tv National Review Institute Ideas Summit Part 1 CSPAN2 April 25, 2019 5:41am-9:01am EDT
methane and hydrocarbons and couldn't figure out how to make it work so they tried all these things and why not just use water, tie it with water. and they use open biocides, a good median for the growth of bugs and stuff. it is really mitchell's own initiative. he owns a lot of acreage in shale in texas and trying to make money off of it so he put tens of millions in his own money. there was some federal role here, the federal government had some role but i would view it as a kick starter that helped augment the work they were doing and once mitchell sold that technology it proliferated throughout the industry. >> no question small entrepreneurs like any big
accomplishment in this country took a lot of risk and make sure it is in the energy position we are in today. the energy challenges in the future will be met in the same way. by american technology innovation and entrepreneurship. that is outworked and what the energy future is based on in the future. >> you can see this, for decades, the countries that are part of a pr, it was an area that is not attractive anymore, and take deepwater offshore projects into countries that were less stable and less hospitable. they needed big projects that could move the needle and they need big projects because the
scale is so big. where are they? back in the permian basin. very little geologic risk and that permian was developed with independents who proved the resource base and they came back so another example of how it was the relatively small players using whatever innovation they had that would proliferate the technology and make it the hottest oil play in the world. >> i would like to talk about the effects on local economies. when i was in pennsylvania there was a sign, no -- we had guys from the oil fields, they were dirty and had mud on their
boots. a wonderful story in the wall street journal about a guy who was a barber from dallas and it was made to a local barbershop, took it to the gas fields, made a 6-figure income and brought more trailers and had them done here. when i was in midland -- >> did you get your haircut out there? >> tragically this doesn't require maintenance. >> the line where i stop shaving comes out a little bit. people in the restaurant business and hotel business and various service businesses, paying 15, $16 an hour. and there were a lot of that,
to get a ba or advanced degree even though there is a lot of science and engineering, a lot of guys are 21 years old and making $90,000 a year. and it is a national and global picture. and and what did you see. >> it was reduced. and mechanics in houston, there is no doubt with blue-collar jobs, the oil and gas industry,
and there are high-paying steady jobs. >> the really telling change, the radio ad would be do you have a commercial drivers license, and are you eligible to get a commercial drivers license and they will pay to get a job afterward. >> another great example of this in pennsylvania, there is a crack are being built in pennsylvania because of the incredible revolution occurred in the state of pennsylvania from an energy perspective that employed 6000 union jobs. we worked closely with union allies to provide a backbone of energy infrastructure.
you can leave college, get a welding certificate and make $70,000 in the permit. the scope of this is incredible. it is great for blue collar workers and those in high tax, the ceo of devon energy says right now they are competing with google, facebook and others in silicon valley for employees because this industry is at the custom of changing the world right now. that is the pitch to those who graduated with computer science degrees. if you want to change the world advocate with the energy future is going to be you want to be in the energy industry. it is not just blue-collar workers but high-tech workers who want to be part of the energy revolution in the united
states. final point. i met with senator carl cory gardner from the great state of colorado. we are in the middle of a battle in colorado right now. colorado is trying to shut down the oil and gas industry. senator gardner says my hometown when i was a kid people were leaving my hometown. the oil and gas industry has come in and our downtown is revitalized. this is the future of a lot of american small cities that have seen such deterioration the last 20 years so it is an exciting time to be in this industry and right before small towns that haven't had a significant hope for many years. >> you were talking about that in pennsylvania. it took a little while, workboots and hardhats and stuff, but you are nerds, i get
it. a very different culture, not jr ewing and his swagger in texas but the nerds are in charge of the energy business. kind of a good thing, has created some interesting developments. >> the industry has gone from the jr ewing wildcat, oil and gas might be here. that is over. the geological risk in the shale revolution has disappeared in the united states because they know what the resource is. the business has gone from this wildcat mentality to a manufacturing mentality which is about efficiency, reducing costs, making sure, what is the optimum pressure and flow rate and optimum number of stages, what are the optimum number of tons of sand per stage. all these things require a lot of big data and analytics to improve the productivity. i don't know what the numbers are. we are still leaving 90% of the oil in the ground, oil and gas in the ground, increase at 1%
or 2%, talking millions of barrels per day, an enormous increase. >> in the last couple minutes, policy agenda for the near-term, one thing that needs to change, policy threats to the industry and development on the short-term, we could be looking at in terms of the next election cycle. >> our two main priorities, how to get the products from where it is to where it needs to be, we are very focused on making sure we have reform in place to get pipelines done in a timely manner. that is priority number one. >> is that a federal issue or state and local issue? >> both. the administration will give us a little help particularly on state permitting issues hopefully in the next couple months so we can get these pipelines built as soon as possible. we are not asking for any money. these pipelines are built by
private dollars so this is about roads and bridges though that is important. this is about giving pipelines, interstate pipelines built. this is an industry that is focused on making sure we have outlets for these products. that means free trade. we don't like section 232 tariffs, we are trying to get those lifted as soon as possible. there is a pipeline being built in texas. can't get a specialty field because the quotas put in place. that is hurting the energy revolution that exists in this country. >> the -- sell the product. >> we do. and canada free-trade agreement, we are working hard within the congress to make sure us mca, a top priority for the association, canada and mexico, number 2 trading partner.
nafta was approved, and that occurred in this cycle. >> i never liked the idea of energy independence. we live in an interdependent world, that is the fact. we send them oil and gas. who is independent? they are mutually dependent. some of this in my view is terminology. let's move past this, somebody is reaching out to get a subsidy or mandate. >> boom pickens. we live in an interdependent world. it is at the state level.
we see it in colorado. what would i do under the trump administration? let's go to denver or other state capitals around the country and let's work at that level, we don't get much traction as we would have under obama. that tension will be to what extent the federal government, and i am for federalism and a complicated discussion. it is interdependence and to what extent states rights are going to prevail over federal priorities. >> if there's any lesson in the oil industry in the next decade or so it is more is more and more is all right.
[applause] >> ladies in gentlemen, thank you for joining us, please welcome to the stage, j more thinker and secretary of education betsy devos. [applause] >> those names were definitely announced in the wrong order. such a pleasure to have secretary betsy devos, she is from michigan and she put that she went away to school have an hour to calvin college and she and point got married. they have been involved in education for decades as philanthropists and reformers and political warriors, i am glad you are a secretary.
[applause] >> let's talk a bit. i'm glad your education secretary, are you? >> i am indeed. >> did you ever think you would be education secretary? you have been in the trenches so long and you are at the levers of power. >> i never had a goal or dream about being education secretary but when the opportunity arose i cannot say no. i have been involved in education reform, advocating education freedom and school choice for three decades. this is a national extension of what i have been doing for all those years. >> this is an idea summit and you have big ideas, one of which is education, freedom scholarships. sound good.
what is it? >> the proposal from the administration, it has corresponding bills that have been interviewed in the house and senate and what it would do is create a federal tax credit that individuals and corporations could contribute to voluntarily and states could elect to participate or not participate. it is a choice. if they do participate they would be able to create a program or programs to expand choices in k-12 education in that state. it is going to be a great way to continue to build on the momentum over education freedom nationally. many states have adopted some programs, this would allow them to jumpstart in the states that haven't done it yet. and any leader in this area.
>> illinois was pretty good on this kind of issue. >> illinois surprisingly in the last couple years past a tax credit program. the new governor has threatened to do away with it. it was passed in a state that was the blue us of blue and many thousands of students are able to find the right fit for their education because of this opportunity. >> this is betsy devos. we need to rethink school. we must question everything about the way we do school in this country. there is no more time to go around the edges. you sound like a radical and revolutionary. would you like to see, if i can put it bluntly, the breakup of the public school system or some call it the public school
monopoly? >> i want to see a child have an equal opportunity to get a great education in k-12. we know too many kids are not achieving the level they could, they are stuck in schools that don't work for them and don't have the power to move to the suburbs where there was a good school or pay tuition to go to a school of their parents choice. we know that giving students opportunities and empowering families for that option has made a difference in the lives of kids that have been able to take advantage of it. i also know that for over 100 years we have been doing school essentially the same. education is the last industry and let's be clear, it is an industry that has not undergone the kind of revolution because
of technology and what i dream of seeing is a lot more approaches, to be educated. we see small examples of these across the country today and personalized learning, competency-based learning but there has not been the kind of groundswell behind these ideas in order to accomplish that, we need a lot more education freedom. >> do poor parents ever - did you have quiet support? >> i come into places like this usually through not the most glamorous entrance. i am greeted by people
behind-the-scenes and encouraged quietly, keep up the good work, we believe in what you are trying to do and i have a great opportunity to talk with hundreds of parents whose children, who have been able to make the choices we made for our children because of efforts at the state level. most of them with tears in their eyes talk about what a huge difference made for their child and it was gratifying and keeps me going every day. >> milton friedman used to lament that the public wasn't receptive to school choice and why not? seems like such an obvious good. is your sense of the public is not more receptive to school choice? >> support the concept of education choice, education freedom has continued to rise and grow. the most recent data i have seen on it at the beginning of
this calendar year suggests two thirds of the general population is supportive of the notion of empowering parents and families to make the right choice and find the right fit for their child. 75% of millennials support this notion. the high 60s to 70 ethnic populations and racial populations. there is growing momentum. the kids being most helped today and the programs that are most significant in states are ones that have a high percentage of african-american and hispanic children taking advantage of them and there is nowhere i go where those opportunities have been unleashed that i don't hear from parents and teachers involved in that choice that this was a terrific thing and
we need more of it, not less of it. >> is a statement from you which i will read and ask a question about it. talking about rethinking school. why assign kids to schools based on their addresses, why group kids by age 2q why force all students to learn at the same speed and so on and it all sounds very good to me but this grouping by age. let's say 10, i am a little slow and in a class with 8-year-olds or 9-year-olds, if i support this notion, always have but when the rubber hits the road socially it is very awkward. >> if you are the only 10-year-old that is one thing but the competency-based education that i alluded to earlier is based on the notion that kids learn different subjects and grasp concepts at
different rates and i think about the school our oldest granddaughter is in. it is a child directed, student directed school which each of the kids are in charge of their own learning. they have options of curriculums to pursue and they set goals for themselves daily and weekly. they are in a multipage studio or classroom and each of them are learning at their own speed. and one subject area they may be racing along and in another they might need more time but they are working collaboratively. if i can grasp a subject area more quickly and noticed one of my classmates is struggling in that area alongside him or her and try to help them there are many kids that could thrive in that learning environment. that particular school is a
private tuition based school. states that have an opportunity for students to make those choices, it could be a choice for those kids for whom that kind of learning environment would work. >> a big question, abc question. there are some conservative diehards who think there is no real federal role in education. the departments and the 70s. are you in general a piece with the idea of a federal rule? what is it generally? you are a local list, state person county person, town person, get us out of the neighborhood level if you can. >> i'm in favor of shrinking the federal role in education and have been endeavoring to do so it always i'm empowered to do as an education secretary. and will continue to. there are a couple areas, a
couple of laws that have to be administered and observed. the most important consideration is to empower states as intended. if you think about 8% of education spending in general comes from the federal government. the federal government has had an outsized role for its investment and i think we need to get that back in balance. congress took a big step in that direction at least on paper when they passed the every student succeeds act lose the past administration came in and started to pass, started to write a bunch of regulations that would have encumbered the every student succeeds act plan with a lot more federal roles. that was done away with when this administration came in and
congress due to congressional review act and illuminated all of those regulations. we are going to keep those, we are not going to reinstate any of those and in fact continuing to push state leadership to take advantage of the flexibility they built into that every student succeeds act. that is a really important piece of legislation to send the signal back to the states that this is your role and your responsibility and it needs to go down to the most local level and the most local level is the parent. >> you said to me last year why should the education department be a bank? i said what? banks, really big bank. i never heard of this. say it again. >> many people don't realize the department of education has a responsibility for all
federal student aid and today, there is $1.5 trillion in student loan debt that is part of federal student aid. it was not originally set up to be a bank but it is the largest loan holder in the nation larger than any private bank and it is not, it has not operated with the same rigor that a bank would. we are in the process of many things with regard to federal student aid, chief among them being getting a real clear picture of what is inside the portfolio. we have increasing talk about student debt and the implications of student debt and individually and collectively and it is a really important discussion
>> some teachers are lousy, some teachers are great, most are in between. we agree that in general this is a noble profession not to mention a necessary one. i see teachers strikes in places like west virginia. can't think of a state at the moment. maybe arizona. i am reflexively anti-strike. and yet i listen to people who say they have been underpaid for a long while. i wonder how to think about teacher pay. is the strict we local matter? we all have our views depending on where you live and where the schools are. >> in general the teaching profession has become very deep professional eyes to over years
because it is very much like the old school system is a 1-size-fits-all approach. there are very prescriptive steps teachers have to follow within their system. they are not really given the kind of autonomy and flexibility to run their classroom and be their best but they are within generally speaking a system that is very conformist. and not all of them. i wouldn't say that as a blanket statement but i spent time, i intentionally had multiple multiple roundtables with teachers, some of whom have left the profession and listening to the reasons why, even though these had been teachers of the year in their state or their district and almost to a person, what i took
away was we don't feel respected and we don't feel, that is manifest in having the kind of autonomy to do what we know is best for the kids that we are in charge of and we are supposed to be helping to learn. so one of the proposals we have put forward as part of the next year budget is to establish a sum of money, to establish professional development vouchers for teachers to choose and control their own professional development. that was one big area that they have not had any say in. they feel they had to go to whatever the district told them, check the box, exercise,
it hasn't been beneficial relevant for them. we think giving them some control of how they continue to develop themselves professionally is a really great idea and should be supported. we also think that helping to create an environment for them in a pilot or experimental setting to allow really great teachers the opportunity to become teachers of teachers, i have heard consistently for a teacher to continue on a career path, in most cases, it is to leave the classroom and go into administration. i don't know about any of you, but if my child had a really great teacher i would want that teacher to help other teachers become better teachers rather than to go into administration and never be in a classroom
with children in a teaching environment again. creating mentorship and residency program for teachers to become teachers of teachers gives them, the really great teachers, a new career path opportunity and it is beneficial to the new teacher and learning teacher to be alongside the experienced one. >> we were talking about merit pay. we are all for merit. it is hard to assess a school because some teachers have terrific students who are easy to teach, others have difficult students, struggling to get through the day with everyone safe and alive and so on so in theory i am pro-merit but i also wonder, how do you assess such a thing? we leave it to the locals and do what they do. >> this is a contentious issue.
it is a difficult issue to get right. i cannot point to a specific state or locality that got it specifically right. i know there was a lot of discussion in the recent denver teachers strike around the system they had adopted a dozen years ago. my understanding is even going through the unrest there, they ended up at the same place they were before. it is difficult to get right but i think it is worth working on to get right because the tendency without having an opportunity to reward those who are doing particularly well on behalf of kids is to settle in the middle and be okay with mediocrity. we should be instilling an
attitude of excellence in every school setting and not settle for okay or average. i don't think the environment, the system that has been perpetuated now for decades lends itself to that. >> george w. bush used to say we wave them through without assessing whether they learned something. >> when you consider the fact that compared to the rest of developed nations the united states is 24th in reading, 25th in science, and 40th in math. >> i may contribute to that math problem. >> when you think about how upset americans get when we don't do well in the olympics. >> we are number 40. >> how we can be satisfied and
look the other way with those kinds of results is very distressing to me. >> let's go back to college. you don't think much of free-speech zones, do you? >> know, i do not. >> you think it should be a free-speech zone. >> learning is about the exchange of ideas. if you don't have freedom to debate and discuss ideas freely you don't have learning ultimately. there is a real issue with many campuses today. i hear examples regularly of subtle or overt efforts to silence some discussion and we
are not doing any young person a service by doing so. our president and i have both continued to speak out on this issue very vocally and that is helping to foster discussion about what that means and what that looks like. we have to keep the pressure on institutions to do, fulfill what their role is as hire institution and that is to be a facilitator of idea and exchange. >> you are a daughter of free enterprise. your father was a great entrepreneur, a legend in her home state of michigan. you are a champion of free enterprise, who are socially conservative but maybe economically a different way.
>> i majored in business and political science and managed to avoid the worst of the professors. it was a battle even then, that many years ago and i fear it has gotten worse for most. especially the areas of economics and sociology and business. if you have a single-minded viewpoint, and in overt ways, punished for doing so. is not doing anyone a service, and it has begun to show up in
this millennial population. >> it has been warped and so on. pluralism, different points of view. you can settle down into political activism and all that stuff later as far as i'm concerned. >> i have the benefit at the same college to have two professors that went on to become congressman, one was a political science professor and after he died from a brain tumor, he was succeeded by my physics professor. >> host: who were they? >> paul henry and bert naylor. >> from grand rapids, when you
were a girl, did you meet jerry ford? >> i attribute his campaign in 1976 to getting involved in politics. i started in college at the time and between my freshman and sophomore year, i became a scatter blitzer for jerry ford. it is a native word iconology. i didn't make it up. a group of college students that were deployed, door-to-door campaigning for jerry ford. we went in ohio and wisconsin and went to kansas city convention and we blitzed there. we would go and create noise and enthusiasm. >> host: you would join them later.
>> looking back, a very interesting and informative time. >> heard president ford speak in ann arbor, the first president i ever laid eyes on. i was sitting far away. here is a question from one of our guests. how will your policies affect low-income rural communities with few nonpublic school choices available? >> i'm glad someone raised this question. rural communities have unique challenges. let's take a hypothetical, a rural community, 300 students, even if that school is the finest school, there are a handful of kids, that particular approach to learning might not work.
why wouldn't those kids attend the micro school that might have a different approach to how that child was educated. in a very rural area, that had a hard time hiring teachers as primary subjects in the school much less ap physics. that school partnered with a nonprofit organization that provided a teacher, a yale physicist that and they would
virtually and work on whatever problems they were working on but it was a practical solution that required additional or different deployment of resources. i use that as an example of what rural communities could or should think about in terms of providing more choices, not to suggest by introducing school choice another building should go up next door to the existing building but to think more broadly about what introducing choices can be or could be. >> you are for letting 1000 flowers bloom. >> essentially yes. knowing that, again, well over 150 years we have been approaching how we do education in very much the same way.
it is no longer relevant for too many people. >> we have two minutes. let's do two more. creating the right to work, will it affect teachers unions and put a dent in the monopoly? >> it is affecting the teachers union. i am so thankful for the supreme court decision to free up those who have been coerced to be returned -- participants and something they don't want to participate in and it is one way to continue to elevate the profession of teaching by allowing the teachers that have been forced previously to be part of this to be free to not be. the challenge in an actual school building, i heard this
for all too many teachers to know this is not an isolated case, the pressure is such is those who opt not to be part of the teachers union are punished in some way, that ultimately is not healthy for anyone and certainly not healthy for the students they are trying to teach. there will be increasingly impactful implications for the decision. dirksen senate office building 0 >> i will let you talk about how many books have been written. this has to do with the american experiment, will it succeed? you have been in government for a couple years after being around for a long time. are you bullish on america or more cynical? what is your impression? >> i have always been an optimist. i continue to be very
optimistic about the future of this nation. i'm even more optimistic when i meet kids and see the excitement in their eyes for the futures they have envisioned and i think the issue of education and how we supported approach education is of fundamental importance to grapple with. i don't think in this time, supporting and keeping the same 1-size-fits-all system for every student the can't afford to go somewhere else by paying to do so, that future is not as bright. i think it will be bright if we do indeed let 1000 flowers bloom. >> bruce knows them all.
he knows of no one in the education field more selfless or devoted, more right, then secretary of education betsy devos. so thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you so much. please welcome the panel on opportunities for all. >> good morning. my great honor to moderate this panel with tammy bruce on my far left and harmeet dhillon in the middle. tammy is president of independent women's voice,
radio host, washington examiner, washington times, i am already wrong, that will happen a lot today. washington times columnist and frequent fox news contributor and guest host. to my left is harmeet dhillon, one of san francisco's great conservative civil rights attorneys and also often on fox news. i feel like the host on a fox news show right now. being next to two distant most attractive smart women. the show, outnumbered, where they stick some poor sucker guy in the middle and beat the hell out of him. one last programming note. a lot of you asked me during the breaks, my mom is not here with me. those that have been on the cruise no i like to bring my mom to nra events because she's a geriatric psychiatrist. i think these events are great
for the family business. [laughter] >> after yesterday's panel we should move to the millennial psychiatry business. that is where you will make big bucks. our topic is opportunities for all for identity politics. i want to start with harmeet dhillon and ask what is identity politics? how have you confronted it? and do you see it in tension or conflict with the age-old idea of opportunity for all? >> great question. john mentioned i'm a civil rights attorney and over the past few years i have had the opportunity to confront this issue in many ways. as an immigrant to this country my background, we came from a
culture, where they were born and what cast they were in, what gender, what part of the country, one reason my parents left india was to escape that culture of being trapped according to circumstances beyond what is controlled. the great american experiment was to free us from those bonds and it took time for those bonds to be broken down and addressed but that did happen and we will talk about that some more. in boardrooms and politics, a return to a aggressive concept of people awarded spoiled of warning to immutable characteristics or choices. being a 0-sum game in academia and politics only one person can get that promotion.
and the person who wins the election, only one person can be chairman of the board. the losers in that competition are increasingly being forced into the ritual of self abrogation. identity politics reminding her of the cultural revolution in china where the elders are forced to apologize for being educated, being successful, being wealthy. we saw joe biden who dared to praise mike pence, having to apologize for hurting the feelings of lgbt people who project on him some kind of hatred most of us who know him don't see that.
why should that bother us? people doing fine in the world but in education i represent, at berkeley -- >> thanks for that. >> students at berkeley, conservative students at berkeley, young people, were trying to bring conservatives onto the campus. the problem, they are not seeing conservative speakers in the classroom. they are not allowed to utter conservative speech openly. the only exposure to those ideas is importing speakers off the campus, john is one of the rare exceptions of a professor that is overly conservative. >> she just outed me. >> everybody knows john. sorry to tell you.
in different spheres of our life it is coming at different times. to be fair to berkeley, they were pretty open to conservative speakers on the campus until trump won the election in 2016 of the tolerance kind of evaporated. when the berkeley college republicans tried to bring mike in opelousas, david horowitz to speak on a campus and and coulter, the university campus shutdown and said the details are well-known it out there, will not let these two people speak. we filed a federal civil -- the rights lawsuit putting them to change policy and berkeley did not do those things. the berkeley republicans had a
lawyer nearby. this type of situation is happening on every college campus in america. there are not lawyers standing by to help. they have to internalize that and the liberals, professors and students riding roughshod and liberal students are damaged by this because they are not exposed to conservative ideas a dialogue. the whole educational system has been corrupted by this. >> what about you? how have you seen or confronted this rise of identity politics in your work and how has it come to this idea of opportunity for all? >> many of you know my background. i was president of the national organization in los angeles in the 1990s. i'm previously a left-wing community organizer. it is great to be in this room. i am a conservative.
that is interestingly, my politics is not changed and that is part of what is important here. when it comes to identity politics, as a perspective, what is bad about that? it is the individual that matters and at some point the civil rights movement. that is the opposite of what is happening today. the civil rights movement, black and gay and lesbian single rights movement, demand not to be treated for me because of who we are. demand to be treated as everyone else, identity politics is the demand for special accommodations because of who you are. it rips that way. demands for isolation, spaces based on race, for white people to leave college for days for example, for individuals to be afforded special accommodation
and special rights in special benefits that some kind of acknowledgment of past negative experiences, past social injustice etc.. the argument in the civil rights movement and classical liberal argument is in fact all of us do better when we are treated, at least have access to the same justice system, the same rules, the same benefits everyone else has, the civil rights movements were unnecessary biscuit people, manifestation, the rejection of identity politics where white individuals were able to eat and stand and do different things, take the bus, sit in particular places because of their identity. the opposite of what the civil rights movement were. projected by individuals who claim association with the same political framework. that is a lie. it is completely different.
for the general basis, whether it is your sexual identity, religious identity, racial, ethnic, sexuality, gender, the sliver of who you are, makes you separate and different and that is the thing that matters. it is a hyper personalization of politics and the reason the left likes this is it doesn't bring together the traditional political framework of finding things that work together for the community. it requires division. the moment you decide your gender, and special injustice, immediately in conflict with people who are not like you. immediately members of your own
family are a problem, even somebody you are married to for one of your best friends. it requires divisions in the community. my first book is from 2001, watching this is not new but watching this unfold, the idea that if you think differently you are a problem. political correctness, you can't say certain things because it will upset someone else. it becomes dangerous to speak about something, it becomes dangerous to think about it. if you can begin to stop people from feeling comfortable, to challenge the status quo or to challenge the prevailing idea, no communication ends. we are seeing that being the standard on campus. on the left, part of the
argument is when you can't win, we knew we couldn't win on the details of the issues. our issues were based in the emotional impact of what was happening and our own personal sense of being abused or personal sense of injustice, why would you want to argue about that in the details? that means it is about the issue, not you personally. the only way to win that argument is make sure no one else is comfortable and what we relied on as i look in this room. i can't say this strongly enough. we relied on conservatives believing us, not pushing back. we relied on you believing that you were racist, sexist or homophobic. we relied on that question because a lot of people are accusing you of this. this higher ground to the left, maybe they do have a better
moral position. they do not. it is a fraud. we have seen it now unfold, the quality of life for individuals who they say they represent and champion has continually declined. the condition in the inner cities continually declined, the nature of the quality of our lives and what we look forward to is now based in hopelessness. that is the organizing framework. the conservative ideal which i adhere to and interestingly enough always did without knowing it is the fact that the individual does matter. our individual experiences matter. it is not about being post-racial. it is about being post-racialist. all your experience as an asian man or an immigrant woman, my experience as a gay woman who is out. our life experiences to shape who we are. but it blends into the nature of the power of the american
experiment. this is the power of the american experiment, the ability to identify initially as americans first recognizing our success is everyone else's success and can bring that for everyone else. and it is important and vital for all of you to reject the argument that someone else has the moral high ground, to reject the accusations made against you to silence you, so you will not challenge the underlying basis argument which is the you don't understand other people's lives are you are inherently homophobic or inherently sexist. you should respond to it as if someone called you a cocker spaniel. would you immediately look
behind you to see if there was a tale? it would be fun, but you would not take that seriously, would you? you would not take it seriously, you wouldn't worry that you were a carter spaniel. you wouldn't suddenly wonder if you've got to keep your inner cocker spaniel hidden. .. that it is about immigration for all in the fair framework, that it is about women doing better and people of color during better because americans will be doing better. while still addressing unique issues we all face, if you are on the fringes, if you are
minorities and this is the larger argument but it must reject this initial framework of political correctness, that if you're conservative and you say certain things that trigger people or that are going to be declared as racist or sexist or homophobic, then you won't say those things, you won't engage in the argument. you will stand aside. it's important for you to return to this environment so that this reformation can continue, where as we've seen with president trump's policies, where everyone is doing better and then we can't of course continue to engage in the special issues that particular sections of society to face and that we can have larger conversation, learn about more of what we have in common and more of how we can -- we do this at independent women's voice. most conservative organizations do this, , that these issues transcend partisan politics that
this is the core of the american experiment, that this is the core of why we succeed and become the greatest nation on or because edwin is a part of it. the left is trying to undo that and this is the generation and the next six to ten years that will help us reverse the damage they have done. [applause] >> thank you. so if this is the way the world is now, it's hard to believe in the mid-'90s california by large majorities voted to ban race and affirmative action at universities. as recent as the '90s this american ideal, this american exceptionalism that your race, gender, identity doesn't matter still i would say the norm in our country and now in just 20 years has been completely replaced by this multicultural
identity politics idea. how did this happen? who's responsible? what are the critical moments? this is a remarkably fast change. how did we get to this point? >> i mentioned the academia. i don't think anybody in this room is a prize there's been this marxism trend and movement and nihilism in our country for many years but you mentioned california. i call semper cisco where that in practice law the utopian petri dish of the united states because -- >> that's a lot of bacteria. >> a lot of factory on the streets. incubate these leftist crazy issues and they become state law and the next propagate to other states and they infect everything. that marxism faxes and we have an academy actually, others of
common feminism in 1970 1970 ws beginning to exhibit these stalinist tendencies of the movement turning upon itself and devouring itself and devouring older people. we are seeing that now in other walks of life. the same mentality that is affecting our colleges and universities, california just passed a law that large corporations have to have female representation on the boards as a matter of law. use it happen in other states, you will see that happen, and that comes from this entitlement mentality that normally would have, we both went to ivy league colleges and then -- >> and were actually took tests to get an. >> my parents were not wealthy. it didn't bribe anybody to get me into dartmouth. >> well, dartmouth. [laughing] >> safety school, i know. i've never been able to live that down.
people outgrow it typically when you get out to the workforce. we work in law and work as people responding to deadlines and so forth, but what happens now in schools is their coddled with his mentality and to get out in the workforce, i'll give you the example of google. google is another lawsuit i have for its employment practices. these young people leave these good institutions of higher learning and they go into the workforce, these tech companies, and they have the same mentality. like, i'm entitled to not be spoken to disrespectfully. i'm entitled to not be triggered by things that are said. i'm entitled even in my work to project that and make sure that google and google search is a safe space for people. you will not search and find things that are offensive. you can have a culture in a corporation, perhaps most powerful corporation of all
time, from the boardroom on down it is forbidden, james was fired for pointing out their differences between men and women that affect how they interact in the workplace, and that good h.r. policies that want to try to promote women in the workplace have to first account for the fact these are differences. everybody knows this is true, yet he was fired for saying, for speaking the truth. not only was he fired but before he was fired humiliated, punished and then the subject of national scorn. to this day he has had to move, so to keep a low profile. he's living in a difference did because he subject to death threats for stating these truths. this is coming to other states besides california. san francisco this is just another day. we have lawsuit against twitter for radical feminist who dared to challenge the transgender orthodoxy that says whatever you feel that morning is who you are
and don't you dare call me by my dad name. the twitter announced this person off in violation of their own rules so now there's a lawsuit over that. this mentality has slowly seeped into the boardrooms come into the classrooms, into the programming spaces and into our social media with now natalie y of us communicate. my personal unpacking of this is i think tammy is correct that there is this sort of white guilt, white liberal guilt, white conservative guilt, male guilt. people are being accused of oppressing others are accepting it because we're americans, great people. we don't want to be the bad guys who are doing bad things to people. this guilt is enabling, this falls guilt is enabling this culture of spoil, this culture of demagoguery, this culture where everybody is now being
defined progressively by how durable and who they are, how they identify. i think it's very destructive speedy can add to that? i think this is an important segue here, that there is a responsibility for conservatives. and i'm a democrat, registered in california, and i know -- >> that makes you special. >> there you go with that. >> i do want to trigger you do have some news for you. >> only 36 million others? >> important for the people in this room and part of the duty and responsibility is to stop abandoning certain groups of people in this country. when president trump held the cave like him the first republican candidate to do that, able were shocked. when he did deliberate and direct local outreach to the african-american community. what? there's this presumption that certain people belong to because
the left says they are the champions for these groups where, in fact, we know it's going on in those lies. we know they're being destroyed. it is imperative that we say enough is enough, and part of the argument about this is the silencing, is that the condemnation of young people, young liberal people who have arguments to make are not being taught how to make those arguments even. so this interest all of us regardless of what's come for those watching c-span or online, that you think this is good because those people, they are less than us, they don't know what they're talking about, we don't need to talk to them. that's not real life. when you come out of college, if your idea is so fabulous like the green new deal, what's the problem with talking about it and getting into the details and being able to defend it? you must be able to defend her ideas. right now the left is set up their own constituency and now the generations worth of
20-year-olds, 30-year-olds who are so unfamiliar with the idea of confronting people with a different framework, they don't know how to defend the idea. and the country, we're looking at people coming out, , supposed to be running our businesses, going into politics, going into law who do not understand the value of being able -- what you're able to identify your idea, sometimes your ideas want to change but it's about being able to refine how it is we think as americans and this is why now each sector of american society is in such risk a cousin who is being turned out from these universities that are so horribly destroying, the power of the american mind, that we rely on these disparate ideas and being able to have these conversations. and the other element is media, that one of the changes in the last generation is the explosion
of course of media. and the went into the that has a variety of ideas presented which is fox news, of course is the singular threat. because it is reminder every day that you can think differently, that there are other arguments out there, that one can have. and yet that is for the reasons i've described the threats but i think that that masking munication and now through the work that harmeet is doing through this new level, this new medium of the internet, plays a part in the perpetuation that there's only one way to think, other ideas or threatening, other ideas have to be banned. you're going to be censured if you could rip sent an idea. we determined to be threatening to another group. how many of you know what -- [inaudible] it is calling a transgender person by their other genders name that they had.
like calling caitlin, bruce jenner. now in england people -- >> it's a crime. >> another reason not to go to england along with brexit and charlie cook is from there. [laughing] >> we take the first amendment for granted in the united states, but it is exception in the world and not the norm, and we do not protected enough interesting a lot of conservatives fall, fall victim to this shaming mentality. rise of social media which i think is very important spread ideas has also been very instrumental in shutting out certain ideas and i think dangerously so. one thing that you didn't mention, john, in addition to being a lawyer, republican national committee woman, and from that point of view
lyrically icy as very dangerous for conservatives to cede these concepts to the left, that they're not simply speech or noise at it is not an answer to do rise of this demagoguery to say if you don't like twitter or you don't like facebook or you don't like google, we have a marketplace of ideas, then go to market and find another medium to express yourself. that's false. that is not true and there is no market right now that there is monopoly power of these media, these media are being harnessed to deliver these messages to people and running up his voices. if we allow this to perpetuate, we will not have conservative voices heard in this new media in 2020 and we will lose every single election going forward. this is a critical fact we need a conservative to wake up to and understand because, he as there would be real-world consequences to seeding a first amendment and not just first amendment but our free-speech rights in the workplace and academia and in
every aspect of our life. >> let me bring us to the question i think of both moved towards, which is what we do about it? what's the agenda going forward to try to restore, which is called the american ideal of equal opportunity. how do you fight back against the attacks we see on identity politics? tammy several times mentioned in mr. mccaul big orange is what he's doing, is that successful? is that the way to fight back? >> that's not nice, john. that's triggering -- >> i can trigger whatever i i want. i'm just a professor. >> i'm very triggered by that. >> is that what you do, is donald trump and the way he fights back the answer, or would you do something different because the culture -- >> it's multi-front. it's not one individual but there are people and situations that are emblematic, and find
about with the american people want, what were hoping for. the average democrat also in members what civil rights movement movements were about and people are afraid in this country. it's not just like his is appropriate? people are afraid to speak back. this is why some of the things can be kind of shocking. sometimes talk radio can be shocking. sometimes with the president says or tweets can be shocking but isn't that interesting, that somebody with a stub or maybe it's not your style or you think maybe is, maybe can be abrasive or just kind of surprising, it creates such disruption. when the work of this person is changing just this country and explain away but also as a result, the point of view of the world and the idea that things and effective better and we're not stuck in the status quo that is leading us down a road where as we're told is the new world
order, the new normal during the obama years wasn't anyone had two jobs delivering pizza and get used to it and the government will have to take care of you. that was a lie. it certainly is a lie for this country and europe is finding out also the hard way that it was a lie. for the fighting back it has to start in her own life. what he can't encourage you enough is that the left still believe that you will do nothing, that what all the attacks on the president are actually -- the attacks on harmeet, the attacks on some like me or tucker carlson who will hear from shortly or anyone else, i really messages to you that if you do this, look at what were doing to these individuals. this can happen to you. as the american sensibility is to stand up for what we know is right. so it has to manifest as individuals. conservatives certainly conservative women, conservative man, that it is the elevation of
this country, how we become better people, has happened through use of us working on these issues that we know need to be worked on, but they can only become better and we can only become better people when we can have these conversations, the left wants to shut that down. because they rely on division. and you thinking her neighbor is the enemy. it is the individuals watching this, conservatives around this country and in the throat in particular to realize that, in fact, you are not the interloper, right? they have fraudulently framed, created a framework that removes you from the scene but that can only happen if you do so willingly. so it's an individual acknowledgment that wait a minute, and this is what the president does. wait a minute, i can talk about this. i can have an opinion. i'm going to make sure people know what i think about now will we know is the hoax of russia collusion. he was ridiculed and malign all
the time for defending himself. look, he sang it again, there's no collusion. funny enough there was no collusion. what do you know? but that willingness to stand publicly and to use formats like social media is also a new element that works. and i think that it's also the media, you know, he also pushed back on the media. creating a new look at the nature of how we speak to each other, honest is okay because it must be, and the change that can come with that. legal elements are important as well. >> this is not get off -- >> but those in the legal field, people like harmeet and john in academia, defending those individuals and not ceding the academy. we say the least, it's where our future leaders come from. and they do know personally and
speaking of colleges that there are kids who come into my speeches ready to throw things, and there have been protests. after a two-hour speech just coming from a background, nothing miraculous, these kids come up to me, tell me whether planning and shake my hand. these are seniors after four years at the university, major universities in the country being enlightened, being changed because it's the first time they made her a certain argument. support individuals in the legal field who are doing this. mr. janice, the warty last night, individuals and having an infrastructure -- awardee -- regards of politics to know that their somewhat they can go to be supported. that's the job of the conservative movement. it's the job americans
everywhere and part of it is this, but you must stop believing that you are what the future of being. [applause] >> i was going to quickly address the question, john. i do think that donald trump is the correct man for this time. i think many of us in the room supported various people in a 2016 election cycle. ultimately became clear to me as lifelong republican activist that the left is playing by different rules. they are playing by their stolen mystic and marxist rules. and if we republicans were playing by the queensbury rules and pulling your punches in a debate rule like we saw in our election cycles, going to lose. this is an excellent potential threat to our future in this country and so i decided to support the president. his doubt is the beginning of, it's not everybody's style but i know my style is an attorney and
if you don't fight back in every medium you will lose and that's, were in a cultural war. about using the media, i do a lot of media for the party. i had an interview with npr on saturday did you say npr? >> npr. you know, i'm sorry, i was asked to speak to npr. npr started asking questions and the third question in a ten minute interview was, so do you think donald trump owes mueller an apology for all of his -- i started entering it and the host started to look for me said listen, don't interrupt me. let me finish. you invited me here and i'm going to finish what i have to say. and they didn't cut me off after that. >> i don't think you will be back on that channel. >> i will not tolerate being treated like that i think of you in the trumpets want to engage with the left and not play by the rules. if you're invited someone and ask your question, make sure you
finish it and have what you had to say. we have to insist on our rights in this sphere. if are going to play by those rules we're going to lose every time. we cannot afford to lose the future of this country. this is the great american experiment. the reason my folks came in, brought me and my brother here to this country was to enjoy the sounding liberties and they are easily dissipated. history has shown us that so we can't let that happen. [applause] >> i hate to say it after your great soliloquy on asking questions and getting answers i'm going to disregard most of the questions you want to ask, just because of limited time. we only had seven some immense. we can to lightning rounds on the so maybe i will take one or two. how do we create a business culture that values both diversity and merit without
elevating one at the expense of the other? >> the genuine meaning of affirmative action is the outreach come regarding opportunity. in los angeles when was the first of the two, we want a more women on the lapd, it wasn't about hiring women in a quarter framework but adds wind up single, this is a job, apply for this job. you can do this. it's the same with the military. making sure because the sectors of society think they can reach out for me or i wouldn't get into that or subconsciously that's a job for men. it is the outreach to make sure everyone knows yes, i guess, let's open the opportunity up for us. of course the more women come the people of color, more individuals who were not involved in that kind of work, then the pool goes up and we are naturally going to have more people represented from the sectors of society that have been not represented. it is a classic affirmative
action being sincere about it and making sure that the outreach and encouragement so that anyone has the opportunity to succeed is that that is something where helping to facilitate. >> well, i see blatant quarters being employed in our workplaces, places like the company i sued and many other companies i have mentioned that i sued. they are all from banking come from finance, you know, , every major financial institution on down. they all employees quotas to satiate the mob of leftists demanding the spoils. i think think with the pushback on that. corporate leadership would be to say we will encourage, we will invite people to apply and we will then judge people on their merit once they're in the door and it had the opportunity and the training. of all kinds of artificial distortion and a marketer for example, why are there not more
than 20% software engineers in silicon valley who are female? the market is distorted by all the foreign workers we have for being paid 50% of what the american workers are, so if american workers in silicon valley were being paid a non-distort sally you would see poor people flooding into that and going to the stem cell education in colleges, but instead we're allowing kids to wallow in these victim studies that the state in schools. i love the president -- i was at the sign at the white house last week of his executive order that the part of it they cut all the tension was about free speech but the other part that hasn't got the attention is for great market and value of the loans that are tied to these worthless degrees that people are studying. if you're going to study women's studies or mine in transgender studies or whatever it is you will not be able to get a loan
for that just as it are kind to get a mortgage in the neighborhood and you're not going to get the same mortgage loan to ratio if you're buying a teardown compared to buying house that only needs a little bit of work. that's what we need to insist on accountability. >> i want to emphasize that you're talking about dartmouth and not berkeley. as an employee of the state of california i can't agree that our degrees are worthless. that might be what did you take my tenure away. [laughing] >> they are not all worthless john thune you and i studies in ancient greek and latin cause cs and we put onto productive careers nonetheless. >> that's a judgment others can -- mom is to wondering about the career choices. the last question, i'm going to ask it because the handwriting is so beautiful, which is a stark contrast to the effort to be provocative and disruptive.
so do you believe president trump has actually helped or hurt conservatives with his pushing back against identity politics using twitter and rallies? >> you go first. >> goes back to the question is at the way to fight back. is he helping or hurting the conservative movement? >> obviously helping it as you open it the conversation. he is disrupting what was going to be a status quo of leading a soft the freaking cliff. he is the right man. interestingly in our history we've always had the right man at the right time and soon the right woman at the right time, that this is a divine framework, this nation is at appointment of no return. donald trump is showing us that, in fact, there can be change. we can disrupt of the status quo but that just for the sake of it but because things can here's what we do as americans. here is really the american exceptionalism. here is what the american experiment with me to be which
is for everyone as a republican he identifies as a conservative, also some of who pro-life, someone who's also recognizing and embracing the entire framework of who the american people are, who stands up for himself being constantly under attack, refusing to back down on the principle of what he stands for. this is what i was speaking about regarding what conservatives must do. it needs also the breadth of what we are politically, is there is a diversity because of our lives are different and hoe approach the sinks politically personally. conservatism is about small government, trusting the individual to make choices that best suits them, that government is not the answer, that it has a certain kind of role but a limited one when you it comes e issues of safety, taking the boot up so we can live our lives. that is also the classically liberal ideal and is the thing
that can bring all americans together which is what donald trump is doing under the den of the legacy media that is still screaming that he's not. that's a lie. he is doing it and we are on the right road for reformation. >> i would have to also agree that a think that while his style is very different than what we see many politicians, i am unabashedly a supporter of what he has accomplished because he is a fight of your key a against the left. don't forget, and get i'm from the perspective of a political figure, politics is a zero-sum game and the choice in 2016 is donald trump for hillary clinton. that was a four or darned case. with respect to get the 16 candidates none could beat hillary clinton. that was very clear early on in the process. what we take away beyond the particular 26 election is fighting back is critical as conservatives -- 2016 election.
i was chairman of the san francisco republican party, that -- >> that was not heavily contested race. i'm sorry. [laughing] it's too easy. >> you went to berkeley so you should talk. >> but we've been living on her knees increase in california. we have been to the sculpture and he's taught us to fight back. i think that's what i take away from donald trump and the conservative movement. >> and the strength of -- >> tammy come on cutting you off. >> california is not lost. >> it is lost. [laughing] don't move, game over. i can't think of more fitting way to end our panel. join me in thanking tammy and harmeet. [applause] >> thank you. please welcome charles cooke and
the fcc chairman ajit pai. [applause] >> thank you for joining us. >> great to be with you. >> maybe we can survey asking a basic question, what is the fcc? what is a do? >> the federal communications commission is the nation's premier communications regulation agency. we were created 85 years ago in 1934, essentially enabling americans around the country to be able to benefit from communication technology, whether more traditional ones like radio and tv and telephone or the more modern ones, satellite, internet and wireless. matching the aspirations, that's
what i i see our core mission s been. >> what was the mission in 1934? >> it is change a little bit since 1934. back then back then we were cratered essentially to regulate the airwaves that broadcast tv and radio airwaves, the spectrum those being used. in addition regulating ma bell, att, the telephone monopoly. there was a list of regulations that congress charge of the agency with imposing back in 1934 that's really changed quite a bit since technology has advanced, the agency mission has changed as well. it's one of the big challenges frankly is fading the square peg of regulation into the round hole of technological innovation. >> which brings up a related question which is what should it do? there's a debate of what the fcc should be doing. you're do what should it do and what it should not be doing? >> in our view we should be guided by a few basic principles. first and foremost to have a strong belief in the power of the free market. history gently but our
experience in the space particularly demonstrates markets are far better position to drive innovation and investment than government regulation. ultimately the entrepreneurship, initiative shown by private individuals and companies has delivered greater benefits for american consumers and all-knowing bureaucrats in washington. don't take any offense to that myself but a think that's one of the things with respect to the second thing is a rule of law. the agency can't make it up. we are ultimately bound by the laws of congress and the president signs and that communications act essentially our founding document. we have to stay true to the words of that. even if something might be a good idea as a matter of policy, we can't simply say put our finger in the wind and say this is what we are going to do. we have to have statutory mandate. the other piece which is becoming important especially nowadays is respect for the basic principles of economics and physics. all kinds of wild eyes ideas
might sound good in theory but when you run it through the of economic analysis and realize the cost of going to outweigh the benefits, that would suggest it's a bad thing. same thing with physics. we might mandate great things in three but if they don't work in the real world that's a problem. we try to incorporate over the last two years under my leadership a a greater respectr those basic principles. that's part of the reason why our engine has been much more successful in terms of driving what i call digital opportunity for all americans. >> at the risk of talking you out of your job, explain to me how likely it is that the fcc would eventually become unnecessary. what i mean by that is you go back to 1934, radio is one of the main incident which people communicate. you only have a limited bandwidth for radio. the fcc is there so it can regulate that spectrum because if everyone starts a radio station you'll just get static.
the same thing is true of television. now we moved in different ways. we have the underpinning of the internet, with satellites, we have cable, collects which is not regulated by the fcc. i would could reach a point eventually at which there is no such thing as a limited bandwidth spectrum and we don't need an fcc to regulate it or is it the case there are always challenges both technological and otherwise you will be asked to address? >> that could well happen someday. oakley not until my term is over for self interested reasons of course but no, i do think the marketplace has changed dramatically. with respect to spectrum, the a.m. radio band occupies about one megahertz of spectrum total. in context and over the next 188 months the fcc will be auctioning off over 5000 records of spectrum 5g, next generation.
a huge influx of supply, great increase in competition, much more innovation and then we have that was possible. if it will be in time will be private mechanism to sort some of these things. i do think that will be a role for the fcc in certain ways. for example, the authorizations we give in order for companies abroad to enter the u.s. market and things like that. might continue to be important and so until congress changes the law will continue to administer some of those important statutory function. >> one of the questions that has come up before you if net neutrality. you may have heard of it. what is net neutrality and why some people so upset at the decision that you took after essentially threaten your life? what was that about? >> sometimes interested to hear
whenever people approach me we're upset with what you did on net neutrality. well, what is it? they get this puzzle look. it's about, well, yeah. we need something more concrete. in my view net neutrality for stuff for most is a very seductive market slow slogan. ultimately what it means is government regulation of the internet. it means the federal government putting its finger on the scale in favor of a particular sector of the industry and saying we know best how to direct investment come how to mandate the like. in my view the internet is the greatest free-market innovation in history, and apart from a recent public official, government didn't build that. someone else made that happen for the most part, the internet economy we have today. in our view, this is not unusual for republican chairman, i get credit to the clinton administration because back in 1996 they believed in they andh and federal law the agreement republican congress that the
internet should be quote unfettered by federal and state regulation. you can look it up, 47 u.s. code 234 of us geeks out geeks out there for second-guessing about this. that next 20 years from 1996 until 2015 we had a a slight th market based approach to the internet. look what happened. we saw $1.5 trillion in network investment with a small scrappy start at become global giants like facebook and amazon and netflix and google. we saw consumers benefiting from this innovation in ways that were unthinkable a generation ago. we live in the day-to-day so we find hard to remember but 20 years ago the internet meant getting aol cd-roms in the mail, during that word when you're trying to dial up. incredible how much innovation we've we seen over the past 20 years and i would argue it's not because of government. it's because we made the decision not to heavily regulate the internet like a slow-moving utility like amtrak or like electric company or dmv. in my view the 2015 decision to
impose these net to tell the regulations was a solution in search of a problem. the internet wasn't broken when the previous administration decided to fix it. the result of the fix turned out to be negative. infrastructure investment for the first time outside of a recession declined. we saw more companies hiring lawyers and accountants instead of investing in the networks that we saw countries around the world thinking the americans are getting in on the game. maybe we should start thinking about heavy-handed regulations. the best part of the reason why this enterprise was guided, to the question of why people are upset of the cad it's because people saw political advantage in fomenting a lot of fear. you saw all of these false fears and we document some of them. we saw broadcast on december 14th, 2017, when we made our decision. this is the end of the internet as we know. you will have to pay five dollars per tweet. our internet is going to look at portugal are my favorite twitter updates the democratic caucus,
the internet will load one word at a time, which is what they said in a tweet. last i checked you can still hate tweet your favorite fcc chairman at speed without any problem. our view of your lease this ene thing was, generate a lot of heat because people saw political advantage. the result of our decision of becoming increasingly clear. a report that came out in december showed speech for the internet increased from december decision to december 2018 by over 35%. we are seeing infrastructure investment going up, new companies investing in infrastructure and new companies entering into space. in our view at least this free-market approach has proven to be the right one and notwithstanding what some grandstanding politicians or beltway special interest but what to say. >> grandstanding partitions passed a bill that would overturn your decision if it were to go to the senate and be signed by the the president, tt would be american law. if that happens, what are the
worst case scenario? it was a lot of political minds but i'm lot of major corporations who backed this idea of keeping net neutrality. do they want to stop small-business small business income and? what was driving that? >> some of them want to regulate their rivals. they've achieved dramatic skill in silicon valley. they have some of the biggest companies in the entire world and they thought let's submit an advance ourselves by forcing on arrival the people build and operate these networks heavy-handed regulation. the notion wireless has market power in google is absurd on its face but nonetheless that's exactly what the previous administration decided to do, preemptively treat the thousands of providers across the united states, the big ones we all know but even the small what very few have heard of as preemptive monopolist andy slavitt 1930s
regulations on that. when we talk about 1934 communications act the regulations imposed by the previous administration based directly on those 1934 laws that were designed during the roosevelt administration to handle ma bell, the telephone monopoly. that is the wrong type of approach we think to this dynamic framework of the internet. >> last question on net neutrality. suppose a nightmare scenario did come to fruition. so rather than the lester of innovation that you've seen, you start to see exactly the nightmare scenario play out and all of the isps essentially do start charging different subscription models. probably they make exception for you so they can -- they start charging access to twitter and netflix. they really very clearly treating each traffic category as discrete and people say hey, i hate this. i much prefer the net. at that point is it's a role for
the sec to come in and regulate or interview the market would bring in new players who noticing people are so upset i the status quo would seek to change it? >> a few different points. first and foremost we did not see the top of behavior in the twinges we had these regulations if we don't see them today. number two, we have from transferring to regulations at the sec said everything in it service provider has to disclose all kinds of business practice and network management practices to us and the american public so we know that immediately to be commence a script from us come from press and others. number three, it's also backed up by vigorous enforcement from the federal trade commission, the ftc has jurisdiction over any unfair or deceptive trade practice or any unfair method of competition. because of a m.o.u. between our to agencies the ftc stand willing and able to forestall in the regard. i would point out number three,
however, some of these hypotheticals are hypocritical when it comes from certain companies that engage in the same practices of themselves. for example, i do not those of you -- but this hypothetical at the what if i were to tell you now there's a big corporation that delivers a service by charging publishers, people like national review, a certain amount of money. what this is if you pay as this money we will deliver this continent onto your mobile phones more quickly that exist today. stomach google and its called accelerated mobile pages. literally the name of the product we will deliver this faster if the public pays a fee. where is net neutrality advocates about this? nowhere to be found. i suspect it's because they don't focus on silicon valley. they want to focus on a certain aspect of the industry that if we're being honest they should have and just why that is so competitive i could come up with ideas either way but it's everything we need to have a level records were playing field here. let's be in lecture on a thicket with the framework should be. in my view it's the free market framework that the washington
knows best framework that will deliver an internet the woods as quickly as your dmv or runs as reliably as amtrak and is as popular as your post office. >> so what role is there for government in making sure that people in rural communities, people live in the middle of nowhere have access to the internet? >> this is i think the american publics attention should be and is drawn. when i travel around the united states i have now been to 44 states and the territories of puerto rico and the virgin islands. i get to hear anyone say if we really believe our top ideas, title ii versus title i regulation, is that we want internet access. we want more competition. this is what we are charged with doing. our top mission is closing the digital divide. i grew up in a small town in rural chances that part always on the wrong set of the digital divide. we see our role as trying to get the building blocks of internet infrastructure into those parts of the country.
modernizing our regulations to make it easier for providers to build infrastructure whether wireless towers or the fiber that goes under the ground or getting more spectrum for certain wireless companies to provide access to rural areas. that isn't everywhere i would think all of us could come together and that's part of the reason why i regret net neutrality discussion has chewed up so much attention in washington. we need a sense of mission in this country by connecting every american, as a matter of national competitiveness as well as the party families and communities around this country but we have been sidetracked some. >> what is 5g, this movement to increase and of greater infrastructure, what is 5g and how does it relate to the net neutrality question? >> igs next-generation wireless connectivity. most people are from a with 4g. 5g promises transformational wireless expense. it could be wondered at times faster than 4g if not more than that. the latency which is a gap in
time it takes when you ping the network at the network gets back to, , that latency would be 1100 threats of what is today watauga huge increases in bandwidth, gigabit speed. for example, you can seamlessly stream video on your mobile phone as if you were sitting at home on your desktop we think 5g is a commence opportunity for wireless innovation. the other reason it's important is because it demonstrates another opportunity for the united states to show leadership. other countries, china in particular saw the success that tranten with 4g 4g nudges and delivered the networks but the entire economy the right on top of the stepper, they want to see the fans for themselves. lastly introduced 5g fast plan facilitating america's superiority in 5g technology. getting more spectrum into the market place, making it easier to the point infrastructure the future and modernizing our rules for more fiber deployment. those of the key parts of the 5g
fast plan and we are executing all three and as a result america is in the league. we think there's all kinds of innovation we can't even imagine right now. if things we do imagine, telemedicine, the future could be dramatic. using virtual reality to train medical students on doing robotic surgery, managing ports remotely using some of these 5g applications. there's all kinds of things that are on tap if within the building blocks in place and that's what we're doing. >> how did china do that? was that government led or did the open up the space to free enterprise? >> this is one of the big challenges we have. china as you might be aware doesn't observe all the democratic niceties that we do. if beijing decides we shall make it a national policy to succeed in 5g, essentially they just wipe, they organize the entire structure towards making that happen. they directly subsidize some of their own companies and the like.
part of the issue we have is in the united states we have federal and state and local and in some cases travel review of regulatory review resin china it seamless regulatory apparatus. one of the things we've been trying to do to speed up the process to streamline our original approval process in order to promote 5g entrepreneurship on our shores instead of that talent going abroad. >> there are people in america who suffer from what is best described as china in the period tom friedman wants to be china 40 which essentially means one string of all the limitations on government and get rid of that specter would be no difference between the federal and state, nobody who could get in the way. that is a board to most of us in this room. we liked the checks and balances a what about the argument those checks and balances although very useful politically and, of course, constitutionally necessary are going in the long run to lead america to advantage are going to leave us behind?
>> i do think that some of the different layers of review will in the stalling investment. for example, if you are a small wireless company looking to compete against bigger companies in 5g and you think the how to deploy a 5g network at scale, the 5g networks of the future going to look different from the 4g networks. instead of intermittently dispersed to underfoot cell towers, we will see hundreds if not thousands of small cells, personal infrastructure the big event a pizza box relatively inconspicuous. you have to have a lot more of them. if you're a small company and to configure how to do this, if you have to get permission from the fcc or some other federal entity, state government, local government, in one of the 572 federally recognized indian tribes and other organizations it's going to be difficult to do that. our position is then let's streamline the process to make sure government legitimate interest in making sure these things meet the public interest, don't end up competing investment. that is what we've seen in some
cases. there are exorbitant fees charged by local governments because of a can and that's going to lead america on a macro level to lag behind in terms of 5g infrastructure. >> is china risk the other way around the driving of innovation or is there government as good as that as american compass? >> the innovative spirit and the united states is the strongest in the world nonetheless there's no question china has made it a major priority. part of that involves innovation and not just in 5g but some of the related technologies that will interact with 5g. for example, artificial intelligence and machine learning a huge amount of investment and innovation into that. you see some of the results with how they're trying to think about using facial recognition technology in order to control some of their own subjects. same thing with other technologies like blockchain, quantum computing. that's part of the reason why we need to make sure we prioritize on a national level investment
and innovation in emerging technology. we need to empower our private sector to compete, to innovate and to enable us to lead. >> at the risk of asking you either direct or indirectly to to criticize your colleagues, supposed we have a turnover in leadership or the balance changes within the commission, what should the audience be worried about? what's the one thing they should be worried about happening. >> was i would hope we would share an interest in preserving u.s. leadership in 5g. that is a national party, not political priority. one of things i would worry about is whether or not anyone with more regulatory event will end up seeing the market something to be regulated as opposed to something to be encouraged. to bar from shakespeare, hell hath no fury like a regulatory board. [laughing] some people see the innovative spirit of something to be tamed as opposed to be encouraged.
it's tempting for something to say where not going to trust the market for the backstop of federal trade commission enforcement. we want to declare the entire marketplace broken and if our government to deliver solutions for the american people. history demonstrates why that has been falling but i fear that is a lesson where having to learn especially in the regulatory space. >> there's a question that relates to -- this is far more pointed and will be better. what would the fcc do if isps begin blocking content from right-leaning groups, or it was a precluded by the customer agreements? what happened? >> the same thing, the transparency will would kick in and if they had not disclose his business practices that would potentially be an fcc violation. the same thing with blocking access to lawful content. the federal trade commission would evite with that under section five of the federal trade commission act. >> could you get an isp that says we are the left-leaning isp and we don't hide it, we don't
let anyone read your isp and that's what we do. >> so again that doesn't happen in the market place today but if it did happen that something that would be evaluated under the framework i just outlined. i would point out with ask the question should be far more concerned about other players in internet economy that do, in fact, decide what you see and more importantly what you don't. those players are entirely unrelated and i think that's part of his wife last fall i published a blog in which i said we need to have have had a conversation about transparency. where is the transparency for some these tech giants that don't disclose how to decide what content people see and what they don't? we have no idea and that's part reason what a bipartisan ups well in congress now about how to think about these issues is because there's simply no regulation at all. there's a vacuum. >> what should we do if google starts saying they will prioritize rachel maddow above
anyone else when you look up politics? >> that the decision oldman for congress and the federal trade commission. i am a free marketer. i will point out its it senatok for some of the same tech giants that have avoided these heavy-handed regulars on others to become one with the prospect of heavy had regular of a similar kind being impose on themselves. >> another question. several states what net due to a place. if enough states pass this with the sec reconsiders reconsidero preempt state law or come up with a different proposal? before you answer that, is that legal for states to be regulating what is a federal concern? is this a great area? >> it depends on the nature of the state legislation. generally speaking we use and as inherently an interstate activity. even though we're sit next to each other if you do email me right now, tweet at me, that would be an internet communication that most likely would traverse state boundaries.
that falls under the constitution of the loss of the united states that they can only be regulated on the federal level. the sec could voice that the regulatory policy for the country. to the extent of state is seeking to supplant that federal regular decision, that statement would be preempted. again the particulars matter in terms of the state legislation in question that general speaking rudely they should be consistent level of federal regulation as opposed to a patchwork of state regulations. we see a dynamic with respect to privacy. certain states are passing privacy laws. california for example, passed a privacy law that is fairly strong and that we see some of same companies that urged the net neutrality regulation to be adopted on the state level now, to washington saying we need a a federal privacy law because we need to preempt all of the states that might need to regulate industry. so under the well-established president of the deuce versus gator some of them resting the danger of allowing states to patchwork regulate some of these things properly regulated on the
federal level. >> a question, what does the sec have to do with huawei? when i was in school had to give this prize for reading to some and i had read harry potter but i never heard outlaw and his ist in front of those school that give a character was -- [laughing] and i managed at that point from doing it again and shall right now. i think. >> we can do an aggression on the lack of classics education and great names in particular. >> that would be even worse. another time. >> one of the things the sec is concerned about is the integrity of our supply chain. if these networks become ever more complex they rely on equipment and products that come from companies that may be located abroad. that's why last year i proposed borrowing use of federal funds to come from sec funding spent
on equipment or services that come from a company or from a country that have determined by the united states, to post a national security threat. we are evaluating in addition to government general speaking has addressed concern that certain companies that may be subjected to intelligence requirements domestically in terms of, for example, national intelligence law that in china requires court any individual or entity, unquote from complying with a request for cooperation from intelligence services. that's one of the things the united states government has expressed concern about. >> last question given time, but what is the sec role in defining and distinction sponsorship and add messaging in free speech? >> generally speaking, we do have some gestation of what's called sponsorship identification what comes to broadcast tv and the like. when it comes to the unit we certainly don't. with respect to free speech generally, i somewhat first amendment absolutist. i do believe the last thing we
want is the government being at gatekeeper deciding who can speak and who can't, who should be allowed to speak on certain terms and who can't. generally speaking that is infused with a done the job over the last two years. it's very tempting for those to say why should the federal government police what is said on this particular website? once you go down that road history shown is a very dangerous path. one of the things that distinguishes american culture from other country and what is with a not just they guarantee of the first amendment in the constitution but this culture free speech that allows and encourages people to speak online. to me the internet is one of the great public squares of her era. one of the things i've fear, going back to the previous administration, is that many people seem less likely than ever to defend the thing that it's stupid to voltaire that i might disagree with what you say but i will fight to the death your right to say. that's become a scarce value in today's democracy and that is a warning sign to me.
>> a question i've long had, when television is broadcast over the air within sec regulation bandwidth, the sec has some rules in place, but, for example, table doesn't know what the internet. why does israel's not apply to internet traffic broadcast over spectrum that regulate? you say you will be auctioning off 5g bandwidth. why do those rules attach to that? >> congress hasn't given the fcc jurisdiction over those other forms of communication. ..