the i would dream i here to be realized, but i believe we can and must dream even bigger. as we look to the future, our path is not dictated. we have opportunities not seen in other states and other parts of the world. we need to breed true to our constituents in their cells, and we must dream big. we must dream of denial that is competitive with any other place in the world, and i will wear it is easier to build a business, to build your ideas, to support a family. we must dream of an i/o world-class education is not a dream but a reality. the simple rule that every child should be ready to compete in the 21st century marketplace. we must dream of denial of the continually as the question how can government to better serve people.

and i weather uses technology for greater transparency and accountability for taxpayers. now is the time -- now is not the time to shy away from challenges and opportunities. now's the time to embrace them, to be bold, it's a move by 04 word and to increase competitiveness of our state and its people today and for the years to come. there is more work to be done to realize the i would dream. thus show everyone that we are up to the challenge. thank you. god bless you. and god bless the people of file. [applause] [applause] >> that the morning register has the headline highlighter governor's speech on tuesday. the article goes on to say that immediate reaction to the plan from terry branstad was generally positive come however

democrats as the government to quickly address state spending for local schools and to do more to help military veterans facing mental health problems. >> and to vermont where governor peter shumlin told lawmakers last week in his "state of the state" address that there was a harrowing crisis and detail the effects of drug abuse in the criminal-justice system treatment centers in the greater community. breaking tradition governor peter shumlin spent his entire 35 minutes discussing the issue. [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause] >> is my distinct honor to present to you the governor of the state of vermont the hon. peter shumlin. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you so much. thank you so much. >> mr. speaker, mr. president, mr. chief justice, members of the general assembly, members of the national guard to love fellow vermonters, thank you so much for the privilege of serving as your governor of the week. we're lucky to live in the best in the union where people work hard, trust and take care of each other and strive to keep vermont a place for our children and grandchildren will grow and thrive. the state of our state is strong and growing stronger. vermonters are working,

companies are expanding, home values are rising, opportunities for good jobs are growing. we enjoy the fifth lowest unemployment rate in america. we have added over 11,000 jobs since i first spoke to you just three years ago, and as i crisscross vermont, most people i meet are hopeful and optimistic about the direction that our economy is headed. there remains more work to do. our challenges not only to create good jobs, but we share an obligation to deliver a better quality of life for everyone. all vermonters deserve to live in a state where we know that our schools are among the best in the country and our families are safe in their homes. where we have a clean environment with the bright, renewable energy future.

where we have good jobs that pay fair wages, where we all have affordable, high-quality health care. you will hear from me on many of these topics next week when i present my budget, but today i want to focus exclusively on a matter of great concern to our state's future. during the tenure of every governor there are numerous crises. some are created by natural disasters, when we all need to pull together to provide immediate relief from the pain in the hard break. vermonters' needed to feel relief quickly in order to know that a return to -- from disaster to normal life was, in fact, possible. hope is born in such efforts. there are other crises that can contest that are actually much

tougher, much tougher because they're more complicated, controversial, and difficult to talk about. vermont is confronting one of these right now. the crisis that on talking about is the rising tide of drug addiction and drug-related crimes that are spreading across vermont. in every corner of our state heroin and opiate drug addiction threatens us. threatens our safety. it threatens the safety. it is a crisis bubbling just beneath the surface that may be invisible to many, but it is already highly visible to law enforcement, medical personnel, social services, addiction treatment providers, and far too many vermont families. it requires all of us to take action before the quality of

life that we cherish so much is compromised. the facts speak for themselves. in vermont since 2000 we have seen more than a 770% increase in treatment for opiates. that started as oxycontin and prescription drug addiction problem in vermont and has now grown into a full-blown heroin crisis. we have seen in over 250% increase in people receiving heroin treatment here in vermont since 2000 with the greatest percentage increase nearly 40% in just the past year. in 2013 there were twice as many federal indictments against heroin dealers than in the prior two years, and over five times as many as we had obtained in 2010.

last year we had nearly double the number of deaths in vermont from heroin overdoses of the the prior year. some of you may have seen the film made by f. o'brien and the hungry heart which focuses on one vermont communities struggle to save its children from this growing epidemic. bess is here with us today. if you could just try so that we can thank you for your rework. [applause] tells the story through dr. fred holmes, a physician who spent 43 years taking care of young vermonters in st. albans, some of whom became addicts. when she first investigated

opiate addiction in an effort to help, he learned just how devastating it can be and how little most of us understand. dr. holmes said, these kids don't walk different, taught different. it is just the nature of their disease that is different. he said, i was louis. i figure that it was something i ought to be able to do something about, just like diabetes or epilepsy or as more and your infection, but he quickly learned about addiction, recognizing that his patience, as he put it, had a relentless relapsing ellis that is potentially fatal. you realize that his obligation was to help them treat that on this. when he retired last summer he was treated more than 80 kids for opiate addiction in his small practice.

dr. holmes is here today. thank you for your service to vermont. please rise so that we can thank you. [applause] [applause] >> the stories of these young vermonters breaks your heart. one of dr. holmes patients was raised by a hard-working, supportive family on a dairy farm. started using drugs and tenth

grade during a 15 minute break between school exams when a bunch of his friends offered him oxycontin. he became an addict hard and fast. his addition quickly went from $100 a week to $30,500 a week, that's $500 a day. he found, like most of the attics, that drugs transformed the way -- it transformed his way of life and altered his moral compass. he needed drugs to survive, and he stole to pay for his addiction. even still more than $20,000 worth of farm tools and equipment from his own parents. dustin said, be careful because your addiction is waiting out in the driveway. just getting stronger, just waiting for you to slip up and take your life.

his family knows too well the crushing hurt and harm that comes from opium addiction, even as they have stuck with him throughout his disease. as his mom said, my sun is an addict, and i love them with all my heart pit. dustin has now been clean for more than five years. he and his mom are here with us. please stand so that we can thank you for your courage. [applause] [applause]

>> addiction comes to people insidiously, sometimes through a dealer looking to get someone -- looking to get someone up to, to make more money. it starts as a way to feel good, a rush that may seem harmless of first says you are often doing it with your friends. it quickly devolves into an uncontrollable, unrelenting addiction, and those who become addicted are sentenced to a lifetime battle. as one person now and recovery said, the first thing you think about is not feeding your kids, it's tell my god twitter.com/booktv. heroin is a drug that does not only grippe those who are born into poverty, consider the life of will gates who went to use p.m. but died of a heroin overdose of 40 graduate.

he was a narrow behavioral science major and a ski major test eraser. he was born to opportunity. his ashes were spread out his favorite ski trail. his father speaks for all grieving families when he says, i never knew anything in human experience could be this hard. i never knew any human being could feel this much pain. it has redefined the rest of my life. skip felt powerless to stop the overwhelming impact of drugs on his son. says wells' death skip has worked with our u.s. attorney chris coffin dedicating his life to warning others of the circumstances that stoll will. skip is here. skip. we are sorry for your pain, but we are so thankful for

everything that's your doing for vermont. if you could stand it would like to recognize. [applause] [applause] >> we often hear in the news about the criminal side prediction, about the robberies of the boss in our communities, our police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges do an extraordinary job under tough circumstances, but as chief justice shriver and so many others you are in the thick of the struggle of concluded, we must bolster our current approach to addiction with more

common sense. we must address it as a public health care crisis providing treatment and support rather than simply going -- going out punishment, claiming victory, and moving on to the next conviction. no, i am not naive, and i know you aren't either. terrible crimes, murders, armed robbery, sex trafficking and others are committed by those in the drug trade and by those who are supporting their drug habits . these crimes have victims and devastating consequences. budget dr. holmes got it right when he noted that addiction is at its core a chronic disease. we must do for this disease will we do for cancer, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses. first name for prevention and

then eradicate any disease that develops with aggressive treatments. getting this right is not just a matter of compassion. it's also the right thing to do for our pocketbooks. let's put aside our hearts for a moment and with our heads look at the man. every week, every week our drug task force estimates more than $2 million of heroin and other opiates are being trafficked into vermont. 2 million per week. due to our proximity to boston, new york, philadelphia, and other cities where heroin is she , dealers can make a lot of money from attics in vermont. a $6 a bag of heroin in new york city can go to up to 30 -- go for up to $30 year. so think about that for a

second. a $6 purchase can sell for five times that much just a few hours up the interstate. loom that means a heroin habit and vermont to cost as a thousand dollars per year paw, and that's before they put a roof over their heads, food and the table, or sneakers and the kids. nearly 80%, 80 percent of our incarcerated population are either addicted or in prison because of their addiction. listen to this. $1,120 by $1,203 will buy a week of treatment for heroin addicts at a state-funded center. [applause]

today our state government spends more than we do to support our colleges and universities. in their prison spending has doubled, doubled in the last nine years. so in a vote -- you don't have to be a math major realize we cannot afford our current path. we have to figure out how to spend taxpayer money more wisely while we treat the disease more effectively. no, we have made some headway. the unopened treatment centers in nearly every region of our state, considered to be national models. thanks to your good work last year we have expanded our efforts to combat oxycontin and prescription drug abuse and to offer safe harbor to those reporting overdoses. we have lessened the bounties for small amounts of marijuana, acknowledging that we can better use of limited resources.

through a partnership between the vermont state police, our state drug task force, our state's attorneys, local police, federal government, and our attorney general, we are getting tougher in using turbines to disrupt dealer networks that kill our neighbors and kids. this important work must continue, yet despite all these efforts, we are losing too many vermonters to drug addiction and the crimes that come with the. today i propose for areas, for areas to help us gain ground in this battle. first lets start treating drug addiction as the immediate health care crisis that it is, by dramatically -- [applause] [applause]

by dramatically increasing treatment across vermont. right now we have hundreds of vermonters who are addicted and ready to accept health who are condemned to waiting because we don't have the capacity to treat the demand. does the truth. our largest waiting list of over 500 addicts in central vermont, the northeast kingdom, and sidney county. to-teacher approved to help slash those with less. the money will touch receptors to immediately step and bring up additional resources to begin eliminating the existing backlog while preparing to serve growing numbers of patients going forward. , also proposing increased resources for our state why recovery centers, funding for service abuse and mental health

centers. in total this funding will represent more than a million dollars of additional support for treatment and recovery, and this is on top of the $8 billion on going funded in my budget. st. john's bury in newport has just opened. these expanded services will help the kingdom needs increased demand. i know that we have more work to do to provide the right treatment and support to those who are addicted, not just using maintenance drugs as a band-aid for this complicated disease. i also know that treatment facilities have not always been embraced by our local communities, but the time is come for us to stop quietly averting our eyes from the

growing heroin addiction in our front yards while we fear and fight treatment facilities in our backyards. [applause] [applause] now, this is tough stuff. it is to arrest of aum. but this is about getting help to those who are desperately sick, and giving hope to those who wish to get better. help and hope is what we vermonters to bus. second, let's do a better job, better job of convincing drug users who wind up in our criminal-justice system that can help is a better path benediction.

this too will not be easy work. dramatics are the best deniers and the best liar's the you will ever need. some will do just about anything, anything to continue using. but all the research tells us that the moment an addict is most accepting treatment is right after the bust. it is when the blue lights flashing and the cold reality sets in that we have done. here's the problem. our current judicial system is not well-equipped to seize that moment. it can take weeks or months to wind your way through our court system from arrest and conviction leaving the added time to settle back in sold

habits. so i want to give our prosecutors and judges the resources needed to strike immediately. my 2015 budget will include additional $760,000 to provide objective evidence-based assessments to help our state's attorneys and our core -- courts determine new may qualify for immediate treatment and services and then hire the necessary personnel to monitor their recovery. in this new system of third-party chosen in conjunction with local prosecutors, defense counsel, and court personnel but contractor the state would probably, after arrest conducted evidence based risks and need assessment for prosecutors, defense counsel, and the judges

are state's attorney will be unable to establish a rapid intervention program paid for by the state were those at this accused of crimes caused by their addiction could agree to seek immediate treatment for their disease and avoid criminal prosecution if they successfully a year to the strict requirements imposed. for any individual not suitable for early intervention, our judges can choose to use these same assessments to set conditions of release and monitoring before trial that included immediate treatment and other services. one success of failure is in recovery is considered during sentencing.

i we can do this. they have been implementing prosecutor-led intervention pros with good results. some of our courts have been using grants and pilot experiments with ways to better address addiction in our criminal-justice system. senators years, ash, florey, fox, and snowy has sponsored bipartisan legislation, 295 which seeks to build upon some of these efforts. my proposals expand on this good work taking is farther and faster to bring evidence based assessment and intervention programs to a wide i ask for your support. [applause]

[applause] [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you. third, we have to a couple enhanced treatment in intervention with even stronger, more coordinated law enforcement that is why we have just launched a new portal led by the department of public safety to sheer and analyze data between state -- data statewide to determine where are hot spots are and where resources can most effectively go in stopping the flow of drugs. to further aid and are coordinated efforts i am also reorganizing the governor's criminal-justice kevin to include substance abuse

prevention so that better reflects this broader challenge. i also ask you to make it to statutory changes that will help insure that high-volume deals will bring drugs into our state to prey upon vermonters in pursuit of profits will suffer the consequences and that those who break into our homes with weapons in hand to rob us, to feed their habits will face enhanced criminal penalties. [applause] >> creating tougher sentences when anyone transports illegal drugs into vermont will help send a clear message to drug dealers that our state will not tolerate their trade. [applause] enhancing penalties for people who carry weapons into our homes

to feed their habits by violating our security and stealing a property is good vermont common sense. [applause] finally and perhaps most importantly, we know that the best way to fix this problem is to prevent addiction in the first place. this is the toughest challenge that we face, one without a clear, national model for consensus on what works best. we need vermont ingenuity, all of us thinking big together. later this year will be facilitating a statewide community forum right here the state house tell us share creative ideas about how we can do better on the prevention front.

those whose stories are featured in the hungry heart will visit every single high-school in vermont to talk to our kids directly about their difficult journeys. [applause] it's critical that we continue to engage era of care providers in this challenge. in august from a received a $10 million program over five years to to help medical providers intervene earlier with patients who are beginning to see the consequences of substance abuse. just like we taught people to heed the warnings of heart disease and diabetes, we need medical community to educate their patience on how to better avoid addiction. we also need more providers like

dr. hall's who are trained to offer emotional and other support to of those who become addictive but just to love me this drugs for the first time requires coverage for substance abuse disorders and treatment and federal support to pay for it a schools also agree role played. risky behavior develops early in life and too often accompanies family difficulties and dysfunction. when parents struggle, children suffer and we'll pay the price for years and years to come. this is why we must continue our focus on the earliest years. our recent successes securing the $37 million early child

education race to the top gramm will be a huge help in making vermont a leader in these efforts. [applause] [applause] and if you will send me the bill that passed the house last spring, we can make sure that all vermont children have access to quality universal prekindergarten to help set them on that right path. [applause] [applause] >> i was in the senate for a long time. they can sometimes be slowing

their fee, but they got it. that, if you listen -- if you listen to the voices of addiction you will hear the underlying cause of this disease for jiminy back, a lack of hope, a lack of opportunity. so while we should celebrate that our unemployment rate is low and our economic outlook is bright, none of us should be can send until all vermonters, including those who are born into poverty have the same opportunities to succeed in flourish as the most fortune. [applause] of our best prevention against drug addiction is to create jobs and opportunities for all vermonters.

by dividing the best -- providing the best early childhood education in america by continuing their good work on early college, dual enrollment of -- continued job growth like leading a sensible, of laurel, publicly financed universal health care system for all vermonters. [applause] by ensuring that every vermonter , regardless of income, has that chance of success living, working, and raising their family break here in vermont. all the proposals i just discussed today are designed to

retrain the way that we solve drug addiction and drug crime in vermont, attacking it first as the health care crisis that is while simultaneously retooling our criminal justice system and strengthening law enforcement. this will not happen overnight. but these actions represent basic good government responses to an emergency. just as you expected us to work across agencies and across state and local governments to help us all recover from a devastation of the troubles start, so too should you expect this to approach this crisis of drug addiction with coordination and effective action this is about all of us together, i strive

toward the goal of recovery by working with one another creatively, relentlessly, and without division. we can do this. i know we can. i have tremendous help for vermont and for our efforts to overcome this challenge and keep for months the vermont that we cherish for generations to come. thank you so much. [applause] according to an article published after the speech before state lawmakers for mob law enforcement community had been warning of the dangers of drug addiction. there been a series of high-profile drug suites in communities facing drug problems and prosecutors and police said they can solve the problem by themselves. the article points out that heroin addiction was up 250% and that the number of people who died of heroin overdoses nearly

doubled since last year. >> now to indiana for the state of the state address from governor mike pence. talked about early pre skynyrd education, the expansion of medicaid and in the state response to the recent record cold temperatures. the republican, previously served in the house representatives from 2001 to 2013. [applause]

[applause] [applause]

v mean in new. >> speaker khnum, president pro tem, the senate governor from, senator, representative and the nine distinguished members of the general assembly, members of the judiciary, our guests, thank

you for that warm welcome. after last week hidden warm is my favorite word her. all kidding aside him, one to think it all you in december to you and your family's hidden for the sacrifices you make. [applause]

..

the.

[applause] the results indiana has become a national leader in job growth. last year hoosier created 47,500 new private-sector jobs and maintain our aaa credit rating one of the few states in the union to do that. [applause] in november, '01 out of eight jobs created in the united states of america was created by business is right here in indiana. that is an extraordinary accomplishment for our people. [applause] unemployment was 8.6 percent unemployment when i stood here last year. at 7.3 percent today unemployment is at a five-year low.

since 2009, indiana has the fifth best is private sector job growth in the united states of america. indiana is on the move because of the people of indiana. [applause] lenny's say most encouraging , indiana's fourth 38th graders the second best improvement in america in math and reading -- reading scores and reading proficiency is at an all-time high. that is an accomplishment we can all be proud of. [applause] we have made progress in jobs and schools. but there are still too many hoosiers out of work with our state lagging behind of her capita income and health and to many kids an underperforming schools. i believe we must remain relentless, bold, ambitious

to keep our state moving forward. that is my last month i travelled throughout the state from fort wayne to outline my agenda in 2014 in the time we have remaining i want to share a few highlights. first. we all recognize low taxes are essentials to attracting the kind of investment to create good paying jobs. even with our progress i believe one significant impediment to business investment remains called the business personal property tax. this is especially damaging because it is harder for hoosiers businesses to grow because it directly taxes investment they make with equipment. i will say emphatically taxing equipment and technology in estate that leads the nation to create and make things does not make sense. looks like our neighboring

states have figured that out. ohio and illinois don't have a business person property-tax initiative and lawmakers just voted to phase there's out. to make india a more competitive i want to urge all members of both chambers let's work together to find a responsible way to phase out the business personal property tax. poillon board of caution. as we work through this process, let's do it in a way to protect local government and does not shift the burden of this business tax on to the back of hard-working hoosiers. [applause] i appreciate both the house and the senate leadership are looking at the business personal property taxes and other ways to win sure indiana has the best tax climate possible. the phasing out the business.

property-tax i believe will spur new investment with businesses large and small. this is advanced manufacturing in anderson in indiana launched by a marine veteran who supports our troops. or troops. of blind started in 1964 to manufacturer's technical training systems for colleges. today it employs 143 hoosiers and was named indian the outstanding business of the year in 2010. these are two of the kind of success stories we could see more of an indiana with the right kind of tax reform. join me to welcome those two great indiana business stories. nate richardson am paul perkins who are with us tonight in the people's house. thank you for making indiana a state that works at.

[applause] we have to do more than just improve our tax code to get the economy moving again. we need to release $400 million for the next heir and highway expansion in to put the hoosiers back to work to keep us at the crossroads of america. [applause] because indiana is agriculture, we need a permanent fix to this soil productivity factor because our cities are vital to our state's economic development we need to encourage public and private investment to improve the quality of life in our cities. that is the indian a way to a growing future in the city and on the form. that also means to stand up

to washington d.c. from time to time. most hoosiers did not like washington intruding on their health care before it became a reality now we know why we were right to stand up to the federal government on the affordable care act. there has been a lot of talk about medicaid. the sad truth is traditional medicaid is broken. research shows the program actually does not lead to better health outcomes ian believe better not it hurts the very people it is supposed to help. one analysis found two-thirds of children on medicaid to needed to see a specialist actually could not on the program. traditional medicaid is not a system we need to expand expand, it is a system we need to change. [applause]

i believe helping india is a great place to start. the indiana plant is consumer driven health care plan that moves people from emergency rooms to primary care in encourages lower in calm hoosiers to take more ownership of their health care decisions but let me be clear on this point. we will continue to work in good faith with federal officials to expand access to the healthy indiana plan in our state. but i will oppose any expansion of our health insurance system that condemns vulnerable hoosiers to substandard health care or threatens the fiscal health of our state. [applause] of course, the most important aspect for achieving indiana long term success is all about our kids, our schools.

if we cannot succeed in the classroom we will not succeed in the marketplace. the good news is for all those gathered here for those looking on, indiana schools are succeeding. more than 500 public schools improve the full letter grade with the scholarships in use indiana has the fastest growing school choice program in the country with strong bipartisan support from both chambers last year we were busy to make a vocational education a priority in every high school in indiana again. we've made great progress in working together we have accomplished a lot. with career education we are expanding curriculum to develop new partnerships with local businesses to support regional career education.

anyone who wants to go to college regardless of where they start ought to be encouraged to go we know there is good jobs that don't require a college degree these partnerships will make sure our schools work for all kids regardless where they start or were they want to start. to make sure we succeed we're proposing legislation our career technical education dollars are spent in to also make sure that adults who have a high-school degree of the schools they need by repurchasing dollars for the high demand jobs and are available today. [applause] >> the hoosiers have higher expectations when it comes to risk pools such as white

indiana decided to take a timeout on national standards. when determining standards for our schools, let me be clear indian is standards will be uncommonly high in britain by hoosiers, for hoosiers in be among the best in the nation. [applause] that progress that i just described earlier as a testament to our kids, our parents, our teachers, administrators come a and a testament to the indiana state board of education. join me to think every member of the indiana state board of education and superintendent who are here with us tonight.

we appreciate your service for the people of indiana. [applause] i have always said nothing ale's education that can be fixed by giving parents more choices in in teachers more freedom to cheats. to give parents more choices i believe we can start in the early childhood development area because every child deserves to start school ready to learn. i believe the time has come for a voluntary pre-care program to help indiana is disadvantaged kids. [applause]

i always believe the best free k program is providing in richmond in the hope that every child needs or deserves what the reality is that is not the case for too many indian children. it is important this program is voluntary and available in the form of a voucher as well. i want parents to choose to send their child to a church based program, a private program, or public pre-k programs they think best meets their needs. but i urge all of you in the general session, let's come together to work across party lines on behalf of four children and their future, let's open the doors of opportunity to low income families for quality pre-k education in indiana this year.

[applause] another way to give parents more choices is to expand the availability of public charter schools. even though they are charter schools they operate with several disadvantages we need to level the playing field to allow them to manage there budget with the same flexibility as the public school for the interest of greater choices we should make sure underutilized public school buildings could be put to use by charters or other schools that need them. choice matters. at the end of the day of free hoosier knows a good teacher makes all the difference is. [applause] we can all think of a teacher who changed our lives. someone who was on our mind

right now. they saw more in us then we see ourselves. sister rachel in mrs. fisher and others to touch my life. we don't allow them to leave as a reformer. they have dedicated their lives to education after '03 should do more to unleash their creativity and expertise. that is why we need a teacher innovation fund for those who are willing to try new ways like steve perkins a latin teacher from north-central high-school whose enthusiasm has ignited a passion for classical education in he was named the 2014 teacher of the year. mr. perkins ian his family are here with us tonight. [applause]

with all the talk of parental choice i believe teachers deserve more choices. any public school teacher who feels called to serve a low performing schools should have some compensation protected if there a link to protect -- make that move. let them follow their hearts were they feel they can make the most difference. on the subject of marriage i know we're in the midst of a debate whether indiana should join 30 other states that have enshrined the definition of marriage to the state constitution. reach several perspective on this matter. for my part, i believe in traditional marriage and i have long held the view that the people rather than unelected judges should decide matters of such consequence in our society. reasonable people can differ in their good people of both

sides of this debate. money saved from my heart, no one, and no one on either side of this debate deserves to be disparaged or maligned because of who they are or what they believed. [applause] let's have a debate where the of our people of civility in respect to protect the rights of hoosier employers to provide them with the benefits they deserve and then resolve the issues this year once and for all. [applause] after that is over let's come together to support every hoosier family so that we can help working families with their budget. did you know, our tax

detect -- deductions for dependents have not increased since 1970 -- 1978? it is time deindex to inflation into end of the hidden tax on working families in indiana to five let's also remember people come together many different ways like a family of care in she is a single mom who felt called to become a parent by adoption. she adopted her two kids when they were 11 and 12 years old after they spent many years in foster care. she says people always tell her she is changing those kids' lives she's quick to say they are changing wind. would you join me to welcome a great indiana family to the people's house tonight.

karen and the kids you are in inspiration. [applause] adoption is a beautiful way for kids to come together we can better support families by proving adoption in indiana and in the way replace children from state care in to adoptive homes and support every parent who was willingly loving adopting a child into their home we should make get nothing less than to make indiana the most pro adoption state in the united states of america. [applause] indiana is strong and growing stronger every day. we still have work to do if we only achieve our

potential like hoosiers to win it matters most. on a warm summer day last july, two boys walking on the dunes along lake michigan and suddenly one of the boys just disappeared. sexual nathan and simply finished into this and. his dad ran to the scene marshaling help while frantically digging for his son. michigan city police and fire raced to the dunes in the beachgoers are using there hands and shovels to dig. businesses showed up to clear away the sand even reporters were seen using their own notepads to dig for the boy. for nearly three hours. not one of those people gave up. 140 people and tell a

firefighter felt a hand beneath the sea and and pulled anything to safety. they call it the miracle on mount baldy when i called the since dash at the hospital to see how he was, i told him they were calling it that. and he told me governor governor, this was not our miracle. this was everyone's miracle. period he was right. and that was the indiana way. we are a strong and good people that we were never stronger than when we work together. let me say as i close, as i said one year ago at this very podium, together we will build a more prosperous

future. together we will open doors of educational opportunity for all of our kids and together, only together, we will approach the third century with confidence with faith in him who has ever died it the 19th star with faith in all who go by the name hoosier, i know the best is yet to come. thank you. god bless you. and god bless the great state of indiana. [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] continues.washington journal

host: the federal appeals court struck down the federal communications commission's net roles. for the next hour or so we are going to talk about those with two former commissioners of the fcc who served on the commission during the time the open internet rules were established. robert mcdowell is a republican and was the senior republican on the commission for quite a while. and michael copps, a democrat, in the majority during that time. also served as acting chair of the commission for a while. , what exactlyopps is net neutrality? what are we talking about here? guest: i think net neutrality is the effort to keep the internet free and open. terms,ted into practical

it means consumers have a right to access the lawful content of their choice, to attach whatever devices they want to attach to run applications that they want to run and have the benefits of transparency, openness, and nondiscrimination. to makeally an effort sure that consumers rather than companies are in charge of their internet experience. host: when we talk about net neutrality in this view, if somebody is downloading a netflix movie or sending an e-mail, they get equal treatment? guest: that's right here at host: do you support what the appeals court did? guest: no, i don't support what the appeals court did nor do i support what the fcc did on the way to the appeals court. court credit, the appeals did emphasize that the fcc has authority to conduct some oversight, to keep the internet

open. the so-called net neutrality. which, incidentally, i think is a god awful term because it is such an anodyne and non-mobilizing thing. i would rather talk about the open internet or internet freedom, because that is really what we are talking about here. and a lot of the discussion we will have today will probably get in the weeds. but people need to understand what is at stake here, what we are talking about. the future of the internet. and that is the place where increasingly our civic dialogue takes place. that is increasingly where television and radio and news are going. and that is central to our democracy. that is central to our ability to conduct civil dialogue, giving people the news and information, openness without gatekeeping and all of that, so they can make intelligent decisions for the future of the country. goodness knows we've got so many problems in the country. i am one of those people who happens to believe that journalism is hemorrhaging. we don't have the type of

investigative journalism we used to have. and the open internet is very much a part of whether we will have that in the future or not. host: you said you did not like what the fcc did on the way that you supported at the time. guest: i voted for it because it was that or nothing. but basically you get into the weeds are really quick here. but what the federal communications decided several years ago, the beginning of 2002 and then in 2004 was broadband was not really a telecommunications service him it was an information service. , you information service cannot conduct oversight or regulate it to the degree you can if it is a communication -- telecommunications service. things like consumer protections and privacy and public safety and things like that. but the fcc said, no, it's not

that, it is an information service over here. what the court said was, if you are going to call it information service then you have to regulate it like information service, or in this case, not regulate it at all. but if you go back and classify it as a telecommunications service, then you are probably on sound ground. it would be contentious but it would not the all that complex. you would have the commission go back and say, we kind of made a 2004.e back in 2002 and of course, this stuff is telecommunications. at telephone call is a telephone call, whether a land line service or an internet call. functionally it is the same sort of thing. why wouldn't a consumer be callled on that internet to the same kind of protections that advocates fought for or consumers for years and years west among all these things we are talking about? mcdowell,issioner

same question. how would you define net neutrality? what did you -- do you think about the court did? the folks me say for watching, michael copps and i come from different philosophical approaches on many issues but we are the best of friends and we had a terrific colleagues inas the fcc. this is a rarity in washington. sometimes we would arrive at the same destination but through different paths completely. and there are things that this -- divide is. it is not republican versus democrat and not necessarily net neutrality, but he is unc chapel ill and i went to duke -- so am wearing my duke tie and cufflinks just to throw him off his game. i have to resort to such tactics. can i emphasize what he said? when i was acting chairman we went through the dtv transition, a consultative thing, and i cannot not have had a more cooperative attitude -- traveling to dance around the country explaining to folks.

of looking at how this plays runs, and it turns out while there are less optical differences and differences of opinion in these issues, over 90% of what the place does is by consensus and it is not divided by politics of the left or right. it is a license or spectrum dispute or something like that. but when we were talking about net neutrality this was a partisan issue. guest: thank you, sir. appreciate that. guest: net neutrality is what i called for years a workshop term , what different people see into it. the concept of open and freedom enhancing internet i think is important to everybody. we all agree on that. let's look at the internet before december 21, 2010, the date of the net neutrality vote. it was open and freedom enhancing then. you had start up companies. google was a start up once upon

a time. facebook was a start up, so was twitter and a lot of other companies. they blossomed beautifully. the internet has been the fastest penetrating technology in the history of mankind. all across the globe. and i think it is precisely because that space was unfettered. and keeping it deregulated and not regulating it like a monopoly phone company, which we will call titleii for folks folks, the for shorthand. that was bipartisan consensus. whatoing back actually to we call computer inquiries, starting in 1970 at the fcc, and again, another big bill -- big order in 1980 and another in 1988. during the clinton administration, then the chairman of the fcc, bill kennard, i'm a big fan, talking about how we should not regulate the internet or broadband as a phone service.

reasons.iety of it just operates differently. if you talk to an engineer, packet switching operates differently -- that is the internet -- from analog circuit switch voice. there are a lot of differences. so we treated computer-two-computer medications differently for a variety of good public policy reasons. consumers have been a net beneficiary. guest: commissioner mcdowell, what you think of the decision -- host: commissioner mcdowell, what do you think of the decision by the appeals court, to clinton employee -- appointees and a reagan appointee? guest: commissioner baker at the time and i wrote a very long , and the --dissents scaredited our dissents i was very happy with the bulk of what it said. that the commission exceeded its statutory authority and that congress never gave the fcc the authority to do what it tried to

do. i note that it did leave in the fcc's roll on transparency so internet service providers still have to be transparent and disclose to the public what their practices will be. this has been underrated in the mainstream press. it is not really been picked up. the significance of that is big. the other thing that is big is while the court reinforced the fence around the fcc's jurisdiction, or wall off the jurisdiction saying the fcc cannot legislate and only congress can legislate, there is a hole in the fence under what is called section 706, the cornerstone of the fcc's argument that december 21, 2010. as they looked at the section to give it authority. the court says there is authority to do something -- section 706, at hole in the

fence in the jurisdiction. we don't know how big the whole lives. this is a prelude to a sequel, to be continued. then the court went on to say it can't look like any regulation -- any regulation, not a fcc cannot look like the old-style phone regulation. it can't look like that. the judge, who also fashioned a case also known as of data roaming case about 18 months ago or so i think was looking for a looser net revelatory structure. that is my cute -- theory of the case. whether or not a new panel of the d c circuit will uphold that, you have a panel of judge kavanaugh or williams or other in the majority -- i don't think they will agree that the commercial arrangement of the loosely knit -- i don't think they would agree that it will hold up in court. host: what is going to be the effect?

what is going to be the us that on the consumer of this decision? guest: absolutely nothing. weremmediate press results that consumer costs were going to go up. actually, i think the opposite will happen. if there are web destination for applications that consume content, there is now the freedom to have those companies subsidize consumer bandwidth consumption. i would use my 14-year-old son griffin as an example. he uses his mobile device to look at espn a lot. we will try to get him to look at c-span more often. anyway, that consumes a lot of our data plan. withpn has an arrangement the isp, the wireless company, in this case -- and by the way, the commission exempted wireless from the neutrality rule -- his grades -- rates may be able to stay low.

it punishr is doesn't or dis-incentivize startups? the answer is, no. there is a whole panoply of laws already on the books. antitrust laws, consumer protection laws, common law, interference of contract, the federal trade commission, the u.s. apartment of justice antitrust division, state attorneys general, consumer advocates, a whole host of state and federal law where the government can come down on internet service to writers like a hammer if consumer harm starts to arise due to deals being cut that produce consumer harm. consumers are safe. maybe next year their rates are not going to go what. in fact, they may have a more robust experience. let's wait and see how the marketplace develops before we as a government try to guess. host: michael copps? guest: i think the cost to consumers will be high cost and potentially horrendous if this decision is left unaddressed. i look at what is happening here really as a slow, sometimes not

so slow cable ovation -- cableization of the internet. if those watching the show are happy with the cable providers and don't mind all of the fight to the cable and content get into onto whether they will carry a football game or the nfl has to pay more for the game or your favorite dramatic series, fine, don't be worried about this debate we are talking about right now. but if you want to consign this open internet technology, perhaps the most innovating -- will in history to the gatekeeper control and potential discrimination with the provider can favorite on products or favor those who can pay them the most fees, then you ought to really be concerned about this. this is not what broadband was supposed to be. it has the potential to be the most opportunity creating technology than the printing press. you see it go the way of cable or the way of any other

communications system -- radio, tv, or cable -- that we have had, i think would be a tragedy of almost historical dimensions. on theur discussion is open internet rules that the fcc developed in 2010 and the federal appeals court denied this past week. 202 is the area code -- guests are two former members of the federal communications commission and you can begin dialing in. we will begin taking the calls in just a minute. you mention what could occur, what the fcc commission could do. the new fcc chairman tom wheeler book about what the fcc may do, yesterday. [video clip] the court invited the commission to act. and i intended to accept that invitation.

-- intend to accept that invitation. using our authority we will readjust the concept of the open internet order, as the court invited, to encourage growth in innovation and enforce against the abuse. we noted with great interest the expressions from many internet service providers to the effect that they will continue to honor the open internet orders concepts even though they may have been remanded to the commission. is the right and responsible thing to do, and we take them up on their commitment. , we accept thee court's invitation to revisit the structure of the rules that it vacated. host: robert mcdowell, what is

your reaction? isst: i think tom wheeler the type of leader who is going to do what he says he is going to do. i have known tom a long time. he is saying there is that hole in the fence, and he will look at other ounces. whether it is under the legal authority the cap -- court granted him under section 706, i think he will explore that. i think you will explore all his options. ,t may be full court of appeals or an appeal to the supreme court and it could be an attempt to try to reclassify broadband under title ii, phone service. i think that would be a huge mistake for the economy. but he could do that. there is a docket that has been sitting there since may of 2010. he has a number of options in front of him. and, by the way, the transparency option. let me talk about that very quickly. that was left standing. service provider, needs to, as a matter of law,

disclosed to the public, disclosed to the world, what plans are. act in anns are to anti-competitive way, it has to say so. if it acts in an anti-competitive way and has not said so before hand, then the fcc can come down like a hammer on that internet service provider. but in the meantime, i would hope chairman wheeler would meet with the leadership of the federal trade commission, state attorneys general, consumer advocates at the state and federal level, as well as even trial lawyers to lay out all of their weapons whether statutory or common law, put them on the table, meet with internet service providers and say we have all of these weapons at our disclosed -- disposal. if you start harming consumers, we will come after you. that is and will be in as a huge deterrent. host: commissioner copps used ization acable- broadband. "wall street journal" has a

ofumn beware of cableization the internet and he talks about some of the new business models. i want to get your view of whether it will be good, bad, you are indifferent to them. "the regulatory details are complex but the critics and proponents agree that the new rules could alter internet and basic business model" --

guest: right, these are actually old arguments. i disagree respectfully. first screen the computer -- for consumers increasingly is mobile. i look at my three kids, my focus group, and their first screen is the mobile screen. more often than not, that is spectrum,licensedvia which i have been a proponent of that the commission. that mixes up the competitive equation quite a bit. so there's a lot of competition. so, if a cable company literally that is offering broadband that is at thing in an anti-competitive way or somehow frustrating consumer demand, there are alternatives for the consumer. there is also the fact that the fastest-growing segment of the broadband market is the wireless segment. that mixes up everything and waters down the cableization argument. but the premise of that argument

is that there is market power and an abuse of that market power. if that is the case, you can look to section 5 of the federal trade commission act, you can look at the department of justice antitrust division, and there would be investigations right away, if not lawsuits filed by the government and consumer activists and plaintiffs attorneys. that acts as a determinant for the so-called cableization. the cable industry is under threat by unlicensed wireless. commissioner cox, what is wrong with netflix and at&t teaming up saying, hey, we will give you a discount and you can access netflix or whatever service provider if you join at&t. what is wrong with that? guest: big-money joining hands with big money and discouraging the garage entrepreneurs, the

small website operator, the small content producer. i want to go back for just a second to your playing of chairman wheeler's remarks, because they are good remarks. wise toink we are realize how difficult really this is to do. it is easier said than done. i had been in this town for 40-some years right now, and during all of that time i have seen the power of the special interests and the power of big-money proliferate. so, the folks on the other side who are against this kind of open internet have armies of fullists and wheelbarrows of money to deploy in this crusade. so, this is not something that will be politically easy for am counting on the fact for the commission to be as immune as possible.

are allransparency, we for transparency, but if there's no rules about what will be transparent and then i think we've got a problem. if we are going to count on companies, because they say we are going to be in the mode of good behavior, well, that is taking a leap. because the dynamic of capitalism and free enterprise is to try to get market control and to try to get the gatekeeper control. there is nothing wrong with that. youif you let it go and have no public oversight and you can't say stop at some period before it becomes a doo-wop and monopoly.ly host: we have gone too long -- i apologize to the viewers. statel, i don't know what you are calling from but you are calling on the republican line.

go ahead, michael. pennsylvania. i'll echo -- bestr: thank you tuesday's to c-span. the fcc is integral to a free and open society. i agree with both. i particularly like what mr. cox is saying-- copps about the openness of the internet and the freedoms allowed because of this new entity, so-called new entity. but i had a question for both gentlemen. it may not be completely related to the internet. showve a local radio talk that recently has been taken off of the year, and i think it was very popular. and i think it was taken off for political reasons. fcc, this newe rule that the senate, without the 60 votes, you can improve -- with thesimple simple majority.

i think you don't have the mainstream american political thought now than you used to have because of this ruling. and i think you can pack the fcc with radical viewpoints. i think that is one of the things that is detrimental to our free society. i was wondering your take on some of these appointments. host: robert mcdowell? any word for that viewer especially when it comes to the radio issue? guest: i am not familiar with the facts of that particular matter of a show i guess being taken off the air, a radio station in pennsylvania. and you think it was for political reasons. i don't know how to respond directly to that. is if you are saying there some fcc action involved, i would love to know more about that. that would be probably patently unconstitutional. there is something called the fairness doctrine which came up in the late 1940's, which was the government effort to balance

political speech over the airways. it was a pale -- upheld but barely in a sip record case in 1969. but i think today would be viewed as unconstitutional under the first amendment. we think of other platforms -- let's say, a newspaper, the government would have no rights under the first amendment to try to balance political speech there, and this and not on the air and should not try to do so on the internet, either, and does not need to a cause of the very low barriers to entry. regarding whether or not the commission can be hacked -- packed. they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate that you mention the nuclear option, that no longer it takes 60 votes to get nominees through. we will see. that is going to be invoked from time to time. i agree with senator mcconnell, i think the majority in the senate will regret that someday when the tide turns. but it is entirely possible.

but right now i think you have five highly intelligent committed public servant serving on the fcc. it is one of the most qualified ever. i disagree philosophically with there, but folks some very intelligent people and i think the american people should take some comfort. -- i may regret the statement later if they do something egregious. now otherpacked right than the white house's party tends to get the majority. host: michael copps, a viewer tweets in -- guest: well, i think you can make the case probably and government by and large, in agencies, not just the fcc, that there has been something of a

which is power and trends in power. entrenching power. they try to put in some curbs on that. i do not think it has worked 100%. but the fcc mission in life is to preserve the public interest. it is a consumer protection .ublic interest agency that is its job. host: new chairman tom wheeler served as as the head of served -- some interest groups -- corporate interest groups, etc. is that a mistake to put him as chair of the fcc after that? performancenk the test will count. tom is a tremendously capable man who understand how the town works. i think he is looking for another job anywhere in his career right now. i think he is going to be

dedicated to public interest. i certainly hope so. but that being said, i still think as a general matter, given the amount of money and given uninhibited campaign --enditures, we ought to we've got to start putting the public interest back on top. host: starting with you, commissioner mcdowell, should communication and wireless communications between the same? they are currently not, correct? guest: let me throw out a #for commactupdate. i do think we need a rewrite of our communications laws. the last time they were fundamentally written was really 1934. we had an amendment to that in 1996. but the foundation are still rooted in 1934. and if you dig deeper it goes railroad9th century

monopoly law. what it does is it regulates different technologies based on the history. again, if you look at the average american consumer, they don't really care what conduits their content came over or if they are generating their own applications. we right now now have a statutory construct where is -- if it is over the air one way, broadcast, it is to do differently, and another way, unlicensed mobile wireless, treated another way, and licensed wireless is treated another way. coaxial cable, treated another way. fiber is treated another way. twisted wires, another way. what is actually happening with everything you are doing on your computer right now and what i might do on my phone later, as the communications traversed, they are going through a number of technologies but with a different regulatory treatment. that creates distortions in the marketplace. i think we need to look at all

of this through the lens of competition law and with the goal being consumer protection. what harms are there being put forth to consumers? so, i would hope that the fcc would actually do a market study of the broadband market, a bona fide, peer-reviewed market study before it acts. and also before congress asked to rewrite the law. my hat off to chairman fred upton of the energy and commerce committee and the subcommittee chairman for launching last month a dialogue which will take years, but a dialogue to examine how can we modernize, bring up to date our communications laws. they are out of date and they are creating a lot of distortion. guest: i don't think wireless and wireline have to be regulated exactly the same, but certainly when you get to fundamentals like consumer protection and you say, well, one can't discriminate but the other can, that is a

dissimilarity that i do not think is appropriate for this day and age. and i don't think we have years to ponder all of this. because every year that goes by seized the power of these big companies grow and more and more consolidation, more and more mergers pending, more and more and gatekeeping. so generally the protections it should be the same -- protections should be the same. you get into the weeds and -- it harkensate back to a previous error, so is the constitution and the declaration of independence. host: stephen is calling from new york. canandaigua. caller: one of the beautiful finger lakes. is copps is correct

everything he has said and mr. mcfaul likes to focus on the consumer experience -- mr. mcdowell likes of focus on the consumer experience but small businesses like ours are being locked out by big internet players. let me give you some detail. we are a small business in upstate new york whose largest customer is the federal government. we were pioneers of the internet and we have been sending personal and business e-mail from our own servers since 1995. ever,not, nor have we been a source of spam. last year, without explanation, yeah. delivering our mail to its yahoo! e-mail customers, including my own brother-in-law. verizonhe same time, aopped answering our server's connection request. so i can't even send e-mail to my sister-in-law, either. nor verizon were responsive to requests to resume

delivering e-mail. messages refer me to a nonexistent yahoo! website and verizon simply ignores all communication. host: we will bring this to a close. if you could put a conclusion on that. caller: it has no authority in this matter. host: you are saying the fcc has no authority? caller: i went to the fcc about this and it replied it has no authority in this matter. host: you guys are hearing just a little bit of a story here. i think these are details that fill in the argument that i have been trying to make any more eloquent fashion and more fact-based fashion van i was able to do. these companies have tremendous power to run over small providers and small websites. that is what we are talking about. guest: i don't know the specifics of your case, and i

would obviously love to talk more about that. but if indeed that is the case, under the net neutrality rules that stood, one could make the argument that you could have filed a complaint with the fcc. i don't know if you filed a complaint during that window of time or not. but if it is a matter of traffic congestion, then the fcc might come back and say it is reasonable traffic management. i don't know the specifics of what you are saying, but if there is a market power concerned that is harming you maybe you have -- maybe deceptive trade practices claim or maybe antitrust claim. there are a lot of other legal tools for you to look at. i would write to the federal trade commission and the state attorney general if you think you are being unfairly treated. again, i don't know your specific facts. robert mcdowell, a viewer tweets in --

guest: so, a network engineer would actually say, no. and here's why. ,f you are downloading a video you want that experience to be seamless. you don't want fragmentation and pixelization of the video. the video bits have the be given priority over the e-mail bits, let's say, or other bits like voice over ip. ,o, when you are using skype voice over ip, you want that to be a good experience so those bits have to be given priority. that is not treating all bits of the same. some would say, of course, that is reasonable traffic management, network management. there is a lot of engineering that goes on here. we have to be careful of bumper stickers saying treated all the same. that is how the mainstream press likes to oversimplify it. it is much more complicated than that. day, ishe end of the

the consumer experience being frustrated, and why? is it an application that is clogging the pipes for the some otheris it nefarious purpose like being anti-competitive? so, treating this all the same sounds good if you say it fast, but it is not the way an engineer would look at how best to run things. host: michael copps, from "the wall street journal" this sprint -- talking about taking t-mobile in a merger. if you were sitting on the fcc right now, just generally, how do you think he would vote on that? guest: first of all, i would like to see the background and listen to the arguments on both sides. historically, as you know, i have been an opponent of all of this consolidation that we have had. some have argued it is better to have the third big competitors, so you have verizon and at&t and then this combined entity, but i don't think it represents the

kind of competition the wireless industry really needs to have. and you can't unwind the clock. thousandsgo back to and thousands of wireless providers but you can do better than we are doing now through spectrum auctions and screens to encourage some kind of competition. skeptical.k at it as i would have an open mind if somebody comes up with some facts i have not thought of. but it has not been a good friend and i have not favored the trend. marietta, georgia. you are on with former fcc commissioners mcdowell and michael copps. caller: good morning. first, i want to say off the top , mr. copps is my hero. i watched him some time back when william powell, colin powell's son was sitting on the tord pretty much trying throw the fcc under the bus, as

far as i was concerned. that observing all of this, me as a consumer, customer, i go to places like abc, link tv which i contribute to in order to get news -- bbc, link tv that i contribute to or al jazeera. i do this because i cannot get content that is informative in this country because it is owned by big business. here is mr. mcdowell tried to calmly thatt -- these companies have the right to come into the internet, which taxpayer subsidized, even though the military comes out with it, and they basically want to privatize this. control thel content now. another place to go to for news, of course, in the internet. now when i go to the internet i

will have to be concern i would access tonal have independent content because these would have to be noted as not-competitive -- i would have access to independent content. who is going to prove it? how many lawyers will it take to disprove it? it is just ridiculous. host: i think that appointment let's get a response from robert mcdowell. sharon, tould point, paris december 21, 2010, internet, the date the net neutrality order was voted on. robust, buries the entry low, it was blossoming -- barriers to entry were low. more news on internet than any other time in history. consumers have more in tune -- information on the fingertips within just minutes that people did in their entire lifetimes. if you want to go back to the days of three broadcast networks

and maybe one or two newspapers per city and have lots of government oversight and regulation of that, i would not take those days again. i think we are in the best possible situation here. we are just not entering the golden age of public his course and access to information, and that is why there are a lot of authoritarian regimes throughout the world wanting more steak and involvement. the internet has blossomed beautifully precisely because it has been unfettered. the concern i have is with more and more state intrusion, whether the nsa incidents or international attempts to try to have more government involvement with the net, that is the wrong direction to go in. enjoying, sharon, more information and opinion at your fingertips than any other time in your life, and that happened precisely because the internet space was deregulated. i think you put your finger on one of the central problems facing us today. what you are talking about is largely the result of all of the consolidation the media industry has gone through over the last

generation. it is a documented fact that when these companies merge, then they are looking to pay for the mergers and to finance the transaction and the first place where a lot of them look to fire people and to make these so-called economies is the newsroom. i have seen various figures but since the turn-of-the-century we have lost maybe 40% or 50% of our investigative journalists in the united states. that is no way to hold the powerful accountable. last time i looked there were 26 states that don't even have a reporter accredited on capitol hill. how can you hold the powerful accountable? passing laws on voter suppression and deregulation and all -- the coverage of those state capitals is almost nonexistent. problem inen the traditional media, but now it is the problem in new media, too. much more difficult to start right now than five years

ago. we don't have a model of investigative journalism in the internet and unless we face off -- face up to the problem we will dumb down civic dialogue to the extent we will make even worse position for the future of the united states of america. -- i think it is much easier to start a blog than 10 or 15 years ago. you can do that on your wireless device right now. just start blogging away. certainly something we did not have in the day that the printing press or a.m. radio or three tv networks. now it's really the golden age for information for consumers. they are much more empowered than any other time in human history. in --virginia weighs guest: i am a virginian and my dad is a texan -- hopefully not a relative of mine. mentioned caller

michael powell, the former chair of the fcc and is now head of the national cable and association. he has an op-ed piece in "usa today" and he writes about this. ask, is the internet so heavyhat you need injection of rules and regulations to fix it? answer is no. guest: we are going down the path on the internet that we radio, cable,nd television, more consolidation, controlled by a few and gatekeeping. this ought to be a golden age of media. it ought to be a golden age of reporting and journalism. exactlyeaded and just the opposite way. we've got the tools but we will not use the tools but i think my friend michael is wrong on that.