tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 20, 2014 6:30pm-8:01pm EDT
ago. that was also over a miscalculation, misunderstanding about russia's interest then and what was the ottoman empire and the role of slavs and the orthodox christians that end up with another series of events that's led to not just recriminations, but unfortunately military action on and around that same peninsula with lots of strange people on different sides. the balaclava, which we've seen in crimea on those various outposts. so as mr. putin reminded in his speech the other day, history, depending on where you want to pick it up, is never very far away. but today you've also said some very important things about the future, as well as about the present. i think there's going to be a lot of questions about the things that you've said. we have many members of the diplomatic corps in washington, d.c. the think tanks, which we are very glad to see. students from other universities
close by. many other academic analysts and members of the press corps. so i'd like to hold it open now to the floor. i'll try to take, if it's okay with you, a couple of questions at a time. we've got exactly half an hour. so again, if people could keep those short and we'll start with this gentleman here at the front, if you could wait until a microphone comes to you. please identify yourself and then the lady behind you. >> i'm michael gordon, "new york times." sir, the united states has sent a dozen f-16s and several hundred service personnel to poland as a reassurance mission. but if nato is trying to send a message of resolve, shouldn't the reassurance mission be a nato-led effort involving multiple countries on land, sea, and air, in poland, the baltic states and the black sea. and also, ukraine has been seeking support for its military. shouldn't nato consider providing intelligence support, logistical support, and advisers to help strengthen the ukrainian
military and deter possible russian militaryvention. this is the greatest crisis since the cold wars and something more required than suspending a joint maritime operation and stopping staff level meetings. >> thanks. if the microphone could go to the lady just behind you with the glasses. >> thank you. laura jakes with associated press. this is a good segue from michael's question. you mentioned ongoing nato missions in kosovo off the somali coast and of course in afghanistan. as nato now focuses on european security as a result rf russof s aggressions, how will that affect strategy in other missions, particularly afghanistan? thank you. >> thank you. secretary-general? >> to start with the latter, we have the capacity -- does it work? yeah, now it works. we have the capacity to deal
with several missions and operations at one at the same time. and i don't think events will not have any impact on our engagement in afghanistan. we follow the plans as already outlined, which means completion of the isef combat operation by the end of this year, and provided we get a signature on the security agreements, deployment of a nato led training mission from the first of january 2015, and there will be no change in those plans. on nato engagement in the crisis, yes, if we take the
baltic air policing, the united states took a quick step to augment their contribution to a baltic air collision, which is highly appreciated. the good news is that this initiative will now be followed by other nato allies. a couple of days ago, the uk announced that they will contribute to augmenting or enhancing air policing over the baltic states and other announcements will follow, so you're right, it should be and it is and it will be a nato mission. the same goes for the deployment of awax planes over romania and poland. these are part of a nato
operation. but having said that, it's normal practice that individual allies can take immediate steps and then it's followed by a more broad nato mission. and i envisage further steps to reassure allies to strengthen deterrents and a collective defense in light of what we have seen. and then on ukraine, which is the second part of your question. we have intensive meetings in the ukraine commission. i have met the ukrainian prime minister. the ukrainian foreign minister.
they have forwarded a number of requests. we are now looking into those requests, and i would expect foreign ministers to take decisions on enhanced partnerships, increased assistance to ukraine when foreign ministers meet on the first and second of april. i agree that we should step up our assistance to ukraine and i'm sure it will happen. >> thanks. i'm trying to collect questions. i see hands coming up. the gentleman here at the aisle. if people keep their hands up, i'm trying to keep track, please. thank you. >> you have explained very effectively the logic of suspending cooperation under the nato-russia council. how would you respond to two
counterarguments to that? the first being that that cooperation is as much a nato interest as it is a russian interest. and the second, perhaps more important counterargument, that perhaps it is precisely a moment of conflict and disagreement that institutionalized contact between the two sides most valuable. >> and the gentleman here at the aisle? just one second. next time around. thank you. >> this year marks -- and first of all, congratulations on your hillary clinton award this morning. fiona mentioned a few anniversaries, but this marks the 100th anniversary of world war i. you welcomed a delegation from bosnia i think a couple of days ago and macedonia's prime minister recently. what kind of message will the upcoming summit send on enlargement? will there be a breakthrough on the macedonia-greece dispute in europe opinion and perhaps a
visit to the region, if enlargement is not deliverable at the uk summit, will you visit all the four country sths because i think we learned the mistakes of bucharest with georgia and ukraine. luckily nothing of that sort has happened on macedonia. but hopefully nothing does happen. so thank you. >> thank you. first, on the nato russia-council. actually, i think we struck the right balance in what we have done so far. because you're right. during a crisis, it is important to keep open a channel for dialogue. so that's why we have suspended practical cooperation with russia, while we have kept the nato-russia council as such open for dialogue. and actually, we have had a meeting already at ambassadors' level within the nato-russia council. i can tell you, it was not a
pleasant meeting with 28 allies conveying a very clear message to the russian ambassador. but i think it was a useful meeting. so that underlines your point, that during a crisis, we need to keep open these channels for dialogue. and that's exactly what we have done. but on the other hand, i also think the russian behavior must have consequences. i mean, when i study the founding documents that create the framework for our partnership with russia, i can see russia, of all the fundamental principles. among those principles, we have stated that we will not use force against each other or any other.
obviously they did. in 2010, at the nato-russia summit in lisbon, we declared that it's our mission to develop a true sta terategic partnershi between russia and nato. i'm a strong believer in that. basically, i think we share interests. but when i witness the current russian behavior, i ask myself, should russia be considered a partner or an adversary? i have to ask that question. and many allies ask that question. so that's why we can't continue business as usual. but i think we struck the right balance in the way we dealt with this. and, and we have done it in such a manner that it opens a possibility to step up sanctions, so to speak, if the
situation warrants that. now, on our open door policy and perspectives of enlargement, we have four partners that have declared aspirations to become future nato members. georgia, montenegro, the former yugoslav plug of macedonia. this is merit-based. countries must fulfill certain criteria before they can join our alliance. we have agreed on a procedure so that decisions on how we will address the open door policy will not be made now, but later in the run-up to the summit. we will update individual
assessment of each of the four aspirant countries before foreign ministers meet by the end of june, and then forevers will take decisions by the end of june. so it would be premature to present any assessment as to how we will deal with each of the four aspirant countries. what is clear is that the process is merit-based and each individual aspirant country will be judged upon its own merits. but i think they all realize that they still have work to do, but having said that, i'm clear ly -- my position is very clear. i think the progress they have made should be appropriately reflected at the summit.
it wouldn't be sufficient just to reiterate what we have said previously on our open door policy. and of course, what we have seen from the russian side may also have an impact on the final decisions on how we will address the open door policy and not to be misunderstood, i think it's essential that we provide aspirant countries with a clear euroatlantic perspective. >> thank you. i have a question here, the gentleman with the pink red tie. and this gentleman over here, afterwar
afterwards. sir. >> mr. rasmussen, does the situation bring a new sense of urgency for nato to accelerate with the enlargement protests, the situation in ukraine, send a letter to secretary of state kerry urging him to support membership, especially for macedonia and for montenegro at your summit of nato. thank you. >> thank you. and this gentleman against the wall here. we need a microphone for purposes of recording. >> mr. rasmussen, you just mentioned that the first joint operation with the russians to evacuate chemical weapons from syria will be aborted, will be stopped. could you be a bit more specific about this? and is it a good idea to do this, would be my second question. and brief third question, don't you think now crimea is finally,
well, part of russia, so to say? don't you think the situation now will quiet down and should nato react well, also in those terms, that you see that the russians are toning down their rhetoric and situation will become a bit more peaceful. but that's probably wishful thinking. what's your take on this? >> thank you. >> first, on enlargement. you ask me in concrete terms whether ongoing events would accelerate enlargement. let me stress once again any enlargement process is merit-based. there's no shortcut to membership of nato. applicant countries must fulfill
certain criteria. and that's -- i mean, for all four aspirant countries, the fact is that they do not yet fulfill all necessary criteria. now, you ask specifically about the former yugoslav republic of macedonia. already in 2008, we decided at the nato summit in bucharest that we are ready to extend an invitation to accept a negotiation. once a mutually satisfied answer has been found, that decision still stands. so once the name issue has been solved, we are ready to start negotiations. unfortunately, we have not seen any, any progress since 2008, which i strongly regret.
and, i mean, for each country, there is specific issues and we deal with them individually. montenegro, for instance, is a positive story. they have made a lot of progress, carried through a lot of reforms, but still there is a need for further reforms of their security sector, strengthened efforts against organized crime and corruption. bosnia -- we have granted them a condition-based membership plan. it will be activated as soon as the bosnians carry through some very modest reforms related to defense property. i won't go into details. but jeff mentioned that since we did that in 2010, we haven't
seen any progress. i met yesterday with a member of the president of bosni bosnia-hertzegovena. but they have not been able to reach an agreement on this very, very modest requirement. we have seen a lot of progress. they have conducted successful parliamentary and presidential elections. they have reformed their defense sector, but still have things to do within their security sector, and also when it comes to their judiciary. so just to stress that certain conditions must be fulfilled,
and there's no shortcut and ongoing events will not change that. but, of course, we all keep in mind strategic implications of the events in crimea and ukraine, and faced with a more assertive russian attitude, it is of utmost importance that we in the euro-atlantic organizations provide partners with a realistic and credible euro-atlantic alternative to the russian pressure. that's my clear position. as you know, the american vessel cabaret will carry out the task to destroy certain chemicals. those chemicals have not been -- i mean, they have not left syria
yet, so that's one problem. but we have prepared everything to provide effective protection during that process. suggested it could be -- the first ever. but now we have suspended it. you ask me, is it a good idea? let me stress, it will not affect the destruction of chemicals. that destruction will still take place. the ship will be appropriately protected. but without russian participation. that's all. >> there was a final point -- >> oh, the wishful thinking. [ laughter ] i think it is wishful thinking in a way. because my major concern is that
this won't stop. crimea is one example, but i see crimea as an element in a greater pattern. in more long term, the russian or at least putin strategy, so of course our major concern now is whether he will go beyond crimea, whether russia will intervene in the eastern parts -- >> he said he won't. >> yes. [ laughter ] and? so, we are vigilant. we have seen a pattern -- i
mean, if you have a look at the whole region, you see protracted frozen conflicts. now maybe in reforment, still. i would add to this also -- and if you look at all of this, you will see an overall russian strategy. it shows their long-term strategic interest to keep instability in that region. that can be used, among other things, to prevent countries in that region to seek euro-atlantic integration. that's my major concern. >> thank you. i fear because we've only got five minutes left that it may be difficult to get to all the questions. there's a cluster of three people over here, starting with the gentleman with the glasses, the lady behind him, and the other gentleman -- the gentleman with the glasses closest to the window first, the lady behind
you, and then back to you. i was trying to keep the three of you together. >> i am a second year undergraduate at george washington university. my question today is in regards to nato's nuclear declaratory policy and the prospects for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons in nato's grander security policy. as obviously from the united states' perspective, as long as the u.s. tactical weapons remain deployed in europe, all of nato has a stake in their security. so how does the debate over nato nuclear policy and non-strategic nuclear weapons deployed both by nato and russia also fit in to september's agenda? >> thanks very much. if you'll just pass the microphone to the lady behind you. thank you. >> hi. rachel oswald, national journal. my question kind of follows that. there was a recent congressional report that found that the pentagon's time schedule for achieving certain missile defense capabilities in romania
and poland against medium missiles could be too optimistic. what are your thoughts on that conclusion? >> thanks. and the gentleman who originally had the microphone. >> as the united states and the european union are negotiating the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, the so-called economic nato, don't you think that it's essential that we have a transatlantic conversation when it comes to security, to a greater extent that the eu has delivered in december, and then secondly, with the departure of the last u.s. tank in april from europe and the end of the isef mission in afghanistan, don't you think that it's essential that nato re-examines its role in the 21st century? don't you think that the alliance maybe needs to reinvent itself as it did after the end of the cold war? thank you very much.
>> thank you. >> yep. interesting questions. first, on our nuclear policy. we adopted a new strategic concept in 2010 and also in that strategic concept addressed the nuclear question. we declared that we subscribe to the long-term vision of a world without nuclear weapons. actually, that's not breaking news, because most of the countries in the world subscribe to that vision already in 1970, when they signed the non-proliferation treaty. so we all committed to that long-term vision of a world without nuclear weapons. we also declared that we will
work hard to create the conditions for fulfilling that vision. but, having said that, we added that as long as nuclear weapons exist, nato will remain a nuclear alliance. now, we have also declared that we are ready to engage in negotiations on a reduction of the number of nuclear weapons. including tactical nuclear weapons. but we have added that it should take place in a balanced manner. and the fact is, that since the end of the cold war, nato countries have reduced the arsenal of nuclear weapons drastically. i emphasize drastically. while we have not seen a similar reduction on the russian side.
so there you see a huge stockpile of russian nuclear weapons and clearly an imbalance. so we shouldn't be naive. so while we will work towards a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons, we also need more transparency. and we need to reduce in a balanced manner. so that's our clear position. now, of course, i cannot exclude that the events we have witnessed in crimea will also have an impact on the thinking about arms control, including nuclear policies. on missile defense.
according to all information i have got, there won't be any change of the timetable as regards to the development of the nato missile defense system, including the establishment of facilities in romania and poland. and the timeline is that we intend to provide full coverage by 2018, and so far, i haven't seen any indications of changes in that plan. finally, on the transatlantic relationship, i agree that the transatlantic trade and investment partnership should actually be seen as what we might call the economic nato. the interesting thing is that it has been foreseen already in the
nato treaty article 2, that we should strengthen economic cooperation within or among allies. and actually, i see the t tip as an implementation of that article. now, following that, i also agree that we need more european contributions to our common security. but actually, i think the european council meeting in december was a remarkable step forward. among other things, because the european council focused on european investments and certain capabilities, among them drones, joint intelligence surveillance reconnaissance, but in specific terms drones. also, air refueling, which was
one of the lessons learned from our leap year operation. they also mentioned cyber and satellite communication. so for the fir tist time, the european council has committed to increasing european investments in much-needed military capabilities. i consider that a very welcome step forward. but having said that, let me reiterate what i said in my introduction today. the ukraine crisis and what we have seen in crimea has been a wake-up call, and it must be followed by increased european investments in defense, if we are to ensure a credible deterrent and collect a defense in the future. and finally, on nato's role.
well, lee witness statements that reflect nato's success and every day right now during this crisis i see expressions of gratitude among eastern allies, gratitude that they are actually members of our alliance. i don't think they see a strong need for redefining the role of nato. they became members of nato to ensure effective defense and protection. they have got it. they are grateful for that. as we draw down our operations in afghanistan, we open new opportunities to actually address emergency security
challenges in a much more efficient manner through investments in modern military capabilities, enhanced cyberdefense, further development of our nato missile defense so there is no need to reinvent or redefine the role of nato. our courts have remains the same mainly to provide effect if defense of our populations and our territories and actually the most effective defense is a strong and determined deterrence. that has been the athens -- essence of nato since 1949 and it will remain the core tasks. >> secretary-general it seems a fitting end to the time. we appreciate you spending this past hour with us. we understand of course you have to move off very quickly so
>> two days in adults the so-called millennial generation who are having trouble getting started in life as they have come of age in a very hostile economy. they are paying money into a system to support a level of benefits for today's retirees that they have no realistic chance of getting when they themselves retire. so there needs to be rebalancing of the social compact. it's a very important challenge. it's a very difficult challenge for this country politically. it's not only social security and medicare have the barb budget or about to become half of our budget and the the biggest thing we do but it's symbolically the purest statement in public policy that as a country we are a community all in this together. these are our programs that affect everybody in the old map of these programs doesn't work.
earlier this week fcc commissioner michael o'rielly sat down with that of the free state to discuss the principles that guide him in his work reveals a discussed his 20 year career working for republicans in the house and senate and how that influenced his work. this is part of a daylong conference on telecommunications policy is hosted by the free state foundation.
see okay well, welcome again everyone. i know we have a few people that weren't here when we started this morning and i'm happy to see that most of you have stayed and i understand why. this segment, the conversation with the commissioner has been one of the traditional highlights of the free state foundation conference and we are really glad that you are here commissioners o'rielly. you are actually the fourth commissioner to do this conversation with me and i confess i don't think you know this but i asked chairman wheeler whether he would do it, whether he would come and have the conversatconversat ion before i asked you what he said you know brandy frankly i'm a little bit afraid. why don't you get o'rielly up here.
>> so you are saying i'm second fiddle? >> no, i'm not saying that. i am hoping that he is listening because i may try and get him back, try and get him in the future. but make no mistake we are pleased that you are here. now, we have got these very nice brochures here and it's got your full bioand it and you know i should say right at the outset you have one of the most extensive careers on the hill of anyone that we have had here before, very impressive and especially increasingly responsible positions. so i'm going to skip through all the stops along the way but i know that you started in 1995.
is that correct? >> 94 but yes in that timeframe. >> and then you were still on the hill right before you were nominated and confirmed as the fcc commissioner so tell our audience what your last position was that you held before you were confirmed and we will let them refer it to the bio in between. >> before being confirmed in november of last year i served as policy director in the republican whip office of the senate or senator john cornyn. i had been there for about three years or so and his predecessor for jon kyl as well. >> okay, so just to get the time set in context. you were there during the drafting and you are on the house side i think at that time
in the 1996 telecommunications act, correct? >> that's accurate, yes. >> that's important because in just a little bit i want to get to some questions about your own understanding of the act and your birdseye view of the act but i'm going to start off with a really softball question. were you watching any of our earlier proceedings on c-span this morning? >> i'm sorry, i was tied up in a couple of meeting so i didn't get a chance to watch the panelists. >> no need for an apology because when i ask you this question you will already know the answer. in today's "washington post" this morning in the crossword puzzle number 69 down, this is true. the clue in the crossword puzzle
is government regulator of radio and television, three letters. what do you think the answer is? >> i can say i'm a city go fan so i don't know anything about your crossword puzzles. [laughter] i joke. >> anyway i said this morning and by the way you know if you look up at our logo you see that we may have anticipated that with our own crossword puzzle but i said this morning i was happy to see that the clue was not government regulator of the internet. that might have thrown more of us at that time. okay, now since you've spent so much time on the hill and increasingly responsible positions but a lot of them and i understand not all of them had to do with communications
policies on the publish side of the fcc. i want to ask you based on your experience how do you think about the relationship of the agency to congress and how that experience informs your own view of being a commissioner and at this point i'm not really wanting to get into any specific issue but thinking about it conceptually that way. >> before it began in answering your question which i will do i want to thank you and the free states for all the work you do. i do read your good work and it's helpful for me to have different respect its. i like abroad to diverse viewpoints in front of me and your help is wonderful and i thank you for your work rate i
should say this is a beginning point. i don't tend to wear glasses but i'm suffering miserably from allergies and they are clouding my brain a little bit so it apologize in advance for that. but let me answer your question in earnest. there three things i learned observing the relationship between the congress and the fcc over the years that i hope to take with me in my current job as commissioner. the fcc is a creation of congress. its job is to implement the statute and that will be at the front of my thinking. that means not only meeting statutory deadlines but also not overstepping our authority. number two, humility. it's not my job to tell congress what to do. instead i will do what they tell me to do.
also with their staff. it's important to keep talking to staff and to have a perspective so i have a pretty good handle and keep current with congressional intent. >> okay i want to ask you just one more question about your hill experience in a generic fashion and then i want to ask you about section 706 which we have talked about a lot earlier today because it's so important i want to get your perspective. before doing that there is so much talk these days about quote gridlock on the hill and the congress can't get anything done. i confess sometimes from my disk it's good that they are not getting something done if that's something done is not a good thing but nevertheless there's a
lot of discussion on this. you were there for a long time and i would just like any thoughts you have on whether there has been some change in the way that congress functions and if so, what that might be attributable to and i guess especially if you think communications policy stands out one way or another, just comment on that. >> i don't think it's more partisan. look, i lived through the 1994 elections and the republican revolution that followed. i also saw us lose as majorities over time. those are pretty partisan times but we still got things done. communications policies are generally not partisan except for a few issues. i expect the committees to continue to mold move forward on reauthorization extension in the coming months and to meet the deadline as best they can and that will move forward
notwithstanding any fights occurring in congress. the real issue ice comes down to the agenda and the priorities of the committees of jurisdiction. >> okay. let's turn to section 706 because certainly views might have been different about what it means that you are there as we said earlier. on the hill at the time of the 96 act which was drafted so i just would like for you to give us your views concerning the way that you think the court interpreted it and the way the fcc is interpreting section 706. >> i hope we have a couple of minutes because this may take a little bit. >> we have got a lot of time. we have this room for a long time so take your time to read. >> for those of you who haven't
focused on 706 make let me take a moment to explain what it is and what the how about is all about. as part of the 19909 during his right act congress inserted a miscellaneous provision known as section 706. the seemingly innocuous provision has two components. the first 706a contains oratory language to encourage in the broadest sense deployment and tell the fcc and the states that broadband deployment is a relatively good thing. and second, section 706a requires a study by the commission to determine broadband availability combined with deregulatory actions of the study comes back finding that broadband is lacking. at best, congress intended 706 would be treated as congressional findings and at worst would be that it would
lead to further deregulatory measures. now that's not exactly how it has played out but let me explain why and where we are. part of it is is because this randy highlights extensively i was there. i was one of the few people that were in the room. i also had fewer gray hairs at the time and i was a little younger but i knew what it entails and it has stuck with me over time. it's important when i talk to people who worked on the 96 act i'm not aware of anyone suggesting that this is what 706 users intended to be and even if people did which i do not believe, it would set in motion further deregulation of the industry. there was no intention to give the fcc extra regulatory authority. even the fcc did not believe it has this authority until it ran out of other options. in 2010 the d.c. circuit did
every shred of authority that the commission put forward to regulate net neutrality to impose net neutrality rules. the last-ditch effort you could say the commission decided to reinterpret section 706a and then pulled the trigger on 706a. i find that to be incredibly troubling and this is why. you would have to have some wild assumptions on the interpretation. one, you have to believe that a republican congress with a deregulatory mandate inserted vague language to give complete authority over the internet and broadband to the fcc but then didn't tell a soul. he didn't show up in the writings, didn't show up in the summaries and it didn't show up on any of the stories of the time. number two you have to believe the conference committee intended to codify section 706 outside of the comedic asians act separating the provisions of
the acts title v but somehow expected it to be enforced. three, you would have to assume that the congressional committeecommittee s who went on an extensive review of fcc authority afterwards propose legislation to rein it in terms of fcc reauthorization legislation that they went through that effort but at the same time they provided a secret loophole to the commissions regulating. number five, you would have to believe that when congress is having extensive debates over the ability to regulate or the ability to give the commission authority on net neutrality at the same time they had already done and given the commission authority. number six, you would have to believe that when congress did legislate in this space and more particularly when they educated on certain providers and are
instances relating to safety you would have to believe that they went through that extensive process and then it didn't matter that they had given the commission complete authority in that space under section 706. it's mind-boggling to believe that all those assumptions and there are many more, are true. the truth is that congress did not provide the authority to the commissions so it seems to believe. it's not the opposite. it's not that the fcc authority is all encompassing and that's why i'm so disturbed and troubled by the fcc's actions in this space and also the court's recent decision. >> there is a lot there to think about. i didn't know you were even going to get up to six but i have to say each one seemed at least from my perspective pretty convincing.
in fact i hope they were all captured properly with your mic fair. now at one point though i don't know whether anyone in the audience cop this but i thought you may have, your tongue slipped and then you said this interpretation would get -- give the commission further deregulatory authority but your view under the court's decision and the way the fcc has determined it it is getting, that it would have more expansive regulatory authority that it was never intended to have. >> i believe it does not have that authority and i have made that case in numerous settings. i do make the point hopefully and if i need to clarify i said even if you were to accept that they have this authority was intended to be deregulatory and not regulatory.
>> i want to end we may come back to this betts i want to cover some of the ground. obviously the court's decision affects what congress may do when it considers a new act presumably and we will talk about that as well but by the way remember that the twitter handle is msn csf and we will reserve time again for a few questions from the audience. now i want to switch gears for a moment and talk about how the fcc operates as an institution and the focus on process reform. the house of representatives just passed by voice vote a process reform bill that came out of the house. the commerce committee, the commission has a task force
looking at making recommendations and issued its first report concerning reforming various aspects of the commissions processes. but one issue of processes that have been used a lot in just the last couple of days that i want to ask you about this delegation of authority. i asked commissioner clyburn about that this morning and of course she had the perspective of being a former acting chair and a commissioner and you have yet to attain that status so far without knowing what she said i want to ask you from your perspective the comment on the up her greatness of delegation of authority and when it should be used or not used and
particularly if you can address recent instances in which you have had a concern, just addressing those head-on. >> i should start a saying as randy points out i'm relatively new to the commission. in four months there are so many experiences that i've been able to have but i will address some concerns regarding the use of delegation and recently i have been troubled by the scope and breadth of authority and items that have been decided by the bureaus and commission staff. it's not that i have trouble with the stab. they are great and i've got them opportunity to meet with them and i really appreciate their good work. the difficulty as i have no trouble on my side of the equation making decisions so uncomfortable voting on whatever the issue is and i will do so in a quick fashion. so to me if it's not about how quickly something gets done if that's not the issue because i'm ready to vote, then what is it about?
c. it was cited this morning when i asked mr. clyburn for one of the countervailing considerations and the ambassador may have mentioned the same thing so i'll just throw that out. >> shouldn't be a concern on my front. i come from an institution where they voted all the time and you have to defend your votes going forward so i'm comfortable doing that. i don't have difficulty voting. i've had to do so in a quick fashion so if it's not about speed that i'm not sure what it's about and i'm not sure why some of those items couldn't come up. >> staying on this issue of process reform and i appreciate you have only been sitting on the commission for four months now but i want to ask you because of the focus on this and putting aside delegation of authority. the report that the staff issued a couple of weeks ago had it a
zillion items in their. there were a whole bunch of them and frankly in my view some were fairly inconsequential and others may have even been misguided. but just based on your observation of the commission either from your hill perch or now sitting there are there other aspects of sort of reforming the way the commission does business that you would like to see changed? >> well we have an extensive process for reviewing the commission's current process so i have concerns raised on certain parts and i also want to review those closer but i have only been there a small amount of time and i shouldn't comment in this space but i see delegations in the forefront of my concerns right now. >> okay, so switching gears moving away from process reform i want to talk about some other
substantive matters before the commission but before talking about any one or the other if we can think of it this way initially i want to ask you about your regulatory philosophy what i mean by that the free state foundation, we describe ourselves as having a free-market oriented perspective and when we say that we don't mean that data is not important and that you don't have to look at the data in the proceeding or marketplace that we do have a philosophical disposition or perspective so i want to ask you how you describe your own regulatory philosophy and i will just combine a couple of things here together. is there anyone to whom you look to past or present to model yourself after someone who has been particularly influential in shaping your own thinking about
your approach to regulation? >> i started with the premise that championing economic freedom will be my guiding principle in overseeing the communications industry. before regulating i would have looked at four factors. one is the commission of authority in a particular area and what are the confines of that particular authority. two when it does that what should be based on is there evidence of market failure and harm to consumers and the solution that i can propose that can be implemented? three, excuse me. sorry. allergies as i mentioned to you before it. three is, does the commission set forth its recommendations to be narrowly tailored to the set of providers and services or is it trying to be expansive of that universe and four to the
benefits outweigh the costs of regulations and let's face facto the consumer in one fashion or another. i don't have a favorite regulator and no one in particular but i suggest there are a collection of ideas from those members of congress that i have worked for over the years. >> okay so having imbibed your philosophy and by the way i sympathize with the condition of the allergies because i have them to. i took shots for about 30 years myself and eventually i think they worked. so i understand. let's talk about applying your philosophy or the way you think about these issues to whether a particular market is competitive
or not. i want to ask you about particular markets and maybe we can talk about that then or if need be your welcome to bring the men now. if we went around this room and probably at the commission of course everyone proclaims that generally they prefer competition and when markets are competitive than the regulation may not a necessary in raw terms. but how do you go about assessing when a market is competitive or whether there is a market failure requiring the commission to intervene in some way? >> i don't want to get too far down this road but let me provide a general approach. how we define markets is very important. they should be driven by data.
i worry that the commission sometimes isn't driven by data. that causes me concern so i look to how many competitors in the marketplace whether the competitors are offering services comparable in terms of price, in terms of scope, in terms of reach. are there other market participants that may be substitutes for existing providers and are they providing new innovative and functions and features that make the other market versus events react? >> so you have got those things that you look out the deep but out on the table and you are responsible or what year -- or you see certain markets it you have been talking about all morning here. the broadband marketplace and we talked about the video
marketplace and talked about the wireless marketplace. so my question really is for not asking you to comment on any particular proceeding really unless you want to but just talk about d's marketplaces which you have observed for years and years and years and where you think that they now stand in terms of their competitiveness or not because as you know people have different views on some of your fellow commissioners probably have different views on these things. >> sure. as i previously said i think the market is really important and i recognize that it's challenging. i may be open to a broader definition than some but i start with a premise. sorry.
i start with the premise that technology is converging and markets are blurring. consumers recognize this and if at any given moment your smartphone could fall in the category of wireless device, could be an internet data and broadband device or it could be a video device and blurring lines between cable and telco. we are also seeing the same thing in wi-fi. we are seeing the same thing in discount satellite and broadcasting but we don't know where they are going to go in the future. the reality is consumers are rarely jumping between wireless and wireline offerings and delivery methods today. >> okay. i think following on without commissioner o'rielly implicit
in what you have said or maybe explicit is the way services are converging in what we call the digital world and the notion that the competition is often among platforms that are offering packages and services or whatever. and that brings me to the ip transition proceeding for our c-span audience. ip stands for internet protocol transition and that's another way of saying the services have moved in my view quite rapidly although it's been occurring for a long time from the analog world to the digital world in which is the old saying goes a bit is a bit is a bit.
so what is your view of current current -- currently where the commission's stance on the ip transition preceding? i know it took about 13 or 14 months or whatever between when at&t initially initiated the proceeding and further movement on the proceeding and now the commission is embarking upon trials. if you can just be as specific as you can about where you think things stand and where you would like to see them go and in what timeframe. >> i can't comment on why anything was delayed under the previous commission. i have only been at the commission for four months but the chairman made this a priority and i commend him for doing so. i'm in support of the trials and we were able to quickly put together a proceeding to consider rules that we were able to enact and to consider ip trials. i can't comment too much on the
space because we have two proposals for us for service-based trials. i will say i was concerned and even more so regarding the corporation of the rural broadband experience -- experiments as part of this proceeding. >> can you explain why? >> two parts. one the experiment may zap dollars from other funding and they worry about how to those issues fit together? huckabee experiments that together with the overall usf funding streams. if there's a possibility for duplication? is there possibility they will duplicate what the usda is doing? i'm going to be inquisitive on that going forward. >> i want to turn to spectrum for a moment. when steve argent was here this
morning on the first panel the first question i asked, what is the single most argument that the commission should have and you can imagine trying to commit those guys. we did that in his his casey said when he goes out to eat and orders his meal. he is asked what he wants and he says spectrum spectrum spectrum so we all know how importance but tremendous. so he had this incentive auction on the table. it's obviously important and it's got a number of dimensions to it. one of them is raising revenue. it's also intended to transpose
spectrum. what's the right word i'm searching for that is used so much now? a repurpose actually with the spectrum from one use to another everybody knows it's important. i want to ask you this. there are a lot of but some are much more intricate than others. the one i want to ask you about first relates to whether in the bidding rules there ought to be limits on the participation by eligible bidders but also in talking about that you can maybe address how the question to the existence or not of a spectrum
cap for a spectrum screen. but you are aware aren't you that in order for there to be fair competition or legitimate competition or whatever, that the auction has to be structured in a particular way. comment on that please. >> i have probably stated that i'm not in favor of spectrum cap soared the general case to start with and we can drill down. in general i haven't been in favor of caps. the commission has a case-by-case market analysis that it uses that has been pretty successful insuring competition and protection of consumers and their needs. in terms of the specifics as to relates to the spectrum screen there are particular problems with the spectrum screen. i'm open to seeing what they may be in a baby and fixable. people have articulated their concerns regarding spectrum
warehousing or foreclosing competition as it relates to spectrum and i would argue the solution is not spectrum caps but the solution is strict a lot requirements and their willingness to licenses it necessary. you do not need to buildout requirements. >> what about this question of license spectrum versus unlicensed spectrum. that came up earlier and to me it seems like in one dimension it's engineering but a lot of it involves engineering issues but there may be questions again of philosophical perspective in terms of having property rights in the spectrum are not. how do you approach looking at the question of license versus unlicensed spec from? >> for the foreseeable future we are going to have exclusive license bands and bands that are shared.
i tend to be more in favor of clearing bans an exclusive licensing but i'm not proposing any options as a relates to spectrum sharing. in fact if you look at spectrum sharing every day for consumers in terms of wi-fi and spectrum. i find the wi-fi providers are some of the most truly innovative and entrepreneurial services that we can find in the marketplace and therefore, sorry. and therefore i'm in favor of what they're able to do. there is one thing we certainly have to recognize and that is that the federal government is going to reduce its spectrum holdings in do so in a quick manner. >> okay. just to let the audience know i'm going to ask you two or three more questions but it has always been our policy here to
give a chance to ask questions. we will go through these and then we will see if we have a couple of audience questions. it hasn't been bad to -- too bad so far, right? i want to talk about maybe just the video regulation area. now there is this proposed merger between, and time warner cable that is in this space. you may tell me that you can't decide right now hear what you think ought to be done in that merger. i'm not going to press you on that but here's what i want to ask you. talk about how you think about the video market now and how it has changed. i guess the cable at the 92 was adopted a couple of years before you arrived on the hill. you are obviously familiar with
that. you know i happen to have been around at that time too. the market has changed a lot since then i would suggest and that implies perhaps there ought to be regulatory changes. others say -- what do you say about the video marketplace today? >> i will agree with the first part of your premise. i don't talk about any particular merger that we may or may not have so i keep myself at a distance with that but you highlight the 1992 cable act. i don't think anybody can commit to claim the 92 cable act is about promoting free market. it wasn't and it's premised on a different belief rightly or wrongly that at the time cable service providers were monopolies. a lot has changed since the 1990s in the market has changed significantly. to the harder question are a number of rules that the fcc has to come from the statute.
it's not my job to change those. that's the job for the building ace to work in and those instances where we don't need congressional action to remove barriers. i am fully open and willing to look at those situations and remove their ears that are no longer necessary to affect the current marketplace for video providers. case in point sports lock out i'm in favor of getting rid of it. >> in responding and i understand of course fully what you are saying about some of these things existing but you know you may or may not agree but i just want you to be aware of it that the free state foundation for many years in light of these changes in the marketplace some of these regulations and laws in place for example like must carry for
example that does actually raise very serious constitutional issues under the first amendment that the fcc especially ought to be sensitive to first amendment issues. i'm just wondering whether you agree with that and as you think about these issues in the future do you also echoes of your own experience i know the first thing you are doing is looking at what the statute says i understand but do you try and think about what the constitution says in this video regulation area? >> absolutely. when i was sworn in as word duty to protect and defend the constitution of the united states i am fully aware and i'm a big supporter of the first amendment, one of the biggest proponents of the first
amendment you are going to find. i'm very sensitive of those issues but in some instances in the must carry universe some things are in statute and there's not much i can do about it absent congress taking action. >> by the way i should note the d.c. circuit is doing what i think are good decisions in terms of bringing the first amendment consideration into it. so i appreciate that. so i just want to go back for one moment to the fcc's transaction review process. i understand you are not commenting on the comcast merger but just in general because this issue has been around for years and years. it's been my view expressed really for over a decade that the fcc quite often tends to, i
will just say it this way, tends to abuse the authority it has to review transactions by imposing conditions that are unrelated to mergers and it's able to do that quite easily because the public interest standard under which it reviews these transactions is so inherently ambiguous that it's easy to stretch and again from my perspective it often seems to me that it's quote voluntary conditions, excuse me commit men spatter offered a way the parties awaiting the commissions action on a the merger. they come at the last moment. it's frequently the case that no one could comment on those that they wanted to. it seems to me like this process can be a bit unseemly by the way
it's been conducted. i would like to ask you to just comment on the process. >> so let me answer it this way. i am up the mindset that the review process should be confined to that which is before the commission and the application where the -- what are the issues at hand? i would be reluctant to be favorable to situations on off-site commitments that have nothing to do with the underlying merger that is being reviewed or any concerns raised accordingly rated so those types of situations are not things that are going to be swaying my decision one way or the other. in terms of the timing i am in favor of and have articulated that the commission should seek to get all the information as much information as possible in the early part of the equation the early part of the shot clock the early part of the equation rather than later down the road.
>> okay i want to end our part of the conversation by going back to your hill experience where again because as you know the house commerce committee announced a few months ago that it is initiating a process to review and quote update the communications act that wants to shy away from using i think the word rewrite. i have actually expressed my own view that there ought to be a clean slate approach and really a rewrite of the act and not tinkering around the edges but people earlier tend to have your views and not mine so i want you to bring to bear your hill experience and just tell us.
you probably can't write the act here but be as specific as you can within a limited time and tell us how you think about approaching a new communications act and if you think there ought to be a new communications act at all? >> so as i previously stated that bristle at the thought of telling congress what to do so i'm reluctant to provide unsolicited vice to their good work. they are fine men and women and work really hard as well as their staff so in terms of this process i stand ready to help them in any way i can if asked. but i thought i might provide some light in this area and share with you a couple of lessons learned over the years from my experience and things that i took with me not only in this current job but also in my years in the senate. one, i would suggest that you should prepare to expect abuse.
when writing communications provisions think of the absolute worst way and hard and play the provision can be interpreted and that will be working against your interest in their work backwards. so expect tepler going to misinterpret and abuse your provision and then work backwards. i can't tell you that countless times when a federal agency misinterpreted something that i worked on. it's extremely frustrating, extremely frustrating for staff but it's even more frustrating for members. number two, whenever possible explicitly state what authority the commission has and what authority it doesn't have any conflict that in the statute aside from the provisions themselves. i did that when i was in the senate. i would put it in exactly one i expected the fcc to do and
exactly what i did want them to do. you shouldn't leave it to chance. and third is too two if possible, leave out extraneous provisions. i know in the art of legislating it sometimes is helpful to add the nine provisions that may be for a particular member or a particular group that those are ones that often come back to hot you. they can be acting like ticking time bombs waiting to explode in a misguided court or activist agency. >> you no, i'm under the constraint that you are not giving advice to congress but i have given them some and we have filed a nice paper but in thinking about it, which is thinking thinking when i was listening to you the 1996 act as you know i think of past the house almost unanimously. is that right? >> will we have a number of highly contained contentious
amendments on the floor some of them that we wanted some of them that we lost ray. >> i think in the senate i recall it was something like 96-4 or 98-2. so in one sense there was a consensus and of course everyone on the hill the congressman and women talk about they want the parties to come together in consensus. we want them to reach an agreement. i appreciate that sentiment and i know it makes things easier when that happens but you know my own view commissioner o'rielly with eventually this new act being passed and i think it will at some point if it happens to pass the house near unanimously and the senate 98-2 if probably won't get us where it needs to be in terms of a new communications policy. do you think i'm right about
that? >> it depends on your viewpoint i imagine. with such agreement it may not be exactly what you may describe but members of the house and senate have a difficult job and they have to contemplate what needs to be done with all so what can be done versus what are the objectionobjection s to particular provisions. they do that unique balance every day in many different forms particularly in communications policy where they have determined how much can i add at how much us to stay out because of internal art external rejections. it's a delicate talents. >> okay we are going to take questions. we have time for a couple of questions and while we are doing that i just want to make it really clear mike when i was joking earlier about having asked chairman wheeler to come and do this that was a joke
because you probably recall i've pestered you even before you were confirmed by the senate. i said i wanted you to come to this conference into this conversation and you might have been saying you know, this guy is really getting ahead of themselves but i did do that and i'm glad that it worked out. >> i'm so pleased to be here. it's very beneficial to me and you think about some of the ideas and it's just helpful for me. the good part is my good friend the chairman will take it in stride. >> okay, do we have a question? let me go to gary harland right here. >> thank you and by the way the straddle pieces of there have looked to me like a court gavel all day and i don't know why we don't use the courts as part of
the communications future but more pertinently mr. o'rielly the previous panels, some of the panels talked about the fcc's role as antitrust antitrust antitrust in the time warner comcast situation. also throughout the first panel they talked about competition competition competition read how do you see any of those fitting together in this new landscape which is taking shape as part of the rewrite them part of your own obligations to look at companies outside of the field right now. google a name that has been mentioned much today and telecom in so many the companies that are players in a real different kind of landscape? >> so, you raised a number of issues that i can't talk about it. that merger and a number of things in the rewrite but let me answer the question slightly this way and say i'm extremely troubled by the use of section 706 as i have previously mentioned and talked about at
length. i am extremely troubled for those edge providers who may be captured under the fcc's authority. i worry about them. they don't spend every day following the commission. i worry about the smart own app. i worry about google search and netflix streaming videos and smart home apps. i worry that those folks who don't spend time following the commission may be wrapped into the commission's jurisdiction depending on the reading of the court opinion so that causes me deep concern going forward. >> another question? i am going to call on barren. why do you wait for the microphone to come to you. and then before you start as soon as the commissioner answers this question then we are going to immediately the commissioner is here from the federal. commission and she's going to
deliver the keynote address, talk a lot about the internet and who should regulate it if anyone and how. so i'm going to turn to that when we finish this question. so just make it a question not a long statement. >> so i share both of your concerns about 706 and your analysis as to why the court got it wrong as a statutory matter and why chevron should not have extended their but what do you think the fcc should do about a? it seems to me the fcc there's a much they can do because even if the fcc reinterpreted 706 instead of wasn't that kind of authority that would always be something to read reinterpretation and the d.c. circuit according to this analysis would reach chevron and so what would you do it specifically would you suggest to congress that maybe congress
should fix this problem notwithstanding a general concern about giving advice to congress? >> i understand the point you make. let me answer it this way. again i don't want to provide advice to congress or any thoughts but that would be one way to adjust the issue. we still have many more rounds to go. this is one court, a very important court, very good insight to the issue even if i disagree with the let it's not the final quarter in the land and may see the court decision challenged in a different setting at a different time period. this is in the final say in the matter and it's possible that made it may be addressed by a legislative body. i will have to defer on them but i understand the point you make that even if the commission differs doing something in the space and decides not to regulate broadband providers which i hope they will not do, then the authority may still be lingering out there. that's something we will have to deal with going forward and