up for her kids to my may church -- i mean, she was an active mob mother was a working mom, too. mom on today is a social worker in detroit, michigan, still works, and she does juvenile offenders. she sees them as her kids, but she is a person who would make you feel good just being around here. so the two of them, you know, it's like a mixture of, you know, like, you know, tough love and just affection and love. then melded the tube. i tried to go in the middle of the tube. i tried to, you know, be concerned about my kids. my kids of the best thing empty of i've never done. they are my treasure. so, you know, now they're getting older. the and this one is in high

school. she is going to be -- and she is a senior going to college next year. and the oldest one, you know, has his eyes on going to law school. he got out of college and played football in college. now he is looking at going to law school after having worked a few years in the minnesota state legislature who prole looks the most like me. he has dreadlocks down to the middle of his back. he is an artist. he paints merrill's and rights fiction. of course i have a son who is in the united states military, active duty. and he is 19 years old station in for stuart. rare very proud of them. my kids have the -- are my treasure. there are the best. but none of my kids were raised exactly like i was. like all of them, you know, they're individuals. anybody else kids knows, you don't shake your kids. there are who they are.

all you can do is try to guide them. but they're growing their own personalities. fowler has been one of the great, great things of my life. his parenting and child from entering a childless and to recommend to anybody. and in the book you -- >> host: in the book he talked about your mother, fears a protective of your and your brother. >> guest: she was. >> host: you have also been fiercely protective of your children. in one instance during a last campaign, your republican opponent brought up a situation with your family. talk to us about your reaction to what was said and how you dealt with that in the aftermath ? >> well, it caught me by surprise. >> guest: in going after my

family he added himself about what under ordinary circumstances should have been extremely embarrassing for himself. he talked about his wife, ex-wife getting a protective order against him. and then he said, but -- he tried to say that i left that information out. i didn't, but then he started talking about the circumstances of my divorce settlement. and i took offense to it because when we walked in that morning's my daughter had a day off from school. i do the debate and now is going to check your breakfast. in , i had an emotional reaction. did not want to be subject to that ugly side. him saying things that i knew were false. he could not know that they were not falls visited not know what he was talking about, but i fell below my own personal standards.

over the air i call them a scumbag, which -- i own that. i was wrong for doing that. i told her i was wrong for doing it. children no matter what he says it does not allow me to do that. by i apologize to him and i apologize to the public for. and at the end of the day, you know, is just a lesson, you know. as much as you want to protect your family and your kids, as much as you watch a fierce a stand up for them, you have to always remember that there is a certain standard of decorum that you have to maintain. when you fall below would you have to apologize. you must. and when you -- and you do not get credit for rising above it. it is what you're supposed to do and the voice in the back of my head when i was dealing with that was my dad. it was -- like, my mom would understand why would be upset.

my dad would say, that was that's a weakness when you let your emotions get the better of you, even if the guy was out of line, you stay in line. and that was my dad's voice, you know, telling me that. and that but to myself, you know, you don't ever let anybody let you fall below your personal standards. so that was sort of that episode. you know what, you know, you have to a two-year best to move on from this kind of things, remember your values. and you have to take responsibility for what you do that is wrong. you have to eventually forgive yourself as well. if you don't you continue to beat up on yourself and forget that your job is to represent the people, which means that you have got to be flat out, highly

energetic in doing that. and i'm not trying to let anybody make me shy or pull my punches because i am embarrassed us something that i should not have done, which is right now actually quite a while ago. >> host: so what is next? life is still happening. >> yes. >> guest: what is next, i have to get congress to relate -- raise the minimum wage. we are proud that the president is going to issued the executive order to help people who work for federal contractors, and that is great, but that is only going to help about 230,000 people, which is a lot. it will make a meaningful difference in their lives, but the minimum wage can the chilly help. we raise the minimum wage is $10.10, that would literally help millions of people. and so that is the goal now.

now, how we're going to do what we have the republican majority, well, we have to convince them that raising the minimum wage is not a democratic or republican issue. if we do together both sides will its credit. i would hope that he would go to the republicans and tell them, if we raise the minimum wage the folks we sell pizza to can have more money to buy pizza. you know what i mean? you can raise the minimum wage and still maintain profitability you know, but i think that is the main goal. the other goal is we have got to be careful to not enter into these trade deals that -- just offshore american jobs. that is in the future. what else to we have to do? we have to strengthen collective bargaining, continue to make the case that americans of all colors, all cultures command of faith are ultimately all

americans. that is what muhammed gave his life for, and that is why we should maintain. that is what is next. you know, that is the next thing. that is what we're trying to do next. you know, it's not going to be easy. i tell you, this book was not an easy project. we are starting another one. actually already started another one talking about how the aircraft -- this is the pathway for economic security for american spirit that book is getting much more into the stories that arise, people i have met who are struggling to make sure that the american dream is there for their kids, making sure that the ladder of opportunity still has some wrongs on it that you can grab onto employers up by. that is what is next. >> host: you are already looking ahead. for people who have not yet picked up "my country 'tis of

thee," what can they expect to find inside that they have not seen before? >> guest: that is a good question. what people can find in there is -- i am hoping it will inspire them to reflect upon their own american journey. that's why i talk about my family not dry up there. i talked about how i got to the kind of thinking that i have now. i kind of trace my journey. we are all a product of to raise this, to a certain extent. so what people to think about their background. you end up before the show were talking about how you were from saginaw and clearly have your own american journey. and everybody does. and i wanted to think about how this, despite the different journeys that are out there, some people cross the rio grande, some people crossed the mason-dixon line. some people came to ellis island and saw the statue of liberty and some people came up over the

pacific. it is all -- somebody said, we may have come here and different boats, -- we may have come here in different ships, but we're on the same boat now. that is kind of what i think will remind them of things that they already know, but what they will learn, too, is why i chose to wear sway and non the prayer by thomas jefferson. i will talk about the story. my conversion story, you will read in there how we can make congress function better, in my view. you will read in their but the critical nature of organizing on the grass-roots in order to counteract the corrosive influence of many in politics. those are things that i think people will learn. you know, if you really love this country and believe that it has greater things to do, i

think that there are some things in this book, you know, that will resonate with you. you know, i wrote it on -- i think in a readable -- readable fashion. help people enjoy it. >> thank you, congressman. >> thank you, sir. >> tomorrow a discussion about the food safety modernization act, the law was enacted in 2011 with the -- to prevent food borne illnesses. live coverage here on c-span2. >> down to the crossroads, civil-rights, black power, and the march against fear. the civil rights march of begins in memphis at the beginning of june of 1966 and ends three

weeks wait to read three weeks later in jackson. people make an argument that the civil-rights movement transforms car purchases crossroads. the call for black power was first heard on the march against fear, sophie carmichael unveils the slogan midway through the mark ended immediately generates controversy come immediately generates a great swelling of enthusiasm among many local black people, and in a lot of ways it ignites a new direction in black politics. now, those things might have happened over the course of time anyway, but the meredith marched dramatize this. it brought together civil rights leaders and regular people, white and black from all across the country and put them into this sort of laboratory of black politics as it moves through mississippi creating all these really dramatic moments that highlighted some of the key divisions, some of the key tensions, but also some of the key strengths that have long and end the civil rights movement. >> the look of the civil-rights movement seven and a 10:00

eastern and sunday at 9:00 on afterwards. march 2nd, more about black power in the civil-rights movement. historian penniless joseph will take calls, comments, e-mails command to reach by from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 book tv. and at book club you still have time to comment on february's guest. elements history for beginners and then go into booktv.org to into the chat room. >> the all new c-span.org website is now mobile-friendly. that means you can access our comprehensive coverage on politics, nonfiction books, and american history where you want, when you want, and how you want. our new sice responsive design scales to fit any of your screens from the monitor, your desktop computer, your laptop, tablet, or smart phone, whether you're at home, at the office tomorrow on the bill. you can now watch c-span live

coverage of washington. check our program schedules, search our extensive video library whenever and wherever you want. the new c-span.org makes it easy for you to keep an eye on what is happening in washington. >> life inside the bubble, talking about his career as a secret service agent protecting presidents bush and obama. he is currently one of -- running for congress as a republican in maryland's sixth congressional district. talk to his book at the heritage foundation in washington for 45 minutes. [applause] >> thank you all. thank you for coming. i appreciated, especially on this taken a terrible weather. i woke up this morning. i expected to be a lot worse. it was not that bad. the 130 wake-up call which is really the not going asleep golf. but it was not too bad out

there, thank god. i think you for coming. thank you to heritage. special thank-you to my friend for really providing some stage in the eyes of the last couple of years in a number of different aspects of my life. thank you for having me. constantly being available even though i probably in are you and your cellphone, merit -- more than you care to. thank you. i appreciate it off. i want to talk for 15 or 20 minutes, and our right to start with my job with the nypd, the police department, and have it changed my internal compass. and it was -- it was a strange occurrence i had as a young man. it is in the book. then i would like to delve into some of the secret service years and some of the people i met with. i found it to be an incredible experience and want to leave it with my sense of, i guess we could college frustration. the reason i left end this kind of battle, the friction i have it in my experiences with really

good people and what i saw as an institutional problem with the government and its failure to do even the easy things well. the reason i walked away. but starting out with my experience, never want to be a police officer. yes, i wanted to get a medical school and be a doctor. i took the and can not too long ago actually. i was watching gray's anatomy. i said to my thinking going to take the end cat. and she said, well, nobody thinks they're going to. i said, no, i am going to. unfortunately added not get in check. that is a whole other story. never wants to be a police officer. i talk about in the opening of the book as i live, and that don't mean this to be a side story. i think if our's dollars -- it is our stars that make us to we are. i worshipped every lump in those cars. made me land today and enable me to see that there is real evil in the world. think that is sometimes a perspective on the liberal left.

if you don't understand that, it is very difficult to define the policy prescription for word, but we had a household that had been ravaged by a bad divorce, and some problems. a family member who thought that, you know, child abuse, physical abuse was inappropriate owlet for is internal rage. when you're a and kate witnessing that it is tough. feel about as helpless as he has ever felt in your life. when you're nine year-old and watching this happen in another is nothing you can do, it is disturbing. and i found peace and just serenity only in the police officers when they would show up it seems to be the only thing that could cause all this pain. nothing else. there was really no man or woman as scared him except for the

blue uniform. and i remember thinking that one night i documented in the buck. it was chaotic and out of control. i remember seeing a police officer show up and saying, wow, what a job. you are meeting people. worlds are colliding at their absolute lowest. that, for me, was the lowest it had gotten. the pain and fear was incredible and you have the ability to turn around like that. and that's not to my have got to at least try. so that is what led me to the new york city police department. of course started as an idealist i think we all do. and that tell the story in a book about being on the street one night. and i am doing as 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. shift. it is quite busy. the 75%. we had t-shirts made up. the radio station in new york.

1010 wind, it is kind of a new station. they have an expression, you give us ten minutes and we will give you the world. east new york, brooklyn. very busy. there was a drug war going on, a lot of the different rival projects in the neighborhood. it was kind of like a chair for. there was something like 300 homicides the year before i had gone there. put that in perspective. the entire city of baltimore last year had 200. this was one of 78 precincts. it was an extremely tough area, and it really was a rude awakening, you know, for young 20-year-old, especially a young 20-year-old idealist a study to change the world in one fell swoop. it's tough. i was standing in the corner and saw this young kid you might seem quite a bit. i don't baldy was. may have been sent, 11. should not have been out on the street. i was out on the street from a

preliminary 1:00 a.m. for some reason i struck about conversation with them. i remember saying to him, what you want to do when you grow? and elected me quizzically as if the question and really baffle them. he never thought about what to do, what that really meant. he clearly did not have an answer. i said, to you want to be a doctor, engineer, lawyer. what is your job, how you want to make money? and he said to me, i want to be like a easy. and i thought jay-z. at the time he was an up-and-coming rapper, not as fantasy yesterday. i thought, okay. and he said to me, no, 8-c. in for a second, i had to think about it. it was one of these local drug dealer kids who was a real pot,

but once a wiley put on a performance, a little atrium the open area in the middle of the housing project. and it occurred to me, it was really, such as affirmative moment that is america was not ours. he did not only not want to be the rapper, he wanted to be a-z. that to me, was staggering. when i was almost okay with. i could not get this get out of my mind. i live in a bordering neighbors would ride over they'll. and i could not get him out of my head thinking, how was it that this part of new york, centrally located, it was probably no more than 20 minutes from manhattan right off the ballpark, right off the jackie robinson parkway, you know the area i'm talking about. it could not be more

geographically suited to economic growth. what is wrong? i mean, the big question, not why are there pot holes in the street, why is there an elevated grand larceny auto number in this precinct, what is wrong with this particular area? it seems to me that no one could answer the big question. did a nuclear bomb go off? did not make any sense. this kid was no different. it did not seem when you get in a conversation that i was when i was nine attend to yet is america was not my. the idea of being a doctor writing a book, an engineer, had never even occurred to him. i thought, there's something going on here that i have to have some role in changing it. it really sparked an interest, not particularly in politics as we would think, political races, but it sparked an interest in me

in ideology, liberal versus conservative, libertarian verses green, economic ideology, austrian school versus chicago school, but there has got to be an answer here. never answer there is clearly was not implemented year. and i would dig in that would take. i started out command that is eventually how i found the secret service. i was reading a book called mine hunter. was going to go into the fbi after that. there profiling program. i was in graduate school of the time studying narrow psychology and really found that fascinating. but i was explaining to this woman was running next to on a treadmill who happens to be a police up as a one day who had worked with the secret service. i was fascinated by the politics of it and ideology. she says to my thinking need to check out the secret service. looking back, to be fair and self critical, which, i think, is important, it was probably the wrong call.

i should not have immersed myself in the political process that i knew was watering is see that was only going to grow and eventually spread tree that was going to rush of a concrete. i just did not expect it to really become part of me as it did. i thought politics, economic and dlj would be a secondary interest, and it was not. i found the secret service and i loved the job. i say to people all the time, it's the closest thing to being famous without anybody knowing her you are. none of the downside, but you get to live this life and be part of government. the absolute highest levels. it was an incredible experience. as a matter of fact, he and to my work with the in quite a bit at the provincial center. that was fun. when john karzai was trying to get reelected and losses guy you may have heard of, chris christie. i knew he was going to lose that day. we tried to fill the stadium. i think they thought they would

get 20,000 people. what did they get, about eight? now was right. he lost by a few points. i found it incredible in the secret service. i kept thinking, what is wrong here. what happened in that precinct? and i kept thinking, is it government? and i was always fascinated in the secret service seven were people from the chilly the white house on down to an administrative assistant in hhs somewhere. the secret service is an interesting job, traveling around to different agencies. but everybody was so terrific to work with. so i thought, it cannot be a matter of personal and competence. the men and women of the service, the staff by worked with, they would work age in the morning to midnight every night. and no one ever complained about it. it just was the job. the mission was clear. i went to afghanistan with president obama, and remember

looking in the face of the delta force operator who was going to go meet the president. and my one knock. so this delta force committee as a thousand lost there. you know what on talking about. you can tell, you could tap into and out of his brain committee and some stories, some probably would not tell you, but it would have been fascinating. the staffer was staked to are slightly out of touch. he came over to me. our member am saying -- we are at bagram airbase in the middle of a war zone. you think you can ask that guy to leave his weapon outside? and i'm like, u.s. team. he didn't ask in. he wound up going in, but remember meeting the delta force guy talking to him. these men and women, the government military command administrative people, special agents of just such fascinating folks. what is going wrong? so time when on. i just got more and more disconnected from what i felt in

my case was a parasitic lifestyle, and that don't mean that in any qualitative way as a reflection on government work. it is strictly personal. i looked around my neighbors. we were in -- believe you still are, but we are in a real -- or in a really bad recession at the time, and i was suffering no ill consequences of all, not a bit. gas prices went up, i have a government-card, a government car. my salary went every year. there were no inflation adjustments. i felt like i had no standing in. i thought, in a country like we have it, is in did not that when you see our arab population mile west of of this gentlemen i met you had known of the subway store. i came here from pakistan with nothing and was now making six figures just randomly assigned to open up the subway restaurant we are not risk takers and more. we have almost fallen into a

middle-class apathy, and we have let the country just kind of slowly disappear around this. and not only do we not do -- people ask me all the time of politics, you know, what can we do. i said, you're asking the wrong question. the right question is not can we do, the question is, what are we doing now. they're people who ask me that question as a composer congressman and they have no idea. think about the apathy that spreads in the country. in a midterm election that is not uncommon for up to 50 percent of the people not to even though. in that thought, i can't. i can't do that. i'm sorry. i would rather die poor. and my wife and i had a prolonged conversation because i do have -- i had one daughter at the time, to now, but there were very real consequences to me leaving. after about fivers six months of having this conversation i remember my wife -- we are going down to a cinco de my party

and my cul-de-sac. she turned to me and said to my not try to talk you out of this mmi? ends i said, no. i drove in at monday. on the way and she told me, by the way, the novice a class nine she said no. and it's because i'm pregnant. i thought that is to have a way of putting a price on things. i walked upstairs until the boss my wife was pregnant, i was resigning. he does not. i walked out and they have a blast door in the sixth service to keep a list grounds. in ways slams it really rocks the whole building. and when i walked out the door slammed, i tell you if cannot to be melodramatic, but is still kind of act as because i knew was the last time that door whenever shut. and i walked away and jump and

the longest of long shot united states senate race is potentially in american history. i did it starting with two donors, me and my father. it worked out kind of well. i don't want to get into the politics of the waste. he eventually lost, but it was an incredible experience, but a lot of character in me and taught me a lot about the system that i thought i had already seen being a secret service agent. i thought this was all old hat, but i learned a lot about the process. folks, it is the process that is broken. and when i say the process, i don't only mean what traditionally i think the general public sees when i say you have been sold out. all of you, you know that. you have been sold out unless you have the money for a block of voters to you can influence that you can move a representative in your direction. they have no interest in you. yet been sold out internally, by

internal interests that have taken precedence over taxpayer interest. allegheny unexampled. he may say to yourself -- i know i did. and if you don't, you should. why do we have all these different law enforcement agencies? why? does anyone have a common-sense answer to that? i have never heard one. i would think about over and over again. what we have the secret service and fbi? a cia but then the dna. here is how the system works. here is where the siren needs to be sounded. as the bureaucracy grows what happens is when everybody is responsible for something the tragedy is nobody is, and that is how you get a situation like benghazi where they ultimately admit openly the accountability review board that it went through the bureaucracy, as if that is just some viewed stage, not real people. here is the way it works.

the reason people in specific factions don't want to give up responsibility for whenever it may become a let's say bank fraud or credit card fraud is because there is no power nes in the government. there's only power and no. when i can sit there as a federal agent and i have jurisdiction over a crime you investigated in the private sector, you need to come to me. i have monopoly power. there is no private police force. it is in my best interest to maintain a relationship is you have the private money. when i leave, believe me, i will ask you for repayment. if i give up, whether the baby, bank fraud, money and interest and everything to my knowledge mangle retire. is not during your time and the government were you making money but when you leave. and if it is this dreaded carrousel it is causing the problem. it is the same problem when it comes to love the sun, the

moneyed interests that can buy out specific aspects of our government that if control of everything, including policy. very rarely does you're representative actually represent you. the process is simple. you get a pack. done is to me, you get access and yet to make your case. about think it will be catastrophic for me and put up a smokescreen i will go out and vote for that piece of legislation, assuming you continue to support me later on and find my campaign. is not only about my preservation of contacts in the private sector internally by maintaining access to the private sector later on when i there i leave congress sort of read maybe and maintaining access to the money pool. it is an extremely pernicious problem because at this bureaucracy of. it allows them sarah observed the blow of a bad decision by blaming it on a bureaucracy.

the american people just come to accept it. imagine if we did that in the private sector, if apple knows, -- i guess everyone has an iphone. i love apple. if god forbid apple was to launch a product, the product was to fail catastrophically you would see a decision making tree where at some point i assure you everyone will be held accountable. i don't know if there would get fired, may be a pay cut, may be moved, maybe nothing, and knows? but you see, none of that is in the government commanded is just accepted. i wrote the last three chapters of the book as a forum to the earlier chapters telling about my experience with some really good people in government, i wrote about the boston bombing, and gauzy, and fast and furious as examples of what i just told you. think about the boss in bombing. you can put yourself into will

alert. you will get in a millisecond and e-mail if your name appears on the internet. amazing. but in the federal government the terrorist information database. paned the treasury enforcement system and no one thought there was anything wrong or nobody followed up and inappropriate manner. is that not strike you as odd in a government that spends trillions of dollars no one thought there was anything wrong with that. jobs will be at stake in the cellars of the estate, promotions robbia's sake -- state, but nothing happened.

i've never met one who if they saw a situation like that would not run with it if they thought they could stop a terrorist attack, but no one thinks of it. the tragedy of the comments do worse and worse and worse. in a byproduct from a lazy bureaucratic efforts to stop what they cannot stop through common sense reforms vis-a-vis the nsa. let's just do blanket surveillance rather than looking at what we have all these federal agencies. and bring in another example at the end of the book. quoting the accountability review board that reviewed the benghazi situation where they clearly state they had a manpower problem, and i contrast that with the rate on the get -- raid on a gibson guitar factory. the imported oil from indonesia or whenever it may be. think about this. u.s. government has a situation

in benghazi in an active conflicts on, no question about that, documented requests for security over and over and over again. the arm comes out and says, well, you know, there's a lot of bureaucracy and a manpower problem committed does not bother anyone or strike them as odd that we have enough guys to go read a gibson guitar factory over imported would. priorities, are those really our priorities? so it is easy to complain. suggesting going toward command and out like to take your questions come if we were to streamline these federal agencies, intelligence operation, internal affairs investigation type operation and one federal law enforcement operation segmented into different divisions can of like the nypd, you could have cross training, move people around, take advantage of economies of scale and scope, everything the private sector does, streamlined, promote faster,

promotion rules, we could save tons of money and that the same time reallocate manpower to our priorities like that. we cannot do that now, even in the secret service man to put our requests to other agencies. because to these big channels, wastes all kind of money just to get a gala began to show up. it would not have to do any of that. they kissed a to prioritize. whenever it may be an reallocate manpower. not at story about six agents to bust up an imported watering well our embassy in benghazi is no security. i think in the private sector we could fix it. we'll have that in the government. remember what i said, the economic interests as always for you to continue to retain as much power as you can because

there is no power in yes, only power in me as a government official with the monopoly of the investigation to be able to tell you know. you need me. when i created a need by creating a request later on. that will be my request for new. we can fix it, though, folks. i think it will take some good compassionate people going for it. i think it's going to take more people to speak out as i think right now there is crisis of internal leaders. people during the recession are afraid to lead. i speak to people all the time on my cell phone on the inside doors just as frustrated as i am, from the military or anywhere else, and that think it is going to take a tidal wave of people -- tidal wave of people speaking out to create effective change. i appreciate you listening and led to take your questions. if you would like to read it later on i think you'll see when talking about in those last few

chapters. thank you very much. >> we will take questions. identify yourself as a courtesy to our guests. do we have a question? i knew that we would. [laughter] >> citizen at large, and to you think that part of the problem is a risk aversion in our culture that whenever there is some tragedy of a violent nature multimillion-dollar lawsuits come out of that from the victims -- the families of the victims. so everyone feels obliged to maximize security. so if something does happen, well, i had extra mile wide, as the people watching out for it. during the civil war the enemy would cross the river. you had an open house on sunday

afternoon. people standing there. during world war ii you were at war with japanese and italians and germans, yet this city function was not in a lock down anywhere near like it is now. you can walk in and out of the capital. it seems as though we have -- we are trying to prevent any sort of violence, almost like we're just afraid to take risks. i think if he think that mentality might be part of the problem? >> i do, think we're in a much different environment than back then and it is a function of technology, the ability right now the spread of dirty bond, the power of explosives grow exponentially, the access to weapons, not traditional weapons frankly, this social modeling affect. before i went into the secret service was a graduate student fascinated by psychology. social modeling, the ability to watch what another human being does and replicate the dave yourself is almost uniquely human. what do i say that tonight

because you see things like the school shooting. there is no question in my mind that the growth in this sad, tragic phenomenon is a result of press coverage of the actual event, which has created in a 24-hour news cycle with plotting , 24-hour internet, facebook, and the ability to tweet. you remember, when we hit the leader of al qaeda in pakistan there is gentleman who live there in tweeted that there were helicopters overhead before they even landed. in a 24-hour culture right now saturated with information worldwide, any tragic event has the capacity is set off almost a proliferation cascade of new, tragic events stranger replicated. so to your first point, are we hypersensitive? yes. secondly, i would say the environment is definitely much different. and to add on to that, again, i right in the buck that the

environment for terrorism and counter-terrorism specifically had become dangerous. i use the business model. the traditional model of terror was a franchise model. it was a sell, al qaeda. think about it like a mcdonald's . you buy mcdonald's as that franchisee. you are a al qaeda franchisee. you have to buy the burgers and material, take your orders from al qaeda central, but you technically operate your own story of what you really don't. you are following their -- in al qaeda we call it propaganda. in mcdonald's we college marketing. you're trying to influence behavior. that franchise model is dangerous, but it was not as dangerous as a model we are in now, the sole proprietor model. a franchise model of terror left a lot of breadcrumbs. i worked a lot of these cases fairly as a secret service agent on long island. one of the mention in the book and i talk about -- i cannot even get information on my own case from the fbi.

it was absurd. it was my investigation. i thought, this is insane. i can carry a gun on to air force want but can't get a guy -- never nation of nine investigators from another federal is a seat. you will see right there does not lead to bread crumbs. ..

>> those sold proprietor terrorists how they do not leave the breadcrumbs what do? watch the internet traffic? that may we is silly question with the nsa. we are indeed different to the fire but but we are hypersensitive and it is a reflection unfortunately of political correctness as well. i avail libertarian at heart a and i believe every man and will bid on this earth is a child of god but if someone says you are looking for a male who is six ft. six missing his left figure, that is why want to go after. i use these characteristics but everybody is offended.

just because i baby looking for someone who does save this facility does not mean as a law-enforcement officer we are just following the trail it becomes even more dangerous because we have plank and surveillance with the nsa that i disagree with. it is silly. it is absurd. really? how much time? do you know, that economic productivity that is lost every year? how many people would not even have a nail clipper? it is no waste. you are right on both fronts >> from this point to hear

you're absolutely right because for all humidity is not dangerous for the united states. only with the united nations. i can do the cerebus. it is an open letter it is an attachment. and with the united states and the most happiest if we

live in the historical way with the help? no. >> you will not get an argument from the on that one. >> i am an avid constitutional conservative if you don't have the process but you have nothing but chaos. the dodgers first borate definitely a global flight but i could only argue from my perspective i was not subject to global rules. sundews say heavy approach that are limited by the rules that actually have a pullback defect that makes the environment even worse. i know that term has taken on a different medium but i think some of the tactics are extremely effective and the only one that creates propaganda would it could have been handled differently sometimes funny

works a lot better than vinegar in my experience. >> merry christmas. >> merry christmas. >> first of all, as an active secret service agent, i know that you are a former, but why did you not specifically a tent which is the crux of all the problems and issues that is article ii use section one to the united states constitution said deals with the qualifications to be president that no person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the united states or shall be president.

so why did you not deal with the greatest threat with that being as an officer and a domestic candy international threat to america because right now we do have the and constitutional president and that poses the greatest threat not only in america but throughout the world. >> that is a lot to. [laughter] unfortunately it is not true. the president of united states was born in the united states. i have nothing else to say. >> [inaudible] >> i cannot argue. >> do we have another question? >> i have another one.

>> i am interested you are running for congress again? can you talk about why you want to go with such a small approval rating. [laughter] >> i cannot get too much in to whip but talking generally, the congress is study because it to ask about their individual congressman he is great. if they know who it is. is kinda funny if you ask people sometimes i actually don't with in the district i ready for but i will eventually. does that bother you? not really. what district? i don't know. that is probably why does people talk about congress like it is a cloud or false not made of real people but then date june dirt to --

generally like their congressman. maybe the analysis is not of this year. it is largely a function of the form policy in administration decisions. when you get a letter in the mail that's what she vesica lost health care in makes it very real for a lot of people real fast. lot of policy decisions did not have that effect. if this tax is, will check bigger last year they and the sheer? to answer the larger question live issues to get involved played a said if he refused to get involved you aren't destined to be fooled by people the survey yourself. turn the question back, what do you do?

really? in this room? we're all competitors. i am. not a bad way but what are you doing? and not challenging you but what are you doing? the world is changed by action not talk. talk motivates action but the action and changes the overall. i get the question all the time what can we do? will be doing now? nothing. what do you mean? you just let this happen? if you don't get involved ian to take a risk i'd like that pakistan the odor that i met did not even have a dime or speak english to figure out the greatest country what are you doing duces the process to make it a better tomorrow? why can the most effective politicians they did not tell you tell you how terrible yesterday was but the action plan for tomorrow. i have an obligation to

people whose tax dollars support a very it's nice lifestyle i have an obligation to give something back. believes the the financial penalty for my decision was long-lasting. if you thank you make money with books i have a news. you will not. it is the ideological mission for your cause whatever it may be but if you thank you will make back that $3 million i left behind, you are out of your mind because i believe in this. we are the greatest country on earth and it takes action and not just talked to do something. >> one last question. we'll understand a lot of washington and not just with the protection but your proposal to put those together to have a different

tree of responsibility i am understand but how does that cross with your libertarian view? are you not centralizing it too much power with the check and balance that they may give us for benefit? >> the power is already centralized. to break up that power, to give you an example, i love the secret service as an example. as a bank executive utility pay millions of dollars per year especially when taxpayers do it for free to find out you have a bank power that is monopolistic there is no power for me to say you are the company now with the n.y.p.d. was one

centralized operation there are very few others sheriff steel a lot not involved with enforcement but officer jones i need you to help me into satellite do is you have zero monopoly. i just say officer jones would not help. officers and said it? there is endless avenues to go to so i would urge you strongly centralized a that bureaucratically does not centralized power it enables people different avenues within a larger bureaucracy but if you see it from the inside the redundancy is absurd. i remember a story literally in the same building. to federal agencies one had four or five big empty

offices they could not tell them another agency needed the space but they've printed out another office instead of moving upstairs. you start to scratch your head. this is insane. it is milton friedman period you spend other people's money cost or quality does not matter. it is true rather than spend the money on themselves alleys the quality matters. if you're spending your money it is the best i can find. that is how you get that multiplied by thousands. if you don't think there is waste in the budget it is absurd.

>> one more thing, on the other front lobby front that has bang going on for elands , -- aeons but it is with the tax code if i could give you a tax break because you make great suits but not give it to the blue suit company i give you a competitive a vintage in the field you don't have. you pay be back to donate to icahn paid to keep be empowered to realize the economic distortion will decline through the economy times thousands and thousands over decades? think about how the value misjudgments were made because of pricing product is wrong because i could give you a tax break. it is no small item.

why do you think the left fights so viciously against the flat tax because it is flat? no. because there is no power with yes. of everything is yes you pay 15% to does not matter. all of a sudden i am powerless. that is the best thing i could do for you is to leave the juppe -- the job much more powerless indisposed to be representative government. that is the idea. thank you. [applause] speeeight we do have a few copies with us today "life inside the bubble" and available on amazon and at bookstores we do appreciate your attendance and we will continue that conversation

when we adjourned. thank you. [applause]

>> the beauty of america is to have the ability to write the script of our own life. we are in the driving seat of our own future. our biggest decisions in life are made by us. america creates the sense of possibility and out of that you can become an activist, a community organizer, you are living off the great catalyst explosion of wealth that you did not even create a. >> so many strong men set up is hard to know where to begin nobody said america is the most terrible place but there are some assertions that are astonishing. line is the idea that america's great invention was wealth creation. what about the theft of the entire continent?

that was a theft. [applause] >> that does not be 90 percent of those residents but they borer a part of it to. [inaudible conversations] >> we can get started. we are here where we are starting another round of

discussion on spectrum policy and management.at w , did not realize the last was so long ago but we have been interested and we have been interested for a while. our keynote speaker generalng u velar will go to the slides to giveng us some information on the dod spectrum management and allocation of. on the day the news outlets predicted would be on parallel snow and blizzard even though it wasn't. would you like to come up. >> i do know all the folks on the panel the usually yelling at each other. [laughter] i know of the snow was bad and i was a little nervously

only taking 10 minutes tookh 46 so that was what i didbj not expect. the important subjects forue the nation because it talksho to the national security issue and those are intertwined. one of the important takeaways that national security in the economici growth of the nation are one. that is where we need to think about this. the other piece is the international flavor. it is hard to understand is the spectrum made from the world wide perspective while we can make the domestic plan if i have world these satellites coming that is a problem because of thatms f particular point that weh interfere then that causesame problems to help us for the

exact reasons of there is a strong international flavor that is not always heard wellu. there is absolutely no doubt with the advent of the internet. it is a much smaller world our perspective on this from a dod site and where we think we're going because a lot has changed. slide, please. >> i can do that. there we go. okay, this looks like a very complex slide but is there something to take away from it, but bottom line. spectrum is a thread that ties all of dod together. the other part of the aspect of it is if you think about, think a three dimension. think of the space dimension which is the across the top, the air dimension which is those aircraft they're going back and forth, and the terrestrial. at that particular point of three communication layers, and all of them connect together on voice, video and data and all

have to be across all three pieces. to all the way from space, all the way to the air layer and all the way down to the terrestrial later, all those connections occur and that's really what happens from a db perspective. i think you're seeing that in a domestically as well in the training and we're seeing that grow and grow. let me give you an example. i am a b-2 stealth bomber guys went flying across the world in a nation and a combat or noncombat situation, i have a connection to the satellite continuously. i have data coming in. i have a laptop that sits between me that has microsoft office on it. so i get e-mails and things of that particular nature on the at the same time i got link 16 showing all the other aircraft and all the other potential threats that are out there in my particular screen. i'm giving voice. all that is occurring at the same time so i'm receiving data, two separate screens, also receiving voice multiple in most cases. coming from satellite, terrestrial-base base and at the time i'm also starting to get little pieces and parts of

nonvoice type things, beats and squeaks and things understand that tell me where the threats are. all that's happening at the same time so you can intertwined all three of those that's an example of what we are seeing up in that particular slide. next please. one back. okay. on this particular site were talking about the data. it's a very interesting slide, takes a while to get to understand. take a look at the topline this shows the traffic growth. traffic growth in stabilizing. we will also see the per device growth. that is at a lower level but what is clear is that traffic, the amount of traffic is growing at a clear 20%. as the bison was drop off as

dumb which were growing every year, traffic is still going up at about a 20% clip every year. that means dan is going to be the future. what does that any? spectrum. we're growing at a rate that is somewhat stabilizing at this particular point but it is clear more spectrum is going to be required for more efficient use of spectrum and i will talk about both of those. right here we're seeing the whole commercial broadband peace to it is tied back to economic growth. there's no doubt about it. if you take a look at our nation the way i look at it is delightfully united states with passion can. >> is possible for a business perspective. you can imagine data to every rule air in the country. can you imagine what we can do from a business perspective? this is about america's creativity. it's about america's ability to stay competitive and keep its edge. that goes from a military perspective as well as an economic perspective across the board. i think we are intertwined together and that's a clear message from my perspective. the president has pushed for a

500 -- 1000 megahertz or more if possible. we are definitely pushing hard towards 501,000 that we understand. what does that drive? one of them is it's driving technology, driving technology to be more efficient. how do we do this better, make it so we're not a spectral on? the pcast message was clear, it spoke to both the federal aspects of it and the commercial aspects of it. so those are intertwined. how do we get better across the board so we use the limited spectrum that we have more efficiently. that's good for all of us. slide. i love this life because we talked about what we have to do. try to we've all of the spectrum through, everything we do as a spectral impact whether it's electronic warfare, whether it's talking to a weapons in an aircraft, whether it's moving stuff from fedex across the country, all of this touches the spectrum and its, we we this through and every time you had

one more spectrum you have to be extreme be careful of what it touches. i think that's a critical part because you can start to interfere with each other, start to cause problems and you can have a real issue. example, if you're talking about missile defense and you have a specific frequency where from a commercial aspect you look and tell you to use that very often, i think yes, thank god i don't use a very often from a missile defense perspective, but i have had a frequency when i needed otherwise you could lose thousands of lives. that's a perspective that we have to understand that at the same time with the technology out there with a dynamic spectrum, we may be able to use that with a guarantee that the priority is when a missile defense, it automatically becomes clear. those are the things we're looking at. we were not able to do in the past. we were just on the frequency. in the future with technology we may not have to do that and that's a key use of it and we'll see that in many other aspects about the spectrum management. slide. right here is what it looks

like. how do i get and maximize my use of a limited resource, have i make that happen? that's where we were. think about satellites today. i have satellites today that the telecom industry needs and i will put that need. those satellites have been up for someone almost 30 just. 30 years ago we were not worried about the width of the spectrum from where we were in a particular arena. but to take a satellites down now and to replace them with a new satellite because i can't change the transmitter in orbit, would cost billions of dollars. how do i do that? how do i balance do not have to take and satellites like that and caused billions of dollars from taxpayer perspective, at the same time give a spectrum for the right people who need the right information? slide. you can see the planes. every single piece of part from cell phones to radar to weather radars to high-frequency, the beauty, from radars from unmanned aerial vehicles all across this.

how do i get the maximum amount of limited resource? what i will call the spectral reconstruction and that's exactly in a lot of ways what i see our nation right now because in some aspects were changing things around. the interesting part is the international peace. i brought that up in the beginning that we can go to domestic went all day long but just keep in mind satellites are whizzing right by getting fit which is across our nation as we speak. other ships come into our harbors, all of a sudden. think about from the military perspective. if i'm going into some particular area and i'm taking down the door i might not care what the spectrum is in that particular place but if i'm rebuilding a nation, if i'm in afghanistan or iraq or the philippines trying to take care of a-survival issues i want to be able to use spectrum that does not hinder their own efforts within the country. glad to have an international level of spectrum i can go into and use all the time without anything with their spectrum. i think that support for everybody to realize that we are

seeing a normalization of some these things across the world affords the spectrum frequency. that also is from a business perspective because if you sell products, you can also do standard cell across the world or whatever it is you're doing, whether it's a new kind of a land, or if some other type of a radio you're trying to sell. slide. here's an interesting comparative piece. this comes up a lot in discussion. i leave until i get the numbers and have these slides printed out for congressional, the first is the three gigahertz which they call the prime beach frontage. because it's something that our technology allows us to use very efficiently, if you will and it also has good distance coverage. it has good distance coverage, good penetration into buildings if you will so why your cell phone works in certain buildings of why certain congress to work as well. it might be frequency. has to do with the spectrum.

but we hear a lot about what the federal owned. the federal side to it, 14.1% is allocated to the federal government on an exclusive basis at this particular point. twiki uses half of that. it's less than half of that. -- dod uses half of that. 54% issued between federal and nonfederal uses. we share today. we are pretty good at it so we are sharing is something that is happening today, the way we do sharing today i would argue in the way we do tomorrow is two different things. much more efficient ways of doing it and much more automated ways of doing this that allow us to use that frequency even tighter. when you combine more efficient spectral capabilities of just the technology, and the ability to use any more efficient manner from a shared perspective, you can open up a lot of that beachfront property very quickly. on the second part we talk about the three to six gigahertz which is felt less second best beachfront property.

second most desirable. 8% is allocated on a federal exclusive basis. 18% is allocated for nonfederal. 74% issued between federal and nonfederal uses. this is important from a lot of perspective. back one slide, if you would. to do this, forward slash, please, correctly, i've to take this into account and how i'm going to do. i have to take technology and how we will do the sharing in the future to make sure we get this right for all, federal agencies, not federal agencies in the government and for all commercial aspects. to get this right we can make this a win-win situation for all. slide. here's what we're going with an individual effort that's happening right now. it's been an actual were the interesting one for my perspective. the original plan if you look up at the top, 1755-1850 was primarily military and federal assistance across the board. the plan was to go into the band to the right which is part of

the broadcasting been. we took a look, spent a year going up and because that's normal way. we vacate spectrum and we move to new spectrum. spectrum that is also vacated at that particular point. so the bill from dod perspective was about $13 billion. if you look at all the federal agencies across the board, it was somewhere around 17-$18 million, all validated and verified numbers with multiple looks from different aspects. you have to think about this but if you're taking than satellites and truly vacating and putting of new satellite you're talking lots and lots of money. so from an auction perspective that wasn't going to be most likely to be in the best use of the money in that particular aspect and we would not get the. the auction requirements are 110% when you do an option. we would not have got to 20 plus. that was not accredited although an interesting piece of the puzzle, 1755-1850 this telecom broadband for other parts of the world. it is just not for the u.s. right now.

interesting part of it from a dod perspective is deity just got finished leading 1710 to 1755. the interesting perspective of this is kind of a chapter my brother in over here, or that we're supposed to just gather that been and will be no more moves for 10 years at that particular point. so we finished a march a year now but if you are now we are back doing this again. it's the right thing to do but the point is, it's a never ending move. 1710-1755 which is finished and that was less costly because most of the equipment that we had in a lower ban we were able to reach him into the 1755 you're seeing to the 1780. so bottom line to the whole piece there, the 1755-1850 i make you sick. the bottom line was it was as causticostly to move as we expe. however, now we are in having to move again. it is more costly but we found some interesting ways to do. take a look at the bottom. what we realize in the commercial industry came back and said hey, we don't want that

all been right now. what we want is 25 megahertz of it, 1755-1780. how do we do this? we looked at compression was the first one. cannot compress to the other part? we just cannot compress and out of 1710-1755. we realized after multiple simulations, a lot of engineers doing that, compression was not possible without large impacts. we didn't have the technology to do it right now. the second part of it was okay, what if we move part of our system and shared it with a broadband? i talked about vacating the broadcasters don't want to vacate that and have some open spectrum. so if we share in the particular then we can do this as a partnership, move ours out to 20 wen2110 and getting to that of e band per se, of the telecom industry, broadband people to get into the 1755-1850 can leave a couple systems are such as are satellites and other geographical sharing, if you will, a geographical shame

because many are satellites are locations where frankly industry doesn't have a need for a lot of of broadband because there in the middle of nowhere, frankly. from that perspective it's a win-win situation. by taking our highest priced systems completing them, small chunks of it, compressing parts of them into the upper part of the band and then moving the ones we can to the 2025, 2110, allows us to do a very good marriage of interesting needs and dod federal users needs and have a balance across the border this was a plan we came up with, never been done before. it is more risk, very different than vacating but from a dod perspective we realized that true beginning of spectrum, if you look at the spectrum reconstruction, it's probably not going to be possible this year. we have to think about this in anyway from an industry perspective, they can provide the best profit, no doubt. at this particular time a combination of the fact we could move off a 25 and technology wasn't really ready for us to be

comfortable from a risk perspective to like to do dynamic sharing on a large bases as well as some of the other more spectrally efficient systems, this was the right plan at this particular time. i believe in the future will have to go to a different approach and i think that technology is going to push back here and i think we are about five years off and we see on a large-scale basis some capabilities to do this that will allow us to get more capability out of let's spectrum and lowest have a different approach to this in years two, when they come back for the next share of our particular spectrum. which is already occurring in the five gigahertz band which i can talk to at the end. new spectrum strategy is necessary. so bottom line is we will have to do that in the future, no doubt about it. slide. so what do we see? this is the strategy development. from our perspective we been too reactive, dignity. one of the first things i came in, i said we are just too dang reactive. we need to be proactive i in th.

destiny from an industry perspective for this particular spectrum, a need for dod. we need to work as a team and be more proactive versus reactive. these other pieces of the puzzle. technology and driven by technology. technology has got to be proven not just at the one, two basis but on a large scale. .. if i take technology and all my

technology is working and it is a specific level and ready to deploy if i don't have that it is going to be years ago the must go together in conjunction with each other because a lot of stakeholders in the regulatory piece, that is something i did not understand, being on the field and making things happen we don't have as much regulatory -- when we are doing large-scale fighting for the nation and internationally changing frequency band could take ten years so thinking about the regulatory piece that could be a driver more than the technology can. stakeholders tie all of this together and the economics. the best way for us would be to move from a band a from the 1755 to 1850, economics said that is not going to be good for the nation as a whole. we tried to come of the more complex solution but at the same time it will benefit us and make us think about how to do this better and is already making us more efficient from the new

acquisitions we are doing a new particular system we are buying. then take a look at requirements the drive that and how we will change those requirements in the future. how do we get more spec relief kitchens while taking care of taxpayers' bottom-line, how do we do this and how we work hand-in-hand with industry to make sure the systems we are developing are as useful for them as they are for us and vice versa. that is the key so how do we use those systems together knowing on the battlefields with receiving people in a situation like a typhoon in the philippines or whether it is a true battlefield or high-intensity conflict, broadband data matters, it is important to understand this goes back and forth between history and the federal agencies. here is our perspective how we will do this. from our side of the ballpark we do a spectrum strategy rollout on the 20th, the 20th of this month will come out talking about how we are going to approach this in the future so

the first part is to have flexible spectrum assets. we see that as the future when we watch how technology is moving. we are getting there quickly, we are not their regulatorywise, everybody agrees that is the wave of the future and right now it is clear to us after this last spectrum discussion that is the way into the future. regulatory adaptability goes hand-in-hand with flexible spectrum access. we are going to think about how we do business in the future if we are going to use every single piece of that spectrum correctly. operational edge nobody is key to us so for example i have a system out there that is only tunable to the set when we talk about that one frequency i can't replace an audit. that can't be in the future. i have to put something in orbit with multiple capabilities and frequencies or software defined where i can switch to a different band and not have to change it out on orbit. that is an example but there's a

lot more examples of a you ave which can save thousands of lives in some places such as the philippines or what we saw when we talk about it in japan with the way of coming through. the bottom line is depending on the spectrum, we have to switch to a different band immediately so we can control that and have added a different band. two receivers or transmitters, where we are going is a software defined radio where we say we are in this band today and going to disband and work and in country x that is open and we can use that to save lives. this is where we are going, why it is important to be proactive. release scared of domino's delivery to my house. driverless vehicle, they really are, they talk to the safety of life, peace of spectrum whether

you are the flying airplanes spectral peace, the google call our or looking at the flying car in the upper right-hand corner. honestly i thought as a kid, i am dating myself, i thought for sure i would be flying with those things when i was a little earlier. the bottom, my middle daughter wants to be the first person on mars and she is adamant about it. she is 15 years old and pushing hard for that. so i see where our capabilities are going as far as the amount of data we again and the ability of you will to do things fur a theoretical perspective, it is important to take that data and manufacturing and build those things, that is the next great step we will see, that change in the whole fabric of our nation and the world and one of them right there. here's where the tenets of that are. we have to do more sharing in the future. we got to do it right. that will require technology and

regulatory piece and policy and we're working hard to make that happen. technological innovation is the key to that piece, culture change with everybody, all federal agencies and industry. we have to wonder stand from our perspective, from a d o d perspective this is harder, more problematic and when you are focused on ten things all over the world things are happening every single day from a d o d perspective and worried about the next threat to the nation, sometimes this doesn't have the same priority but it does matter from a lot of perspectives and it does make us more capable if we do it right. that makes us more capable if we do it right. partnerships in the collaboration we are not doing this without partnerships in collaboration. there is a person in the audience to talk about the public/private partnerships. that we have discussed because i think that is a key to the future out there. proactive versus reactive. i can't even jump on that. proactive has to occur on both

sides versus reactive. there's a global context to this, i am not sure i understood this but some parts of industry don't fully understand the impact of that particular piece to it but it also gives them a market too. roadmap was near midterm, far term goals deliverable. what can we do today? what midterm and what far term? dynamic sharing in the last spectrum change wasn't available to us from a technological side as well as the regulatory side. in exchange will be and that is a critical point. government's oversight accountability, this has to be a team effort and we have to get rid of old think as to everyone stating their position and staking a line in the sand and we have to stretch all of our thought processes. the last part is the cooperative test bed, it will be the national advanced spectrum and communication test network.

one of the things we learned from recent issue we had on the spectrum is how to test something. we have someone from industry saying this particular thing and someone from dod saying this and other experts, how about we have a clearing house of test beds that we can actually work through and have an environment where we have -- the test environment available to us, we can do a paper fee where they can come through and validate all the particular requirements that they have, validate all the capabilities to rule these things out and we can all agree that this test result is actually the rest -- the test results the week and make decisions based on that is that is one of the perspectives we had out there. that is the final piece of that slide. i will throw one slide up there at the end that i have up there because we will see this, one more slide, that is going to be our strategy, call to action, in an evolutionary way. i would like to change that to

spectrum evolution in a revolutionary way. it is revolutionary way to think of it slivers is the way we're going. it is the perspective on that and that will be later this week. that is part 1. that is a visionary peace. we are looking at implementation of that so that will be electromagnetic spectrum, integrated process, a lot of dod speed, bottom line is this makes implementable action. there is vision and implementa black man that will done with all our services and departments, how would we be proactive versus reactive in the future? that is the key that we are trying to do. i can give you example after example and that is all. i am open for questions however you want to do it. >> the strategies that have been rolled out. that is the cover.

>> let's go back one flight. >> you had one of your slides which is why i am asking it and implementation of the strategy. >> our plan is to finish up on a 6 month time line and say okay, what we do, i will back up a little bit, we build out something when there is something new. we go to all the services and the department and this is the strategy and where we're going. does this make sense to you? we walk right through this spectrum. once we adjudicate fat that could take months. and we have a common agreement, that comes out. second part is the implementation plan where the rubber meets the road. where d division that came out? you into it out and figure out exactly how you are going to do it?

the example we did was vote secure commercial mobile cost area secure mobile columns and strategy first and implementation of how we're going to walk through the services. what did we look at here? acquisition differently. doing operations differently, you can walk through this and that is where the rubber meets the road and we have to work through individual pieces on what makes sense and what is good for the department. >> the implementation, you talked-about near, mid and long term? >> that would be near to midterm and once that is done, what you think of as part b to a vision or strategy. does that make sense? >> go back the slide. >> general, what international

partners are you guys working on when you are reallocating and these new bands you want to move into, i you protected or anti jam resistant in any way? i am not a spectrum expert. the perspective, one of them is working with the international partners we do that with the international telecommunication union and the state department primarily. and all those folks go forward and you have the dod position and i should say -- u.s. position that feeds into the u.s. position. from a partnership, when you go into some place in afghanistan iraq or working overseas in the philippines, you go to those countries you work with the country's government and they will be a partner for the local

area forcing kinds of communications that don't interfere with the satellite part. the second part of the question was the anti jam. the frequencies going into some times are for example we go from 1755 to 1850 to 2025 to 2110. what you are talking about is not a grand jump in frequency so the same capabilities apply from an anti jam. it does take technological change but you do have the same capabilities. we are required to certify that through technology the same capabilities and the same operational allowances in the new spectrum and that is the certification. to answer your question, yes. please. >> the european space agency, generally you said you would say a few words, i would be interested to know what dot's position is on the discussions

going on to open it up to more and more ground-based users. >> the d o d position is a simple position. the u.s. position is not the dod positions so my comment would be premature from that aspect but we are working through it and we are working through it from the perspective of how do we do this from a proactive perspective on this? how do we make sure we have the right technology and the safety systems if you well-managed at that particular point. how do we take care of our partners and that includes partners in europe as well. so that is the perspective at it and at the same time how do we get technology to move faster to allow us to do these things? that band is a difficult one. no doubt about it no matter where you are on the globe from that perspective and that is an important part of it. going back to a comment, 2025-2110 ban, one of the reasons why we like that bent is

because of the fact that overseas it is not a broad band band so from that perspective it mary's of very well with other systems that if we went into other countries we would be able to use that frequency without interference from host country systems. that is why it is a useful ban from our perspective and better than the 1755-1850 band which goes back to 5 gigahertz. by virtue of the interference you're talking about because of some of the things. and i can guarantee you on that. i would be premature to comment on it even though i probably worked on it for two days of my weekend this weekend. some guys are chuckling because they were with me on that. >> so cyberspace wires and routers are basically flashes of

light and spectrum. how does your spectrum merge with the department's cyber way ahead? >> the electra magnetic spectrum is all a piece of the par. they go hand-in-hand together. when you talk about white, optical. and cyber electronic warfare, all of that together are one part of it. it weaves everything through, that is the critical point. if we don't get it right. cyberradio, optical. that will cause some kind of incompatibility issue or safety of life issue. all of those are connected to include cyber aspects. okay. >> a special breed, i am not -- >> i won't comment on that.

it has probably been the spectrum, the radio part, the communication part is a fascinating part. to be honest if you think about it from the communication pieces the most important part one flight across the world so after 9/11 when we flew across the world one of the number one limitations was the communication peace to make sure the right people we were going against and not doing the wrong thing so it indicates the weak point and the strength, so that is the aspect of where i got connected to this and on the right ever since. >> thank you so much for coming out. [applause] >> thank you. that was a lot of data and that was good stuff here. that was good. what we are going to do now is

turn to our panel of experts to go through this. i will introduce them briefly. we will have additional information on our web site. i will probably do this in the wrong order. juliet snap is chief of the fcc office of engineering and technology, one of the nation's leading experts on the technology part which we heard about. we have peter tenhula, senior advisor at in t i a, we go back in crime for a long time, probably getting involved again in this effort. we have stacey black, vp for federal external and legislative affairs. between federal and legislative that is enough to keep anybody busy but we appreciate your taking time to talk and finally we have john hunter from t mobile, director for spectrum policy. what i would like to do is ask each of our panelists to give some brief remarks. we start with stacy and go down

a row and take questions from the audience. stacey black, please. >> good morning. i would >> good morning. i would like to live get my remarks to the role of the procurement that the general talk about that procurement will be a big deal as technology is rolling along in the keynote for example, i don't know if you noticed in his slides he had an acronym that stands actually an application for plush to talk. in the old-- this technology has been around 70 years just the push to talk to do these to listen to know where we have a device that is abroad tuned radio that has the push to talk application riding over its it could be the i felt

that does exactly what is required with its own dedicated frequency used in theater or on days. -- on base but that is the lohan indian fruit to be moved to the broad band network with base communications port to port or global to mobile or machine to machine are great applications not mission critical but logistical and it is a great opportunity to move those to a more broadly in the environment. in some cases it could be commercial or private such as what the york city police department did. but another application that was recently announced was announced was the combat training center upgrade

upgrade, with the every inch communication insistence has been involved and what this system does is like a laser ted with rifles and pistols ian it takes but it is like laser tag. they have installed the 4g lte nodded a coordinated effort. it is all explained in the u.s. army benghazi but to have some ideas replaced to legacy planned over radio systems for rage communication. . . . . use 4 gee devices so as i mentioned before, and i phone has 6 bands, wi-fi, gps, bluetooth, this 5 and the dollar device could be used in place of

$1,000 device that was application specific for these combat training systems. as a result of that they doubled the number of instrumented entities in the combat training center battlefield. 6,000 dismounted entities, 5,000 vehicle entities, 5,000 voice communications systems, 350 observer coach training devices and 1600 target in viand engagement system is. here is a great example of where dod has embraced commercial technology. actually started working in a public/private environment with a commercial broadband provider. to be able to accomplish their combat training mission. this is a great start but it takes a new way of thinking in terms of procurement because you are going from the application specific building an expensive, one of the kind device to now

using a commercial off-the-shelf system that may have more of an operational expenses opposed to a onetime very expensive capital expense but it is going to right way in my opinion. thanks. >> i will focus my comments on what the general talk about specifically around cooperation and partnerships. that is so critical. we have learned a lot over the years. personally i have been involved in the a w s clearing effort for 7 years now and i can tell you we learned a lot through a w s 1 working with the dod and other federal agencies trying to assess their needs and balance their priorities with market realities we are trying to roll out. through that effort, we continue that and as many of you know we have the working group process that put forward unprecedented level of cooperation you are seeing. we learned a lot from that, that

narrative system. you will find we talked about 1755 to 1780, some sharing, in the end we go pre auction, making sure everything gets set up but then operational lives the use of the spectrum. as we saw, we had some challenges but you got to work through those challenges, requirements on both sides and even today we deal with those issues. in the end it will be a collaboration, working with the agencies that will make this whole thing works. >> had a great talk. i say that facetiously in the

same direction. i have never seen closer alignment on the federal side and the non federal side with the appreciation we need to find ways to accommodate all of the innovative ideas, the growth and challenging the need for more spectrum, and they check their smart phones and get into the car, checking at home and so forth and what you saw on the screen, the driverless cars a little bit farther out but things where you get up in the morning and the device is checking how you are doing today, do you need to go in and get a checkup? this is enabling all sorts of new applications that will improve our lives in the

economy. i want to say a few words about the tech talk, what we have been learning as we have gone through this process you heard reference a few times, just for some of you who may not be as focused on the details, why this is important, it is a piece that's adjacent to one of the major broadbands, a w. s. 1, we already have in our portfolio on the nonfederal size spectrum that would match up with a companion piece to expand that using what you have been hearing about 1755-1780. it was a long and hard road and we have a ways to go. a lot of work looking at a broader peace, 1755-1850.

the difficulties of the reallocation and expense when compared to the benefits of lower piece really centers down the staff. there is a need to transition systems out of that spectrum, we found ways to identify ways to share with what will be there for some time. part of the solution was sharing with the band of 2025 used for electronic news gathering is on the nonfederal side. was not used constantly. there is space for the services to share and great cooperation between the broadcasters and department of defense and working up a way to share that specter mess part of the solution. what we have ahead of us is

working on the transition plans and making sure parties understand, with the transition the going to look like. the second thing i will talk about is 3.5 gigahertz, i agree that people view the spectrum of three gigahertz with the prime beachfront property, and a few temples or stones, and the federal size identified 100 megahertz of spectrum that would be made available for nonfederal use. what is there? the biggest thing that people focus on is offshore high-powered navy radars so the sharing was identified as having exclusionary along the coast that was rather large but this was all focused on ubiquitous wide area coverage wireless

systems. the real issue in many cases for wireless broadband is capacity so people start focusing on small cells, low power cells put in place where you need to pick up capacity and already have coverage but not enough space. once things turn there was a lot more interest on the nonfederal side and it chang

>> the u.s. had advocated a model based on dynamic frequency selection or dfs. it was brand new, it was accepted by the world. we came back, found out that it took a little bit more work than we anticipated, so why is this so hard? because you're searching for signals that you can't always identify. [laughter] and just looking for a particular level to tell you whether something is there or not often is not sufficient. so it was really tough, and there were points along the way where it wasn't clear we were going to come up with an answer. so now fast forward to today. if your wi-fi technologies has continued to evolve, there's a new standard that you're seeing on the store shelves, the 802.11 ac standard. what's so magic about it? it can offer data speeds of

above one gigabit per second, and it uses channel band bandwidths of 180 megahertz. there are a couple of lines that have been identified for expansion, 5450 to 5470. the difficulty is that there are different kinds of radar systems in there, and the techniques that were used before can't be used without some adjustment or some other change to share with the systems that are in there. and you've already heard the question there the audience, there's also the earth exploration satellite system in there. so there's a lot of work that we have to do to make in this happen. i tend to be an optimist. when you get technical people together trying to solve a problem, you often can come up with a solution. maybe not all the time, i but more often than not, you figure out a way to do it. so i'll stop there. i just would add that, you know, as we go forward, you know,

we're going to continue of to have the exclusive use and the unlicensed models, but as we're searching for more spectrum, sharing is really going to be the focus. trying to figure out how we develop techniques to evaluate both an analytical and testing side on these new sharing methods, it's going to be a real challenge for us as we go ahead so that we don't stand in the way of these things coming out, our testing processes have to be at least as fast as the technology's rolling out. thanks. >> great, thank you. peter? >> thanks, jim. thanks for having me, thanks for the reunion and looking back at fond memories that the last time i was at the old location, i guess, at csis i was working with paul on spectrum policy task force at the fcc. and back in 2003 i did pull up the report from there, and a lot

of it's kind of interesting to go back and revisit. i recommend everybody do that. take a look at -- so paul and i came over and briefed former secretary schlessinger and mr. galvin who are leading this effort at csis to do this report. jim invited us over. i can't remember if that was before or after we had run into each other at our kids' school, you know? but we also add that in common. had that in common. i went back, i just pulled it up when we were back there and kind of looked at the recommendations. it's amazing how these things come around. first recommendation was white house oversight. well, since then i think there's been at least three presidential memos on spectrum and a new spectrum policy team established within the white house. another recommendation was a spectrum advisory board at ntia we have a commerce spectrum management advisory committee. one of the members sitting here in the front row, jennifer, you

know? so i think that serves the bill. there's also an interagency group called the ppsg, policy, plan steering group, i believe it's called. jenna wheeler participates in that with the cia from dod and all the other federal agencies with spectrum. so there's lots of interagency collaboration. reinforce the international functions was another one that we had a little discussion about that, how that's maybe still in the works. but i won't go into that. research support for spectrum innovation, that was one of the things that struck a chord, and i think that is a key focus, and that's one of the things that ntia's work on in conjunction with the national institute of standards and technology, and we're putting together a center for advanced communications which jenna wheeler talked about the nastin initiative which

would be under that center for advanced communications. so that's being implemented. and last but not least the recommendation from csis was a national spectrum strategy. and, wow, that's kind of interesting. couple days before dod implemented -- you know, announces their strategy which, you know, i think is important that it be, you know, technology-driven and then so these guys mentioned centered around, you know, collaborative efforts and spectrum sharing. so it's interesting, you know, these things don't die easily, and these recommendations even though they were made a long time ago, you know, ultimately, ultimately, you know, somebody picks up and implements them. one other point i just want to touch upon regarding incentives.

and spectrum. and then how incentives apply to the federal agencies. those of you stayed at home thursday and friday because of snow or if you didn't, you missed it, there was an announcement that came out of the white house, the office of technology, of science and technology policy, ostp, about a new report authored by the science and technology policy institute. it was a survey of a variety of incentives or approaches, recommendations for federal agencies to relinquish or share spectrum. so they -- spectrum policy team in the white house put out a federal register notice seeking comment on that report, and i'd encourage, you know, folks -- i think it's about a 30-day cycle to take a look at that report.

it's quite lengthy but very comprehensive. hits on all the major areas that, you know, would encourage or facilitate sharing, relinquishing of spectrum by federal agencies. things like user fees, spectrum innovation fund, even applying a spectrum property rights regime for federal agencies. and the kind of old-fashioned command and control approaches to improving efficiency for agencies that have over the years, you know, have been proposed by various, in various documents, papers, things like that. so i'd encourage folks to take a look at that report, respond to the questions in the federal register notice. one of the questions that's most interesting kind of personally to me is the practicalities of

some of the incentives. federal agencies are a different animal than the companies that are on the other end of the table. the things that drive them, what i've learned in the last two years i've been back in the government at ntia is their incentive is to perform their missions, you know, in the best way possible. so how can we get them to -- and i think jenna wheeler talked about a lot of ways that can be done through better technology, obviously, through -- money doesn't necessarily translate into the mission, especially if the folks that are doing those missions don't have control over that money. so what are the ways. and in a property rights type scheme where you're giving agencies more freedom, you know, more autonomy over how they use the spectrum, how they control

the spectrum, can they sell it, can they buy it, can they, you know, divide it up just like the private entities. i'm kind of reminded that when i worked on the fcc's spectrum secondary markets policies, even the fcc did not grant secondary, you know, market authority to all users of the spectrum. it was really limited where there's exclusive use of the spectrum. in the federal side, that doesn't exist. they really, there's no one single agency that does not have exclusive rights to the spectrum. it's all shared among the agencies or between federal and nonfederal organizations. so i'd encourage those who were who are interested in this area to provide views on some of those incentives and those ideas. thanks. >> thanks, peter. he reminds me that one of the lessons i learned the last time i did spectrum, it was a lot more fun than doing rf than ew. the lesson i learned was you really need patience. so we are making progress here,

and when you think about where we were ten years ago, we're in a lot better place. but i want to challenge the panel with a question. not sure who it would be fair to start with. thinking about where we want to be in ten years, what should the spectrum environment look like in ten years or a bit longer? what's your goal here for where we want to end up? maybe you could start with that. stacey, student to go first? -- do you want to go first? we could circle around and do you last too. [laughter] >> well, i think, you know, over the next ten years there's going to be a lot of new technology that's going to be introduced. obviously, there'll be spectrum-sharing technology, and i think you'll see a lot more like the three dot five initiative where there's the use of the shared access, databases and things like that. that'll be very important. there actually may be some software-defined radios that are cost effective enough to be consumer based.

but then also i think that you're going to see more smart networks, and that's whether it's even in a wi-fi environment where everything is connected to a controlled plane, that way there is some sort of master smarts that is actually controlling the communications across a variety of platforms. and that will, in effect, make the communications a lot more efficient, and i think that's what we'll see in the next decade. >> yeah. i think to add to that i've said this before in a number of forums, but i think the spectrum sharing, certainly, it's an evolution, not a revolution. i think as the general pointed out some of the technology there, is there today and we're seeing great strides with those advancements. but by and large, there are a number of challenges we have to work through with regard to spectrum sharing. but in the next ten years, absolutely, i think we are going to start seeing more

spectrum-sharing-type technologies particularly given the three dot five band that julius talked about. i think, you know, there's concepts of databases sensing, i think on the five gigahertz band the challenges you have with that 11ac and the ability to sense a wider bandwidth can be problematic in trying to figure out how you would make that work. so i think there are going to be other types of applications with, you know, with five gigahertz. if it's not dfs, then maybe a database is more appropriate. but i think moving forward with, i think, the 1755 to 1780, i think, you know, we are going to see some sharing there with the satellite operations geographic based, but then as we move forward, i think from an industry perspective we're going to get an opportunity to showcase some of the features that lte has to offer. and, in fact, we're going to be doing a demo with one of our vendors, and we've invited dod

folks to participate in that demo where we're going to share that next month. thank you. >> so in the end, i think the goal is that we're getting as much out of this space as we possibly can. that the folks who come up with innovative ideas, new industries have that opportunity to develop and implement them. from a technical standpoint, we often will talk about the spectrum below three gigahertz, but when you really start to get down into the weeds of what's there and you start to understand that all of the low hanging fruit, so to speak -- and it wasn't so low to begin with -- [laughter] has been picked. and so you're down to what i mentioned before, you know, 2700 to 3700, and you start to look, oh, great, what's there? the weather radar system that you look at on television every

night to see the storms coming through. that's what's in there. well, let's just move them someplace else. you can't do that because of the physical characteristics that they need to be able to do what they do have to be in these parts of spectrum. so you say, well, how do we share with these things? first, it matters where they are. and most of them are in places where people are. and so this isn't, you know, the classic geographic separation where the one system is out in the middle of the tez cert, and all -- desert, and all we have to do is stay 200 miles away. we're down to doing things like, well, can i operate when the radar's pointing in the opposite direction? i can tell you that it's incredibly complicated and hard, and it points to the need when you start going down this path of detailed analysis and testing. because we're past the simple stuff of, well, we're just going to reallocate spectrum, and a

new system's going in. we're really kind of at the cutting edge of technology and what can be done to gain access and value out of that space. >> well, to look ahead ten years, i'd need to look back twenty. and look at the transitions that we've kind of gone through and the trends that i personally have gotten scarred from. but the improvements that have been made more, because i'm the lawyer, i guess, on the panel, i will talk about the kind of regulatory and the process. it still takes an awful long time. i mean, the process -- you know, and throw in the international component to it, and you've really got a long time. so i would like to see in the next ten years some improvements in that process, and the way that can happen is really through what's been started

fairly recently as more and more kind of public/private partnership collaboration approaches to regulation get the issues on the table as early as possible, get the folks in the room as early as possible, hash out these issues. where there's differences, figure out a way to resolve them. so it's really about, you know, what kind of process improvements can we make, what kind of institutional things need to be re-examineed, and we're starting to do that. we're creating these new -- i talked about a couple of the groups and organizations, the new one, one being the center for advance communications on the research and development side. the testing and evaluation aspect of that is very, very, very crucial. so to make, you know, leaps and bounds towards that aspect of the technology would be great. because looking back at the

various transitions from 2g to 3g, 4, you know, 3g to 4g, you know, some of it was technologically driven, but some of it, you know, was driven by the fact that, well, you didn't need to come pack to the regulator -- come back to the regulator and get permission to go from, you know, one generation to the next. you did need to come back to get the spectrum, you know? so if there's a way to figure out a way to, you know, sharing spectrum, access to spectrum, improving the process for that, that's what i'd like to see. >> sure. >> so peter set me up for one thing i wanted to mention, because i agree with him. the processes today take a long time and often are us from freighting for all -- frustrating for all of the parties. i've seen things go on for two or three years arguing whether an out of band limit should be 10 db tighter or not.

not always, but often if we get the parties sitting down together and the technical people, they'll work it out. i've often used the example of the medical body networks which was seeking to share spectrum with aeronautical tell metally systems, and for two years it seemed each side would basically pin the other about its technical analysis. and once we got them sitting together in a room, it took some time -- it was more than a year -- but they kind of figured out a way with a combination of operational controls and coordination and technical limits, the two could share the same spectrum. and so on friday we released, i should say diane cornell who's headed our process reform group, we released a report on process reforms at the fcc including some of these ideas that peter just talked about, trying to find alternative ways to address some of these issues that come

up. so we've invited public comment on that, and i think it was -- don't hold me to it -- the end of martha we et as a deadline -- march that we set as a deadline for comment. i'd just encourage you since this is really a collective matter for the entire community to take a look at what's in the report and, of course, if you have ideas that you think might be alternatives or better than what we've got out there, our ears are open. thanks. >> let me ask one inspired by those remarks which is about the international side which we've heard a fair amount today. where do we stand in terms of other countries' thinking in terms of how we move forward on spectrum? what do you see happening on the next work, where do you think the u.s. is most effective in driving an international process? i know that's sort of a general one, it's a little off topic, but given how much the

international theme has come up and given that we do need to coordinate, i wonder if people want to give it a try, and maybe this time we'll start with peter and work down the row. >> it's, it's definitely not my area of expertise, and i'm more of an observer on this. but there are definitely a cadre of very dedicated folks in this, and that's where collaboration does occur. to come up with, you know, u.s. positions especially. but also, i think, but in my experience looking at other countries and seeing how they have evolved, typically you see kind of the following the lead of the u.s. other times, you know, maybe they're driving some of the things. like i would say spectrum sharing, you know, has definitely taken off, you know, globally, the concept. and various areas like europe

has really been focused on kind of a licensed approach to sharing. like licensed shared access or authorized shared access, the concepts that they're exploring. so if, you know, back in the old days, you know, you looked at within the united states the states as kind of the laboratories for experimenting with new approaches, it's now different countries or regions around world that are experimenting with different ways of providing for spectrum access. we ought to kind of learn from. i mean, the u.k., for example, experimented for a long time and developed the spectrum fees for their government users. and how they managed the government. so we've looked at that. the report i mentioned from stippy evaluates that.