they have in china. the firstd say one of things that you want to do is to see to it that there is one department, one office in the united states of that is in charge of finding out the total scope of the problem. all of the various elements the doctor has spoken about. so that you, as policymakers, know how big the problem is. they say we have given you a conservative estimate. i think that estimate is low. but to a certain extent, i am just guessing on that. we need to know what is going on, and no one is really in charge of this at the present time. but from the point of view of the cure is, again, as i think senator levin has at the height of his bill, the cure has

been in creating internal lobbyists in china for obeying the law. there has got to be a group there tuesday we will be better off -- to say we will be better off if follow a fair set of roles than we are now. there is no one is as it now, because it simply is not true stealing our intellectual property is very largely risk- free. but tying up the u.s. market, which is so important to them, and one respect or another, will be very, very important in creating a group in china that will say, yes, rather than simply smile and nod their heads and go ahead down the same road. a new problem. we were concerned about this a decade ago and more than a decade ago. the chinese economy has

changed from its desires have changed, and it is becoming worse, not at her. senator gorton, is cyber threat greater to national or economic security? --i would refer to dr. -- to the doctor on that. it is a major threat to cybersecurity. and the solutions senator levin suggested only indirectly get at that. how you value in dollar the loss of intellectual property important to our national defense is not easy to determine. the degree to which you can punish them directly on that is hard to determine. thatt one level, at least, is the most important challenge, the challenge for our national security. but the challenge that may have cost us 2 million jobs or more is a major, major challenges

something we should be attempting to cure right now. , would you like to comment on that? you can'tt think assemble the two. they are inextricably linked. the chinese see them as inextricably linked. any decline in the technological competitiveness has an automatic -- in decline the national security. a decline in national security with respect to the chinese impacts our ability to enforce fairness on the chinese side with regards to economic competitiveness. to me, they are pieces of a part. the chinese themselves right about the own comprehensive national power in a way that does not even make a distinction between the two. so again, talking to senior chinese leaders about the impact of economic development, they will automatically see the connection to their own national security and the defense of their own country as we should as well. i do not think anything is to be gained by separating the issues. in fact, i think we have a

greater power to influence them by connecting them together and not allowing them to be treated separately. >> congressman pittenger? >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. mulvenon if we look at the collaborative agents of nongovernment -- with government agencies to address this, how we doing? dhs, u.s. trade representative kirk, and others? anyway we can improve that? >> we have some very important and difficult seems in the system that continue to bedevil the way we do things. other countries that did not have are particular legal and bureaucratic system frankly have an advantage. but the struggle between, for instance, domestic cybersecurity under dhs and where the boundary line is between that and foreign cybersecurity with respect to to bena continues friction. i have read multiple internal chinese military sources in which they talk about exploiting those seams come exploiting

those traditional -- jurisdictional issues. as early as 1996, internal chinese military sources were talking about how they wanted to delay or disrupt our logistics deployment to a taiwan disrupting the pentagon's unclassified logistics computer systems. but they said quite poignantly they would initiate the attack from within the continental united states, knowing that that would activate a different bureaucracy, namely the fbi, and not the nsa and other people who would see it as foreign intelligence operation. and within that window of us frankly been screwed up and not knowing what is going on, they would be able to seize the strategic advantage. i don't think we are doing well on that front in particular and i think our adversaries are very well of it. -- iven that understanding am not trying to get you out of your box in terms of your focus,

but how would you remedy that? honest, at many levels it is an indemnification issue. there's a lot of countries around the world that believe that there is sovereignty in cyberspace. in other words, the nations have boundaries and those boundaries can be protected. we alone have been arguing with four -- for sort of it internet freedom model that is sort of boundary-less but chinese, russians, they are talking more about sovereignty. they are more west alien than we are. at the end of the day, we have to recognize the fact that our best assets for defending the country on the cyber side are the ones that are precluded from operating within the domestic united states. realize, this may not be the best time to raise that issue, given the news of the day. haveltimately we want to our best capabilities in terms of defending the nation.

and those capabilities often reside with organizations within the u.s. system that are not currently authorized to fully exercise those within the united states. the only way it will get solved is to give people top -- cover in the title 10 or 50 level that does not sever -- currently exist. >> senator gorton? >> thank you for your tremendous perception. you believe, as i do, in free and fair markets. other realistic -- are there realistic market leverages we have remaining today to try to stop the chinese from the sydney what we believe is cheating and continued theft of intellectual property? >> the leverage we have is our market. fromrchase far more chinese sources than they purchase from us. that is a tremendous leverage, and in my view, the highest leverage we have. and by threatening that market

in a straightforward fashion, we will at least get them to begin to hear about what our concerns are and have to respond to them. american companies don't want to be public as much recipientout then the -- as the recipient of cyber -- what role do they have in protecting themselves? >> they have a tremendous role in protecting themselves. i think many of the reasons many of them are reluctant to talk publicly about it is they don't think anything is going to get done in any event. if we sell the government we are series about the question, i think we will get more cooperation from the private sector. >> do you-private partnership that? course. the fundamental defense of the united states is a public responsibility. obviously, every company wants to protect its its own intellectual property and its market. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

wanted to gou ahead and make a comment on that last question. >> i think frankly this body has an important role to play, because in the absence of strong government intervention on this issue. i am sure many of you have seen the rise of certain companies that are advertising as part of their services that they themselves will engage in aggressive defensive measures and michel we say, or even hack back in the perception that government is not doing anything to help. when i testified before the hudson-blair commission we had a lengthy discussion about some of the outdated features of the 1986 computer fraud and abuse act, and the fact that frankly many companies right now are looking to congress for -- and frankly, the department of justice -- as to where the legal boundaries are on this issues about hacked back and being able to aggressively going after you own intellectual property.

old.act is 20 seven years i believe many features of that are outdated and have been overdone by technology, and i think it really needs to be revisited. ed was certainly one of the most interesting debates we had in the commission hearing that i testified at. commission,k on the i think, senator, your comments were that this would get us down the road, but it will not get us all the way. i may be paraphrasing. doesn'tdown the road get us? is this a marathon of which we have gone one-mile? or are we doing a half marathon? i need to realize how far down the road we are going. marathon in which we're still in the starting line. >> if all of your recommendations are implemented. >> i do not think you can quantify that, except i think it will be significant. it will be significant to exactly the extent we have begun to create within china itself an

interest group that is in favor of the protection of intellectual -- >> how do we do that? how do we create within china, this interest or respect for the rule of law? because we see that in so many areas where there is not that. how do we do that? >> by threatening the profitability of those chinese -- that sell large amounts of their goods and products of the united states. >> you use the word threatened. , so let mer bluff ask you this. when does threaten and when does consequences to action -- because too many times we threaten without a resolve. and i guess what i am asking -- not threateno unless you are willing to carry it out. saying, to have real consequences we are committed to regardless of the circumstances of implementing? would you agree with that, dr.? >> i would say as a matter of

principle, china and the chinese economy and government will respect intellectually -- intellectual property when they have their own intellectual property to defend it when it the real dilemmas we have, talking about patent -- real popular these days. i see a tremendous upswing in patent trolling in china. chinese doing patterns of things registered with their own pto and then attempting to sue or coworkers american government in china saying they have the chinese patent for something that is clearly one of our patents. going in thee right direction, just not quickly enough in terms of china's own intellectual property development and his own desire for protection. in my view on the cyber side in particular, what i have been is ang for internally focus on identifying a specific number of companies and frankly a number of civilian universities, very large universities in china, that are known to have been engaged in

this activity, supplying tools, personnel and engaged in these activities and putting them on the denied entities list from the commerce department. that would deny them visas to the united states. professors will not be able to get fellowships, graduate students will not. there will be a constituency, that senator gordon said, all of a sudden a limitation of actions they are not profiting from and it will create basically a constituency within china that will begin to say, ok, this is no longer a consequence-free activity for us anymore. want to sayust go that i agree almost totally. what bothers me about at least part of the statement is that when the chinese have so much intellectual property that they have more to defend than they have to attack, we will have already lost -- >> it would be too late. yes. when they become the consumer of their own products, it is game over. when we look at this -- and let us go further.

if the chairman would indulge. it used to be that investing in china, american companies, or foreign companies that are triggered -- better deal. from regulatory standpoint, incentive standpoint. my understanding is that is no longer the case. that those regulated -- regulations of being beefed up. the regulations the company's earnings from to produce in a foreign country -- american companies are freeing -- fleeing from to produce in a foreign country and a lucrative anymore. do you agree? broad a slightly too statement. i do not think any kind of company or investment in china is exactly the same. may not have much in the way of intellectual property. some obviously still find it profitable to do business there. any others have found the cost far more than it is worth. i would probably disagree

with the characterization that there was some sappy atoned better that where we were successful making money in china. nuclear radiation detectors there and always felt it was stacked against them. we watch people who came to china believing the whole -- if everyone bought one shoe we would sell half a billion shoes -- that philosophy, repeatedly being used. the hope was always the chinese economy would mature to the point that it became a more level -- a level playing field and there was more predictability and the regulatory system. in fact, what we are finding now is the regulatory system is becoming en re predatory and even more capricious as they are trying to force the indigenous innovation. they a connt to allow western multinational to have tried to place but try to replace them with national champions, and that creates a very uneven playineld and a lot of frankly unfair activity

that is in violation of the wto commitments. >> my last question is, how big is the problem need to get before there is a demand from the american people to deal with that? we are estimating today a low estimate of $300 billion, it could be 300 billion or 400 billion in terms of economic impact. be big does it have to before we see concerted effort on all parts to come together to address it? >> it is big enough right now -- the fact of this hearing is an illustration. >> i thank you. i yield back. that auld even argue decade and a half ago, when some of these issues were decided in the house and senate, at the public was always kind of a bit ahead of these two institutions. i will close for the next panel, by -- but i appreciate your comments. i have watched this over from my house days and watched the way

-- american corporations and the relationships in china. ntr vote, a of p friend that worked at national airport said there were more corporate jets leading up to the vote than any time in his memory. i am not sure our large companies interested in china matched up with our national interests as a nation. i think perhaps it is more that way. but just a note of caution, that an increasthnu -- companies coming to the american companies think we need help because of cyber attacks, we should be there for them, but we need to keep in mind it is important our national interest match the company's interest there. i remember being lobbied by one company in particular in my district is that it makes so and twose to pass pntr years later he moved a lot of

his production to chinese -- he said all the competitors were there because of the new rules. that song was sung far too many times in north carolina and ohio and across the country. thank you very much for your work, and, senator gordon, for your lifetime and continued work and service to our country. next panel.up the , henning with wen yunchao has launched a series of online campaigns in support of human rights against internet censorship. awarded the french republics human rights prize 20 10 by the french national consultant if commission on human rights in recognition of his efforts and contributions to promoting human rights and social media. graduate of -- institute of technology and visiting scholar of columbia institute of human rights in the city. asia,ice president for middle east, north africa for national endowment of democracy where she served as director for

east asia. she studied, worked, traveled in asia since 1980 and member of the armitage international taiwan working group, council on .oreign relations she served as member of board of directors for amnesty international, and for five years volunteer in china and mongolia and specialist from 1990-90 9090 terms as member member of virginia state advisory committee on u.s. commission on civil rights. if the two of you could join us. thank you very, very much. there will be a translator for mr. wen. klees, precede -- please, proceed. >> [speaking in chinese]

thank you, mr. senator -- thank you, dear mr. senator brown and congressman pittenger and congressman meadows. and i am wen yunchao here to testify about the cyber attacks against me that occurred over the last few years. in september of 2009, i discovered that my gmail account was set up for forwarding and it would forward all of my e-mails i received to another e-mail account not under my control.

this was the first time i realized that my e-mail was attacked. in february of 2011, the so- called -- revolution broken china. it refers to a anonymous online calls for mass gatherings in public venues in major cities across china. at that time i was working and living in hong kong, starting at that time, all my electronic communications, including telephone and internet products and the the services were under severe attack.

on june 2, 20 11, i discovered a rather sophisticated attack was being used against my gmail account. that day i received an e-mail invite you to -- participate in voting. skies the links.

by clicking it, a flash. him and opened up and account would authorize other users to visit. google,eported this to they responded that they were not even aware of such attacks. the content of the e-mail had to do with the well-known chinese electioncampaign for to the local congress of the people's representatives. it was sent two days before the anniversary of the tenement square massacre june 4. i believe the hacking was politically motivated and most likely an act of the government. i reported the hacking process and publish it on youtube. >> [speaking in chinese]

, 2011, i was attending the u n human rights council meeting in geneva as part of internet freedom fellows program. and i gave a speech to call for support for chinese citizens who have been persecuted because of the jasmine of revolution. on june 8, the day before the speech, i received a text message warning. >> [speaking in chinese]

>> after i gave the speech and before i left geneva, my phone began to receive a large volume .f incoming calls my phone was attacked in such a manner between june and august 31., the heaviest on july i received 311 calls in one day. all the calls hung up after they bring. -- after they rang. i did a statistical study of the calls between late july and early august and i found the hackers had their regular time when they started working and when they went off work. it was not a random person acting alone. >> [speaking in chinese]

in july 2011, personal information about my wife, my son, and other relatives were published online, including the numbers of my wife and my son's hong kong account travel permits. averagenot information people could easily access unless they are police or authorities. >> [speaking in chinese] >> for about a year, starting

april 2011, i identified persons found me on twitter with trashed toormation using software filter the trash. i found the heaviest attack took 2012.april 25, postsgering 590,000 spam within 24 hours. unidentified persons also published viciously defaming information about me online at the rate of over 10,000 times per day. aifar as i know, the artist wei wei has also been similarly attacked. >> [speaking in chinese]

>> starting august 24, 2011, my gmail account was spammed with an astonishing number of messages. , 2012,peak in mid march the backflow was as high as five gigabytes per hour. if this were a personal attack tom a it would take more than 20

users to pack up my account -- attacked my account simultaneously to reach in that kind of volume. therefore i believe it was an organized attack. in hackers also put my name the garbage messages to make it harder for me to filter them. i reported the attacks to google through a third-party. a google official top -- contacted me consequent -- subsequently and they made specific efforts to build with the attack on me but the results were not that great. >> [speaking in chinese] >> around the same time identified persons who published hundreds of articles online to denigrate me and i believe it was an organized campaign to

destroy my personal reputation. >> [speaking in chinese] >>@4:00 p.m. on may 20 eighth, 2012, attacks on twitter and gmail stopped simultaneously. this also shows that these were organized he he views. -- organized behaviors. >> [speaking in chinese] >> if you could try to wrap up in the next minute or two? >> we are just about done.

thanks. from april 2009 to the present time, i have received the -- an untold number of phishing e- mails and trojan e-mails. from the one e-mail at taxes, i successfully broke into myself, i found 192 people who were objects of attacks, and they included chinese dissidents, right to lawyers and foreign journalists reporting on china. from the sources of attack i was able to identify and also from the mandarin i heard in the background in the earlier stage of the telephone harassment, i believe all the attacks came from mainland china. >> [speaking in chinese] i hope that the u.s. congress

and the government will recognize such cyber attacks against human rights defenders as human rights persecution and impose sanctions and visa restrictions on organizations, companies, and their employees engage in such a malicious activity. thank you. >> thank you very much. ms.? and tibetan human rights activists working and ask out chinese hacking is a former regression that reaches across boundaries to undermine the ability to exercise the political freedoms they should be enjoying in democratic countries. being under sustained cyber attack means these groups are not in practice able to routinely access the communications media in the public square. the hackers of success in hampering the ability of these groups to do their work normally result in a combination of specific targeting and the use of up to the minute hacking skills. -- first, the

activists have to contend with real-time and preemptive interference with their communications. increasingly, hackers are no longer having misspelled e- mails. we experience something when someone sends you something and then missed all their name, it is a giveaway. now they are obtaining genuine e-mails and sending them within hours, which greatly increases their plausibility, especially when they are related to an ongoing conversation, upcoming events, or conference. i have an example -- there was one incident when a staff member received an immediate reply from a colleague which turned out to be the work of a hacker. second, old device harassment. -- all device harassment. mr. wen talked about the jamming of his telephone. there was continuous jamming of landmines in munich of a personal apartment and office

telephone lines -- a jamming of land lines. it was a sensitive political anniversary of the july 5 riot, the website was down and there was a massive spam attack. 15,000 e-mails in one week. the third example has to do with the innovation. havings some innovation to do with software for cyber attacking. it was the first ever documented android devices. this is getting to the smartphones and the tablets. a research company has issued a report saying that in march it discovered the first ever use of spear phishing e-mail that attacked and succeeded in damaging android users equipment. the vehicle for this attack did have to do with the we -- world

uighur conference sent an invitation by e-mail to attend a conference. copied textf the was reportedly a high-level tibetan activists. attachedre that was extracted data about the phone itself. the fund -- phone number, os version, model, and the context stored and hall walls and the sms messages and their geo location. the frequency and sophistication of these attacks reveal a significant investment in resources. in fact, activists note and upgrading of the resources devoted to this campaign, including increased knowledge of the social network they are trying to attack, language proficiency, and the technical means. and we should note another example, another piece of evidence of the nature of the the attacksrgeting,

always surge before sensitive political anniversaries -- june 4, july 5, and others. as we look at this kind of -- targetedargeting hacking, why is it such a potent attack takes for impeding the work of human rights activist? it is because of its numerous practical effects. it silences activists ability to communicate with the wider public when websites are down for weeks at a time when they have something today. it compromises the ability of research groups to keep the information confidential, which is essential doing human rights work and helping refugees. it diverged the energies of the activist because they have to deal with recovering from the cyber attacks and double checking on their communications to ensure their authenticity. it raises the cost, financial costs, by requiring expensive backup systems, very expensive technical assistance, and so on. it undermines cooperation with the wider world. international organizations, the media, experts are frustrated by

this fake and malicious e-mails and hacking interference. finally, hacking frankly increases fear, even for those who are outside of china, even for those living in free countries. this is a great deterrent effect, making people afraid to be in touch with each other, to have solidarity. again, when they are outside of china they do not want to compromise of their strategies, as congressman smith mentioned, or their confidential information, and certainly communicating with people inside china come and given the potential for harassment and arrest. this portfolio of effects, silencing critical voices, undermining credibility, undermining trust, increasing isolation, raising costs and reducing fear, -- producing fear. depression affected by authoritarian regimes and it is being globalized. it deserves our unqualified condemnation. thank you. >> thank you very much, ms. g reve. in thank you for

speaking out. i know you have been in new york for a while and i know you have a wife and a son and your speaking out -- if it exposes problems, issues or let us know. i think we can speak for all of the members of the committee and institutionally, if you would keep us informed of any potential retribution. my question, why didn't they just shut you down? >> [speaking in chinese] >> in 2011, i was awarded a ,uman rights award in france and since then i have not been china. return to

i was working in hong kong until recently. that is why today i am able to sit here and tell you my story. >> [speaking in chinese] >> towards the late last year, they refused to renew my hong permit, so iial could not stay in hong kong anymore, that is why i came to new york. ms. greve, thank you particularly for the last comment about draining resources and increasing costs and instilling fear. it seems that a number of u.s. companies are reluctant to speak out because of fear of economic that the chinese

government or state owned enterprises or others could levy against them. human rights and civil society organizations, both inside and outside china, do they feel -- you talked about fear. theore that a little more, fear they may feel in speaking out or pointing fingers or whatever they might want to do in response. >> a number of groups report that it is very hard to even do the basic documentation because victims and witnesses are afraid to speak. this can be true before the cyber age, but true in spades was said about intellectual property -- once you reveal information about yourself it is known you spoken out and your family can suffer in china.

the fear silences individual victims from speaking up and it makes it very hard for journalists and human rights groups to provide the data and documentation so the world could know the extent of the problem. >> what can u.s. lawmakers do to help protect these civil organizations, civil society organizations and human rights groups and all? >> i certainly believe the work fornational endowment democracy, my organization supported by annual appropriation from congress as a lifeline. we give grants to human rights groups outside china who are doing their best. they have money for server space and the ability to travel to meet each other. so, some kind of offsetting of the financial cost is the very least that can be done. that is certainly being been through my organization. there are a number of programs the state department has done to help human right defenders. these are all worth doing, even though it is a very micro level.

of those, the voices in china who are in china and subject not only to harassment and impeding of their normal work, but of course under the thumb of the security apparatus of the state, when they raise their voices, it is very gratifying for them to your members of congress echo the concerns and recognize the justice of their cause. >> doesn't always matter -- we sort of sometimes walk this line out,dging others, speaking and does that sometimes jeopardize people we defend as american elected officials, speaking out individually in support of a chinese citizen? does it cut both ways? is it something we should always do -- does it help him? thet is a good idea to ask individual or advisers, but most of the time activists tell us when they are ready to stand up and be counted, it can only help

around have solidarity the world. based on universal values, after all. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony. i would like to get some idea the penalties that are enforced against the chinese citizens in their efforts to expose human rights and how they are targeted in china. >> [speaking in chinese] >> [speaking in chinese]

hacking,ternet cybersecurity is only one problem they face. in real life, the real problem it is their physical security. they could be -- they could disappear. their internet ability could be innovative and their telephone monitored, and so on, and so forth. >> thank you. are these bonobos -- i don't itse pervasive, or is different in different provinces? does it matter where in china? >> [speaking in chinese] >> [speaking in chinese]

,> the internet attacks probably the more prominent the incident and activists are suffering more, but e-mail like phishing, it is very, very common, very widespread. as for disappearance and there might be a little different. in some provinces like guangdong like -- it may be a little better. relates to religious freedoms and practices, do you

feel there is greater openness and freedom in some provinces others.re are in is itficial church, demanded in some provinces -- is the underground church able to live in greater freedom in some areas than other areas? >> [speaking in chinese] >> [speaking in chinese]

, in ther as i know northeastern and just the greater northern area in china, religious persecution is very, very serious. we all know about what happens in -- provinces,hern religious or situation may be a little milder. but it depends on what is your standard. if your standard is universal values. if the persecution -- even in what we consider the mile the provinces -- and the milder provinces is considered severe. >> thank you for that. ms. greve, thank you also for your testimony. as it relates to these organizations, you said certainly it is appreciated, the support from our government.

i find myself in a predicament sometimes when i am addressing, for example, the chinese chamber i have spoken to and others and how direct im. i know chairman brown brought up some. but i would like to get a better feel of how you could counsel me on addressing the human rights that i canconcerns have the greatest impact. challenge has been to not be overbearing, but to be real and understanding. i have 25 years experience in terms of working with the underground church in that country and a deeper appreciation for what they have gone through. as direct as ie can without losing them in the discussion. my argument has been that people the most dependable

and morally ethical people, they could be constructed inside their own government given problemsf pervasive issues in and other the government. i would just like a bit more impact -- input how you can help us as legislators bring better this issue tot on put pressure on the chinese government. >> even the work of this that there isves extensive, detailed undeniable documentation. the annual report is just full. andyet merely the naming shaming, merely the exposure does not bring the fact always to the forefront. encounters -- the opportunity. sometimes people coming from

china are not aware or sometimes believe active government are began about hostile forces outside of china who want to needlessly smear the good name of china. repetition ofalm fact has to have a place. investment in the work of documentation has a role. also the question of the long- term versus the short-term. you may not get an immediate response but you stand for what is right. in the long term, you may be planting seeds. you, mr. chairman. the time is late, so i will be very brief. but one question as a follow-up. i have been in a number of hearings where we have heard about human rights abuses in china as it continues. , a few goodeve comment. we understand when congress takes an active role. when under the guidance of the chairman or others, when we say that we will will not tolerate

human rights of uses, it doesn't necessarily change it, but those .ho are suffering, suffer less is there a time coming instead of a threat where we truly mean what we say and will not tolerate human rights abuses, that it becomes really commonplace -- what i understand. when we highlighted, does it become indeed less in china? numerous former prisoners thatt how important it was political leaders and people in charge of detention institutions knew that other people were speaking up on their behalf. improved the treatment, health, and so on. of course, the real hook has internal transformation in chinese society. this is where the long-term change will come.

american institutions and love for liberty and universal values cannot fight itself change -- by itself change the conditions on the ground but it has to come within china. i believe the point should be to invest as much as possible, strengthening those who have the right principles who are in the position to shape the institutions in the right direction and have the greatest, strongest friendship for those kind of people. >> with that, i will yield back. that welesson being one will not yield until it is dealt with. >> thank you all. the record will stay open for one week. if any of the three panelists would have anything you would like to submit. us it is possible some of may have written questions and if you could answer them as quickly as possible. thank you for speaking out. thank you for being here. adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] "q&a" with the nasa administrator. an live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." representatives discuss immigration legislation in the house. tonight, we will show you what south west airlines ceo gary kelly has to say about air travel in this country him as he takes questions from an audience at the university of denver.

then we will open up our phone lines to get your thoughts on the subject. and we will ask you what advice you would give the federal to improve air travel in the u.s. we recently asked the same question at ronald reagan national airport just outside washington, d.c., and here's what people had to say. i think one of the things they could do it is have more tsa agents at peak travel times. it seems like the lines are increasingly longer and longer. does not seem to be enough tsa agents. the other thing, i think the more security, prescreened security. i am a prescreened security traveler but even those lines are as long as the other lines now. i think more agents, getting people through faster, makes traveling a better proposition. >> i think what concerns me the most is probably when people get stuck on the tarmac for long periods of time, delayed for whatever reason. i think it would be good to have

a way to bring those people back in and have some kind of ruling that would help those people. four hours, six hours, eight hours on the tarmac is a little long for people with health issues and small children. that the government really needs to kind of bite the bullet and get the next generation air traffic control system built and allow these airplanes to really get between the places as efficiently as possible and with the most efficient use of fuel and the resources that we have to manage airplanes in the air. role do you think the government could play? how do they go about making it happen? isi think the biggest issue the government keeps hesitating on pulling the trigger on getting this all done. some of that is because of things like sequester and some of it is because of all the bureaucracy that is in the faa. i think the time for delay on this has come and gone. we are wasting precious time and precious fuel and we are making

people spend a lot more time in the air than they really have to at the end of the day. this would be an improvement for everyone. i think the other thing the government needs to do is to make sure the airlines kind of pay their fair share here and step up. because they are going to get huge benefits from fuel savings. it seems fair they should also have to participate more fully in that system. >> this week on "q&a," charles bolden talks about his decision to attend the united states naval academy. >> charles bolden, nasa administrator, if you had your choice, would you rather be an astronaut in the shuttle or run the nasa administration? >> ooh. since i'm running nasa right now, i'd rather be doing what i'm doing. i am a person who, i live in

the moment. people who know me know i don't regret anything, no matter how bad. what's done is done, and i would not change anything because i have three beautiful granddaughters who are 6, 10, and 13. i'm fearful that if i went back and changed any minor thing, i might not have them. >> 135 missions in the space shuttle. >> yes, sir. >> $200 billion. 30 years. was it worth it? >> it was worth every dime. as a matter of fact, let me start with what i think shuttle did for the nation over its incredible 30 years that no one will think about unless someone tells them. the technical world in which i live is very non-diverse. there are not a lot of people who look like me. in fact, in the history of the space shuttle program, there are only two pilots of african- american desent in 30 years. there are a lot of different

reasons for it. some of which we are not proud of. i think we didn't work hard enough. the shuttle brought diversity to an incredibly technical program. it allows people of all walks. we have had a farm worker, we have had school teachers, we have had people like me go to space, when we would not have done that had it not been for the space shuttle era. that's the human side of it of what it did for this nation. for this nation that professes to be the shining city on the hill, i think that's important. there are two other nations that can send humans to space right now, china and russia. and other than the fact that russia can get people to space, there would be little diversity in who goes to space from russia, and there is no diversity in who goes to space in chinese. so far it has been only chinese