and two cheers -- all in my book, by the way, "trillion dollar economist," talked about what happened in the icc, how it grew up and then its demise and people don't realize that it was the carter administration that killed it. they all think that, you know, reagan administration came on and killed off a lot of regulation, carter was responsible for airline deregulation and trucking deregulation and rail. >> rail. >> and rail. >> and it worked. >> it all worked, all right? and the icc in between the time -- right after time that they got ahold of telecommunications, along come trucks, you know, in the 1930s and they ended up with trucks. and, you know, in retrospect, they shouldn't have had anything. and we finally got rid of it all. so i mean, that's just -- that will sort of give you an indication where i'm going to be talking about, the future of the fcc a little later on. >> they don't -- they think the

regulation worked. >> we'll talk about that at another brookings event. airline regulation, not quite so much. >> more people can fly now. >> if you adjust for consumer price, airline deregulation has worked, i agree with you, a lot of airlines suck, but that is not because -- flying sucks, i just was on an airplane yesterday. >> i know this is going to be tweeted now. >> no but -- >> that line. >> a lot of people don't like airlines. and it's important to talk about this, because people will say, oh, my god, if you do it for -- if you do this for communications, look what happened to airlines. i think a lot of what happened to the airlines since, first people misperceived, said rates haven't come down, but the planes are all full because they are like buses, okay? but people don't remember the back in the old days, planes were 60% full, all right? and it was a tremendous economic waste. and it was a disaster, all right? and i think the justice department probably has allowed too many mergers, all right? and as a result, we have too much consolidation, but that is not deregulation's fault. i just wanted to get that in.

>> remember, the name of the book is -- >> "trillion dollar economist" and read all about this in chapter nine and communications i think is in chapter 11. >> shameless plug. >> shameless plug. >> ron mcdowell shows up at the fcc, having been confirmed and presumably has in his breast pocket a cope -- a copy of the communications act. and he sees in there -- >> tattooed in there. >> and sees in there the frads, public convenience, interest or necessity. quite interestingly, in the communications act itself, there are different formulations. sometimes it's done in the c conjuncti conjunctive. and sometimes it's done in the alternative, public can be used "or" necessity. that really didn't make much of a difference. the key aspect here is public

interest, convenience and then the word necessity. when you came to the fcc and looked at those words and realized you and your fellow commissioners now had the authority to implement the act, what did that mean to you? >> and this is a point of philosophical debate, which is probably why you're asking the question. there are those who think because public interest appears 112 times, whatever the number is in the act, and my dear friend and former colleague, commissioner michael cops knows the exact number, has it memorized, doesn't mean there respect other words in the communication act as well, doesn't mean unbridled authority fcc to regulate that space willy-nilly as he sees fit. but all too often, the public interest, what does it mean? whatever a majority of the commission says it means, that goes to court and the courts decide what it means. so, you know, there's the communications act and then volumes and volumes of the fcc record, its decision and even more automatics and volumes of court volumes, trying to

interpret what the fcc says, a lot of volumes in the communications act of '34, cable acts, all the rest, and there's a lot more to it than that, but it literally does mean essent l essentially whatever a majority of the commission says it means, unless it's restricted by the courts, or other explicit language in the act. and that's where it becomes dicey and that doesn't necessarily serve the public interest well, when it's so expansive. you can have unintended consequences by broadly applied and broadly written rules and you can squelch innovation, very hard to measure what innovations are not coming to market, what are not going to end up in the hands of consumers based on the unintended consequences of regulation. public interest can be certainly used as a good. i would rather see it rewrite, turn the telescope around, look at all this through the consumers' perspective. is there a consumer harm. is that caused by a

concentration and abuse of market power, rather than the leg assy of the technology we used, which we can talk about in a minute, and the other things that are woven into that act. >> i had the great fortune of being in the administration in four different versions of the communications act. i was involved in the '84 cable act. i was involved in the 1990 children's television act. and the 1986 communications act. >> and you haven't done anything since then. >> larry has a long and distinguished career. >> basically, i'm old. one of the things about being old and having watched that, on every one of those occasions, we looked at other permutations, other ways of going after public convenience and necessity. the problem is there really -- if you go to a straight economic test or consumer harm test, you leave out lots of things.

one of the things i'm proudest of is we wrote the eeo rules for the cable television industry, cable and television industry was one of the least diverse industries until the 1984 act. 1984, we put in eeo regulations, it became one of the most diverse communications industries and the peg which we hung it public interest convenience and necessity. i don't know how would you have done it otherwise or withstood court analysis if we didn't have the public infrastructure. >> but that came from congress. >> that came from congress. >> but we looked at the public interest, referring back to other court case, looking back at what the court also said and we peg it had onto the public interest standard. pulled out the public interest standard, we would have had a lot fewer hooks to hang the kind of eeo regulations. there are lots of time having the flexibility, you want to find ways to make the public interest standard clearer and less subject -- i mean, mark fowler who was chairman of the fcc under president reagan, said the public interest is the

interest to public, so we don't need to regulate. that was pretty much his theory. don't want to have these huge swings but we haven't found a formulation that works well and gives the commission the ability to look at new technologies and new innovation and say okay, we want to shift this way, while not going so far throughout the point that we strangled innovation and trying to find that balance is hard. the public incentives work pretty well, straight economic test would frighten me that we would be hamstringing the commission too much if we didn't give them some flexibility beyond a strict consumer harm test. a lot of the consumer harm already has been harmed, then you've gotten the aftereffect rather than trying to be in front of some of these innovations, and opening up some of the ways for companies to do the things they would like to do. >> this language, bay the way, is probably the first example of cut and paste in the history, because it was in the interstate commerce act of 1887 and senator dale, who was the principal author of the communication act in 1934 was actually asked, why

did you put public interest, convenience and necessity in there? there is no legislative history, so, as rob and larry and i know bob agrees with this, it is a phrase that basically you divine meaning out of on a continual baseis, and to some extent, you do that as a prophylactic in terms of judicial review. but there, in fact, was no underlying meaning. it was basically a phrase that was taken from an 1887 act of congress. interstate commerce act. and it was exported and then pasted into the communications act. >> actually, even going back further barks to be 17th century canal regulation and regulation of inn keepers and other common carriers in that regard, too, public convenience and necessity

language. >> absolutely. >> way back into european regulation. >> but bob litan, you sat in the justice department for a number of years. did this all seem sort of peculiar or strange to you, given, you know, given your perspective, looking at this through a little different lens, principally through the lens of sherman anti-trust fact and to some extent, the clayton act and these were separate pieces of legislation, which also have had a major impact on the structure and the implementation of communications? >> so, just to demonstrate how ancient i am, so i was there in clinton, '93/'96, how larry and i became good friends. we were meeting with each other almost every week about what became the 1996 telecom act and at the same time, we in justice were responsible for administering something that none of you will recall, the at&t consent decree. this government breakup of at&t and at&t's children, the regional bell operating companies, which have since merged, only several of them left, they all had to go to court. if they wanted to do something new, they had to get the district courts to sign off.

we in the justice department had to weigh in. and so the big debate at the time, in the '90s, there were two big things that concern us at justice. one is the local companies, the regional bell operating won in the long distance and ameritech, the most ambitious of these companies, and we were negotiating with them about the conditions under which they could do this. eventually, that was all made irrelevant by the telecom act. and then the second thing that was emerging, and we had no idea before we were coming up here, the extent to which the cable and telephone companies would go at each other's throats. at the time, one of the purposes of getting the '96 act was to allow them to compete in each other's business but i don't think a lot of us felt that they would really be as aggressive as they were going to be. this was nice in theory. i think the vice president

plugged it when he talked about it in his speeches or whatever. but in retrospect, after the telephone companies were freed of the obligation of sharing their lines with the local upstarts, what happened after that in the 1980s is that cable and telcos went after each other, hammer and tong, and starred started building out the telecom broadband networks you have today. i think if you asked any 1995 would they have been as, aggressive competitors, i would have said no and it turns out, they were. >> what's interesting about that, one of the things that's interesting is rob has spent a lot of time with the competitive careiers. i was on the board of a competitive carrier. the fight in the '90s was more about anything else about long distance. nobody thinks about long distance anymore. long distance this huge revenue opportunity and why you have to have a bit of flexibility -- as smart as we were, people said this a million times, the '96 act contains the word internet exactly one time. we try to think of the internet

and tried to create a title vii. somebody will write a book about the late lamented title vii. the clinton administration was trying to come up a regulatory method of looking at the internet that wasn't going to be title ii, iii or vi. it wasn't cable, wasn't broadcasting, wasn't old telephony and the anti-trust department and the commerce department and some smart folks at the fcc and various parts of cea, the white house, all sat down and said, what's the right way to regulate this new thing coming on? we took it up to the hill and people like the internet, the thing with tubes, right? 1995, '96, a coherent conversation with a member of congress, other than my boss, ed markey, said we might have been whistling in the wind. the point i'm trying to make, three years later, all the investment being made was being made by companies because of that encouragement to internet and data and an entirely new way of looking at things and yet we spend untold thousands of hours and untold millions of dollars

talking about that issue here in washington, and three years later, almost everything we did was almost unimportant. because nobody thinks about long distance anymore. today, the aim of the people sitting in the front room, i thought what time is it and where am i calling and what day of the week it is you pick up your phone, make a phone call, you don't even think about that, 20 years ago, making decisions based upon the economic consequence of long distance telephones. >> i think that's an excellent point by the way for just people looking at public policy objectively is that the best and the brightest in 1996 thought it was all about voice -- yes, all about voice and long distance was the big fruit, the incentive for the local phone companies at the time, the baby bells and what would they give up for that. and then there became the issues of unbundling and just 10, 10 1/2 years ago, not that long ago, that was still the fight of what's going to happen with residential voice and we needed to unbundle something called the

bundle network element platform and for my farmer, jack griffin watching, basically an economic regulation of the last mile wire into the home and would there be competition in residential voice, all with a wire line mentality, not thinking about cable telephony, which was actually on the rise at that point, cable modem being sort of the first real sort of broadband to the home. and then cable telephony not far behind and voice over internet over the top, like a vonage-type service. all that was coming, but the best and the brightest didn't see that or how it would affect public policy in the market and benefit consumers and then, something i hope we can talk about here in a minute, the rise of wireless. so, now, most homes -- quickly, most homes will be wireless only, wireless broadband is the fastest growing segment of the broadband market, low income and minority users being the fastest growing segment and being better early adopters than white, affluent suburbs, a wonderful story to tell. nobody in the public policy arena predicted this, nobody

that i talked to anyway. even ten years ago. these are positive stories, when we talk about the need for the fact regulation. it's very difficult for regulators to get it right. frequently they don't. i've been on both sides, a regulator and an advocate. frequently they don't. and people can't see what's coming next. and even industry bets are wrong, right? so there's some bright, bright people and smart investors who bet wrong every day and industry and some who get lucky or good and bet right. so, keep that in mind, talking about public policy, which you just can't envision, ten years ago, it was a completely different debate, which now seems like ancient history, seems like we are talking about stone tablets and chisels, you talk about long distance and you're right, calling your grandmother on her birthday, better be on a sunday and you pass the phone around quickly, which was wired into your wall, if anyone's watching "mad men" or other shows of that era, and it was very, very expensive and now to give away, it's free.

>> just add two quick things about difficulty, not only in washington, we can't see things, also really smart, rich people in this thing. one example bill gates, famous memo in the '90s. >> 1995. >> where basically he says, hey, we've missed the internet. and they quickly tried to catch up. and internet explorer led to the antitrust case against microsoft. that came on very quick. last night, i was watching an interview with steve balmer on charlie rose and steve balmer openly admitted that his biggest mistake at microsoft was not going into hardware. he said we are microsoft. we're operating a software company. it was bill gates' decision it was strictly a software company. and then balmer said, we missed the boat. rich people, famous people, smart people, they missed it, too.

>> the mystery of capitalism. one other great example missing, robert e. lee, commissioner at the s.e.c., in the '80s, i was on the hill, said with regard to cellular telephony, 1978, '79, what a frivolous waste of spectrum people use it for telephone calls. a sitting commissioner of the fcc, not even 40 years ago. we all miss it. commissioner lee, not trying to disparage him, folks at at&t saying, and i think in the '60s, never get within 100,000 cellular phone, cellular phone this size and gonna cost you, $20 a minute, yeah, 100,000 of them. if they're this size, 700 million, it's basically $60 a month unlimited, you're going to get 7 billion of them. that's how it works. >> nobody predicted that even the inventor of the cell phone, marty cooper, admits freely, such a wonderful fellow, no idea what was coming. j that's why this act in 1934, in 1934, they didn't really worry about, are we predicting the future, or are we going to

get the market right in the future. are these technologies. what they basically said is we are going to create an agency and an agency is going to have expertise, and build expertise, and be reviewable by courts so there will be checks and balances. so congress really did not take a very active role in the way we are talking now in the '90s, certainly going forward. there is much more of this idea of whether or not legislation should have a predictive value, what if you don't get it right, obviously. but back in 1934, that wasn't the name of the game at all. the name of the game was let us basically import some aspects of other pieces of legislation. let's combine radio and telephony, put them under the aegis of a simple agency. let's appoint originally seven commissioners who will be

nominated by the president on a bipartisan basis. one will be designated the chairman and those people and obviously, the bureaus and the staff will essentially be in charge of developing that inbred expertise about predicting the future, operating in the environment. so, rob, i wanted to just get a sense, since you obviously sat in that position for a number of years, from -- from sort of an operational standpoint, i mean, do you think the fcc or an agency like that has fulfilled the function of developing that level of expertise or is it sort of an impossible task because no one's sitting in washington essentially can understand all those parameters? >> yes, to your core question, which is -- there's a lot of expertise at the fcc. i want to give a shoutout to my former colleagues there. there are 1,600 of them,

engineers, economists, lawyers, plenty of those, and other professionals. and who are very dedicated public servants and do their job very well. that doesn't mean the policy calls are always right. but it is a tremendous agency. by the way, for those of you wondering, the fcc makes money for the american taxpayer through spectrum auctions and administrative fees and a net gain. but it's impossible to -- as we've kind of been discussing, to guess where the market is going. and i know the term net neutrality will come up, let me be the first to use that term. in that debate, and we don't have to get sidetracked on that, i know we are not talking about that as much today, in that debate, that is going to be a problem. if the fcc is the dog that catches the bus and wants to have jurisdiction over that space, it is going to find it to be very difficult, in terms of exante, or before the fact

regulation, which in effect becomes mother may i permission seeking. and in the dynamic internet space, when there are amazing success stories, and another success story to snuff out their competitors very quickly, it's going to be very, very difficult for the s.e.c. to stay ahead. nor should it, in my view. you know, going forward, i think if we have a telecom rewrite, certainly, i was there with chairman upton and chairman walden about ten months ago when they launched that effort to examine it solicit white papers and ideas, some people in this room submitted a few, that's good very good exercise to have. the act is 18, 19 years old now, a lot changed, let alone since 1934 and only very minor amendments to it like the spectrum act of 2012 and some others. good bill, big bipartisan bill, by the way. but we're going to have to

reexamine it for the silos that were just -- oops, i just threw my pen at you. but what we didn't talk about in 1934 is how the different titles regulate based on the different types of technology used at the time. and your legacy as a company. so title 2 is primarily copper based, analog, you know, back in the day when the telephone operators had the manual switchboards and headphones, and it was voice only. with now a number of components to it, you have over the air broadcast, satellite, mobile, you know, wireless services as well. and you have title 6, which is a coaxial cable, or video service. and now, you know, the consumers demanding a convergence, the number one screen, my kids, ages 7 through 13 is there mobile

screen in. this is changing everything, whims, we have huge leaps in developments in wireless, spectral efficiency and developments in wireless, you're going to see so much more disruption between licensed and unlicensed uses of wireless. a phenomenal time to be not just a consumer of content but of information, and also a generator, consumers being generators of content and information. the barriers to entry are the lowest in american history, and literally change willing the world and improving the human condition around the world. none of this was envisioned in 1934 and very little in 1996. that wasn't that long ago, back when my hair was black. if is time to rethink this, and also to talk about the federal spectrum, the federal government occupying maybe 80% of the spectrum, and what we can do to get the federal government to relinquish the spectrum. something secretary irving knows

a lot about. >> we were all there in '96, but larry was one of the principal architects of the telecom act. and clearly, come also from the hill, a real sensitivity in terms of congress. so maybe talk a little bit about the early days of thinking about revising the communications act of 1934 in probably the most dramatic way it's been done since, which is the telecom act of '96. coming from the hill, what were some of the things that the hill was concerned about and how do you begin to think about that in terms of being in an administration, obviously developing policy, which then could be implemented by an independent agency? >> if you look at the hill and you're a historian at all, look at how things work, 1934 to 1954, '56, television and radio changed a little bit but relatively little change to the communication ability and then court cases, technology started accelerating.

basically, the fcc in my opinion, was really doing right in the '40s and '50s was universal service, a core principle what do we need to do to make sure people have tell phones and then true monopoly in those days, that rates were fair. starting about the '60s, '70s, cases we won't get into, computer one, computer two, lots of things in terms of the new technologie technologies, how do we connect with the network, what we were trying to do in '96 was stay in front of the technological change. and what we also trying to do make sure that we understood the important role of the justice department and want it to be a role in the justice department but make sure that innovators and plane news find innovation, not fiats. we believe the days of natural monopoly were over. believe that innovation was going to rise, not recede. and when i think most members of the hill wanted to protect consumers, promote competition, direct investment and get a lot more innovation into things we

thought were going to deliver to other people. we were right on most of those instances, we were wrong as to how it would happen. but what we wanted to do, you know, if you think about the '96 act one way, from 1996 was a day when we have seen between 1.2 and $1.5 trillion of investments in our infrastructure. and seeing this between 60 to 100 million -- billion dollars every year going to our infrastructure. most of that was unleashed because we did some things with deregulatory and we did believe that competition and dual or trimodal competition was going to be more beneficial, that was not where we were in -- when i got on the hill in 1982, '83. we kind of saw be this aisle of broadcasting, be this aisle of cable and be this aisle of telephony. and many people would receive telephone service at home over their cable system or the companies would be wireless competitors as much as wire line competitors or the television systems would have the spectrum all of a sudden try to sell and

do other things within and make more efficient use because 90% of americans receive television from something other than over-the-air broadcast signal and trust me, most people in this room, when i got a television, over rabbit ears attached to my television set. even if you look at cable, look at the last three weeks, with the announcement what's happening with netflix, and hbo saying we're going to go extra cable and go over the top. and then cbs saying we're going to go over the top again. and in five years i bet you the media landscape will be markedly different than it is now. how, i can't tell you. but i know i watch more television on my ipad than i do on my television at home, mostly because i'm on the road. if i want to catch one "downton abbey" and pbs, give you a plug, starting again in january, more than likely to see it here when i want to and nobody in this room believes thursday at 8:00 to turn on "cosby," racing home to see -- appointment television is completely dead.

i saw "jane the virgin," another great show, starring a young latina, a hit with 1.8 million, 1.8 million viewers that's a hit. 1.8 million would not have kept you on for -- 1.8 -- online and television, 1.8 million. across -- 1.8 wouldn't have got you -- would have been canceled the day after you got a 1.8 million share, but now, that's enough. the economics are changing and regulators have got to figure out a way to not stifle that change. but give consumers what they want, which is more of that change. >> can i be brief? and just radical. i want to be radical. get the conversation going, if you want to ask how if i were king for a day and rewrite the communication act, i would have what i would call a very skinny fcc. and i realize once it gets to congress that they are going to christmas tree and add things to it, but i would start with a very minimalist role for the fcc, recognizing scarcity is gone, that we have digital instead of analog. i have two roles for the fcc,

one is, they can finish and expand their spectrum options and they run that, okay? because competition, the more competition, that's good thing. the second thing is i would have them adjudicate disputes over -- over discrimination by network owners in favor of certain content providers. now, they do this right now for videos, and i would stepped this to broadband. so for example, i will give you an example, comcast owns nbc. if comcast is favoring some of nbc's rivals, all right, because they own nbc, that's not right, all right? that's an abuse of their -- >> discriminating. >> that's unlawful discrimination and the fcc now has power to stop that. you could stop that same kind of thing in the internet world, all right, where you have, you know, take one of the broadband providers and they're discriminating in favor of certain content. let say, for example, they offer a 15-megabit package and they

are discriminating against certain sites based on the certain speed and i would have them administratively stop discrimination. end of statement. that's it. so, basically, in my fcc, they have something like 1,700 people that work for them now, i think borderline, all right? i could give them a report writing function to sort of, you know, tell us about the future of communication and all that. i mean, we are talking about several hundred people. and i don't think we need big fcc anymore. >> 600 lawyers? >> whatever. we don't need these people. i know larry's going to pile on and add some more things, or whatever. but i'm going to start there, and that's how i'd rewrite the act. >> can i dovetail into that real quick? actually, you know, with discrimination, as you say anti-competitive discrimination, discrimination is a loaded term means different things in different contexts, network engineer's actually necessary if you want that movie you're

downloading to be uninterrupted and unartifacted and unfrozen. >> that would be fine. >> voice bits and e-mail bits aren't -- that's discrimination, you like that right? that's the good kind. but federal trade commission, let me put a plug in for them, first of all, like to point people to some of the speeches and writings of commissioners oldhaasen and wright. even keeled, speeches, articles and stuff they've written. section 5, the federal trade commission, actually would prevent that type of discrimination from happening, if a cable provider -- you know, in an anti-competitive way discriminated against the content of others. the mantra is, there are laws already on the books that exist, that deter that behavior and would cure it if it ever happened. and it's not happening, and hasn't happened in a systemic market failure way. in addition to the trial lawyers

that would have a field day, with the states' attorneys general. there's a whole arsenal, a huge quiver of legal arrows that would be launched against internet service providers if they wanted to go in that direction. so keep that in mind. you can't do it under section 5 of the federal trade commission act. by the way, back to the point -- is ex-post, or after the fact regulation to slow. federal trade commission operates pretty much all the rest of the economy, not quite all the rest. certainly complex areas, dynamic areas whether it's software, internet search, things of that nature. it's there. and, you know, operating systems and all the rest. and manages -- that actually, those sectors of our economy are the best in the world, and have been for generations, and will be so for years to come. >> can i interject one quick thing and let you get back.

i'm going to be very clear and i'll respond to section 5 in a minute. the only reason i would keep the fcc involved in this, they do a lot of different industries, telecom's not one of them. the justice department and the ftc split jurisdiction and telecom is a justice department function. the only reason i would give it an administrative role, it would be quicker, i think, to do it than having a bigger investigation. i wanted to get that point in there. you could do it under section 5. >> i like that concession. >> no, i could see. no, i could concede that, but i would still -- and one final thing and i'll shut up. i want to make clear i get the fcc and a merger review, back to the public interest standard. i give that to the justice department. there is no reason why in my opinion we single out the telecom industry for special anti-trust review and have joint jurisdiction between the justice department and the fcc. now, i recognize there's joint jurisdiction in the banking industry, i'd get rid of that, too. there's joint jurisdiction in

the transportation industry, i'd get rid of that, too. you take every other industry in the economy, either the ftc or justice department reviews, they review the antitrust implications and the mergers. let's follow that principle. and let's try to streamline our government. >> and real quick on the substantive expertise, which is ftc learns and evolves over time. i think they could learn. the definition of what is telecom and what is communication, with the marriage of connectivity and content is becoming -- the lines are blurring. from the consumer's perspective, the lines are already blurred. that doesn't take any network engineering, some of it, but it's easily understandable. it's competition law. it's consumer harm and all of that stuff. >> and they could take the engineers and hire them from the ftc. >> yeah. >> okay. so i'm going to be the contrarian on this one. i don't believe that we necessarily need all the functions that the fcc has. and we'll have a conversation

going forward about what is needed and what isn't. communications has always been seen as different. i'm a communications lawyer and started out as a communication lawyer. but most of my life -- i don't want it to be just a straight economic test as -- i don't know all the things we're doing now we need to do, but a straight economic test, communication -- it is the life blood of democracy. and there are many instances that policy have been made by the fcc during merger review that had beneficial impact on the nation. and we've got to weigh those things. but when you get the ftc and all you have is -- >> spectrum and discrimination. >> -- spectrum and -- spectrum management has still got to be done. universal service. are we going to leave universal service? red lining is when you were born poor, black and in the projects of brooklyn and you spend your life, maybe not so poor, but still black, and running around the country seeing what's

happening with regard to african-americans, native americans, latinos, with regard to service, red lining is very real. we have a situation right now in terms of our universal service program who pays into them. and you have to think about that hard. major companies talking about the beneficial benefits impact of networks that have yet to serve a community that has more than 10% black people. how does that happen? everybody runs around applauding google fiber. i have issues. i was waiting for the first time i was in harvard. brownsville, new york, or brownsville, texas. come there. any brownsville you want to, pick a brownsville, we'll be happy to see you come. and we have to have these kinds of robust conversations about who serves, who pays, how do we make sure that the system is equitable. and we do -- we do need to make sure that we're looking at communications as different than widgets. that was a conversation we had in the '80s, conversation that we had in the '90s. they're very different things. i want -- a strict anti-trust with regard to which widgets being manufactured.

when you're talking about ideas, currency, how many people involved in this as possible and innovation as free flowing as possible, you need a little bit more. do we have too much regulation now? i could make some arguments. i've seen some things done that are a little bit unnecessary. i had a huge problem a minute ago we were talking about the fcc brings money back to the -- to the treasury. back in the '90s, i was a lone voice saying, hey, look, we should never have budget drive policy. and we were so concerned about the options of driving revenue, we weren't looking at the options in terms of what policies of where we were doing the right things, in terms of how we were getting the spectrum out into the marketplace, making sure the policy implications were involved in the discussions. when we had a huge budget deficit, the only thing people were worried about, can we get that spectrum out? and as a steward of the federal government spectrum, i wanted to make sure that national security, aviation, that other things were met. now, federal government has way

too much spectrum, but let's have a balanced conversation about it. now we're going to spectrum sharing. the fcc has a role in spectrum sharing. what's that going to look like? so there are lots of pieces to this fcc puzzle. the communications gets most of them right. we need some tweaking. but let's go back to kind of first principles. national security, universal service, diversity of voices, competition. if we can come up with fcc that works for all of us. i'm concerned that the anti-trust analysis would be too -- would take some of the -- what's the word? some of the discretion out of their hands. and i think we'd be a little bit policy poor for that. >> just a quick point in support of a skinny fcc idea, which is if you look at the innovation, let's say the past ten years or so, where does it come from? it's come from the least regulated parts of the industry. so, again, let's look at smartphones, the app industry. those are the least regulated, right?

and that's where the most innovation and investment has been and where the most consumer benefit has been and where consumers are stampeding to enjoy it. so the world is different from how it was ten years ago, 20 years ago or 80 years ago in the 1934 act. it's much more dynamic. wireless is changing that equation dramatically. and so i think we need to take a step back from the social engineering or the industrial policy, public interest type standard here and kind of let the market go. you've had more democratization not because of any industrial policy or government plan other than getting more spectrum in the marketplace, but in 2005, people weren't talking about the app economy. people didn't know what apps were really then. so it was post-2007 in a de-regulated sector of the economy that has done more to help low-income areas get internet access at a high speed and really revolutionize their lives with new apps and access to information.

>> if you look at the structure about wireless industry, the fcc made very important calls and choices in terms of level of competition we're going to have in being an expert agency that only it could make. and we would not have the level of competition, innovation, not had the level of investment, but for some calls the fcc made with regard to the wireless industry. i don't disagree they had a role. but i don't believe the doj would have had the level of competition to drive the pace of the innovation that the fcc has. you know, we all talk about cooper's law, and most of you heard about -- but very few heard about cooper's law. who was a genius and somebody we should all know. morris law is that every 18 months we double the processing power at about the same cost. i think it's every 24 months we see a doubling of the spectrum efficiency in our networks every 24 months, we get a doubling in spectrum efficiency. if you think about what that means and how important that is. what that means is when you use the cell phone -- the cell phone you used two years ago was half

as efficient as the cell phone you use today. that doesn't just happen magically. somebody does have to make investment to make that happen. and some of that investment -- you know, folks want to make the investments when they know what the rules of the road are. the rules of the road are consistent and to make sure competitive marketplace. cooper's law is important, but so is competition. and i'm not sure that just the department of justice in an industry this fast paced would be able to do it. on the other hand, i don't want the fcc to be regulatory, you know -- as my old boss said, you want to see the steering, not rowing. the runners are running and someone else is making sure when the gun goes off, nobody's cheating. and somebody, you know, the stopwatch at the end of the race. those are the kind of rules government should play, but no rules for the fcc? >> tom is a pretty skinny guy. but we want to give him enough

to do to justify that salary. >> i wanted to pick up what larry said, which is communications is special and different and part of it is because it promotes an exchange of ideas and conversation. we've had a spirited conversation here, but we would now like you to join. so for anyone who has a question, if you just identify yourself and also indicate, i want to get as many questions as possible. please frame whatever you're going to say as a question rather than a speech or commentary or anything else. and we have a couple of people from brookings who will have microphones. and i will identify the people who will be called on and then we'll proceed from there. >> so like jeopardy has to be in a form of a question? >> you bet. exactly. >> what's in the form of a question, stewart. >> okay. first question. >> you've answered every -- oh, there we go. >> right over here. >> thank you very much for this program, and thank you for the

comments so far. my question is -- sorry. thank you. ann lilana, no affiliation to any particular group. except i have been in cybersecurity, and telecommunications for all of my professional life. what are your thoughts on the role the federal communications commission should be playing in cybersecurity for the general consumer? as you know, dhs has that role for critical infrastructure, the 16 sectors. but i don't know of any agency that really has the responsibility of cybersecurity for the general consumer. >> excellent question. >> that's a great question. >> it is a great question. >> i'll be brief. first of all, the fcc does have -- actually the creation of a new bureau, which i voted for. chairman kevin martin, the public safety and homeland security bureau. they consolidated a lot of functions.

but after 9/11 and also hurricane katrina, it became very apparent that fcc needed at least a formalized coordinating body between other government agencies, federal, state and local, as well as industry, and consumers, to help facilitate with public safety and homeland security issues. by the way, the fcc manages the spectrum for public safety. that's governmental, but not what the department of commerce does. so, my personal view is that while the fcc can provide sort of a backup singer role to cybersecurity to advise agencies on how things work, et cetera, that there are a lot of government agencies already in the cybersecurity space. and it's not, still in my view, not very well coordinated. and we have some big holes. and some day, i think there will be a cybersecurity pearl harbor, whether it's from a nation state, or just a lone wolf.

so, i'm not sure the fcc is really equipped, it's not big enough, doesn't have that sort of expert. probably the dhs, in my view, would be the best place for that. that was part of its job when it was chartered after 9/11. but i don't think the fcc should have a lead dog role in that but certainly should be part of the broader chorus to help with it. >> i would think there is a portion that has to be at the fcc because they do have subject matter expertise. i serve on some energy boards, i have friends in the water industry. we do need a coordinated effort, across government on cybersecurity, because we get millions of pings a day, folks trying to come to our network of our most critical infrastructure. whether it's water, bridges, transportation, telecommunications. and no one agency can handle that, not even for consumers. to rob's point, we need to be vigilant. if you know as much as he knows and i know about what's happening in terms of pings, you don't sleep well at night

wondering what will happen if somebody decides to make a concerted effort to take down one of our networks. >> can i ask you a question? to use the word, the four-letter word everybody's using in washington, do we need a czar in this area? >> you asking him or me? >> both of you. >> i'll shy away from the term czar. you do need someone with the accountability and the responsibility. and if that's the coordination of a lot of different agencies and d.o.d. and dhs and the intelligence agency. there's a lot of government agencies involved. so who is in charge, who has accountability. >> no one is now. >> right. exactly. >> i wouldn't call it a czar. >> having -- in 2000, we had dick clark for the y2k issues. and dick clark, if you know him, he's an interesting personality. he did a hell of a job making sure that everybody was focused every day, 24 hours a day, on keeping -- >> that's while producing american bandstand. >> and new year's eve. >> i don't know it would be a bad idea either.

i know a little bit too much. and it does -- you're only as strong as your weakest point. there are a lot of places in this country that haven't made the investment they need to make. some cast make the investment they need to make to stand up against hundreds of thousands of pings. people are pinging into our networks to figure out how to get in and get out. they're not trying, just doing reconnaissance. and they know a lot more about our networks than we want them to know. and we need to be vigilant. >> yes? right over here. >> i'm brian fung with the "washington post." thanks for doing the panel. this is very interesting. i've got a couple of questions, actually, very short. i was talking to someone yesterday who was telling me that one of the big reasons why the telecom act rewrite happened in '96 was because, you know, there were some concerns with the conditions attached to the

at&t consent decree back in the '80s. can you tell me if that's -- you know, if you read it the same way? and second question for commissioner mcdowell. you know, are there things -- we talked a lot about how there was a failure to predict a lot of things that technologically took place. were there things at your tenure that you feel failed to take effect? >> no question, that was one force among many, with the at&t. when larry and i were meeting, this cable telco thing was a big driver. that was independent of the desire for at&t for clarity. all right? and also, the regional bell operating companies. it's clear that the telephone industry, as larry said, the biggest driver of the '96 act was trying to make a long distance market competitive. but that clearly was a major

force. >> it was a perfect storm. because everybody needed something. the cable telco, cable wanting -- the long distance on the telco side, they wanted to do the retransmission, and incorporated into this thing. consumers were worried about whether there would be anarchy and how we would shall protected. everybody wanted something. it was the perfect time for legislation. even in the perfect time for legislation, bob and i met with our colleagues in 1993 until 1996 every tuesday morning for 90 minutes, for 40 weeks a year. it took us three weeks to get that bill through. every tuesday morning. and that's what it took to get that kind of a bill through. even with everybody kind of wanting it. there were lots of pieces. but there was no player who didn't get something that they thought would be to their benefit. at the end of the day, they all

benefited. none of us saw the reconsolidation of the bills. none of us saw how important wireless would be. none of us saw the internet going from 2 million people online when we started to --

>> and i favor an excuse of licenses overall. but unlicensed, you know, why the carriers can find that they can off load congestion there. and i think that's helpful. also, the inspector policy in

general, i think the commission failed to see at first, the virtues of what we call flexible use policy spectrums. basically, go ahead and use it for whatever you want, provided there's no harmful interference. and that's the prime directive for your star frek fans. unless it's an unlicensed user. so the government,overtime, decided to prescribe what certain frequencies are best for. we found that some satellite spectrum is pretty good for terrestrial broad band. i think that was an oversight early on, but, in my seven years, i saw some corrections toe that. but over-prescribing in general, in trying to engineer markets as a general matter happens a lot at the fcc and

then markets work around that. that's something that's almost impossible to measure during a government policy. >> and i heard you say the one thing right now is spectrum sharing. i think spectrum sharing is something we need to do and something we should do eventually. but there's an assumption that spectrum sharing works today. we have this informs band. and 60 p% of the markets are no working. we don't have the -- the technology is not ready yet. the market is not ready yet. we need to get more focused on what the federal government is. i've been saying for sex e six ye six years that we need a real inventory.

you need to know who's using it, when they're using it and how it can be used for the american people. we have had an abysmal. >> you need to get the spectrum inventory. no one will force that spectrum inventory. congress hant forced it. the white house hant forced it. you're talking and a trillion dollar plus opportunity. >> every time cruz does his dance -- no. [ laughter ] >> that's right here.

>> i just want to thank you all for coming. i just have a couple questions about the app economy. there was a new york times article that said that 40% of those working in silicon valley thought that there was a large bubble in that part of the economy. with apps like uber and this trade of transit hotels, there's a large area that needs some sort of regulation or some sort of action. i wonder if the fcc -- what role the fcc might have in that or other agencies? >> i'll be real quick on that. i don't want to play the role as economist, too. so the app entry, you know, there are kids in grade school writing apps.

so the next big idea is being formlated right now. there's going to be some brand here in the next 4-6 months that will become ubiquitous that none of us have heard of. there might be certain companies that have a limited life span based on their business plan, and i'm not going to comment specifically on those. but i think i will continue to be very dynamic part of the worldwide economy that brings -- i'm told -- consumer benefitings. i'm very very excited. >> and aagree with that. and i don't see a role for an equalizer. >> i would say the same thing. that is more than maybe cyber security. that is a profoundly bad idea. >> and no legal authority to do so. >> exactly. blad idea. >> just talk a little bit about the courts. they've been sort of lurking in all of this. but, usually, legislation, and,

particularly, what the fcc does,gets reviewed by the courts. so i'd be sbregsed in some of your view points, whether or not that balance needs to be changed. i know rob can tell us from the inside. a great sensitivity in terms of whether or not a major decision will be appealed, what happens after the appeal and so, you know, one question is a new legislation, should there be a different balance that's struck both in terms of how courts reviewed this. right now, in fact, the court's review under a different act which is called the administrative procedure act, 1946. it applies to all independent regulatory agencies. it essentially says that the agency needs to act in a way that is not arbitrary,

capricious or in anyway interfering with appellate state law. there's no magic. you could have a new communications act that says we will have a new stand for for this particular area. so i'd be interested to know a little bit about what the commission has to courts overturning what the commission does. >> and i'll try to be brief. it's part of our democratic system. one could argue there's a forty branch, but that's for the next legislative event. so you have the legislation, litigation cycle. and it seems all lawyered up. by the way, this is all part of

due process. was there due process given and a use of discretion given by whatever administrative agency. and that's very, very important. i was an un-elected washington bureaucrat. but the president confirmed by the senate, thankfully, that's never happened at the fcc. so you can be called before congress and yelled at, congress can limit your funding. but it is easy, in a way, for the fcc to go off of its congressional at the timer. for there to be no fence around the fcc's authority. that becomes article garkt kal.

you need to put the other agencies back in their boxes. and because authority really lies, should lie, under our constitution in the hand of the directly-elected american people. and that's congress and the president. and that's why when we make new law, the congress passes a bill and the senate overrides or vetoes it. it can be very frustrating as a commission er, i was very mindful that somebody's going to appeal this, no matter what we co. so let's help the appellate's law clerks in what we're doing on here. it's part of the process. >> i know some of us have to leave in a couple of minutes. i wanted to pose a question that we could all talk about before bob departs.

in the future, if we do have a new rewrite of the actress, some legislative commission of communications act, what do you think the elements of that perfect storm might look like. what forces might drive legislation in this area? there's one example in which people don't get sat filled in one way, shape or form.predicti is going to say, but even if they agree, there ought to be a hitle and that's going to be challenged in court. and/or the fcc is going to have

to decide whether there's pay for faster service. you can imagine the broad band companies being on the losing side of this saying hey, wait a minute, it's reasonen for us to charge a higher rate to netflix over anyone else. i just want to say one thing. it becomes a political movement and then the people go to congress and they say we've got to fix the act somehow. and once there's one train moving in that direction, other people have got to move on. suppose republicans take over congress. >> the senate. >> well, yeah. that's what i meant. >> the other one. >> all right. so they get the senate. and, obviously, they don't have the presidency. bru imagine a scenario where

they win the presidency in 2016. and they've got both houses of congress. and, by the way, i'm not a republican. i think a lot of republicans would add voe kat a skinny. so you imagine some scenarios that can do this. and i'm just teaming up for my colleagues here and they can probably give you some more scenarios. >> so i think we're pretty close to a place where people -- you know, i'm not necessarily as far along as the fcc line. bum i certainly think the process needs to be sped up. you have mergers that sit there for years. it's wasteful to spend this amount of time. you've got to figure out what is the right regulatory model for the internet. i hope it will be as minimal as

posz. it will look into an overregulatory policy here. i think you've got some regards to the spectrum. we have a massive guard to universal service. our universal service has to be rethought and recon figured. and we want to make sure that everybody in this country has access. think about 5g telecommunicati n telecommunications. what are the right ways to get investment there? that's a pretty big leap. there are lots of players who have lots of swresz.

the silos that we looked at before, you tell me who's a broadcast i recall, you tell me he's a telco and then does it really make sense for each of them to sign a different regulatory mod em. >> what's the fcc there for? not competitors. >> security. making them as skoour as they can and those are the kind of diverse marks.

it really should be all about if we have those kind of discussions, what would the act look like if we were starting fresh. i know we'll never get a kpliet look at this. that's one part of it. >> thank you. thank you. >> i think for the interested parties, there has to be, at a minimum, nothing to lose as they enter that process for them to support legislation.

and a max mum something to gain. >> we can go back to 1978. it took years for that. that was not a fundament stal rewrite. the 34 act is this foundation. this bedrock foup dags for which all the sub sell kwent acts larry mentioned were built upon. i it's all been built on top of that act. >> there's a lot for different industries and parties to lose by doing that. there's the devil you know and the devil you don't know. it's better than a new law which

then goes through that registration litigation lifestyle. a, you've got to pass the bill. b, it's going to be litigated no matter what's in there. and so then what happens? that's uncertainty, as well. if you can think in terms of consumers, what are they benefitting from today? so what's going on today and how do you address a systemic markt failure. and then the fuel would be federal spectrum.

you could have carecar rots and. so it's all possiblen, but very, very dif cut battle. >> as we blow out the kantles, my wish is that the conversation continues. >> i think as we've ill strated today, this will be a good part of the conversation. >> thank you so much.

>> i just want to let you know that any kmepts i made were purely mine and do not reflect anyone in the organization.

let me introduce director rodriguez now. i'm just really delighted to have him with us. he was sworn in on july 9th this summer. he held a position at the human right services from 2014 to 2014. until 2011, he served as the chief of staff and the dep tip asis tant. his other frat service is he's done more than this.

and in that term, he was a lead prosecutor in the beat against the involved enslavement and quality ma la kwarm erp work es n f f. it resulted as a 15-year prison sentence. a board member for many years. he has a remarkable family immigration history.

>> dr. rodriguez is going to line up about 25 of. he has to leave here promptly at 9:45. [ applause ] >> so i'd like to begin this morning with a little bit of a confession. how many of you here are jorjt town law stuchblt students. actually, nobody. oh, there's a couple. there we go. this is actually my second opportunity to speak unstill the lst two years. >> the loost time i was at this

building was 278 years ago when i was weight listed at georgetown, yumpblt law center. i came here to meet the dean. he looked at my file and he said it's actually a miracle that you're everyone on the weight list. so forget about actually getting admitted. i really wanted to tell the story because here i am backed by a federal director. so i was thinking to myself, what's the relevance of this.

i realityized it was a graet metaphor. it's based on the who he will go set of factors. the basic idea that we win 209d yiet will be good for america mplgt but in some way, they will promote our values and our tubtives. >> looking back shlgts would you have had different policies? >> first of all, thank the

clinic for putting together and hosting this concern frens: and ho's really become one of the key nora for discussion in exchange on immigration policy. i really thank you for creating this sort of form for us. i also want to recognize dor doris meistner. the director of immigration and nationalization services. back towards the kmin ton administration. and is now with the financial policy tut. if you come to my agency, and ill know i have a couple of heej e heap here vrmgt chris is our sdrek xx of our new york city field office. chris bentley is our press

secretary chlgt one thing people speak of with pride is they were allege in the irs. >> it really gives you a flay forfor the wrods spectrums of vijss that really play a role in this critical, krilts kal issue. >> i have three pernl r personal experiences that really inform my vision of wgs the director

certainly because of those experiences, i understand the also peck of adds min stragsz that is bags ds on seeking refuge mplt and the miej meal that i grew up, although i was born in brook lynn, i actually glue up in miami. the miami of my childhood really provides a case study.

and the miami of my childhood was in amazing caldron. what it made even then, miami, with all of igs e itsds chaos was one of the most economically vieblg city in the yietsds. so i'm actually a real blooechler in the notion that imdwrants are what really energy. what kind of make the mowerful economy that we are. and et's not just the soft kwair engineers.

there's a second experience that informed my work as well. as a law student, i was in this project and what we did with uz to analyze the press disto other situations of human rights abuse. and a big pafrt of the disz e disskugsz th discussion abosenate shi school krms.

before, we were accusing all of these terrorists using et by bad people. people who in this case, have engaged in harm in the fast or, as we have learned all too frankically, individuals who could abuse our immigration syst system. as we look to energize our economy, we always have to worry about if fact that there are people who can abuse our immigration system and come to do us harm. through the flores case, i spent

a lot 06 time with a number of individuals who originally came here undochblted from quad mall la and south carolina and e and also 2 skrrks itrus grows in florida, there are two dochl nant narratives. and i want to offer a third one. the first one is called the law enforce. democratic narratives: >> r. >> is there is a second part.

the children had fled and they were resire d to come here to te united states where many would argue, they continue in many respects, to be victims. >> these vinls had two core values in their life that seemed very, very familiar to me.

the first was work and the second would you describe family. the beneficiaries, typically, are back in gaut mall la. >> they did not impress me as viztisms go. they ajoused he just like sna. so as i leave the agency that is responsible for give as my experience. at uscis, we touch just about every also peblgt of a merp r american's life.

>> the environment is also growing. we're at 18,500 profens now in 250 locations. >> it really has been a professional group of worvelgs. you heard that i used to work for month gom ri county.

>> before i came to that job, my entire business had been eroding. and, so, nou, the largest part of my job was ablg which youly interesting. i said to janet, i brk lull' >> bhu here is the reason.

>> zoning requires us to think about economics, how we want to develop our local economies. it requires us to talk about families. one of the big debates is how many people could live in a dwrm e dreling. >> most of us in the county had a tradition gnat sub you are bhn blue.

>> and i would suggest that imdwrags is exactly the same way. the reason there's so much to talk about about imglags, the reason we have such oon sblensz e sbrensz e intense debate about i wanted cake, it's exactly the cause just about everything people think and feel about our civic society is imply kated in immigration.

the challenge comes that we don't necessarily agree with what we're providing refuge from is refuge from torture. glood olt fashioned torture. how about intolerable economic conditions? >> what the government has done is failed to protect its people where here in the united states, we would tomorrowly sptsds. is that a situation from which we provides rej e refuge mplts that's one battle.

another is economic development. >> we want a vie brant economy. everybody agrees that the more vie brent the economy, the mr e more everybody benefits. >> the problem is we don't necessarily agree on what fuels. >> they're fot benefitting our economy. so we agree that people with a high letter. and if you drive down den

bran-he. we don't have a small business cat gore is all of these all a big issue chlts all of these are timpt values that we hold tier e tear, but which we all look at different thrill. and so when we talk about what it means to be a nation of immigrants, we real iize that wt that means is actually the hair of the blooifd of the holder.

fascinating document. one of the things that you learned is that, in fact, most mile gragsz. >> most migration is the moving of l of people ahead. >> so you ask yourselves, why is that? that sort of goes to there's nothing like it. there's nothing like the values of america. >> i think my time is going

parteder than i thought it was. >> i had an accident shortly after i got here. i was introduced to 20 kids, all of them from los angeles. this was an amazing group of young people. there was another young whom who had started medical school.

>> one of the things that occurred to me, as amazing as these young people were and queried if there is not a fundmentedal problem in the structure of the immigration system if there is not a half for this young stoet to take a picture of. for as many kids like that,as there are are chlgt there are. >> kids who really want to be fluchlers opening businesses,

restaurant owners, smop owners. all of those represent a potential to energize their cole monomy. the president has made clear that in the wake of the failure of congress to really give him an incredible immigration renorm package: that he will act on his oechb tom time before the program. >> what i will tell you is this. we're kwing the be ready. our agency will be shoumderring

the primary responsibility. >> we want to make sure that however this works, we want to do it in the way that it actually works. so that's the one commitment that i can make fur you. 2 other thing that's point out is where we think about a broken immigration system. as wety about the yale your to a couplely paz a comp hepsive.

>> so not only is it an undocumentd status. they are now part of our society, whether that is recognized or not. they are nou part of our society. that's one issue. the fact that we have a basic immigration structure that is out of line with the needs of our economy is another issue. >> the fact that very often, your access to different kinds of immigration benefits is another simple tom of a pick

schur. >> so all of this r that, all of nose kinds of questions are part of the symptom. >> i want to talk about situations on our border as opposed to the uac scoring a part of it. but not all of husz. >> the jean public has ficused on chirn that they'll not admit are children and then sort oaf finding some path to staying here. in fact, the migration is

migration of people achl e of all ajss. >> we have done what we needed to do. and more and more kids are also, once they're setted here, either in foster families or otherwise offices of hss present iing a silence of many kinds.

they're fab ri kated or that somehow we are recognize iing te claims where there are not. i want to provide in this area is that we are doing our job. one of the first things when i became director is to sit in on asylum interview. and i came and made people confess. i was able to watch the quality of this interview. and i was really struck by two aspects of this interview. he followed up. he asked those second and third questions to really probe and wait the validity being made.

we will uphold that responsible i the. as a country that offers refuge, the one thing that would certainly be a tragedy is to not provide due process and then to find that somebody should have been afforded asylum. we're going to continue doing our job, we're going to do good interviewsment we're going to deploy so that this process can go on as specifically as possible. we're going to safeguard due process at the same time. i'm really excited to hear the readout because there's so many of you who have been working for

you so long. a lot of really, really important insighteds. so with that, i think i'm going to open it up to questions. >> and i believe -- yeah, there we go. >> yeah, if you could introduce yourselves first and just line up with the mics here. >> hi, my international airport is penny sternum with cns news. i know you mentioned that there are people coming across the borders not just from central and south america, but, indeed, all over the world. and i wondered if you would address, please, what health screenings about how people are

interviewed. where does health come in during the screening process, especially given ebola now. >> yeah, understand, a little bit outside of my portfolio, there are health department screenings. i know for example, specifically, there are screenings for tuberculosis. beyond that, i think that would be a great question to drekt to hss. >> yes, i'm wondering if you can give us more detailed information about how we're getting ready for the president's interaction. how many people are you an tis pating what you are doing in terms of hiring in a situation where, as you, i'm sure are aware, you have a fee-based agency and, therefore, to a certain extent, the applications that are coming in. just what is the dimensions of the program that you are an tis

pating? >> director from detroit. i'm wondering if you can talk as we, you know, hopefully move forward whether we go through these rules or maybe one day, some day, con kbregsal action. and we reform our immigration system to be one that is more forward-looking, what you talked about brings value to our country and to our economy. how do you plan to use local government in the integration process. you know, a lot of us, who deal after the federal issues have adjudicated or not in the case of 11 million unauthorize d levels with municipal governments.

have you thought about how to include local perspectives? >> that's a great, great question. it actually gives me something to underscore in my remarks. the president said this may direct us to do and that may not be anywhere near what we could accomplish with actual legislative reform. the potential of local governments is immense. even now, we promote natur naturalization and see folks becoming new americans. that is really the kind of

collaborations we've had with municipal gots, new york city, los angeles and really a model for some of the things that we can do in other areas, as well. >> so there is very definitely a role for that. >> i want to understand how you're determining who's being placed with determine nation. how are you making -- how are they making it a determination about who's placing attention versus who's sent out to a sponsor. >> yes, i would direct it to customs and border control and ice. remember, these unaccompanied children, just to be very clear, they are not permitted under law for any extended period of time. there are a number of family

units and the kids who are here with parents. and aadulthoods, of course, are essentially unless they're paroled in the senate. but those are actual details, but not details we want from c.i.s. those are customs and border patrol, in particular. >> i think we're going to take two more questions here. not to follow up on julie, but to talk about the citizenship that's a major priority of yours, as well. if we're talking about a major executive action covering millions of people. that obviously takes a lot of resources. it amgs takes huge amounts of coordination with the department of justice, eir and others.

can you talk a little bit about that broader perspective? >> sure. i think one of the really important lessons lines of business, family visas experienced some longer processing times. is we really learned how to surge, in a way that we really never had before. and so as we prepare for another potential surge, i think we're going to be leaning very heavily on the doc experience, modeling based on the doc experience, in order to really minimize impact on the other existing lines of business within ncis. sir? >> good morning. can you address the claim that children coming from central america and families as well, should be considered refugees in

a similar way as populations moving from one place to another are considered refugees in other parts of the world? and what are the implications of these here in the u.s.? >> no, i've heard that and certainly there are situations where we have made credible is findings, which essentially means there is a claim for some kind of ref ewe and where we are finding that some of the unaccompanied children do appear to qualify for asylum. what i'm really not ready to do and the record has not sustained this notion, that as an entire class, as a matter of law, okay, there is sort of a normal understanding of what it means to seek refuge, but as a matter of law, absolutely every individual crossing the border is a refugee. i'm not prepared to stay anything like that. now, do some of them state very solid claims for asylum status?

the answer, i would say, is very clearly, yes. >> hello. my name is tara matthews and i actually work for u.s. cis. my question is, well, i was interested in what you were saying about matching the immigration system with the economic needs of the country. and i was wondering how you see government working with private sector academic institutions like this, civil society, to best achieve that goal. >> well, i mean, i think, and i said economics among many factors. that's why i was making the analogy to zoning. we look at a variety of different factors. i think private industry plays a very critical role, because i think they tell us where the needs are. in fact, there are, even now, there are particular visa categories that actually require the sponsorship of a company or involve the transfer of an individual within a company from

one location to another. so the role of the private sector in this dialogue is huge. >> would you mind one more question? >> yes. i mean, no, i wouldn't mind. i meant, yes, i'll take it. >> i appreciate it. my name is mona and i'm a doctoral student. and my question is in regard to the backlog in the affirmative asylum process. and i was just wondering what strategies you're going to be using to address some of these major backlog issues. >> yeah, no. those are great questions. because, in fact, the overall asylum case load has grown dramatically related to the circumstances we're discussing. and in order to process individuals more efficiently at the border, the unaccompanied children presenting claims, we have had to redeploy. we're also hiring more asylum officers in order to meet this

additional case load. we do have a lot of work to catch up. so i don't want to minimize the kind of work that is ahead of us to sort of get up to date with all these processes, but we are moving affirmatively forward to deal with what is a significant impact in our asylum case load. >> thank you. >> thank you for your question. >> okay. thank you very much, director rodriguez. we really appreciate your being with us. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> senators begin debate tomorrow on a bill that would debate discussion of the keystone xl pipeline. a vote on final passage is scheduled for approximately 6:15 eastern. recent reports have 59 senators planning to vote in favor of the legislation, which was introduced by louisiana senator, mary landrieu. that's one vote shy of the 60 votes necessary for final passage. you can watch this six hours of

scheduled debate and the final vote tomorrow, live on c-span2. >> thanks for your comments about our programming. and here are a few we received about washington journal. >> i must say, washington journal, first thing in the morning, absolutely wonderful. very informative, and i really appreciate you guys letting people such as myself actually call in and sometimes even talk to people who are running our country and our world. >> i would like to make a suggestion, that instead of dividing the country between democrats, republicans, independents, c-span should ask the question and have callers either call and agree or

disagree. this would save a lot of partisanship. let the ideas get out there, not the political divisions. >> thank you, thank you, thank you. this morning, today is the best show i've seen. that's what we need. please have more shows like the one today. having a democrat and a republican on there so people can ask them questions about what they're going to do. this was a great show. we need to have them explain what the policies are and how they differ. they gave their reasons and their reasons were just like mine. we need to know how they think, how they vote, and how we should vote. and have one every day, with their ideas, their policies, and what they plan to do for the people. and have us call in and question them. thank you so much. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching.

call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-sp comments@c-span.org. or send us a tweet at @c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> world bank president jim yong kim said the biggest worry about the ebola outbreak is the need for more doctors and health care workers. he made the comment while speaking with reporters at a christian science monitor breakfast in washington, d.c. this is an hour. >> okay, folks here we go. good morning. i'm dave cook from the christian science monitor. our guest this morning is world

bank president, dr. jim yong kim. this is his first visit with the group, and we were honored to host a number of his predecessors starting with robert mcnamara in 1971. we appreciate kim taking time out of his busy schedule to be with us today. he was born in south korea and moved to iowa with his family when he was 5. he earned a bachelor's degree from brown university and a medical degree and a ph.d in anthropology from harvard. before finishing his harvard degrees, our guest co-founded the non-profit partners in health, which provides health care in poor communities on four continents and was a leader in tackling tuberculosis and hiv/aids in developing countries. in 2003, dr. kim joined the staff at the world health organization, becoming director of its hiv/aids department. the same year he won a mcarthur genius fellowship. along the way, our guest held a variety of professorships and chaired departments at a number of distinguished medical

institutions, including harvard medical school and its school of public health. from 2009 to 2012, he was the 17th president of the dartmouth college, a position he left when he was elected world bank president in july of 2012. thus ended the biographical portion of the program. as always, we are on the record here. please, no live blogging or tweeting, and no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to actually listen to what our guest says. there's no kbargo when the session ends. to help us resist the relentless selfie urge, we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know, if you would like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal, and i'll happily call on one in the time we have available. let's start off by offering our guests the opportunity to make some opening comments and then we'll move to questions from around the table. with that, thanks again, sir,

for doing this. appreciate it. >> dave, thanks so much for having me. it's a great honor to be here. i know this breakfast has a long tradition and we do know that starting with president mcnamara, the presidents that have been here. i'm open to talking about anything that you might want to talk about, but probably something that's on the top of people's minds is the ebola epidemic that's going on right now. first of all, let me just start by saying that i've been watching very carefully about what's been going on in new york city. and a couple of things that are very striking to me. first, this was a city and a system that was extremely well prepared. i think we learned a lot from dallas and looking at the response from both the governor, the mayor, the public health officials, tom frieden of the center for disease control, it was very impressive. they did everything in just the way you'd want a government or a system to respond. the other thing that i would like to stress, and we can talk more about it, is we all ha