announcer: c-span, where history unfolds daily. was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. peter: michael o'rielly of the central communications commission on january 20, your life changes. how will your professional life change at that point? mr. o'rielly: first of all, thank you so much for having me. in administrations will bring a lot of change to our activities of a commission. i would like to say that very few people vote based on top indications policy, but the outcome does have dramatic impact on our activities, and it changes the majority of our makeup. that will alter our current talents in terms of the

breakdown of members of our five-member panel. i anticipate now that it not be dramatically changed. we have some things i'm sure will be different, but i also imagine that we get back to regular work. peter: when you say regular work, what do you mean? mr. o'rielly: i have worked in this space for quite a while, and i have overseen many different commissions. i tend to find this commission most troubling in terms of how it approaches issues, how i am allowed to be involved in certain activities. i'd like to believe that whether you are in the majority or minority that you are able to participate and work with your other colleagues in a collaborative process, that we find the best outcome. these issues are generally not partisan. there are a couple that do break along lines, but these generally are not, and good ideas should

be taken no matter who offers them. how the current commission is operated. i'd like to believe the next one will. peter: after january 20, what are your priorities? mr. o'rielly: they have to flow from the decisions that will be made by mr. trump. i do not speak for him or the you administration, but he and his team had a very successful election. rightfully so, they get the opportunity to make big decisions regarding the fcc, including the new chairperson of the commission, any commission openings, and the direction of the commission. from that and those decisions, i hope to play some small part, but i anticipate being there, being active in the issues put before us. your role as a commissioner is not affected in any way in that sense, correct? mr. o'rielly: that is correct. peter: let's bring david kaut into this conversation. twod: there are

commissioners. one of you will be named interim chairman on january 20. can you provide any clarity on that? would you be interested in being chairman? there's a lot of rumblings that of what likely be the senior commissioner. mr. o'rielly: i have not gotten any information that would suggest otherwise, but i don't know that to be the case. , and works out that way they take my colleague or myself, i would be happy to participate and do whatever they asked me to do. the question has been posed in the past if i would be interested in being chairman, and i have said i will focus on my current job and let the chips fall where they may. david: what do you look most forward to doing, whatever your role is? mr. o'rielly: there are four things the next commission needs to look at. i say this humbly, because president-elect trump is to make several structural changes to the commission that will have

influence, and the new chairperson has a heavy role in terms of setting the agenda. but i believe there are some things the commission can do that would be helpful going forward. one, we need to remove regulatory under russians of the ied. these do not make sense of the current marketplace. two, we need to fix and address the structure and the organization and the procedures of the commission itself. the internal structure has broken down over the last years, and i would like to see that improve. three, i think we move forward on a progrowth, pro-innovation agenda. those can be buzzwords, but i will give you an example. there is something the commissioner can do and be very aggressive in addressing, the siting of antennas and towers for our next generation of wireless networks. fourth, i think the commission

will play into the new chairperson and what they like to do, but i think the fourth undo bad policies that have been adopted by this commission on a person basis, the input of my fellow republican commissioner pai was not considered or given the time of day. we count in the low 30's, the number of items that have an adopted in that fashion, and i think it is going to be an activity for the next commission in addressing. care to elaborate on that last category of things you want to undo? mr. o'rielly: i think you can read my dissents in a bunch of different areas. a lot of them do flow from a common scene of the current chair pushing forward an agenda with the majority and not , pushing aninput agenda that is not necessarily in the mainstream or sustainable

for-term, not built collegiality, in my opinion. david: so revoke title 2? 2. o'rielly: i think title should never have been adopted in the first place. i think it is harmful policy. i would go further than that. i think that neutrality needs to be explored in the broader sense. i have troubles with some of the concepts contained in the concessions that get codified under title 2 in terms of commission rules. i think that will be a priority, but again, this flows from the next chairperson and whatever agenda they choose. what are some of the problems you have what the net neutrality principle? mr. o'rielly: there were no demonstrable problems that existed in the marketplace that we were trying to address. these are all prophylactic attempts to address things. the court acknowledged such.

we can guess what the marketplace is going to do in trying to prohibit activities we think are problematic area -- problematic. in doing so, we inhibit rectus is favorable to consumers. one example, the paid reorganization universe. we band paid prioritization. however, we have no existence of it being in place. have a going to want to , networkistent signal speed on remote surgery, and that will go ahead of and e over things like email. the internet is prioritized today. not all things are treated the same. it never has operated that way. i think there are fundamental disagreements over the policies that have been adopted, and i certainly disagree with title 2. peter: would you support any

type of regulation in that area? mr. o'rielly: i want to see demonstrable harm, a market failure. job of ank the commission is to understand what is happening in the marketplace, followed closely what is developing, and then make a determination. we tried to presuppose what would happen. we have done this in a number of different areas, and sometimes those rules are still on the books, and that is very harmful, because our decisions impact what companies do, and more importantly, impact consumers and the products they get to see and enjoy. david: one of the areas of concern is the rating. you want to lay out what your concerns and hopes are? this.rielly: two parts to first is the process issue. i was following up on this early on when the commission first started to consider the matter. we asked to be part of the team

that was looking into the zero rating issue. he denied and told the bureau was not looking at this issue. follow-up, what's the latest? nothing new to report. we would get back the information, nothing new to report, for many months. the day after the election springs a letter from the commission and the bureau regarding activities of certain companies, followed by another ,etter a week and a half later the same thing. on the process part, i think the commission has completely fallen down on the job on that side of the nation. on the -- the equation. on the substance out of the matter, i have no problems with trying to limit zero rating if we look at what is put before. consumers are enjoying the benefits of certain products and features and functions offered by wireless providers, and this can go into the wider space, but it's mostly on the wireless side.

cut offwant to consumers from beneficial services. -- nt to understand if you read their letters particularly, you will see it is contentious in terms of the atmosphere of the role they have taken. you also spoke about the need for internal fcc reform. what are some of the reforms you would like to see happen? mr. o'rielly: i put forward a list of ideas and have made the pledge when i testified before congress that i would like to believe that if i ever were in the majority, i would push to adopt it as well. perhaps i will get that opportunity, and i will advocate that those changes be made. democrat, republican, majority, or minority approach, because i was never attending -- intending to limit the authority of the chair in any way. i think it is a structural improvement.

one that i think is critical is the public release of the documents that we are going to consider our open meeting. we commissioners get the items three weeks in advance, and i think that is the appropriate time when the documents should be made available publicly, so everyone can comment on exactly what we are talking about and voting on. with outside meet people who would critique the item we are supposed to consider, and their information is completely wrong, because they have not been briefed properly or have gotten misinformation, so we are operating on a different set of tax. we get the same thing from emails from outside parties. it is inaccurate, because people for theow the baseline discussion. making the documents available makes a ton of sense. we saw this in the set-top box debate.

the commission was considering rules in this area, and in doing so, you saw a number of people raise the need to make those draft rules available so people could understand what was being debated and actually make a critique of the situation at hand. peter: what about combining, eliminating some of the different bureaus? mr. o'rielly: when i mentioned process and reorganization, some of that should be on the table. our structure today is based on the old market structure that does not exist in this universe. the lines are incredibly blurry, and i think the commission needs to adopt and change as well. i'd like to believe that will be part of the consideration next year. congressional republicans have expressed a lot of interest in reversing title 2 and addressing the neutrality in some way.

do you think the fcc should, once you all are in a majority, should move ahead and do whatever you all can do, or do you wait and see what they are doing on the hill first? mr. o'rielly: i don't pretend to tell or give my advice to my congressional friends and former employers in some instances, but i think the commission can move forward, undue policies that i think were wrongly imposed. if congress were to act in the space, i would be supportive of supported ine been the past that congress provide us a clear direction whatever decisions they make, and we will improve the laws they enact. in the meantime, i think we should take things off the books, that being one of them. david: what about privacy act of mr. o'rielly: -- privacy? mr. o'rielly: privacy flows from the net neutrality decision. the only reason we are doing policy -- privacy is because we

have a mandate hundred and neutrality. ande is a very active appropriate agency that has been doing privacy for a number of years, the ftc. they have done an incredibly good job in most peoples' analysis on this issue. it was splitting off one portion of privacy intruding in different from the rest. i imagine that will be part of the examination for the next commission. has the trump transition team been through the fcc? mr. o'rielly: i think they are getting up to speed. i want to be careful in terms of my comments on their activities, but i'm sure they will be more active as the season goes on. obviously i a lot of decisions are being made, and we will be appropriately in a place for them to make decisions for the president-elect and his team to make the final decision. peter: two of the folks working on the transition to include mark davidson and jeff

eisenhardt. do you know them at all? have you met with them? mr. o'rielly: i know jeff from past experiences on capitol hill and have interacted with him, not so much with mr. jamieson or dr. j. i know there is a third person, rosalind, that is part of the team, and i have participated in panels with her. i think they are very thoughtful, active commenters on space,ications policy and i look forward to working with them. has beene question raised a little bit, maybe just by the media, but is there a need for the fcc? doesn't serve a purpose? there have been false who would like to eliminate the commission as a whole. i think there are functions that are important to the commission. first, how do you handle spectrum, manage the commercial spectrum side of the equation? how do you deal with licensing and those features and functions?

orther it remains at the fcc something else, or if it is called something else, those are open questions for anyone to consider. the need for an fcc, but what it looks like, i think i am open to considering any changes but before me. things that ishe going to affect how fast you all can undo some of the things that the democrats did at the fcc is whether you have a majority, and with commissioner rosen wurtzel stepping down, there are still two fcc democratic commissioners. do you have any inside thoughts or unscientific wild guesses as to what chairman tom wheeler will do come january 30, or what he should do? know, thely: you nomination process and confirmation process is done by the u.s. senate. a number of good friends there and former employers. they have their process. atleave it to them on how th

shakes out, but to your point, tom has surprised me over the years. i have always disagreed in a thoughtful way. i have no clue what he may or may not do. traditionally, the chairperson the instance of a new commission, so i would not be surprised if that were the case, but tom has always run things a different way. those are kind of some of the problems we have had. zebra other than the rating thing, do you have other areas of concern where the democratic majority will try to push something through at the last minute? are trying towe find those items that can be adopted that are noncontroversial. we have some items. in two days, we have a meeting, and that will be our last under this administration, so we are trying to work through the items german wheeler has put forward, and what may be doable or not appropriate at the current time.

discuss liberated to our current negotiations, but i imagine there are things we can still do this year, whether they be at the open meeting or circulation. i want to see how accommodating everybody is. peter: what do you think tom wheeler's legacy is going to be? mr. o'rielly: i think that's an open question. i think his legacy is partly tied to decisions that he made and the process that he ran. he and i have a very from a relationship personally, but we disagreed on both the process and the outcome, and i imagine we will get a chance to review some of the outcome side and hopefully improve the process. i am troubled that after many years -- i've been there three that the legacy in terms of the policy he adopted and activities he has done will no longer be imposed -- be in existence, and i think that is an opportunity for the

commission. there are things that can be adopted in a bipartisan way that can stand the test of time, and i just don't see that occurred, so it is harder to announce -- even how toay be improve commission functions so we don't do that again. david: what do you think of president-elect trump? mr. o'rielly: he is the president and many of my party. i give them all the credit for the campaign they ran. i share a love of views on policy. he hasappreciate that put forward a number of them, and that is to eliminate two regulations for every one adopted. that seems simplistic, some may say that's kind of trite, but if you look at the commission and how it operates today, we will

have a much smaller code. we can get through some of the regulatory underbrush if we were able to eliminate some of the regulations no longer needed every time we are moving forward. every month, we would take three items that would have regulatory burdens on providers, users, and activities, and we would strike two regulations to do so, which can be done. we have a lot of regulations that can go, and we would have a much more effective agency and more opportunity for providers to serve consumers. peter: what is your view of the new energy and commerce committee chair? mr. o'rielly: it's where i had my first employment. i have chairman walden worked within the past, and his ,apacity as subcommittee chair and the congress had a wonderful number of people to pick from.

selecting chairman walden is a great outcome for everybody. i imagine we will have a lot more activity in the indications space -- in the communications space, given that was his past subcommittee. ownership is another issue the commission faces from time to time. d you see that popping up in 2017? mr. o'rielly: i do. it gets to one of those instances where it is a lost opportunity, where you have a statutory obligation, and i think we dropped the ball on our statutory obligation. in doing so, my views were ignored. we had the opportunity to ownership -- crossownership limitations that existed from the johnson administration. in those instances, we had the opportunity to eliminate them. we had another signal from another commissioner that they were willing to do so, but the policy is put forward that only all three current majority commissioners -- only if all

three current majority commissioners supported it could it be adopted. i like to believe we can change it. i think we can do it in a thoughtful way while still protecting diversity competition and the public interest. question about that neutrality, you talked about wanting a more bipartisan commission. do you revoke title 2 and perhaps initiate new net neutrality principles in a bipartisan way? mr. o'rielly: two parts. fromit definitely flows who ever is chairperson and the agenda they choose, but if it is a course of action that is selected, i would not be new minorityt the would have trouble with some of the activities we are doing. canhe same time, i think we build a better process going forward on other items that we move. there is only so much agreement we will have on that neutrality.

it is something we have thought about for a long time. i think there is an opportunity to consider what congress would like to do. there have been bipartisan negotiations on this issue. there is some ring to find agreement. congress has been active in trying to do so, but i understand if there is some tough couple months ahead and undoing some policies that other people have strong views on, but i think from that we can, at the remove regulatory underbrush and find commonality and then build a commission going forward area -- going forward. areas one of the president trump talked about during the campaign is the agt-time warner deal. do you have any comments on that? mr. o'rielly: i never make any comments regarded painting or proposed -- regarding pending or proposed mergers.

i will potentially have to make a decision in cases put before me. here, i will actively review what is put before us, and we will have to make a decision at an appropriate time. peter: there is a lot of concern -- david: there is a lot of concern about cyber security right now, and it is getting a lot of attention. does the fcc have a role in that? mr. o'rielly: i think it is a very important issue, and one congress has been very aggressive on in trying to find the right solutions. i think other agencies are doing so as well. the fcc's role is rather limited to the statute that governs us, the communications act of 1934. while i do believe the government has a role to monitor vide restrictions in this space, they are not authorized by the law for us to do. the appropriate action is to go

to congress and say we believe we can have a beneficial impact on this issue, and present an argument to congress and let them make a decision representing the american people on whether they would like to authorize the commission to do something. reluctant to am take action in this space. entities we regulate today are doing a wonderful job in protecting their networks. it is in their best interest, because they are seeking to provide the best experience to consumers. they are working as hard as possible to prevent any type of intrusions or instances of cyber security problematic circumstances for their networks. they are probably in a better position than the fcc could ever be, or other agencies in terms of what they might be able to solve. peter: commissioner o'rielly, what about the update on the incentive auctions that have been going on for nine months? can you give us anything? mr. o'rielly: that's a good

question. i actually don't know anything. they don't share any information. what you see on the fcc website is what i have. we have not been provided any particular information on what's happening or who is dissipating. -- who is participating. i think they just don't share that stuff with the non-chair man. that's probably problematic and you could improve that a little bit, but i don't have anything to share. i think the incident auction will take its course, and we will have to see what the outcome is. peter: is there an end date? mr. o'rielly: obviously there is. so many stages are set up, so you can count it out and figure out what the end date is. we do have an end date in the statute and when the deposits are supposed to be received. canlike to believe that we

have and will have a successful auction. deal one effective way to with the need for spectrum while also addressing incumbents that occupy the space. how do you address that? i worked on the statute underlying commissioners activities. it was in the senate of the time. i think it is something that hopefully will be successful. i can't guess where that end point will be. we will let the market take it where it is going to go. the fcc democrats were interested in regulating business data services. it does not look like it will make it. should republicans take that issue up? mr. o'rielly: in some regards, this is a long debate that has been happening for over a decade. in my previous role, i had an opportunity to examine this issue. i'm not so sure the market has passed it by.

the developments in this space have been pretty important. the commission had ignored some of those in a draft version that was talked about. rules, made anal complete 180. part of the reason for a process reform was that we were making these changes no one knew about. i suspect the commission should take activity here, but i am open to good arguments and keep an open mind on every issue put before me. o'rielly is a republican commissioner on the central communications commission. david kaut is a senior reporter. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's television companies, it is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider.

now a debate and discussion with immigration policy experts on sanctuary cities, and the related legal considerations. jessica bond of the center for immigration studies and william stock, president of the immigration lawyers association, participate. after the speakers >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome. we are here at the national press club, the world largest

organization for professional journalists. if you are interested in joining, please see me afterwards. is an extremely important issue today. we have 300 of these jurisdictions. the governor of new york is proposing that new york become a sanctuary state. san francisco is proposing funding, legal fees for undocumented workers. with that, i think i have spoken long enough, and we will have minutes-12r speak 10 minutes, and then we will have questions and answers. jessica vaughan represents the anti-immigration city side. she is the policy director for the center of immigration studies.