Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 20141022

Paycheck protection. For Union Members to discipline their unions by forcing the unions to hold a vote on whether spending is used politically or to withhold dues from political purposes. The overwhelming majority of Union Members would like to see that done. Polls consistently show that Union Members want their union to get consent before spending dues on Political Activities. 66 approved and 14 disapproved the statement that it was unreasonable that unions are allows to spend dues on politics without getting member approval. 79 of Union Members believe that employees should have the right not to participate in their unions Political Support of specific candidates or parties. Were here today with people who are actually working on these in very specific cases. Im going to introduce them and let them take it away. Victor joecks to my left serves as executive director of National Employee freedom week which is a coalition of 68 groups in 40 states dedicated to helping union mechls to learn about the freedoms they have to leave Union Membership. Victor is executive Vice President of the Nevada Policy Research institute and overseize the execution of npri Strategic Plan and policy initiatives. Victor holds bachelor degrees in history and math. Prior to joining npri he worked in communications in washington state. Next Rebecca Friedrichs has an Elementary School educator. She has been concerned about the policies and politics of the teachers union. She gained insider experience. She attended state didnteachers conferences. She knows that even Union Representatives have no real voice in Union Politics and can be bullied into silence if they disagree. Today shes the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit agattempting to return free speech and Free Association to the millions of Public Sector workers in the u. S. Her suit filed with nine other teachers and the Christian Educators Association is suing the National Education association, the California Teachers Association and ten local unions. They are at the ninth Circuit Court of appeals unless something changed since this was written. She teach teaches third and fou grades. Robert wiersema has 17 years as a fulltime Public Schoolteacher. He served as a member of a local Public School board of education for eight years, including two years as president. Rob left his union a year ago this month. He wants to help Union Members make informed decisions about membership. He has learned a great deal from his experience and he is going to share some of that today. Finally, Jennifer Parrish has led a coalition in minute someo minnesota that forced forced unionization of Home Childcare providers. Shes a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit. Shes challenging the constitutionality of compulsory unionism of childcare p propriders. Her legal efforts rument in limiting the power of government to intervene in private industry on behalf of special interests. In 2013, a Foundation Awarded her the Unsung Hero Award for her commitment to protect thing freedom and works tirelessly to change state and local policy for the better. Welcome our panel and i will hand it over to victor. [ applause ] thank you so much. Thank you to the Heritage Foundation for hosting this great event. Imagine talking with a friend and having them tell you, you know, for last five years i have been a fan of the Dallas Cowboys. But i dont really like the Dallas Cowboys. I would rather be a Washington Redskins fan. But i cant opt out of being a Dallas Cowboys fan. You would look at your friend and you would think he has a screw loose. Thats not how it works in america. We have the freedom both to join and leave associations, go to a different church, switch political parties, cancel a magazine subscription, even become a Washington Redskins fan. People do these things every day without even a Second Thought that they wouldnt have the ability to leave an organization they are dissatisfied with. Whether someone is rich or poor, young or old, we understand thissthis in almost every area of life except for one, labor Union Membership. In 2012, the Nevada Policy Research institute where i work, we ran a small Information Campaign letting teachers in the Las Vegas Area know they could leave Union Membership by submitting written notice between july 1 and july 15. The reaction was stunning. Teachers called us and said, i have been a teach are for years but i never knew i could leave my union until you told me. Others said, i always want to leave but because of the union put the opt out period in the middle of my summer vacation, i forget. The story of one teacher told us is note worthy. This teacher went to new teacher orientation, signed his union card without realizing he was signing up. He was signing a lot of paperwork and accidentally signed the union card. Because he was a motivated teacher, he decided im a member, i might as well get involved. He became a building rep for the union. It wasnt until we told him that Union Membership is optional that he was able to leave. And he gladly saved 770 a year by existing the on on. Nevada is a right to work state. Even a member a teacher who say member of Union Leadership didnt know they had the ability to leave their union until someone told them. That was stunning to us. Hundreds of teachers that summer wrote letters saying we want out. At the end of the summer membership decreaseed by over 800 teachers. If theres that many in one small state who want to leave their union, but they dont know they can or when and how to do so, how many hundreds of thousands or even millions of Union Members around the country want to do the same thing . So working with the association of american educators, we created whats called National Employee freedom week, which is a week dedicated to letting Union Members know about these freedoms. This event is a big part of nefw. It runs from august 10 to august 16. This week is National Employee freedom week. Im pleased to say that 81 organizations we have grown since i gave you that information. 81 organizations in 45 states have come together with the purpose of letting Union Members know that they have the ability to leave their union. In just a little bit you will hear from others and they will tell you their stories about leaving their union or fighting forced unionization. I want to talk about the numbers their stories represent. We decided to conduct a poll a National Poll of Union Members asking if you could opt out of your union without any penalty, would you do so . We surveyed 454 Union Members across the country. Over 28 said yes, i want to opt out of my union if i could do so without penalty. Theres 14. 5 million Union Members. Thats 4 Million People who want to leave. Whats amazing, they already can. If theyre in a right to work state, they can leave entirely. They dont need to pay agency fees. Even if they are in a nonright to work state, their options rnts as good, but they have options. They can become an agency fee payer and receive a rebate of their political spending. They can become a religious objector and redirect union dues from the union to a Charitable Organization that they find acceptable. We also wanted to ask the American Public what they thought. Should Union Members have this right . In a separate survey we asked, should Union Employees without force or penalty be able to opt out of Union Membership . 82. 9 of americans said yes. Workers should have that choice. They should have be able to make the decision about Union Membership thats best for them. We have 4 million americans who want out of their union. An overwhelming majority who support the right to make the decision thats best for them. Now we have National Employee freedom week. 81 organizations around the country telling Union Members when and how to leave and that they can leave. As you are going to hear, this is Information Union officials dont want their members to find out about. Thank you. Rebecca . Good afternoon. Thanks for having me here today. Id like you to imagine with me a little bit. Imagine that you finished your College Journey and you have entered your dream job. Upon accepting your offer, you are told that you have to join a labor union as a condition of your employment. You will pay 1,000 a year to an organization that claims to have your best interests in mind. While imagine that this union fights for almost everything in which you believe. They bad mouth the candidates for which you vote. They spend multiply millions defeating common sense propositions and things that you believe would actually improve your community. They even send out voter guides that reflect the exact opposite of almost every vote you personally cast but they claim that you agree with the unions stance on the issues and the candidates. Now imagine that your union is involved in local, state and national politics. They use your dues money to fund candidates that you oppose to become government officials. Now imagine that these Union Friendly government officials sit opposite your union at the bargaining table. They negotiate for the use of taxpayer dollars. But guess who is not invited. The taxpayer. Your union enters collective bargaining on your behalf, but they bargain against the taxpayers for things that are offensive to you personally. They constantly seek higher wages and sweeter defined benefit pension programs just for you. Every time you win, unfortunately, the taxpayers and the economy lose. Imagine that your state and nation fall deep into debt. Of course, you dont have to imagine that. And unfunded pension liabilities largely, because of sweet deals that were negotiated on your behalf. You watch helplessly as your money is used to defeat all that you hold true and right. Now, imagine you question your union on the use of your money. Thats fair. And you are bullied, you are shunned, you are treated with disdain. You dare to speak out against what they are doing. You are labeled radical right winger and you are spoken of in shameful terms. Imagine many of your colleagues are so intimidated that they simply sit in fear and they are afraid to speak up. Now i want you to imagine that you are against all of this. But you have to pay for it out of your own pocket. And you are continually associated with all of these behaviors on television commercials, in newspaper ads and simply through the tight ma title of your job. Your imaginary world is my reality. Welcome to the world of forced unionism. My first expierce with teachers unions was during my year as a student teacher in 1987. Every day i witnessed in horror as the neighboring teacher yelled at and belittled her adorable first graders, 6yearolds. They were terrified of her. There is no way that they could have learned in that environment. Nor should they have had to. When i asked my Master Teacher what could be done about this unjust and what i thought was a dangerous situation, she told me that because of tenure laws and strong union advocacy, districts had a hard time ridding themselves of abusive and incompetent teachers. So these kids didnt have much hope. That was the day that my Master Teacher educated me with the other problems within Public Sector unions. Unfortunately, the union impacted her career and my career and my classroom in ways that were and still are very troubling to me. For 26 years i have been this will be my 27th year of teaching. So for 26 years i have been forced to pay dues to a union whose core believes and Political Activities are in direct opposition to my own believes, my own morals and my political leanings. For example, although i am for vouchers and i believe that parents should have the right to choose their childrens education, my union dues are used to fight a parents right to choose. Although i am against tenure, against higher taxes, and ridiculously high pensions for Public Sector employees, my unions bargain for all of these things and more with my money. Currently in my state california, we have a 74 billion unfunded pension liability. Yet my union continues to bargain for deals that are harmful to our economy. Because of these issues and more, i opt out of the portion of my dues that the union admits are overtly political. I am called an agency fee payer. But unfortunately, i still pay for highly political collective bargaining against my will. I am not in a right to work state. Since the union controls teachers by controlling information, it was quite challenging to discover exactly how to opt out and even more how to receive my annual rebate of the political portion of my dues, which you would think would be automatic, but its not. Early in my career, i received a very tiny rebate. Thankfully, later i discovered california teachers empowerment network, c10. Its a Nonprofit Organization that exists to help teachers discould have are their rights within forced unionism. With c10s advice, i discovered how to opt out and how to receive my full annual rebate of the overtly political dues. When you opt out of Union Politics, you still have to pay 100 of the collective bargaining dues. Thats about 70 of the total dues. In exchange, you lose all rights of membership and you lose your Liability Insurance and you lose the right to vote within collective bargaining, even though you are paying 100 . The laws of Liability Insurance scares teachers so much that most will not opt out for that reason alone. Fortunately, c10 also taught me how to find Liability Insurance from an independent source. Today you heard about aae, American Association of educators. I chose Christian Educators Association international for my insurance. Thankfully, the coverage and service are far superior and my rebate more than covers the cost. My husband, who is a professor, was an agency fee payer for over 30 years before we discovered c10. Although his union, the california faculty association, accepted his fee payer status, they never once mentioned that he also needed to request a rebate of the dues that were used for overt politics. So for over 30 years, you guessed it, he paid full union dues funded full Union Politics against his will. The union was too happy to keep his money, even though he made it clear as a fee payer that he didnt want to support their politics. C10 taught both of us how to request our full rebates so now we both receive our rebates from our union. Since fee payers have no voice within collective bargaining, even though i will mention again we pay 100 of the collective bargaining dues, at one point i decided, well, im going to become a full union member so that i can have a voice within my local union. So i joined. I served for three years as a union site representative and as a local board member. I continually brought up the fact that many of my colleagues and i were disturbed and offended that our forced dues were being used toward politics and highly political collective bargaining that were against our codes and fiscal sensibilities. On every single occasion i was either ignored or i received this. Silence and shrugged shoulders. When i attended a conference, i asked my questions during seminars. Another brave soul asked the questions during a large gathering in a ball room. On every occasion we were answered with hateful tones. Rhetoric that made it very clear to everyone in the room that if you did not stand with Union Politics, you were a bigot. The room fell silence because of the intimidation of the higher union officials. We literally felt like little children being bullied on a playground. Even Union Representatives are silenced if they dont tow the line of far left union polpolit. So those who disagree with union just step down from leadership most of the time. Well, ten brave teachers in cam cal and the chestian Educators Association have had enough. Thank god, two powerful law firms have come alongside of us to plead our case. On august 30, 2013, we filed a federal lawsuit against cta, nea, National Educational association, and our ten local unions. We desire to restore our constitutional First Amendment rights to free speech and Free Association. We desire to end forced unionism. We also desire to end the practice of allowing the unions to collect our dues through paycheck deductions, because currently maybe you arent aware but you the taxpayer are funding dues collection for the union through paycheck deductions. We know this is a huge undertaking truly a david versus goliath. But we believe that like david, we have the truth on our side. We are being represented by an Incredible Group of lawyers who are lovers of liberty. Our counsel includes the center for individual rights. Cir is a Public Interest law firm which specializes in First Amendment litigation. One of our attorneys is with me today. If you have any questions for him. We are being represented by jonesday one of the largest firms in the world. We are currently at the ninth Circuit Court of appeals and our goal is to get to the United States Supreme Court as soon as possible. What were asking for is very simple. We want teachers to decide for themselves without fear or coercion whether or not to join the union. Only the Supreme Court can vindicate our rights to free speech and Free Association. So were trying to get there as quickly as possible. Id like you to mathimagine wit one more time. Imagine a victory for liberty in the United States Supreme Court. Imagine that all americans currently forced into unions would be free to make their own choices. They could keep their unions if they like them. They could leave them if they felt abused. Imagine that unions were no longer permitted to take money from unwilling donors. And that the bullying of teachers and others trapped in unions against their will would stop. Imagine that unions could no longer thwart our political process so that the individual vote would actually count for something and the economy could work toward its healing. Imagine that america could return to its former glory in education and our children could thrive in our schools again. A victory for the teachers could quite literally change our world for good. Thank you for letting me speak to you today. Thank you. My dad was briefly a member of the United Auto Workers union. My mother was a teamster. Im from michigan one of the bluest states in the union or at least it used to be. I was a member of the Michigan Education association for 16 years. And as was said by salim, im free at last. Its been a month actually, its been a year ago this month. My story is such. In michigan, one of the bluest states, we have had a roll back of the power of the unions. The private sector have had a rollback because of Market Forces through competition, overpriced labor and such, things have happened. Michigan was doing very, very well. Then, of course, things happened. Since that time, the Michigan Education Association Power has receded or been rolled back a little bit. As was mentioned, our union also collected dues and used them for political purposes. But several years ago our legislature and governor pushed through a law and were able to take the Political Action committee dues and make them an opt in. So we are no longer forced to pay those. That was cut from our association fees. If you wanted to participate you could. Choice reared its head. Then we had about two years ago the Legislature Passed a law that said you as a union member will no longer have your dues or agency fees collected by your local school district. If you want to be part of the union, thats great. We will not necessitate the business offices of your local schools to take the time to do such. So we either wrote checks or we gave them a credit card number. Like an idiot, i gave them my credit card number. That was in 2012. And then suddenly one of the biggest surprised like a Lightning Strike stroke. December 2012 in michigan. Out of nowhere, kept under incredible wrap s politically, the legislature in michigan came out with a right to work legislation seemingly out of the blue. It was prepared well ahead of time. It had a lot of groundwork. But nobody heard word until suddenly in december it came through. A Lame Duck Legislature that was den graded in the media, it stormed through, it made it. I was so happy that day. I thought, finally i will have choice. According to the michigan right to work law, you can opt out of your union once your contract is over. So i was in a contract. School year starts fiscally july 1 and ends june 30th. I anticipated on june 30 of 2013 to be my last day. On july 1, i prepared my letter and mailed it. I figured i was free. Well, low and behold about a month and week later, about a year ago now, i saw on my statement a charge for my monthly dues. I anticipated no charge at all. I was really curious as to this. Prior to this let me establish once again in may and june anticipating this glorious day of freedom, i emailed, i phone called, i sent a letter to the mea asking exactly what is the process to opt out. Heard nothing. When i saw that charge, figured maybe all these attempts at communication didnt make it through. You never know. Well, i was curious and very upset. I told my Credit Card Company to stop payment. I disputed the charge. I looked online as to what was going on. Thats when i discovered this magical in michigan optout window that just suddenly appeared somewhere in a law for Michigan Education association. No one was aware of it before. My local president was not aware of it. When we signed in back in the day as newborn teachers, we apparently degree e lly agreed. I found the center for Public Policy. They had a form letter i sent at this time registered mail with a receipt. I knew they got it. I also canceled my credit card. I did pay the july dues because i just didnt want to put my Credit Card Company through that nightmare. Thats great and wonderful. Im out. It was about a month, month and a half later i received a phone call one evening at my home. From some Vice President with the mea. He was very nice and friendly asking exactly why would i want to opt out and what caused me to make such a decision. That was the only communication i received from the mea. Its a Nice Organization if you are into that kind of thing, i suppose. But i wasnt. That was my story then. Unfortunately, not too many of us were made aware of that optout window. I stumbled across it accidentally and paid for it. Many others didnt know until afterwards. Again august in michigan by law, pub lib schools will not start until after labor day. Thats in september. Some Public Schools will have a professional Development Day for the week before labor day. They have Union Meetings thats scheduled in the day. They dont tell you these things. This last school year, i was the only fulltime teacher to my knowledge in my district who to have opted out. I was a target for some. It wasnt real overt. It was somewhat subvert. I had disciplinary hearing. They were looking at everything what i did to make sure it followed the line. Im not saying this to intimidate other teachers have opting out, but you will face resistance. Thats how it is. But thats all right. Nothing of value is free. In michigan right now, the mea has exceeded to some more transparency where they made a form letter that asks you as a member who wishes to opt out to check off or initial that you agree you will no longer accept their wonderful visa card opportunity, no longer accept their wonderful preplanned package of coupons with various businesses that have been there. Nowhere does it say i opt out. Thats a bit of dispute. There are several teachers that have contacted me in michigan that have said, i want to opt out, how did you do it . I was made aware that over 8,000 teachers in michigan this last school year, this last fiscal year from july 1 to june 30, 2013, over 8,000 teachers decided not to pay their dues. They opted out by saying, im out. They did not give they are credit card number. The question that was brought forth is, this year if even more teachers opt out, wont that make an impact to the Education Association because by law we cannot call them unions. Wont that impact the revenue . I dont care. It could. And if it does, they will like any other business or Service Organization, they will either tailer their services to meet the demand of the customers or they will wither and die. Survival of the fitness was koi coined by an economist about business. A Service Organization as the mea is that has members that pay for their services suddenly decide not to pay anymore, most Service Organizations would say, okay, fine we will not provide with you services anymore. No, its more like you are in the military and you cannot just leave. Its amazing to myself. Some ask then the question in michigan anyway, we have a free righter problem. I am now dengraded. You dont pay fees. You dont pay anything towards the association yet you benefit from their actions and negotiations. You by law must be protected by the mea and any disciplinary hearings to a certain degree. To which i respond, i will in no way take advantage of any of these opportunities. I have also become a member of the American Association of american educators. I found that they provide equivalent protections, arbitration, all these things are made available and double the Liability Insurance for about onefifth of the annual cost. As a teacher of economics, i would be a moron if i didnt take advantage of that. So i did. Thats a question of choice. I chose to do so. Others may choose to stay in the union. Thats fine. Its supposed to be about choice. If you want to not necessarily invite somebody over to your party because theyre not in the union anymore, thats fine, too. Again, this is the august optout window. This week being so special and now that were trying to get the message out across the country, this should be a question of choice, if you choose to contribute, if you choose to join, that should be your choice. If you choose not to play in the reindeer games, that should also be a choice. Thank you. Hi. Thanks for having me. My story is a little bit different in the sense that i am im not an employee at all. Nor do i have an employer to bargain and negotiate with. Nine years i decided to do what a lot of americans do and i opened a small business, a small childcare business that i run from my home to this day. As any other small businessowner, i set my own rates, i create my own working conditions, i choose which clients im going to serve. All the aspects of my business are under my full control. About a year after i opened my business i had a gentleman walk into my home without knocking during the day while i was busy making lunch. It was the busiest time of day. I dont know for those of you who have children, imagine dinner time how the kids are hungry and thats just what w two or three. I had six that day that were crying and hungry and lunch was on the stove and he walked into my home without knocking and asked me to sign what he said was a petition asking the state for Health Insurance for Childcare Providers like myself. I had Health Insurance and i was a little intim damented with this man in my home uninvited. I told him i wasnt interested. This man was a professional at what he was doing. He would not leave. For every answer i gave him as to why i didnt want to sign, he had a prepared response. He grew upset with me more and more upset with me with each time i said no. He was a very intimidating. I just about signed just to get limb to leave. The way that i finally got him out of my home was i told him that i would sign his petition later if he would just leave it for me to look over when i had time. At this point he had been there for a few minutes. I could hear the lunch boiling over on the stove. I needed to get away. I told him i would sign if he would leave it. He was supposed to come back and pick it up later that day. He never came back. I think he assumed once i read i wouldnt be interested any longer. He was right. I didnt get an opportunity to read it until the kids went down for nap that day. When i did have an opportunity to read it, that was the first time i saw the word union. He never mentioned anything about being from a union or working for a union. He had no identification telling me who he was working for. When he was trying to pitch this petition to me, he dropped the name of or local and state childcare association. So i assumed that he was somewhat affiliated with them. He said that the childcare resource referral agencies were supportive of his effort. I thought maub he was with them. Never once did he mention union. As im reading the fine print of this card, i was so shocked, because not only was it signing me up to be a member of the seiu, but it authorized him to take dues and fees or fees out of childcare assistance checks that come to me. So the way that they are trying to pull the scheme with Childcare Providers is that even though we set our own rate and are paid privately, some of our families sometimes qualify for childcare assistance. The Childcare Assistance Program works like any other government welfare program. The family goes in. They fill out paperwork. They qualify for a certain amount. Then they get to choose how to spend that. They qualify for food stamps. Thats the same type of scenario with childcare. The parent qualifies for benefit. It says in state statute thats the parents benefit. They choose which program to use that at. One of my families at the time happened to qualify for childcare assistance. This union if i had signed that card would have taken dues out of that childcare assistance check. And i wouldnt have known that i had signed up to do that. After that first initial experience, i thought this has to be illegal. Theres no way that this man can walk into my house and lie to me and get me to sign a card and get away with it. I initially discounted it. Thats never going to happen. Then they sent another one. Within a couple months. Thats when i realized, they are trying to do this. I started to do some research. Back then in 2006, if you google childcare union, there was no information out there other than six pages back in the Search Engine a press release from the se iu about unionizing Childcare Providers in illinois, which is the first state that they attempted to pull this scheme. I saw that they were successful in another state. I knew that this was something that was actually a threat to my business. So i found some other Childcare Providers who were also upset about this and fighting back against this at the northern tip of the state. We got together and formed this coalition. Our initial purpose was to educate Childcare Providers on what the Union Organizers were doing at their homes. Because th proeysed a lot of things. They promised free Health Insurance. They promised a raise. They promised they would ask what would you like to change about your profession . These parents are all showing up late. We can fix that. Whatever the hot button issue was, we can fix that. Sign right here and we will get that done. Parents providers were signing and not understanding what they were. The unions have admitted thats Standard Practice that they are only to come during Business Hours when we have children there in our charge. They come when we are busy. They mislead us. They lie to us about what the cards are. They collect the signatures and then they take the cards with them so you dont get to see after the fact what you signed. They collected the cards over a period of six years. At the time, we had a republican governor who we made aware that this was happening. He promised that he would not he would veto legislation that came his way that would unionize Childcare Providers. In 2011, we had a new governor. Who had promised before he was elected that if he was elected he would sign an executive order unionizing Childcare Providers. He wasted very little time. At that point in time we created a website so Childcare Providers could get the information. At this point, many other states had fallen victim to this Childcare Providers and probably in a dozen states at that point had faced this new breed of unionization. So we knew it was a real threat. We had a governor promising to do it. He did sign an executive order in november of 2011. And that was subsequently thrown out in state court. On a little bit of a technicality. They challenged the means for which in which it was done. They said if the governor cant write law. He would have to go through the legislative process. They threw it out because executive orders cant be used for that type of purpose. Then at the time we had a republican controlled house and senate in minnesota. The next election cycle that was gone. 2013 just a year ago this past february, our unionfriendly legislature and governor introduced legislation that reclassified Childcare Providers as state employees for the purpose of unionization. Were not state employees we dont get a pension. We dont get benefits. Because we set our own rates, the state cannot give us any type of a raise. They have absolutely no control over our working conditions. We joke around that if they want to come by and give us a break for half an hour and change diapers, then there would be a benefit there. Theres no tangible benefits that come along with this. What they are trying to argue they can do is bargain and nation ate with the state over the childcare assistance rates which is a matter of Public Policy. Thats not something thats something that the legislature should do out in the open with testimony and all those things from the public, the taxpayers that have to pay for it. Those rates shouldnt be set behind closed doors as they are being set. After that 2013 law was passed with the help of a national right to work Legal Defense foundation, we filed a federal lawsuit challenging the scheme on two fronts. First we challenge that those fees therapy going to try and require us to pay were a violation of the first ameant mnd. We took it a step further and said just the exclusive representation taking private citizens and putting them into a bargaining unit and then allowing a group, an organization to exclusively represent these private citizens of matters of Public Policy is a violation of the First Amendment. We had a victory in the shortly after we filed our lawsuit. The law was enjoined for close to a year. Unfortunately, because the union hadnt filed for an election yet and the union hadnt been recognized yet, the eighth circuit dismissed our case. They said they have to wait for the union filed for an election before the case is readied to be determined. We wait. We wait for the union to file their election. A big a significant victory on june 30th much this year, the same organization and attorney that brought our case also brought a case called harris versus quinn which was argued in front of the United States Supreme Court in january of 2014 here. And on june 30th, they issued a ruling that forcing individuals who are not full flenled state employees like home care providers and Childcare Provider to pay union fees is a violation of the First Amendment. For the first time, many of these providers, these home care and Childcare Providers for the first time in over a decade in some cases, they have the option to choose whether or not to financially working on matters that not only you dont agree with, but can be harmful to your profession. For Childcare Providers, the unions support mandatory universal preschool, which those are the children that we care for. Those are our clients. You are taking clients, paying clients out of our programs and putting them in governmentrun preschools. And were paying for them to lobby for this. To take clients right out of our programs. The big issue for us now is getting the word out. National employee freedom week is a great event because like the others mentioned, people dont realize that they have this right. Unfortunately, not only do the unions not tell you but theyre dishonest about it. I cant tell you the number of providers that we have spoken to who have tried to opt out only to have the union tell them, no, that ruling doesnt apply to you. You still have to pay your dues. They wont let them. Its important to educate, to have this opportunity to educate individuals who are facing compulsory unionism so that they understand what their rights are, they know that they can opt out, they know that they dont are to subsidize that activity. Home care providers in michigan, when they have that option, when the state repealed that and they had that option to choose, 80 of them left. This is its a huge financial blow to the unions, as it should be. As you were saying a minute ago, this is about the option to choose and to have choice. And its about freedom. We should be able to choose who with whom we associate. We should be able to choose with whom we dont want to associate. The argument that allowing people to choose whether or not they are going to pay a union is just so detrimental to unions. The nra and they are a political powerhouse. They survive on voluntary dues because they provide a benefit to their members. That their members appreciation. Unions can do the same thing. They need to figure out how to work for their members again. And thats what why leaving the union is important. Thank you. Thank you so much. We will do some q and a. We have microphones. If you have a question, please wait until a microphone is brought to you so that viewers who are watching online and on cspan will be able to hear your question. Please identify yourself and any affiliation. Im going to step up there so i can see everybody. I will take the privilege of asking the first question or two. One of the things that emerges from everybodys story is the sense of theres a monopoly. You only have its not like you have this choice of different unions to represent you. You have only one. Would one result of employee freedom be that you could actually end up with a situation where theres multiple unions Offering Better Services and competing to offer services . Do you see any option for that . I think it could happen. A lot of times what the unions will do they will push for the exclusive representation. They recognize the benefits of having the monopoly. Certainly i think if that provision was taken away, teachers and other professionals would come together and say, this is a group that i want to form. You see that all throughout society where there are different organizations forming. That exclusive representation is the barrier. Some of you mentioned aae as a group that offers some of the services that the union offers. How would people who want to get involved with aae what kind of services are they offering and how does that interaction work . Robert, do you want to take that . Sure. I will tell you as a consumer, i dont want to spend too much time. I want to buy and go. If you and if you go to the website, it explains it very clearly, from Liability Insurance and they have coupons, too, special businesses, and much more businesses than im going to use. But they provide Arbitration Service and other things along those lines and clearly laid out there, there is traps paren sand if an individual wants to they simply send in a check or maybe the credit card number. Yquestions from the audience . Seems like there is a terrible lack of communication, until thissen mo, i had never heard of the American Association of edge caters and im sure a lot of teachers havent either and based on what happened in wisconsin, how does mr. Jakes think having free choice was the right idea as soon as right to work was put in place in wisconsin, i believe 80 of wisconsin Education Association members immediately quilt. What happened in nevada there is still the paycheck deduction and right now the union represents about 60 of the teaches throughout the state there were a good number of teachers who knew or just had never joined and what our campaign focused on were those teachers who had joined but really wanted to leave. So the union has fallen stead lit last couple of years and they represent about 60 of the teachers right now. Question here in front. Hi, im penny star with cns news. Can any of you comment on the department of education and its role in all of this, basically that agency was created by teachers unions, in a way, and so what role does the government play in promoting unions and making harder for people to have choice . Well, i think what happens a lot of time, especially at the state level, where these the you know, the collective bargaining laws are made, you know, you look at groups likewise which is or michigan, where they stop the union from taking the money out of the paycheck and thats great protection, because then taxpayers arent funding it. So i think when it comes to the issue of unions and leaving unions, i dont know if its as much the department of education as what happens at the state legislature or, you know, even the county level, the counties can offer some control. Really, those states are where the decisions are being made. Here in the middle. I want to ask, have you thought about informing other teachers and other states to join . Informing them . Can you repeat the last part . Oh, asking them to join our lawsuit . Yeah. There is not an opportunity to join our lawsuit, is that correct, terry . But im very fond of information teacher about our lawsuit and educating, as the gentleman behind you mentioned a terrible lack of communication out there. Because of the monopoly of the unions, they control teacher email and mailboxes. If i want to say let my fellow educators know that there are other choices out there, or even about my lawsuit, if i slipped a little flier in their mailbox at work, i would be written up for that and if i sent them an email, same thing, i would be written up for that. So, thats why theres such a terrible lack of communication, particularly for teachers, because no one is allowed to get that information to us in an easy form. And if i could jump in, i should mention that your lawsuit, if it is successful will have implications for Public Sector Union Members in every state. So even though its just california teachers, if the Supreme Court rules in their favor, that will have repercussions in every state for Public Sector unions, like the harrisville quinn had repercussions for all the health care providers. Question here in the back. I would like to mention that my father was uaw president in upstate new york and we used to a by that a lot, but he was a product of the depression and i think unions have sort of outlived their time, especially Public Service unions. My question, it seems like, especially in the teaching arena, you have Civil Service protection, then you layer that Union Protection on top of that and seems like its a double double dig at the taxpayers. Do any of you know the history i dont seem to remember when i was in school a long, long time ago that education unions were so militant. Is there an historical explanation about how this evolved . Historian . Would you like to discuss it, terry or me to take that . In 1977, there was a u. S. Supreme court case called abroad versus the detroit board of education and in that case, abroad a teacher like myself, was arguing that it was unconstitutional to have to pay union deuues. Abroad lost. The Supreme Court decided that in order to prevent free loaders and in order to keep labor peace, the unions were given monopoly leadership, i guess you can call it over Public Sector employees and Public Sector employees were given no choice in the matter. It became a condition of employment that you had to to fund the union. Heres where people get very confused. I dont have to join the union, but i have to fund the union. So im not a union member, im a union funder. Which i think was very clever on their part because its really hard for the public to understand. Many people look at me and say whats your complaint, you can optout and they dont understand, i truly cannot optout of all of the political collective bargaining going on there. So, abroad is the reason that we are all in this situation and our lawsuit seeks to overturn abroad. And if i could just speak to that free lowered question, i know something robert mentioned, but its funny to call someone a free lowered when youve, you know, you force them onto the bus, you have made them sit there you are not letting them leave and then saying, oh, and pay your bus fare. These people have no desire to be part of your organization and in no other place i can think of in society is another Organization Able to force someone who is not interested and make them pay for something they arent interested in. If a Magazine Company did what a union did, there would be attorney general lawsuits throughout the country because, you know, we can leave organizations that we dont like, except in labor unions. All three of us mentioned, theres bullying involved as well, when you dare to try to leave. I will give you the last question. For audience members or viewers today who are Public Service employees and thinking about potentially leaving their union, where can they go to get more information and help them make an informed decision . Certainly go to our website, employee freedom week. Com. Thats got some very generic information, but the best source of information would be to go to your local union, ask the procedure for opting out, ask to see a copy of your signed union card, they were supposed to have that on file, supposed to have when these window periods are, if youre in a righttowork state or even in a nonrighttowork state, theres often these restrictions in the time period of when you can leave. So the most important thing you can do is find out when that time period is and then let them know let them know that you want out. So employee freedom week. Com has good, generic information, but go to your local union, if you ever need legal help, i know that the national righttowork folks are terrific. Theres a lot of good resources out there for you to leave your union if you run into any resistance. Can i add a little bit to that . Please. You mean to disagree with you, but i just have to say this. If you go to your union rep or your Union President , most likely, they will give you a blank stare because they dont know how to help you optout. And i even tested this, because i already knew how to optout and i went to my union rep and i asked her, what do i do and she told me to check a box, just check this box. That money goes a Political Action committee, a separate donation we are making even though we dont know we are making that donation and thats going to give me back 20 a year. She says thats what you do you check that box. I said, no, no, im still a full union member and im still paying Union Politics if i check that box. And she argued this point with me for days. And finally, i asked her to please go ask, you know, the cta or whoever she went to finally came back and said, oh, you want to be an agency fee payer . I said i used that term at least 20 times, an agency fee payer. So, and she is a very kind person she didnt mean to mislead me she had been misled. She had no idea,help me opt out. Never meat Union President , local level, union site rep, i have never met one that knows how to help you opt out. Important to go to the website, for me, if you are on california, go to c 10 home. Org, california teachers empowerment network, they are incredible, they know everything and help you get through this, national right to work unbelievable, aae, cai, all the organizations we mentioned today thats where you need go for help, find a teacher or Public Sector employee, if youre a firefighter, if youre a police officer, whatever you are, find an employee whos already a fee payer. Thats who can help you. Or these websites. Dont go to your union represent do you need to give them letters eventually which need to be receipt return requested, all that. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Please join me in thanking our panel. [ applause ] now we take you live to the Brookings Institution for a discussion on the Communications Act of 1934, which created the federal Communications Commission. Speakers today include former fcc commissioner, Robert Mcdowell and the former head of the National Telecommunications and information administration, larry irving. They will give recommendations for updating the Communications Act to help reflect modern technology. The event should get under way in just homes, live coverage here on cspan3. Nipples waanyone else want ta little . Ready to get going . Good afternoon, im stuart brafman, ill nonresident senior fellow here at the Brookings Institution in the center for technology, innovation. Its pleasure to welcome everyone here. We are here for an unusual event. We are actually here for a birthday party. And its not often that people gather at places like brookings to celebrate a piece of legislation. And more than celebrate, to take a pretty broad and deep look at where weve been and perhaps where we may be going with a piece of legislation known as the Communications Act of 1934. For those of how do a little math, 1934 plus 80 equals 2014. So we are talking about an 80yearold piece of legislation. Let me just do a few quick ground rules for our discussion today. First of all, we are not going to have any formal presentations, we are going to have a good, spirited conversation and then there will be ample time for q a afterwards. When we have q a, if everyone will just identify who you are and if youre associated with an organization, that will be helpful. We will have people with microphones as well and if you will just wait until a microphone is at your side, it will be a lot easier. Many of you know that we are live now on cspan3. And so, welcome to that audience as well. In addition, because we are in the agency of social media, we do have the hashtag, which i is commact and for those of you who are here elsewhere tweeting this out would be great. For those of how will not be tweeting it out, we would appreciate if you would silence or turn off your cell phones or other devices. So let me set the stage a little bit and probably, the easiest way is also to begin to introduce our very esteemed panel today. On my far right here is bob lighten, bob has a very long and distinguished history as an economist and lawyer here in washington, including a very long and distinguished history here at brooks where he was Vice President and director of economic studies. Bob also has served in the Justice Department as Principal Deputy assistant, attorney general and antitrust division and the office of management and budget, where he was associate director. And i should mention, because i just have seen the announcement, bob is the author of a terrific new book which is called trillion dollar economist, which is published by Bloomberg Press and is Available Online and presumably in book stores right now. Rob mcdowell in the middle has a long and distinguished history as well. Most recently, sevenyear service as commissioner and the senior commissioner of the federal Communications Commission. Rob is now a partner at wylie ryan, which is one of the great law firms in washington and particularly, one of the Great Communications law firms and a flesh shush for rob to be here. Rob also has the distinction of having been nominated and confirmed on a bipartisan basis under two different president s, george w. Bush and barack obama. So i think he has a very interesting perspective, clearly as a republican appointee, but also with an appointment of the democratic president. And then larry irving. Larry was formerly under the Clinton Administration, the admin straighter of the National Telecommunications and information administration, my old agency. He also had many other titles that attached to that, including assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information. Larry also has an extensive portfolio on the hill. Prior to ntia, larry was the senior counsel at the house telecommunication and finance subcommittee. And so, with these three panelists and a little bit of myself, i think we span executive branch, legislative branch, we dont span the courts, obviously, and obviously, the fcc as well. Newton minnow was the chairman of the fcc for a relatively short period of time, 27 month, beginning the kennedy administration, but many things happen, including the first major amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, which we will talk a little bit about afterwards, which is the Communication Satellite act of 1962. Newt reminded me that even though today, we look at the Communications Act as a major piece of legislation thats attached to the new deal, at the time that it was formulated, it was really considered a minor piece of legislation and here is some of the major pieces of legislation that were being formulated at the same time. We had in 1934, we had the farm mortgage foreclosure act, the civil works emergency relief act, and the gold preserve act and of course the securities and exchange act. So as you know, new deal brought us out of the depression and really what was on americas mind at that point was how to revive the economy and communications was not really a central part of our economy at that point and so, it was an act, as we will talk about, that essentially was built upon the foundation of prior legislation, legislation that really started in the 1800s with the interstate commerce act in the late 1800s and then later on, an amendment to that called the mannelkins act in 1910. A little history, sounds quite ancient. Why dont we at least fast forward to 1934 and begin to talk a little bit about the original intent of the act. What was the act trying to do when it was formulated . I guess i will take a shot. Do you remember . Seems like yesterday. I was right there franklin and i no. It was a housekeeping act. You had telecommunication. Long and distinguished about these guys, not about me, a little bit [ inaudible ] Commerce Department and most folks dont realize that most of the work done at the Commerce Department, a small agency called the federal Radio Commission and what this act basically did was take some of the responsibility that was resided in the Commerce Department, some of the responsibility that resided in the federal Radio Commission and pull them together. One of the interesting things is that, there was an assumption, in the 30s, this was going to be a natural monopoly. We were dealing with a scarce resource, monopolistic resource and seen needed to be somebody to make sure the big players really didnt face competition played fair. That was really what it was about, take some of the responsibility, put them in one place and make sure this thing continues to grow, but there was no tba. The radio industry was nascent. An interesting fact at one point, there was a conversation about taking 25 of the broadcast spectrum, on pbsome board and look at this, broadcast spectrum was at one point earmarked for educational purposes, the commercial broadcasting industry fought that off, instead, got a Public Interest responsibility instead of having 25 go to nonprofit educational purposes. Nobody in 1934 looked at communication the way we look at it now and no thought it would be onesixth of our economy. I will take off on the word monopoly. Two words to keep in mind when you think about 1934, mon noly is one of them, actually, there were two monopolies, then, at t and then, well, when we talk about monopoly, monopolyism place scarcity, we had radio. Didnt have tv yet. I will get to that in a minute. We thought in terms of monopoly and scarcity, sort of, as i said, two parts of two sides of one coin and the other thing, of course, that was fundamental, 1934, is the word anna log, all right . And cause we want to set this up for how the world has changed since 1934. But if you think about the predicate of 1934 and what happened afterwards, we get to satellite,et, essentially, larrys right, that the federal Radio Commission became the fcc and then the fcc morphed into taking on more and more responsibility as we had other forms of communication. So, we got tv. We got satellites. We got mobile telephony. As each of the new technologies came along, the fcc, as i view it, developed departments for each one of them. And they were all separate silos. It was all useful to think of them as separate silos. A world of anna log, the waves respect sort of interchangeable, they are all sort of separate. It made sense to have separate things. I dont want to preempt the discussion, we will talk about what changed since then, you can see how different that world was then than it is now. And we will talk about whats changed since. So building on that, absolutely right. It was very, very different and back to a monopoly point. You did have the old at t agreeing to actually protection for its monopoly in exchange for what we call the universal service. That is to make Telephone Service available at reasonable rates upon request and also to build out, the telephone was still a relatively new technology and mainly the of a fluent and urban and suburban areas, not that there were any suburban areas then, mainly the main subscribers of that. So, how do you have that technology proliferate and there was some competition issues and excluding competitors and in exchange for being able to have a monopoly and not be subject to the trust busters, you can take shelter in being a regulated monopoly. That was part of the impetus and political compromise for the 1934 act and then theres what i think is sort of a fiction of spectrum scarcity, back then, only am radio, my father, who grew up in the tex mex border in delrio, texas, used to tell stories of just across the border in via kuhn ya, mexico, there was a 1 millionwatt radio station, again, all a. M. , dr. Brinkley, the notorious dr. Brinkley, his signal could reach over a huge swath of the u. S. And that was his audience, but there wasnt any regulation of that and the screen doors across the river in delrio, texas, would vibrate with the energy from that radio station. There were legitimate Spectrum Management issues, a question which we could develop into Going Forward, what was the role of the fcc Going Forward . Need an independent agency manage that or could that be managed by the executive branch for spectrum allocation, a topic to tee up. But those were a couple of the motivations behind the 1934 act and things have changed completely and those silos that you just pointed out still exist in terms of the regulatory landscape, but for technology in the market and especially, most importantly consumers, those silos dont exist and the law should be updated to reflect that. One thing about how much the world has changed. Franklin roosevelt suggested the federal Communications Commission in february, 1934. By june of 1934, it was out of both house and by july 11th, the act took effect completely across the nation. You cant get a hearing in six months now in washington. And they passed an entire bill, which gives you a sense of, one, relatively importance and two how much more gridlock there is today in washington than there is when they were looking at this legislation. And one party rule. One party rule. The democrats, miss those days. Also interesting about this mannelkins act in 1910, again, google it or look it up. The mannelkins act essentially gave for the first Time Authority of the interstate Commerce Commission to regulate telephony and telegraph and from 1910 until 1934, that authority was not at the federal Radio Commission, it was not part of the federal radio act, but telephony and telegraph were considered separate media which were regulated by an entirely differents, the icc, which essentially regulated rail carriage and rail transportation. And so, a lot of our notions of common carriage essentially were rooted in this notion of the icc and part of what the Communications Act of 1934 did was to bring together the notions of telephony and telegraph at that point and to marry them with notions of mass media, principally with radio. So, we essentially had two different acts which were combined, put together and we had the federal Radio Commission then morph into the federal Communications Commission and the fcc was then given the authority to regulate telephony as well as broadcast and spectrumrelated media. Part of it, looking back at the history, is that the icc had very little confidence and was quite frustrated because they wanted to really focus on the railroads and all of a sudden, they had cases dealing with telephony and telegraphs and the staff and the commissioners really felt uncomfortable. This was not their zone of expertise. And so, they were very supportive of taking that function and moving it out and thats essentially how those two functions got combined into these sigh these we are talking about in the Communications Act. One footnote. So the icc, just to tee up a later discussion, probably none of you people will remember, the icc is gone, okay . We are going to be talking about the future of the icc. It doesnt exist anymore, all right . And i worked on the Clinton Administration. 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 dont 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 ray. 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, shouldnt have had anything and we finally got rid of it all. So i mean, thats just that will sort of give you an indication where im going to be talking about, the future of the fcc later on the they dont they think ld regulation worked, 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 dont like airlines. And its 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 havent come down, but the planes are all full because they are like buses, okay . But people dont 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 deregulations 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 cop pit of the Communications Act and he sees in there tattooed. Sees the phrase public convenience, interest or necessity. Interestingly in the communication act itself, different formulation, sometimes done in a con jugtive Public Interest, convenience and necessity, sometimes in the alternative public convenience or necessity but most legislative historians say that that basically really didnt make much of a difference. The key interest 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 yeah, so and this is a point of philosophical debate, which is probably why youre asking the question. There are those who think because Public Interest appears 112 times, whatever the numbers in the act and my dear friend and former colleague, commissioner michael cops knows the exact number, has it memorized, doesnt mean there respect other words in the communication act as well, doesnt doesnt mean unbridled authority fcc to regulate that space willynilly as he sees fit. All too on 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 many. So, you know, theres 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 theres a lot more to it than that, but it lit really lay does mean essentially whatever majority of the Commission Says it means, unless its restricted by the courts or other explicit language in the act. And thats where it becomes dicey and that doesnt necessarily serve the Public Interest well, when its expanse cism 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. Rather seen a rewrite, turn the telescope around, look at all this through the consumers perspectivesome there a harm, caused by a concentration and abuse of market power rather than the leg gas soift technology you use, which we can talk about in a minute and other things that are wove noon that act. Let me just interject here. Larry has a long and distinguished career. Im old we looked at permutations going after the 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 im 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 dont know how would you have done it otherwise or withstood Court Analysis if we didnt have came from congress. That came from congress. Director 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 stan clearer and less subject. Mark fowler, chairman of the fcc under president reagan said the Public Interest, whatever interest the public, we dont need to regulate, that was pretty much his here tory. Dont want to have these huge swings but we havent 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 didnt give them some flexibility beyond a strict consumer harm test a lot of consumer harm already been harmed then you gotten a aftereffect rather than trying to be in front of some of these inknow vacation and opening up some ways for companies to do 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 basis and 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 lighten, 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 antitrust 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 ts children, the regional bell operating companies, which have since merged, only several of them left, they haul to go to court basically, wanted to do something new, they had to get the District Court to sign off and we at 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 ameri tesks 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, we had no idea, in act if a, we were talking about this before coming up here the one thing in retrospect i dont think any of us anticipated is the extent to which cable and the Telephone Companies would go at each others throats. At the time, one of the purposes of getting the 96 act was to allow them to compete in each others business but i dont think a lot of us felt that they would really be as, aggressive as they were going to be. This was nice in theory. And i think the Vice President plug it had when he talked about 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 started out what became the 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. Whats interesting about that, one of the things thats interesting is rob has spent a lot of time with the comp mettive car yes, 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 one time. We try to think of the internet and 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 wasnt going to be title ii, iii or vi t wasnt cable, wasnt broadcasting, wasnt old telephony and the antitrust 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, whats 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 mar kirk might have been whistling in the wind. The point im trying to make, three years later, all the investment being made was being made by companies because of than couragement 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 important, nobody thinks about a Long Distance call, 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 dont even think about that, 20 years ago, making decisions based upon the economic consequence of Long Distance tell phones. I think thats 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 frurkt 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, no the that long ago, that was still the fight of whats gonna 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 vonagetype service. All that was coming, but the best and the brightest didnt 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 broad band 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. These are positive stories, before the fact reg lation, its very difficult for regulators to get it right, frequently, they dont. I have a ben on both sides, being a regulator around an advocate. Frequently, they dont and people cant see whats coming next. And even industry bets are wrong, right . So theres 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 cant 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 youre 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 anyones watching mad men or other shows of that era, and it was very, very expensive and now give away, it is free. Just add two quick things about difficulty, not only in washington, we cant see things, also really smart, rich people in this thing. One example bill gates, famous memo in the 90s. 1995. Said we missed the internet and led to an antitrust case against microsoft, caught on 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 hard wafrm he said we are microsoft. We are operating. Paul allen wanted them to be in hardware. As rich as microsoft is, big company, big guy, 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. 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. This size and you know, 700 million and basically, you know, 60 a month unlimited, gonna get 7 billion of them. The way 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. Why this factor, 1934. In 1934, they didnt worry about are we predicting the future, going against 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 expert tea 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 talk 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 dont get it right, obviously, number of examples about that. But back in 1934, that wasnt the name of the game at all. The name of the game was let us basically import some aspects of other pieces of legislation. Lets combine radio and telephony, put them under the aegis of a simple agency. Lets 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 ones sitting in washington essentially can understand all those parameters . Yes, to your core question, which is theres a lot of expertise at the fcc. I want to give a shoutout to my former colleagues there. 1600 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 doesnt 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 its impossible to as we have just 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 dont have to get sidetracked on that, i know we are not talking about that as much today, in that debate, 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 which 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 competitors quickly, 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 tell come 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, thats 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, have to reeks am minute it for the silos, oops, i throw my pep ought, the silos that were just thank you, just discussed in terms of what we didnt talk about in 1934 about 18934, different titles regulate based on the different types of Technology Used at the ti time, title two is corps based, when there was it was voice only, headphones and title iii with now a number of components to it, you have over the air broadcast, satellite, mobile, you know, Wireless Services as well, you have title vi is coaxial cable or Video Service and now, you know, the consumer dees manneding a convergence, the number one screen, my kids, ages 7 through 13 is there mobile screen in. This is changing everything, wirms, we have huge leaps in developments in wireless, spectral efficiency and developments in wireless, youre 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 information and consumers being generators of contempt and information. The barriers to entry are the loews in Human 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 wasnt that long ago, back when my hair was black. If is time to rethink this, federal spectrum, federal government occupying maybe 80 by some estimates, the best spectrum and what can we do to get the federal government to relinquish the spectrum, something secretary irving knows a lot b know a bit about your days back in the commerce. Larry, you were there, obviously, all there in 96, larry was one of the principal architects of the telecom act and clearly, come also from the hill, had a real sensitive knit terms of congress. Maybe talk a little bit about the early days of thinking about revising the communication act of 1934 in probably the most dramatic way its 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, with i then could be implemented by an independent agency . If you look at the hill and youre 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. The 60s and 70s, cases we wont get into, computer one, computer two, lots of things in terms of new technologies, how we connect to the network, what we were trying to do in 96 was stay in front of 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 fee the i cants. 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 other people. We were right on most of those instances, we were wrong as to,would happen, but what we wanted to do was, you know, if you think about the 96 act one way, from 1996 was day we have seen between 1. 2 and 1. 5 trillion of investment 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 comp boaters to or 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 overtheair 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, announcement, whats happening with netflix and their stock going up, hbo saying we are going to go extra cable and go over the top and then cbs over the top again, five years, i bet you the media landscape will be markedly different than it is now. How, i cant tell you. But i know i watch more television on my ipad than i do on my television at home, mostly because im 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 jant virgins request another great show, starring a young latina, a hit with 1. 8 million, 1. 8 Million Viewers thats a hit. 1. 8 million would not have kept you on for 1. 8 online and television, 1. 8 million. Across 1. 8 wouldnt have got you would have been canceled the day after gout a 1. 8 million share, but now, thats enough. The economics are changing and regulate verse to figure out twice 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 charge i 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, thats good thing. The second thing is i would have them adjudicate disputes over over discrimination by Network Owners in favor of certain content providers, they do this right now for video and i would extend this to broad band. So for example, i will give you an example, comcast owns nbc. If comcast is favoring some of nbcs rivals, all right, because they own nbc, thats not right, all right . These an abuse of their discriminating. Thats 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 cup of the broadband providers and discriminating in favor of certain content, and let say, for example, they offer a 15megabit package and they are discriminating against certain sites based on the certain speed and i would have them administratively stop discrimination. End of statement. Thats it all right. So, basically, in my fcc, they have Something Like 1700 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 dont think we need big fcc anymore. 600 lawyers . Whatever. We dont need these people. Larry will pile on, add these things. I will start this. Im gonna start there and thats how i rewrite the act. Can i dove tail into that real quick . Actually, you know, with discrimination, as you say anticompetitive discrimination, discrimination is a loaded term means Different Things in different contexts, Network Engineers actually necessary if you want that movie youre downloading to be uninterrupted and unartifacted and unfrozen. That would be frozen. Voice bits and email bits arent thats discrimination, you like that right . Thats the good kind. But federal trade commission, let me put a plug in for them, first of all, like to point people to speeches and writings. Very substantive, rational. Even keeled, speeches, articles and stuff theyve written. The federal trade commission actually prevent that type of discrimination from happening in an anticompetitive way in favor of its own content. And the content of others. The mantra, there are laws already on the books that exist that deter that behavior and would cure it if it actually ever happened. And its not happening. Not happening in any kind of systemic market failure way. The trial lawyers would have a field day with the contract, all sorts of state attorneys general. Theres 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 cant do it under section 5 of the federal trade commission act. By the way, back to the point is expost, 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 its software, internet search, things of that nature. Its 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 have been and will be so for years to come. Can i interject one quick thing and let you get back. Im going to be very clear and ill 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, telecoms 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 ill 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 antitrust review and have joint jurisdiction between the Justice Department and the fcc. Now, i recognize theres joint jurisdiction in the banking industry, id get rid of that, too. Theres joint jurisdiction in the transportation industry, id get rid of that, too. Even the ftc or the Justice Department reviews, they review the antitrust implications of mergers. Lets follow that principle. And lets try to streamline our government. And real quick on the substantive expertise, which is ftc learns and evolves over time. And the definition of what is te telecom and communications. Especially with marriage connectivity and content is becoming the lines are blurring. From the consumers perspective, the lines are already blurred. That doesnt take any network engineering, some of it, but its easily understandable. And they could take the engineers and hire them from the ftc. Yeah. Okay. So im going to be the contrarian on this one. I dont believe that we necessarily need all the functions that the fcc has. And well have a conversation Going Forward about what is needed and what isnt. Communications weve been seeing is different. Im a Communications Lawyer and started out as a communication lawyer. But most of my life i dont want it to be just a straight economic test as i dont know all the things were 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 weve got to weigh those things. But when you get the ftc and all you have is spectrum and discrimination. 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 and in the projects, and running around this country and seeing whats happening with regard to africanamericans, 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, well 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 were looking at communications as different than widgets. That was a conversation we had in the 80s, in the 90s. Theyre very Different Things. I want a strict antitrust with regard to which widgets being manufactured. When youre 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. Ive 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 werent looking at the policies and were we doing the right things in terms of how were gettingwee getting the sp out into the marketplace making sure policy implications were involved in the discussions. When we had a huge budget defic 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 lets have a balanced conversation about it. Now were going to spectrum sharing. The fcc has a role in spectrum sharing. Whats that going to look like . So there are lots of pieces to this fcc puzzle, gets most of them right. We need some tweaking. But lets 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. Im concerned that the antitrust analysis would be too would take some of the whats the word . Some of the discretion out of their hands. And i think a little bit policy poorer for that. Just a quick point in support of a skinny fcc idea, which is if you look at the innovation, lets say the past ten years or so, where does it come from . Its come from the least regulated parts of the industry. So, again, lets look at smartphones, the app industry. Those are the least regulated, right . And thats 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. Its 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. Youve had more democratization not because of any industrial policy or government plan other than getting more spectrum in the marketplace, but in 2005, people werent talking about the app economy. People didnt know what apps were really then. So, it was post 2007 in a deregulated sector of the economy that has done more to help lowincome 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 were 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 dont disagree they had a role. But the expertise to drive the level of competition. And the pace of innovation that the fcc has. You know, we all talk about coopers law, and most of you heard about but very few heard about coopers 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. Every, i think its 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 doesnt just happen magically. Folks want to make investments when they know what the rules of the road are. The rules of the road are consistent and to make sure competitive marketplace. Coopers law is important, but so is competition. And im 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 dont want the regulation to be you want them to as my old boss would say, you want one thats steering, not rowing. The runners are running and someone else is making sure when the gun goes off, nobodys 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. Id have to catch we want to give him enough to do to justify that salary. Okay