negotiations and you will become not useful anymore. they need him -- he will not need him as he was. the gentleman in the back. >> josh london with with zoa. in the short term, the duration of the obama administration, we have a pretty good guess that nothing is going to change. what is the time horizon between now and then of things reaching some kind of conclusion? whereas large or small, rather than folks just treading water and the clay usually -- and occasionally flicking matches. they may decide here's an opportunity to seize and hold an

d advance. lee: you mean for the islamic republic? >> or for saudi arabia. to say here's our chance. if the u.s. does not want to get more involved, or for that matter, in terms of thinking signals and a time horizons, it becomes clear that the white house is going to move into hands that will differ. what do folks see here as primary horizons, given that. lee: we are going to shut down a couple of minutes, so let's make this our last round. if you would like to start? ali: the iranian party is more patient than most of us think. you know, i actually do agree that there is no sense of urgency from their point of view to start the revolution right now. they are patient. they are playing a game which they believe is serving their interests.

and also they perceive the united states as a gradually declining world power in the propaganda of the revolutionary guards. but also, in their weekly magazines and journals. the united states today is just like great britain in the 1950's after world war ii. it is weakened, and the entire empire is coming down. it has to be replaced. so, they are also being economical in their fights. the u.s. can get entangled in conflicts all over the world -- in asia, in the far east, then the u.s. cannot pay so much attention to what's happening in the middle east. and by the way, if the best card that the saudis and turks can play is al nusra and daesh, the world is going to sympathize more with the islamic republic of iran. so, from that point of view, they believe time is working on their side, they can afford to be patient, to build their self and expand gradually and slowly.

this is why we see the saudis in such a difficult to decrement. difficult predicament. phillip: i think ali said it perfectly. [laughter] philip: mike, if you say the same thing, i'm going have a real problem. mike: he did speak beautifully. i will add something to it. that is that priority for the iranians right now is shoring up assad. he is still vulnerable, even with the russians there. and as i said, if assad goes, hezbollah power and influence is drastically reduced. their greatest effort is going in to be on expanding his power, and expanding their influence

within syria and the umbrella of his power. the americans are pretending that this is not going on, or president obama keeps telling us the iranians and the russians are going to work with us to get rid of bush soon. we cannot see it yet. it's not going to happen. they may possibly get rid of bashar al-assad. but they can i get rid of is the structure of the regime, because without that, they do have their influence in the region. it will keep the structure intact. they will not open it up to the sunni majority in the country. it remains the ku klux klan in power. and they will likely keep bashar al-assad, the grand wizard, and power, as well. >> a lovely closing image. thank you. i would thank all of you for coming.

thank you to c-span, as well. and a round of applause. thanks so much. [applause] >> thank you so much. announcer: tonight on c-span, a discussion by efforts of businesses for customers providing negative online reviews. paul ryan discussing the republican agenda. and vice president joe biden on the cancer research initiative provided in the president's state of the union address.

announcer: on the next washington journal, we will talk nman but the future of labor unions. aboutl talk to mark mix the legal defense foundation. and david madland. washington journal on the life of your phone calls, tweets, and facebook comments at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> what booker t said to them, you know, we have kids covered here in alabama. but it is really the kids in the element three schools who are suffering. the american kids are getting poor education, horrible buildings. there is nothing separate, not equal. announcer: documentary filmmakers talk about the latest and about julius rosenwald

his partnership with booker t. washington and the african-american communities in the south to bring elementary education in rural america. he puts together these houses, why do we use the kit houses. and the best thing booker t. washington did was say no. i want to do it like tuskegee. the community will build it. six schools were built. that is amazing. from then, it morphed into 5000 schools all over the south, including maryland. announcer: sunday night on c-span. announcer: the congressional internet caucus posted a discussion about freedom of speech online, and the right for consumers to write reviews for private businesses. they heard from attorneys representing trip advisor and

the federal trade commission. congress is considering legislation that would prevent customers from writing views online. this is about one hour. >> welcome. hi, happy new year. i am the congressional -- the executive director of the internet foundation, which has a few projects. this is the beginning of our 2016 season, the first briefing of the year. we do about 15 or 16 every couple of weeks on different topics. this one happens to be on consumer reviews. the internet caucus itself, we host in conjunction, the cochairs are bob goodlatte as jonathan and patrick leahy.

the caucus will be separating its 20th anniversary, founded in 1996. so if you work on internet issues, try to imagine where the internet was and where you were in 1996. you can see how ancient this particular organization is. thanks for coming. we also have a bit of housekeeping. you also have a flyer for the conference will also produce. that is basically the entire program on internet issues and one day, short walk from here at the newseum. as a week from monday on january 25. welcome to that. at the start this thing off, this gag protecting consumer rights to share reviews online. i will hit it off to the moderator at second. you can follow this on twitter. the hashtag is #consumerreviews. is that singular or plural> ?

excuse me,. . she was also our summer fellow last year for the congressional internet caucus advisor committee. i will leave it off with miranda. miranda: thanks to the panel. i will introduce everyone quickly, then we will get started. at the end we have professor eric goldman from the high-tech law institute at the santa clara law school in california. we also have bred young from trip advisor in boston. and carlos from the federal trade commission, the division of advertising practices. very relevant. and the senior policy council at consumers union. obviously, relevant to consumers. it should be a relevant discussion, looking from many angles. starting off, we are talking about consumer rights, specifically protections for consumers to voice their opinions on line in a number of ways. as you see more reviews popping

up, there are more opportunities for anyone to share their opinions both with the businesses they are dealing with, but also with their fellow consumers -- hearing their experience to advise people on where to buy. this should theoretically be driving competition, because businesses will compete on the quality of services read that is happening. we have seen a lot. but we also see businesses pushing back. we see businesses trying to sometimes silence critical reviews that might hurt businesses. obviously, they're doing is in a number of ways. they do this through intimidation in various capacities. lawsuit on we did a public participation. saying this is defamation. right now, we're talking today about clauses buried in the fine

print of contracts that actually say you cannot post negative reviews of my business online, or you will be fined or held accountable in some other way. so, the kick off the discussion, i want to start with a hypothetical. we can start from there. imagine a family has been saving up to go on vacation. they get to the hotel. they are so excited. they find the room is dirty, the service is bad. the shower does not work. after their vacation, one of the family members leaves a review online saying this is a situation. maybe check out a different place if you are thinking about vacation. they get notified soon after that the hotel contact them, saying they violated the agreement you side with us when you check in. if you don't take that down, we will find you within the contracts. they could do that. they have your credit card on file. brad, at trip advisor, you see this quite a bit. what is the situation here?

how frequent, how can we help consumers navigate these causes? sur.urel: : e. to really set that question we do not have great visibility to exactly how prominent this issue is. will stifle speech. the best ones we never hear about. they're doing exactly what they intended to do. no one is talking about them, they're not getting fined. they're not getting negative reviews, and the consumer -- probably not happy that they don't get to write it definitely not getting fined. badh may be the best of two situations. we do know is that in 2015, trip advisor received a couple of thousand requests from our members to remove reviews in connection with statements from

these users saying i want it removed because i am being harassed by the business owner. and if some of those situations, they went even further. they provided us with statements either saying there is a cause in a contract that says i'm not allowed to write this, or i will be fined. or sometimes they would even give us a copy of that language. so we do see it. and we definitely know it is a real world problem taking place. that said, that is a big number, right? but that is really, we believe, the tip of the iceberg. the reviewer was going to take the step to first write a review, which is probably not everybody. a lot of people are going to trip advisor and reading. someone that will write a review, when they get contact by these people, going on the way to tell us i am taking it down. here is the cause.

that is the very proactive minority. i think of it as the iceberg problem -- the 5% above the water. not the 95% under the water. it is a really big problem for consumers and businesses across the country. that is just in the hospitality sector. has listings for hotels, restaurants, and attractions. we do not know anything about the mechanics and the doctors and the dentists and the home repair professionals and the retailers. they're doing this, too. but because they do not have a listing on trip advisor, we will never hear about it. it is a real issue, not going away on its own. miranda: professor goldman, you have been writing about this for a while, following the legislation. can you tell us what is happening legally, what the clauses look like? why get what happens when they go to court? what is happening? eric: the premise is how can a

business stop consumers from talking about them online? thing is a variety of different techniques we identified a few of them. let me make sure we do not miss them. one can we can say the contract that you may not talk about us online. the second way is to set it up as a penalty. you could say if you say anything about us online, or if you say something negative online, we will fine or otherwise create an incentive -- hold back your security deposit. also, people do not pay the filing a threat is negative report on the credit report. the business will then say i am going to ding your credit because you did not pay the fine for having talked about us online. the third way we see it is by using some form of intellectual property to take control of the review. the most common of those

approaches is to say that the tosumer assigns the right review to the business. the business becomes the owner of that review. they can decide whether or not they wanted to be published further. each of those techniques shows up. there are others that we have seen. and there are certain the others that will be invented. and we have not seen a lot of challenges over these. in my estimate, millions of americans have signed some type of provision like this. we have seen a very small number of challenges in court. even fewer final resolutions. when we have had these types in court, generally, judges get the point. they say you cannot do that. and i will find a way to work around the contract issue or the consumer law issue or the intellectual property issue, to make sure you cannot do what you

want in this. as brad explained, that is the iceberg problem -- the top ending up in court. and there are a lot of things happening before we ever get to court. i want to call attention to one particular case that i find interesting, very relevant and hypothetical breed it was a case involving a vacation rental/ renterslord said to the , you may not review us online. and we do not know how many people did not review them online, how many people were chilled by that. but we do know two left negative reviews and were soon. in court, the cases end up in my mind is when the court says that review is not defamatory. landlord, you have no right to sue for defamation. but you might have a right to sue for breach of contract. that sounds like a breach of contract. i like to think homer heads will

prevail. but this is the reason why we need to pay close attention. it could be in front of a judge for breach of contract. but we know better. miranda: thanks. we had a business perspective and illegal perspective, what do consumers think about this? what are you hearing from the victims of this? they go on websites and click i agree to these terms, i don't think any of us really read those, unless you are in law school or a lawyer and get a kick out of that. if know this is even happening? >> thanks, miranda. when i heard about the problem of water called non-disparagement or gag clauses, my first thought was, hey, those are the folks we care about. which is everyone in this room. everyone who has ever bought something from everyone was ever had something bought for them. we are all affected by this problem.

one of the most important ways consumers get power in the marketplace is word of mouth. that is key to making sure the competitive marketplace works in the interest of consumers. and the internet obviously enhances that consumer voice. and non-disparagement clauses are a direct frontal assault on the consumer voice. the problem is bigger than just silencing negative reviews on the internet, although that is kind of the reason we are all here today. non-disparagement clauses, when they are signed, they cover all communication. all the way from putting an advertisement in the paper to potentially talking with neighbors and coworkers about an experience you have had. was, hey,ond thought that is us. i work for the policy and advocacy arm of consumer reports . for 80 years, we have been in the business of testing products and services and publishing

objective, independent, expert ratings in our magazine. and now in our online publications. servicese products and we test for quality, safety, and durability in the asketplace anonymously, ordinary consumers. that is a key part of making sure we are not getting special treatment. that we are getting the product or service the same way consumers are. so that we can tell consumers what they can expect to experience if they buy it. so if a purchase contract contains a non-disparagement clause, the business could threaten to silence us. to stop us from getting the straight, objective story to consumers. the further irony is that many or even most consumers who sign the agreements do not even know the cause is in there. and yet by signing or by clicking an i agree button, they agreed to be bound by it.

contract law says they are bound. even for consumers who do know that it is there, they typically have no choice if they want the product or service. and the salesperson typically has no awareness or appreciation for what is at stake here. it has become just a routine part of the sale. so we are very glad the senate took of this problem and passed legislation to fix this. the safeguard the consumer voice with overwhelming bipartisan support. by unanimous consent on the floor, we hope the house will now follow in the weeks to come. something? can i add unquestionably, the restrictions on consumer reviews will be buried in something that consumers are not likely to see. but i don't think that is a helpful way of thinking about the problem. let us assume that consumers assume exactly come a given full

and unambiguous disclosure. it was still be something that is unacceptable to agree to. attorney with the federal trade commission. the commission is not formally taking a position on this particular legislation. i can tell you what the commission has done in exercising authority under section five of the ftc act, with prevents unfair actions and commerce. the commission has challenged recently the practices of a company which has been selling dietary supplements for which it was making exaggerated and unsubstantiated weight loss claims. couple that with the practice of offering to pay customers for positive reviews and have the fine print in the contract

restricting them from having negative comments, and they have actually been suing people for making negative comments, threatening people when they complain, or they file a complaint with the better business bureau. the commission basically challenged that practice of using these threats and gag clauses of being unfair within the meaning of section 5 of the ftc act. that means that the practice of using the provisions causes entry theybstantial eneral cannot reasonably avoid, and there is no countervailing benefit that outweighs that injury. which is a long way of saying that this basically is a practice that distorts the market'place. it is a much the fact that the provision that it is buried in the fine print. it is. but the fact that this practice

will deprive the marketplace of truthful information, truthful information that will be to the detriment of other consumers who come after us. we are not even focusing on the harm directed to people who have clicked through and whose opinions are being suppressed. we are looking more holistically at the impact this has on future purchases, who are deprived of negative information about that product and you may end up paying more for a product than they would if they knew the truth about what the experience was prior. they may be byproducts products that are not good for them. overall, it is bad for the entire ecosystem to be related by having them basically being suppressed. miranda: carl, when you come across these issues and you find that the clauses are unfair

under section 5, what does enforcement look like? carl: we have had very little occasion to have enforcement against these type of things. the lab is notable because it was not going out of business when confronted with this. what a lot of companies had been. they were actually suing people for breaching these clauses, allegedly. and in addition t counts for defamation. we went to federal court in tampa back in october. we got a culinary injunction. judges ruling in this case, at this point, it is still in litigation. the trial scheduled for another year. but the judge did not rule directly on the unfairness. but he did rule that the company would not be permitted to enforce these types of contracts, not be permitted to use these during the pending

legal litigation. what the court found was that in order to squelch comment and public discourse, the lab has threatened to sue consumers by threatening criminal sanctions and civil actions. and as a result, in the context of this case, what is minimally necessary to ensure that the continued practice of making unsubstantiated claims while this case is pending about the weight loss attributes of the products is an injunction that would constrain the prior practice of threatening to sue i consumers. we have a favorable ruling, but it iis limited in context. and the unfair analysis under section 5 is very fact-specific. while we feel like we have a very strong case here, we have

got an expert opinion -- a professor from temple university that we submitted that culinary injunction paper. dentave a lot of prece about use of bars on comparative advertising. and there is a lot of support for this. whether or not this case would map onto other circumstances is an open question. whether the judge will rule in our favor is another question. carl just laid out two very serious harms. the censoring of the reviewer and stifling free speech, as well as the harm on all future consumers for having accurate information to make the personal decision. the third harm occurs as well, to all of the competing businesses that are playing by the rules with that unscrupulous

company. a number of sites, trip advisor , a lot of yelp companies have algorithms that will give consumers the ability to compare them directly. all of a sudden, when you know you are playing by the rules and doing everything right, and a guide in the street is inserting unconscionable clauses, the small business is getting hurt, as well. ariza variety of victims of these causes -- there is a variety of victims of these causes. miranda: and the other court decisions, eric, are they helping move the issue forward? or are they looking to nearly? what is going on in that sense? toc: in order for the ftc breach the behavior, they had to rely on the unfairness authority to which is fine. ,lthough, when i see the ftc

wiser to wonder why they did not realize they are being deceptive. then i have to go persuade a judge, and they still have not been able to resolve that. we could also imagine that under contract theory, things like unconscionability might apply. a court might strike down the contract saying that is not a reasonable contract and the microphone is on public policy drugs. there is a series which can be used to combat these in court. but they are not hitting the nail on the head with the hammer perfectly. they are trying to fit into existing formats. stop. miranda: that is a great segue

because the senate passed the consumer review freedom act just a few weeks ago. we actually have representative i sat here. i wanted -- i wanted to ask if you wanted to make a statement? nail one hitting the the head, which is any time the executive branch relies on laws not intended to cover a new or claim, we run into the problem of we the first branch are often complaining that they are exceeding their authority, it is overreach. in this case it is a reach that needs to be addressed. the tools that we have given even the federal trade commission and so on are inaccurate for all cases. , if they workaid in a couple of cases, it is a long adjudication. you have to find out if that

square peg that's in that exact home. when in fact, with the exception of a willing buyer, willing contract,ering into a when they truly perceive something for limiting their free speech, free speech should be presumptively an absolute right. these contracts are invalid because they are not delivering a reasonable limitation on free-speech. enter our goals, if you into a medical testing situation in which you agree that in return for entering this program you're not going to talk about it, that is historically reasonable. if you enter into a confidentiality agreement in trade secret is told, there is a reason. but in the case of simply companies who only want good news, and when to find a way to gag bad news, that is where we

have to have a broad and sweeping law that simply says u do not have to go to a federal agency, you have a right to do it and no contracts healthy balance if it limits that -- contract shall be valid if it limits that. miranda: do you want to talk to the content of the bill? panel -- we want to know the problems, and both the house and senate ask if we are being brought enough, because our challenge is we want to be broad enough not to have agencies having to enforce it, and not having judges go through an entire trial. on their face committee should be summary judgment at you do speeche a right to limit , particularly when almost every company, and i'm a former businessman, every company finds a way, especially weight loss, tell somebody talk about how great the product works. it is inherently deceptive if it does not work for somebody to limit that speech. -- that is why

one of those poster children, we understand that if you've somebody saying something works, you absolutely should not be able to limits of a saying i used it and it does not work, it is inherently wrong. the same as every restaurant multiple stars and all the right words. the award with age and not post the criticism. that is what we are hoping to really change. but i think the one thing that i am hearing, and i wanted to listen, is we keep asking are we creating a law that creates and administrative action, or are we creating a law that limits the reason for the ministration to have to weigh in, and clearly limits cases from going through the courts for protracted. length of time. i think we both feel strongly that the latter is what we have to achie. the thing that is clear and simple, that reiterates the first amendment is the first

amendment when it comes to saying you do not like something. recognizing that you must state you do not like it from you cannot in fact falsely claim something, and that balancing act is where we have been for 200 and 40 years. please continue. i did not intend to become a part of this. [laughter] speak briefly to that. we have taken a careful look at both the house bill and the senate bill. we like them both. the primary difference is which enforcemt agency is constructed as the repository for enforcement at the federal level. we think it creates the right boundaries, not only giving a specific enforcement authority against the practice, but also nullifying enforcement of these clauses from the get-go. leaving open the potential for reviews thatfalse

are damaging to a businesses legitimate operations for being appropriately remedies in a court process like they have been historically. we are very pleased with the bill. miranda: i think some criticism of legislation like this is that it takes away tools of businesses to protect their reputation. i know in the strategic losses against public participation issue, there was some concern about access to justice. what do you think about this legislation? is it narrow it narrow enough, doesn't address the issue in the right way? eric: i am a fan of this legislation. legislation particularly is well constructed on trying to cover all the different tricks that we've seen businesses engage in. we've seen the contract, we have seen the fine components seen the ip assignment, and the

legislation very helpfully covers all of those. the one place i flagged is the potential area that they can get frisky is this boundary between protection of trade secrets and calling every interaction with the customer a business's confidential information. that could be a little bit of a wedge. i think the law would do a terrific job of sending the right messages to court. if you see a cloth like this, tell the business to stop, get out of our courtroom. the only other way to be improved is not structure within the bill but campaign and with anti-flap law. the key should end early, and there should be a fee paid by the plaintiff. any business is foolish enough to go to court, we have a fast lane to as the case early, and

the business would have to pay the attorney fee. >>? i totally agree. i wanted to come in on something he said. making the right law that will not lead to more litigation. talking about consumer reviews on internet platforms, giving us a tool like federal legislation that is not patchwork, state-by-state or court by courts. just saying across the united states, just take a look at this law. informing both our viewers and the businesses the status of the legal premise around reviews right now. that would cut off litigation really early before the complaint even gets drafted. the first bullying e-mail or harassing message. it would be hard for plaintiffs attorney to sign their name to a complaint knowing that this law was on the books.

favorite sanctions against attorneys which is a section on the attorney. the other fee shifting is a little broader. it is more of a plaintiff to defendant. >> i'm not endorsing sanctions. this has to be attorneys as much as saying the law is built as drafted from our point of view. that would be putting the attorney on they start to draft the complaint. once the client has been alerted from a platform like advisor or angie's list, you cannot bring a lawsuit based on these clauses. it is not legal. i do not think there is any chance you will find any ethical attorney who will sign such a complaint. remedy talking about the as the professional responsibility draft. cases laws are challenged to plaintiff lawyers.

how can i get around it. one of the constraints of the bill is it is very tricky even for the most clever claims lawyer to come up with a way around the bill. i think it is one of the strengths. that sounds like businesses are pretty creative in finding ways to either scare consumers into not posting reviews or putting clause to get them to take it down. george, areg from there other issues consumers are facing online when they are dealing with these contracts, maybe carl, what are some of the other complaints you are seeing with businesses that are in the same fate that we should be andre of with/ anti-disparagement clauses going hand-in-hand. other other ones we should be thinking about? , we have taken a look at that bill as well. we are sympathetic to the issues there and the similarities about how that can be abused.

we think there may be some scope problems in the way that the film was currently constructed. given a it needs to be closer look. but we think that is an issue worth looking at, definitely. clauses aregement simply one of the more recent anti-consumer additions to the standard form boilerplate consumer contracts that business legal teams draft and are constantly tinkering with and revising and adding to. to stack the deck further and further against consumers. by pulling the rug out from under their basic legal rights and protections under common law. example of unfair fight print is a clause under which the consumers supposedly agrees not to ever take the business to court, no matter how harmful and

widespread its misconduct might be. the consumers supposedly agrees to take any complaints to a private arbitrator, typically often, hand-picked by the business and already familiar to it. and who is not even required to follow the law. there are often other accompanying restrictions and requirements that make bringing the claim and arbitration so inconvenient and costly for the consumer that it cannot be justified. and so the business gets off the hook, even for potentially widespread and egregious conduct. beyondthis problem goes the internet. but signing agreements digitally exit worse, in that it is harder as a practical matter to know what is in the agreement you are signing. i do not want what i said earlier what i am saying now to be misheard as saying the main problem here is that it is a surprise to consumers.

i agree with what everybody else here has said, is a problem because it is unfairly pushing the consumer to a place where they are giving up on a mental rights and protections. but i think the surprise is an additional harm and an additional factor. the last time i got a new mobile phone, we were wrapping up the urges, the salesman handed me his digital machine, and the electronic pen, and show me where to choose the box saying i agree with the terms of the sales agreement. which the box also said that i had already read and fully understood. when i asked him if i could see the agreement, so that i could actually read it, he said he did not have the agreement available in the store. curiosity, i told him i needed to see it. i asked him to get it from wherever. he had to call corporate headquarters. their legal department. it took more than half an hour

of waiting with my wife and two inch patient fidgeting teenagers. how many consumers are going to go through that? the agreement was 50 pages long. how many consumers will read that and be able to understand is? anddisparagement clauses forced arbitration clauses are two of the many one-sided provisions things slipped into the fine print of standard form boilerplate, take it or leave it consumer contracts that are taking away the consumer's voice in the consumer basic rights and protections. we are working on that bigger fineprint, and there are a lot of issues that need to be looked at and sides of the data be examined. but while we keep working on that bigger issue hope we are ready to start now by ending the use of non-disparagement clauses , by seeing this bill enacted in the coming weeks. i am happy to answer anybody's

questions about that bill. feel free to give me a call. we are here in town. we're happy to talk to anybody. miranda: we'll leave time for questions at the end in a few minutes. comment on want to things you're saying, things you are hearing from individuals who are engaging with these businesses, or any particular cases that hit home with the anti-disparagement clauses that you have seen that brought this issue to light? >> sure. about some of the cases are not disparagement clauses that have taken place recently that i think are interesting more alarming. the first one, professor goldman's book earlier, where the judge granted the motion to dismiss saying that they reviews were not defamatory, but allowed the lawsuit continue based on the potential breach of

contract, which was very alarming. the low-income contractual language to trump honest, reliable speech. another bad made a lot of headlines was the palmer versus cleared here case a couple of years back. ms. palmer actually testified to the senate congress committee in connection to the bill. for those who are not familiar with the without was a situation where she purchased a $20 item from an internet retailer, and the item never showed up. i believe she canceled her order, and she wrote a negative review on a website. fast-forward one or two years, all of a sudden the cleared your notice the review and reached out to her and told her that they were going to put a fine against her for violating the non-disparagement clause for no negative reviews that was in their terms of service.

there was even a question of whether they had revised their terms of service to add that after the fact. it was really bad fax, quite frankly. when the palmers rightfully did not hate at three thousand $500 fine, clear care center to the credit agencies who reported it. the palmers credit dropped him and she listed a whole host of actual impacts on their lives on loans they could not get an actual impacts they felt financially because of this one review. they were fortunate enough to hook up with public citizen who took their case on on a pro bono basis that is not something that most people could have done. most people in that situation and up with ruin credit and she was able to adjudicated in the courts through public citizen. up.r care than full it i do not know of any assets wherever recovered were made whole.

the other case that i think is interesting was adjudicated more the court of public opinion than the actual courts. two summers ago, in the summer of 2014, it was noticed that a small b&b in upstate new york, and hudson valley had included in their contracts of brides and grooms a clause that said along the lines of we know that brides here, but love us your guests may not know how awesome we are. control your guests. if any of your guests write negative reviews, you will $500 for each review. it is coming out of the security deposit your already gave us. unbelievable. now we not only trying to exercise prior restraint on an individual speech that you have a contractual relationship with, but everybody that they know in their family as well.

the new york post picked that up, and ran a story on it. within about 12 hours, guilt and trip advisor were getting flooded with reviews and comments of this place. those are not firsthand reviews, so they did not meet the guidelines for advisor or your community did not get published what came down. consumerspulation of spoke very quickly and very loudly saying that is violating social norms. that is violating what we're expecting out of business relationships. i think it is really instructive as to what the american consumers expect in their agreements, and what they expect to not be in their grievance in the ones they work with. >> one other dimension, they were using language that was different versions of their agreement would have not just the right to sue you for leaving

a negative review, but they also said that the $480 that you pay for this fiber product that we are cleaning will give you dramatic weight loss, that price is actually a subsidize discounted price, and really the full price is $1500. and if you breach the contract, including a big negative review, we can immediately charge you the balance of the full price and the commission alleged that that was deceptive straight up, theout having to get into fairness doctrine. basically, they would take that fineprint, and they would put that into a notice you got along with some instructions that she would receive in the package with your product when it arrived saying that if you leave a negative review, you will be charged this full price. problem,of the iceberg we would probably have a difficult time counting who

would see that piece of paper and decided game over right there, even if the product did not work for them as we believe it did not. dimensionst another that needs to be on the table in terms of what we're looking at in terms of how clever lawyers can try to come up with for ways strata around prohibition. -- straight up prohibition. miranda: any last thoughts, before we could take questions from the audience? >> i just want to reinforce, this bill is a little bill. this bill is not trying to change your sentiments of the economy or anything like that. but is it crucial piece of the overall market mechanism. back to george's concerns about abusive anti-consumer clauses. in of the ways we can combat those is by letting the court of

public opinion decide. consumers to express their experience is with the businesses. make sure not only can we fight against bad products but we can also fight against abusive terms that are used with good products. bill really becomes a foundation for the entire ecosystem to make sure that we can hold businesses accountable for their poor choices. the category of truthful negative information is a most imperiled type of speech or content anywhere. it is so easy for that information to be suppressed or bullied or never proffered in the first place. this bill is really about trying to stake out a little more ground to give breathing room for this endangered type of content. >> i agree with you. i would say teedo final time. -- tina final thought.

final thought. it is easy to think that this is a little, or that consumer reviews are not important a type of speech. this is a very studied sector right now with business. it is new in the last 10 or 15 years. it is really emerging. study by the consumer last year indicated that 70% of americans now consult consumer reviews before making purchasing decisions. from our area travel, it is much higher. 90% of people looking at these reviews. this is real-world impact and real world dollars that people are trying to spend efficiently. you do not want your family vacation ruined. it is important. the other thing i would say, this bill is really important, it is excellent the anti-slap bill as well. while they have the same and objective of ensuring that the

to be outenabled there and for people to evaluate it and read it and process it and they want to, they attack different methods that the bad actors take to stifle that speech. this really is not a situation where if one passes the other should die. the two of them work together very well to protect consumers and the entire marketplace of information. >> i'm just going to put in a plug for if you are a consumer, or you know somebody who has encountered a cloth like this -- a clause like this, and you have encountered suppression of your to leave a review, go to ftc.gov fill out an online complaint. we do not act on every complaint, but having a database of people living their stories

and telling us about problems they have with businesses is really critical. ftc.gov for that as well as numerous consumer business education tools that you can help empower yourself. >> i would say three things. first, when brad mentioned the consumerist, that is us. that is one of our publications. we are actively engaged. secondly, i would say that looking at this not from the perspective of somebody who wants to write a review, puts somebody who wants to buy something who has been vetted and tested in the marketplace, if you do not want every single purchase you make to be a thathoot, it is important word-of-mouth be able to spread without restriction. this bill will really help do that.

the third thing that i would say, just about the slap suit that i would just repeat there is an important concept there that needs to be distilled. -- ifot sure if it's an in its current form it is ready yet. but is something we want to work with others on. miranda: i think we had a question over here. >> usually cannot go on a trip and by a cup of coffee without review site. this is a very narrowly tailored approach. by expanding the attack is a little dangerous group of people on the other side that there -- say that there is no recourse for a business. if someone gives me a slanderous attack and what do i do? could you address more on the themation and what is on

books today for business recourse? some examples as we of a society have fun contract provisions avoid against public policy? >> let me focus on your first point, which is so what about businesses that are being injured by consumers who are out to get them? it could be that they are unhappy, it could be that they -- jilted lovers lovers, trying to cause harm. that is a totally separate issue than the bills we have been discussing today because what we're discussing today would eliminate restrictions on consumers being able to share their views. canoes not mean that they say anything they ever want. then we go back toward default set of loss that apply when

people share their views, and people have to be accountable for their words. we have laws like the defamation on the books today. there are laws that are not perfect, like any laws. we have seen many examples for consumers have overstated the situation, sometimes maliciously, and been found to engage in if review and been held accountable for that. if i'm a business owner, bringing a defamation lawsuit, i am not ecstatic about that. but the contractual suppression of the review in the first place is completely separate from it. companyd imagine a trying to say do not leave the inflammatory reviews, it does not say anything that the law does not already restrict. that is the only possible thing that is in a prospective contract that would have been legitimate. it would've been prevented by the law itself. lawsefamation and other

that exist to help businesses when there is the subject of an attack on line give a counterbalance. i cannot stress enough, we do see those cases, but far more often what i see is the business going and saying that was defamatory, but really it was not and using the threat of driving can talk that content of the internet. for every legitimate case of defamation we have dozens or hundreds of cases where content is being driven off because it was not dem cemetery, but the threat was enough to drive it away. anti-slap a super helpful for that. is an iceberg problem. it only addresses the cases was they have gone to court. but the way it goes in practice is that a business sense a friend anymore letter that says i'm going to see you and i'm going to take everything you own because you have defamed me. point, the person receiving that letter has one of two choices.

they say bring it, anti-slap laws will protect me, or they say i've not going to jeopardize my house, this is a single review. making any money on this, i do not have a stake in this game to bet my financial future, i do not want to spend years the toner of bias some lawyer in depositions and mounds of papers. that content is just coming off. the problem with anti-slap laws is not that they are not a good solution, they are great solution but they are an incomplete solution. rubber meets the road is when people get those negative letters, and they act on them without taking into court. anti-slap gives them a little more clever in the background. -- cover in the background. that is a separate problem we need to address. miranda: question in the back. hello, i am a local blogger

about events. i know this sounds a little simpler. two draft the consumer issue. but 20 years ago we did not have the internet or legal reforms forms were people could comment on anything. i know that there is an option , if there is a low rating for a common, whether it is defamatory, inaccurate for whatever reason, people can vote is down and it will be suppressed, are not necessarily be seen as visibly as the other comments. do you ever get into defamatory situations where you are criticizing or going after someone who wrote something that could be considered harmful to the general public, or onerous and some very negative way? it is fair to say, every platform or intermarry -- intermediary platform has their own approach.

some have filters of what is visible and what is not visible. trip advisor works in a black reviewte approach to a meets all of our garden lines, we will publish them. if we do not see the meteor guidelines, we will not publish them. if we look at them again and they did not meet the guidelines, they will be taken down. they will be chronological, not by how accurate is the general populace inc. this is. there are many sorting choices. when you're operating in scale, are, you big companies certainly cannot read every few with human eyes as they come in, and even less likely you cannot fact check them. what you need to do is set up guidelines but to expect everybody, but the viewers and the -- reviewers and businesses to play by.

we stringently monitor and police those. you have a review that does not hit the defamatory threshold, so the famine tatian suit is not in play, but it is a very negative review. there is a lot in their, it is aggressive. much like with political speech, i would represent the the answer to that aggressive speech that you do not like is not to take away committees to answer it with good speech that you do like and allow those that are looking at it to evaluate it, just as you would in a debate when you are making decisions on things. you'll look at both sides and you decide who you trust. isthat review that you read totally contradictory from the six before it and the six after it, but that is someone that you are not quite put a lot of weight in. that is what we see from users on our site all the time. the average person is not looking at one review, which

business owners are so sure. this one review will kill my business. but every empirical study says that the average user is going to look at roughly 12 reviews. that one, if it is going to the standout, is going to totally be put aside. t y for this great panel. i would like to flip this around a little bit. i've seen reports of companies that exist that can be can hire to write good reviews about them. is there a role for either the trade commission or congress to this problemssing that these businesses exist to write false good reviews? eric: the commission has taken ,ction against companies

whether has been one more that there are cases in which companies have manipulated reviews in some ways by payi ng for positive reviews in which there is no disclosure where people were compensated for the reviews. the general stance is laid out and guidelines that have been issued help businesses about endorsements and talking any sort of about compensated endorsement. if someone has released the product in their talking about the real experience they are just not disclosing that they were paid to relive that either view, that would be one set of facts. useds if someone has not at all, they're just being paid

to make up something. that is deceptive and an entirely different level. -- it would be something that would fall under the commissions existing authority. there is probably going to be evolution in the marketplace as well. we will have to see how well we are able to keep up with that. it is sometimes difficult to detect when that is happening just by the very nature of the problem. that is a challenge, but i think from a legal standpoint if consumers do not understand that that review is basically being compensated, or that the review is being made up, your wallet to section five deception territory. -- you are well into section five deception territory. >> the new york attorney general took under advisement a big project on these companies.

that were already on the books on deceptive trade practices and fraud and things of the sort. right, it is a whole separate section. thing that i would say from a purely commercial point of view is that obviously we would love any and all support we can get from law enforcement in going after these very legitimate back actors that are harming consumers. -- bad actors that are harming consumers. those reviews are a breach of our terms of service. you can claim fraud and consumer deception claims against them. , and platform like ours -- thatform that is does not have a stake in the game, not write a review of the product i'm selling, but just companies, weher

do not care. all we want is an accurate review. the first time you decide to go down there and it is a totally different experience that you had, you will never come back to us again. you have lost your trust. if all parts are quickly. can follow part very quickly. the opposite is very true often because the understand of recipe of the reviews is important. lots of automated systems in the back checking things. around a team of people the world that are doing sting signing up lying -- as employees of these companies, to really go after them and take them down from an angle we can to fix consumers. marketplace reality is going to

encourage platforms to do it. but absolutely, there is -- we will take all the help we can get in that fight. miranda: any last questions? think you for coming. the guitar panelists for coming up the internet has brought a lot of these issues to light. the cases that came out are some of the things that really raise awareness of on the health for what is have to be done in congress to protect consumers. i encourage you to follow karl's recommendation to let the commission know if you have experience any of these to push this forward. keep on the lookout for additional briefings at the internet caucus advisory committee. you will hear about a lot more issues related to the internet and economy and what we are currently facing. t why everyone -- thank you everyone. [applause]

>> tonight on c-span, house speaker paul ryan talking about the republican policy agenda for 2016. then vice president joe biden talking about cancer research. the hudson institute a discussion about rising tensions between iran and saudi arabia. in the congressional internet caucus looks at efforts by businesses to penalize customers who write negative online reviews. >> for this year's student cam documentary contest they talk about issues they want the presidential candidates to discuss. here is a tweet from andrew, and a grade social studies teacher.

helped georgia, sally, and jesse with their c-span project this afternoon. good luck. side highfrom lake school tweeted thanks again. and a social studies teacher in new jersey tweeted interviewing j valentine 25 for our student cam project about school balling -- bullying. the deadline is january 20, 2016. the winners will be announced march 9. for more information, visit our website. congressional republicans just finished a policy retreat in baltimore. at the close of the event house speaker paul ryan hold -- held a press conference where he

discussed the agenda for the coming year focusing on national and health care. this was 10 minutes. mr. ryan: today is the anniversary of the packers first super bowl win. good morning. we just completed a very successful conference. with everything that is at stake in 2016, we have been talking about how do we go on offense ideas and how do we make sure that we offer the country a very clear and compelling choice? they deserve that. we want to earn their choice by offering an agenda that fixes their problems, because of we do not like the direction the country is going and we do not, we have an obligation to offer an alternative, so starting today, we are beginning to work on developing a bold progrowth agenda. this agenda will focus on five areas.

first, national security. americans are very anxious right now, rightfully so. how do we go about making sure that we are secure here at home? how do we go about building a clay for century military and make sure that we are equipped to defeat isis and the threat posed by radical islamic terrorism? next, jobs and economic growth. our economy is far from reaching its potential. wages are still stagnant. families are still hurting. people are working harder than ever before but they feel that they are sitting behind. how do we fix our tax code? how do we rein in the regulatory state? how do we maximize our energy potential? third, health care. obamacare has taken us down the wrong path. higher prices, higher

deductibles, fewer choices, restricted access. how do we not only repeal the law but what solutions lead us to lower cost and a truly patient-centered health care system? fourth, poverty and opportunity. there are 46 million americans living in poverty today. what solutions will help get people out? right now we have a safety net that is designed to catch people falling into poverty but what we need is a trampoline that gets people out of poverty into lives they want for themselves. how do we get them back into the workforce? how do we restore upward mobility? the last piece of this, and it is so critical to all the others is restoring the constitution. we are a country founded on an idea, and our rights do not come from government, our rights come from god, our rights are natural and the constitution is this

beautiful system of rules, a beautiful system preserving liberty and freedom so we can exercise those rights, that we are sovereign and free. how do we restore the constitution because the president executive overreach has undermined the constitution and has damaged the people's trust. people more and more do not trust our government and it is because we have deviated from the constitution. so what do we need to do to restore the separation of powers and protect our constitutional liberties? these are critical questions. these are the ideas that we will be advancing. we will work with our colleagues through our committee led task forces, that means every member and their constituents will have a chance to provide their input. a suspect we will have a complete agenda by the time we have a nominee.

this is nothing short of a generational defining moment we are in. the country is crying out for solutions. the country is crying out to be unified. the country is crying out for a positive vision that brings us all together. we want a confident america and now is the time to get to work. thank you. questions? >> you have been circumspect -- in terms of how specific this agenda will be and you said that will be discussed at this conference. is there a resolution as to whether this will be legislation or something less? mr. ryan: we just launched the process. we're not going to predetermine everything. we are going to do this to do this together with our members but believe you me, the people

of our country will know who we are and what we stand for when this is done and they will be given a choice in 2016 so when they go to the polls, when they vote for republicans, they will know what they are voting for. >> some of us talked to bill florez in the hall and he said republicans should develop a technology whoever winds of being the nominee. and do you see because it is unclear who the nominee might be, there is one person who people are concerned, that may be the tail could wag the dog and influence them based on what you do in the house this year. mr. ryan: we are worried about congress working. we're worried about the constitution. we are worried about solutions so we are putting out an agenda that rises to the occasion and we are not sitting here thinking about who the nominee is going to be. we do not have time to think about that. >> that is not in the back of

your mind? mr. ryan: no. >> how exactly are you interpreting this poverty program, how the administration would heckle poverty or how you envision a poverty program because it seems like it would be a completely different vision of how the administration would do it. i am curious as to how you envision it because your voters are thinking a poverty program, we are talking about billions of dollars of social programs. mr. ryan: the status quo which is the obama administration, they believe that measuring success in the war on poverty is spending more money and having more federal programs and having washington dictate solutions to communities. we fundamentally reject that premise. we fundamentally disagree and so

we agreed the more effective way of fighting poverty and combating the lack of upward mobility is to go at the root causes to break the cycle of poverty. we believe in freedom, liberty, self-determination. we believe in communities. we believe in federalism. so what does that mean? work works. washington does not work. we will take those principles that we have and apply it to one of the biggest problems we have in america. people living in poverty and a lack of upward mobility. at the beginning of the portion -- there was the issue of senator cruz. mr. ryan: that is not worth the seconds worth of thought. thank you. appreciate it.

>> awaiting vice president joe biden who will be holding a roundtable discussion on curing

[indiscernible conversations] >> there are different committees working within that area. you look at health care. you're going to have different groups of committee chairs >> on the next washington journal we will talk to scott

landman of bloomberg news on the u.s. and chinese economies. in the future of labor unions and the upcoming impact on labor law. it will talk to the right to work legal foundation. washington journal, live with your phone calls, tweets, and facebook comment at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on c-span2. here are some programs to watch up for this weekend. eastern,at 1:30 p.m. watch tvs coverage of the second annual bill of rights data festival from philadelphia. at 10 p.m. eastern on afterwards, discussion of the book one child with the story of china's most radical experiment, about the effect of china's recently discontinued one child policy.

chasing fortune, truth, and faith in the new china. >> china should grow economically, and it is a wonderful idea that in one or two generations we see everybody go from a bicycle at ration -- aspiration for a bicycle to a bmw. if the one child policy has helped them get to this stage, we would be all for it. it didn't. was it cannot have that much to do with economic growth that everyone had for this last 30 years. >> on sunday, professor gordon young discusses her book activism in which she examines the breast-feeding policies on society. a americaninto health paradigm that increasingly blames individuals themselves for poor health outcomes and for the soaring cost of american health care. >> watch book tv all weekend, all weekend every weekend on

c-span2. television for serious readers. vice president joe biden talk to reporters about the cancer research initiative described as a moonshot in the president's state of the union address. the vice president made his remarks at the university of pennsylvania where he met with oncologists and other medical researchers to discuss potential breakthroughs. this is 15 minutes. hroughs. this is 15 minutes. >> please sit down. welcome, welcome. thank you very much. sense this is taking you from the important work you are doing. .r. collins and i are here i had opportunity to speak with

my friend. and, i like so many of you and maybe members of the press and their families, my family has been touched by cancer. some family members have survived. some have not. mother used to have an expression. little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. and when you're engaged with someone you love who is fighting for their life, you become acquainted with at least the parameters of what they are dealing with and you as that will tell you, you do everything in your power to be able to learn as much about the fight

that is underway as you can. and so i want to make it clear, when the president set up -- when i decided not to run for president, i had indicated in the rose garden that when i made that announcement that had i been president, one of the things i would devote my administration to was a manhattan project, a lot of moon shots on cancer. the truth of the matter is i believe from my exposure over two years of my son fighting glioblastoma of the brain comics stage four, i became acquainted enough with the brilliant minds around this table and others to realize that we are on the cusp, you are on the cusp of some phenomenal breakthroughs.

in my terms, not your medical terms, we are at an inflection point in the fight against cancer. if you think about i say the media, this is everyone in this room understands this, i used to have a good friend named bob gold and i is to ask do you understand, he would say i over stand you. everyone in the profession over stands what i am saying. until in my view and iamb no expert here although i tried my best to learn as much as i can the last two years, it really was not until before eight years ago we began to challenge the typical way in which we treated cancer. everyone of you who have had a family member over the last 10

years with cancer, you learn the same thing. there is a scalpel to remove a tumor, there is chemotherapy, and radiation. it is a pretty brutal process. a lot of these docs and docs around the world, i met with over 200 leading oncologists in the world and clinicians, part of what moved these men and women, it is presumptuous of me to say is more humane treatment to do with this disease. and god willing in a decade we will look act and say how did we treat cancer in the 1950's the way we treated it? there is a lot of talk about the dream of a possibility of genomics. there was not on the horizon. and so i had a long talk with the president and told him what my intention was and i am so flattered that my fellow congressmen are here. an irish guy who is a

republican, you should we a democrat, i kid him all the time, he is a great friend of mine and others that are here. we really are committed as a government, as a congress, and there is not the cause of me. the only thing that got a spontaneous standing ovation was the announcement of his -- us taking a targeted approach. i want to make it clear, i will yield to dr. collins in a minute, this is not an nih program per se. this is not a federal initiative per se. this is using all the assets and capacities of the government. we task every major agency to be at my disposal and a literal

sense and take from them the best they have in the areas they have, kind of like i did in the recovery act and put together a team and happen executive director where we become -- we already are, i believe through nih -- value added. and are part of the process. where we break down where it is real, some of us imagined, where there are bureaucratic barriers where we can accommodate and speed up rationally and safely additional research and development. but one of the things i have found is there is a awful lot of stovepipe. i hope my medical -- medical friends here will not be

offended but i used to have a grandfather named ambers benny -- ambrose finney. he's to say there is because of politics, church politics, union politics as in labor, and there is politics and he said they are difficult in that order. i hope you're not offended but there are four kinds of baltics. there is cancer politics, church politics, union politics, and politics. they are difficult in that order. it is not even intentional. it is not intentional. there is a desire for everyone here to be collaborative. there is a desire to be collaborative and you are working with other organizations, major cancer research hospitals, but as i go around the country and i have now met with scores of folks, we

have the quilt coalition, the parker institute which you are part of here, the and college he research informational exchange network, the american society of clinical oncology, the gbm agile project which includes 170 international oncologists and researchers. there is the biotech industry organization, friends of cancer research, etc. and they all have particular expertise, none more than here at the university, and what i'm finding is that there still are still up that exist. more existed in the past, but today, they still exist. some of them are and i will be coming to my colleagues who are the leaders in the house and senate in both parties but for example, basic questions like when you do this -- they genomic tests, who owns the genome, me

or you who do the test? right now that is not so clear. most of these -- you'd do not want the individual to own it, you want to own it. there are a lot of practical questions but by and large, what is exciting, i have noticed in the last two years the cost colonization that is going on now that did not exist before. all these doctors are in their own right exceptional. i just happen to know dr. june and his repetition more than most. i mean it.

he is internationally known as others of you are. when people think of dr. june they think of immunotherapy. but he is working closely on genomic and there is a lot of collaboration going on now in virology. a whole range of things that 5, 7, 8 years ago, we almost did not mix. there is even movement and i do not know enough to know whether how much catered there may be there but the neurosurgeon who did two of my craniotomys, they had to go in twice to find a brain 25 years ago, the head of the department of surgery at the university of virginia is talking about high-powered ultrasound. there is all kinds of things that are occurring in the field that, up until recently, other

disciplines would save we are not going to invest in that but i find a much more collaborative atmosphere. and so what my role will be, it may be above my pay grade. this is one of the most difficult and complex undertakings i have taken on in my career. in some time. i became an expert on strategic doctrine, nuclear weapons on the issue relating to arms control. what i was able to do, i sat down with our laboratories and they sat with me over six months and taught me how to make a nuclear weapon. so i fully understood what a soviet silo was. so when i spoke i knew as much or more than anybody i had spoken with. hopefully i can be informed

enough across a wide spectrum that i can be and my colleagues, we can do two things. we can have the federal government and the american people step up in their contributions, financial contributions to the fight and investment in these technologies. as well as coordinate and collaborate all the agencies within the federal government led by dr. collins. so that we are partners, not impediments, we are partners with the private sector. lastly, madam president, there are some very generous people out there. i have now met with -- i did not know there were so many billionaires in america,

literally. i met with some extremely, parker who is free much involved with your efforts here, there are some really fine people including governor huntsman and others who have made enormous investments, charitable investments and philanthropy to deal with this subject. and so my hope is that i can be a catalyst to overstate it, oversimplify it, to get everybody on the same page. the goal is whatever breakers we can make in 10 years, my goal is to make sure we can do it in five years. my goal is that we find absolute cures but for some cancers we get to the point where i can manage them, they become chronic diseases. i do not want the press or folks out there saying biden is being naïve and saying we are about to cure all cancer and we will do

it tomorrow but we can find -- fundamentally change the life circumstances of millions of people around the world. worldwide. this is the biggest killer. if the u.s. is nothing else, i was once asked by president xi, we were having a private dinner and he asked, can i define america and i said yes, i can, in one word. possibilities. that is the uniqueness of this country. limitless possibilities for good -- possibilities. and the dedication we have just run this table. throughout the nation and throughout the world, this is a place where the united states

can make a contribution that exceeds almost anything we could and will have done so far. to humanity. i was joking with my colleagues a moment ago, i was saying to dr. dang, if my mother was here she would look at you and look at you, dr., and say you're doing god's work area that is what this is about. we can do so much. with that, what i would like to do is yield for a moment to dr. collins and then i would like to open up and educate me. i would like you to talk about what you think i should most be doing as i put this task force together and my commitment is not just for the next 12 months. my commitment to do this and i have been stunned by the response worldwide. you have seen some of it. i have been stunned at the overwhelming response welcoming me to be a facilitator and convener.

i plan on doing this the rest of my life. [applause] >> tomorrow donald trump will hold a campaign rally in portsmouth new hampshire pretty couldn't watch our live coverage starting at 11:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span. mondays martin luther king jr. day. with congress not in session we have featured programs on all three c-span networks. on c-span at 11:30 a.m. eastern live coverage of british house of commons debate on whether to ban donald trump from the country. that debate is expected to last three hours. on book tv, university of wisconsin professor william t jones and his book the march on washington.

jobs, freedom, and the product history of the civil rights. >> when he went to organize this march that he called back in 1941, everybody said you bothered -- better get martin forer king and get his support. martin luther king's i will support you, but must expand the goal of the march. it is not just about winning equal access to jobs, finding employment discrimination, it is also about winning the right to vote in the south. >> georgia representative john lewis calls his involvement in civil rights movement in his book in the march, book two. the second part of an illustrated adaptation of his life. but american history tv on c-span3, at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the international history professor at the london school of economics and focal science on a rams cold war partnership with -- on iran's cold war partnership with united states. they had to preserve the sovereignty against the imperial ambitions of written and russia.

in the 1930's they have looked to germany to play that role. war, ahe second world whole generation of our iranians, including the shah moved to the united saved as a country that had no imperial and this is -- ambitions and no history of colonialism in the region. the 1963l america, interview with the reverend dr. martin luther king jr. on his nonviolent approach to civil rights. his comments on president kennedy civil rights bill, and how mahatma gandhi influences work. for the complete schedule go to c-span.org. >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. this year, our student came documentary contest asks tell us what issues they want to hear from the candidates.

next, a discussion about tension in the persian gulf region between iran and saudi arabia. middle east analyst talked about u.s. strategy in the region. the sunni shia conflict, and the war against isis. this is one hour and a half. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming to hudson institute. i would also like to welcome our c-span1 audience this afternoon for what i know is going to be a fantastically interesting panel. also a very timely one, given the events of the last week. especially, the detaining of the 10 american sailors this past week. of course, other recent events including the attacks on two saudi arabian diplomats in iran.

given the topic, the turmoil in the persian gulf, it is poised for more conflicts. we will go for about an hour and 15 minutes. then, i will open it up for questions in the audience and maybe open it up earlier. we have an fantastic panel. to my left is a senior fellow at the foundation for the sense of democracies. to his left, philip smyth, who is an adjunct fellow at the washington institute. philip and i have known each other for a while. philip also owns a blog. to his left is my hudson institute colleague, michael duran. i thank you for coming.

ali, if you would begin. >> thank you so much for your kind words, your invitation, and for providing me the opportunity to present my analysis. the detaining of american soldiers in the gulf by the revolutionary guard came as a surprise to some, and the relatively fast release has been almost like a victory by the secretary of state and the government of iran. i must admit that this is hardly surprising, and it's because of the revolutionary nature of tehran. i will talk for a few minutes about the revolutionary nature,

and after that, i will try to argue why some in the gulf region, by mistreating the population, are indirectly helping tehran. in that way, i will probably put myself in a position to be attacked. so, for most americans, the revolution in iran was an historical event that took place in 1979, 37 years ago. particularly here in washington, 37 years is a long time. it might has well have been when the pyramids were built. it's an historical event. no one has a long memory. it's an ongoing process for the government of iran, the

revolutionary guard, and the supreme leader. the revolution is a permanent revolution. it is not historical. it is an ongoing process. and the one institution with is charged with the permanence of that revolution is, of course, the revolutionary guard. by engaging in acts against the u.s. navy, by staging and attacking diplomatic missions in iran, and by constantly attacking the institutions of state, because there are such institutions. it is to safeguard the territorial integrity of iran,

to safeguard the revolution and its achievement. it is abstract, and it has to do with ideology. if you compare the mission of the police with the mission of the revolutionary guard, the police are charged with upholding law and order in the country and with protecting the diplomatic missions in tehran, the permanence of the revolution. this is the duality. this is the parallel structure that we have in iran. so, what tools do the revolutionary guard have at their disposal to continue spreading the revolution in the entire middle east? that is by reaching out to shia populations in the persian gulf and beyond. now, most unfortunately, some

sunni governments are making the job of the revolutionary guard easier rather than more difficult. particularly when you look at the kingdom of saudi arabia, where the shia population is practically treated as second-class citizens. you make it easier for the revolutionary guards to appeal to them. and you end up chasing saudi shia into the arms of the supreme leader. the same thing is happening in bahrain. if you look at other countries -- kuwait. shia are loyal citizens. they participate in the political process. they are good citizens. same and united arab emirates, and many other places. if there is what policy recommendation that we should

think of -- and i hope our good friends in saudi arabia and bahrain will listen to -- if you treat your shia populations as citizens, they will be good citizens. but if you look at them with suspicion, if you suppress them, if you suppress their demand's for being treated in a dignified way, you end up chasing them into the arms of the revolutionary guard, into the arms of the supreme leader, and you end up contributing to the permanence of the revolution in iran. thank you. host: that was fantastic. thank you very much. there are a number of things i want to circle back to later, especially the point you made about the parallel structure of the revolution. i want to talk about our democratic revolution and the state, and are these parallel structures at odds with each other. philip.

phillip: i got into studying what was going on with certain shia armed groups, particularly in bahrain, because i was following social networks that are completely controlled by the iranians and the revolutionary guard. i found this fascinating. i am going to try to go into that and demonstrate what this means for the region and how we are supposed to be looking at this. i don't want to remove agency from certain actors on the ground. ali is correct by saying that certain sunni moves to put shia in a position where they have to or want to reach out to the iranians and will much more quickly by into their propaganda, be trained by the revolutionary guard, do this, do that. i think there is a broader sectarian narrative here that has been played out due to the war in iraq, the war in syria. the war in syria, again, the

sectarian narrative was driven by the iranians, so we have now come full circle. a few other things attack what's going on in the gulf. one of the big issues i noticed was with bahrain. in bahrain, i have counted around 15-22 groups that have declared they want to use a militant message to depose the monarchy. this has direct implications for u.s. security policy, and some of these groups have actually called for attacks against americans. one of them actually openly announced two days ago that they had links to certain iraqi militias very publicly on their facebook page. they came out and said they would want to launch rockets. their new rocket -- they said they wanted to launch these rockets back in 2014.

a number of bombings have taken place due to these shia elements in bahrain. usually they target security, any security target they can get their hands on, or government targets. the message is very clear. it's to send a message not simply to bahrain and the gulf, but also to the americans, that they can start a low-level brushfire war if they want to in the backyard of an american military base. there is a very close relationship between saudi shia who live in the eastern province and bahraini shia. a lot of these factions are interlinked, so you will see, when arms transports are going through, magically, some will get dropped off in saudi arabia, and some will get dropped off in

bahrain. going forward from there, there have been a number of developments in the past year. one group, which has links to saudi shia and iraqi shia, and a very active militant element within bahrain, was essentially smashed by bahrain security services. there have been a number of arrests and arms caches found. about 1.5 metric tons of explosives were seized by bahraini authority in addition to what we call an esp manufacturing plant. if you look at the bombs and some of the firearms confiscated, if you look at the cells that were formed, they were very similar to the cells forming in southern iraq back when the united states was there.

so, when you see this upsurge in technological capabilities, it is obvious this outside hand has had some sort of presence. does iran want to escalate the conflict? i am of the believe that they are long-term thinkers, strategic. this is a long-term goal. i have heard arguments from different policy makers and different policy makers in the gulf that have said may be americans during negotiations have said why don't you take a break from military activities in bahrain and saudi? again, i don't have any proof to that effect, but you can still see action going on. i do believe iran wants to keep it on a low burn for now. interestingly enough, there were arms seized going into bahrain. i think there is military activity, but it is on the low

burn. host: thank you very much. mike, if you would pick this up and round off our introduction. mike: thanks. i would like to talk a little bit about the u.s. reading of all of this and the dilemma. i would start by imagining a conversation between the united states and the saudi's to on a recommendation that ali made that the saudis should treat their shia population differently. i think that conversation today would be unfruitful. it would be unfruitful in a most any circumstances, but particularly today. the saudis would listen

politely, say thank you for the lecture, and then ignore it. for me, there are many different reasons, but especially now, because from the saudi point of view, the region has tilted toward iran and away from saudi arabia. that is with respect to the larger question from 30,000 feet of what is the proper regional order in the middle east? the number one question for everyone in the region is syria. the conflict in syria is the center of gravity of all that is happening. as far as regional actors are concerned, the united states has taken the side of bashar al-assad.

that's not the rhetorical position, but it's the de facto position based on what they are doing on the ground. if you look at u.s. policy anywhere from baghdad to beirut, the united states is in alignment with the iranians or with other actors that are hostile to the established order in the sunni areas. the united states is arming kurds in syria who are, for all intents and purposes, an extension of the pkk, who are separatists in turkey. if you are sitting in ankara and looking at u.s. policy in syria, the americans have a policy that

is leading toward a new order in syria in which turkish separatists are going to have a safe haven. if you are saudi arabia, you see a syria with a revitalized iranian role in the country and the assad in power in perpetuity. if you are the israelis and you are looking at what the united states is doing, you see that eventually what is going to happen is that the russians and iranians are going to help assad reassert control, and you are going to have irgc members on the ground right on the israeli border. if you're the saudis and you look at what the united states is doing in iraq, the united states is the air force of the shiite militias armed, trained, equipped, and effectively led by iran inside iraq.

so, if you look at the way this is going and imagine the conversation that ali suggested we had, from the saudi point of view, you can say hey, washington, what about all these militias iran is arming, training, and equipping and four or five different arab countries? what is your policy for stopping that? and of course, there is no policy for stopping that. when the saudis executed this shiite cleric inside saudi arabia, that was preceded by conversations between the united states, u.s. officials and saudi officials, in which the u.s. said don't do this, this is a provocation, a sectarian provocation that is going to cause difficulty with iran. from the saudi point of view, this was the united states effectively reinforcing iran's