probably muchs better than i am at getting everyone's attention so we can do that again if need be. thank all of you again for coming. it is a terrific turnout. you know, earlier i welcomed our c-span audience. i want to welcome them again. we are grateful c-span is here. aim sure it has quite a bit to do with our next guest here. we are glad all of you are here. the chairman knows i do this because he has been here before. illustriousn photography -- i could go on and on and on about it. we have it in the brochure. for those of you that are in the c-span audience, our brochure is on the website. fcc chairman's bio in it. just stayed what chairmanhere knows, pie served as a commissioner. how soon after the inauguration, was that two days later? a monday, january 23. three days after. >> he was appointed by president trump to be chair of the fcc. this, withouty is going to the offices you can read about. i think it is important. he has served in all three branches of government, spent a lot of time in senior positions on the hill. i think all of those experiences are, of course, expert -- important and provide insights that are useful. >> keep failing at every god -- every job and keep getting promoted. the corneri get office. >> i think my explanation was the correct one. i appreciate that. as i said, we have done this before. really, the only difference today is i have a bigger chair for you. way, i was looking at its earlier, and you bring your weed whacker?- >> it would not travel well so i left it at home. because it wasat at the 10th anniversary gala in commissioner the offered the famous allusion to the weed wacker in his front yard, the regulatory underbrush at the fcc. i noticed just last week i think, john edgerton, the reporter at the broadcasting and cable. he said in reference to your that thatr, he said term has gained cultural currency within and beyond to medication circles. that is quite a bit. do you have anything else about the weed wacker? >> i think it is best that we move on at this point. [laughter] >> we do like to create cultural currency. thank you for that. i have had, as you know, a house majority whip. we have had several commissioners, other notables do this conversation, but never the chairman of the sec. i'm really honored to have you here. record,t to say for the was year that tom weir chair of the commission, i did invite him to, and do the same thing, really do whatever he wanted to do. he always declined. i made a point of letting them know he would be welcome. usuald, of course, be my polite self but it did not come. you are not making any promises about the next time. know, you might get demoted to c-span eight. the ocho! >> right now we are in c-span2. >> the dos! >> for those of you who want to watch the reruns. i'm just going to ask for questions. we are going to do a lightning round up front as opposed to the ends. these are pretty straightforward questions. did you always know when you growing up that you wanted to be chairman of the fcc? [laughter] >> absolutely, without question. what american in the late 70's course,t have set of of the head of the fcc. out of law school i did not knew -- not know what i was going to do. a testament not to my own expertiseof skill and but the power and dream that someone like me or any of us is -- can aspire to such heights. >> you mentioned the 1970's and i do think we have with us a the 70's.rom i'm always pleased when he joins us. i'm sure there are youngsters watching c-span right now who are thinking -- >> i want to be like the quietly. -- dick wiley. which one ofusly, your previous positions do you think best prepare you for the job of the chairman other than serving as commissioner? jobs,ave had a number of preparing the on the hill, preparing the political calculus to help me understand capital courts, statutes, and apply them. the job the prepared me the most was being to the general council in charge of the ministry of law position. the reason i say that is two fold. they give me a birds eye view on everything the agency was doing. it helped me understand the nuts and bolts of the commission from entering section 332 of the medications act to understanding how in our physical law apply to the agency. perspectiveerial that was the first time i had to manage a lots of people and it gave me an experience i think was very helpful to me when you are the executive officer of the entire agency. i feel blessed to work with my coworkers at the time and little did i know the experience i would be getting would be extremely important. >> which one person has been most influential in shaping your thinking regarding the way you approach your job? >> besides you? >> you can include me. [laughter] >> protest for the people complement the host is -- move.wise move area you get to establish connections with the people who came before you. fcc chairclinton's from 2000 and 1 -- until 2000 and one was wondering for a change. the telecommunications act was barely on the page when he ascended to the chairmanship. i really admired at the time and have come to appreciate more, the way he led the agency. he and others like him serve as model leadership -- leadership and only very fortunate after my time is done that i would be mentioned in the same breath as bill. greatgree, i have fondness for bill and the job he did. the last in this series of one questions is what one personality trait of yours will be most important to seceding -- succeeding as chairman? personality trait. >> what if i could divided between external and internal? external, what it like to bring to the job is what is called the sense of energy in the executive. the founding fathers called it -- when the key ingredients to good government. sometimes i think the benefit -- they benefit from, having a chairman and commissioners who embrace the task with vigor. they move quickly and try to create a sense of transparency. that is something i really enjoyed. world,ing to the outside i think the world is not standing still and are rules cannot stand still. one of the traits i think i bring is my genuine love for the agency. i love my coworkers and it has been such a privilege to work with them and know them, even unsolicited will send me in-house. i got an unsolicited email from a woman who said i do not want to expect thank you for bringing hope into the agency and taking on the tough challenges you are taking. i am glad to be working for you as the head of our agency. know -- iy spirits to don't want to be a ceo that about whatw or care the talented members of the fcc do. i want them to enjoy what they do. i have been able to meet with him. i want you to have the same sense of enthusiasm when you get up in the morning, that you are laboring on behalf of the american people. regardless of if people agree or disagree with a policy position, we are striving for the public interest. if i could just recognize anyone in the audience who has ever been a member of the fcc, can you raise your hands so i can salute you? >> i appreciate that sentiment. i serve the agency for three years myself a long time ago. to chairman in time wiley. i often tell people even my wife sometimes that those years were some of the best professional years of my life. appreciates the way you express that sentiment. fccs talk about making the great again. that's a joke. start in this place. there has been a lot of discussion including quite a bit about thewell supposedly also collegiality at the commission during tom wheeler's years. if you believe there was such a collegiality, how did it manifest itself in what you think the causes were? i assume there were a lot of split votes. i get that. i'm sure the fact that there were split votes in your mind in and of itself are not evidence of any lack of good faith by your fellow commissioners. perceived what you the problems if there were any andollegiality back then what you would like to do to restore a greater sense of collegiality during your administration. ajit pai: i appreciate the question. a lot has been written about this. a lot has been said about this. i have a great deal of respect for my predecessor. that's the nature of the process. going forward, i want to create environment in which evony -- every stakeholder feels he can have a fair hearing and we can exchange views in a collegial manner. an engaging person. even if my fellow commissioners issue, at least he heard a sound and explained why he was taking a different route. that's the goal of got going forward. no matter what the political differences might week, we have an environment that is conducive to consensus. >> i have asked this question of every commissioner that has been in this chair. it's relevant to the collegiality issue. i have been involved in efforts to change the sunshine act in some way to even aside from appealing it, there might be moreto be conducive to collaboration. you've been on the commission now for a long of time that you would have an opinion about that. ajit pai: i do think that some of the revisions you've talked about would be well considered. i think often the purpose of the sunshine act has actually worked to impede collaboration in a way that would in a fit the american people. i remember these telephone calls we would have. , no more thane two of us could be a mccall together. two of us would be a mccall and a staffer would say it's been 15 minutes, you've got to jump off so the other can jump on. i would have to get briefed on what happened during the call. it's this random game of telephone that happens. the more intense issues on a monthly basis are the agenda items. they would have to report back to us. it's a very inefficient assess. especially in the digital age and some of the items getting published three weeks in advanced, some of the concerns of been mitigated. i hope congress would take a more modern view if they review the sunshine act or in >> it sounds like it runs up the telephone bill there over at the fcc. sticking with process a bit i do want to say this. for a longnvolved time. reform andprocess altering some process reforms in that in, i have to say my book you are to be commended for the way you have tackled some of this right from the get-go. anothere common to have committee at the commission or somebody. at least for my part, i appreciate the way you gotten off to a good start on process reform. i guess the biggest, or haps the one that is most important or most noted so far is the change in the way draft items are handled in terms of releasing them to the public. they are now released when items are circled. the last week before the commission votes and that's what it's called the sunshine. if there are no context during that time. the public has a draft. this, maybed about it's part of being an old timer, i always had some concerns about how it would affect the commission's work. you did in a relatively short experiment. effect, it has been in this was a radical reform. it was considered pretty radical before it was done. specifically, when you are asking the question, talk about if it's putting an additional burden on the communications staff for the commissioners themselves. in conjunction with that, has this changed the nature or the quality of the presentations to the commission or decision-making process as you've observed so far? never understood why the agency would only let the public see what it was doing after it had actually done it. to me it was a simple analogy ,hen legislation is introduced it was voted on before was referred it to committee. you get to see it on the internet and everybody can understand what it is. the fcc should take the same step. for years, i talked about it. i was given reasons why it couldn't be done. in the second week, we did it. things have worked out just fine. heartening emails i get are from people who did not follow proceedings or don't work in this field. thanks for publishing it. see what you were actually doing. the openness and transparency has been significant. for us think it's much to let the public know in advance. adon't think it's been burden. instead of this hushed , this might the in a paragraph. describe nonpublic information. i can't confirm or deny it. this is a really strange game. there is no innuendo, there is no spinning from the chairman. the burden has changed for the staff. workously, the staff would really hard to get an item together. it would be circulated by the chairman three weeks in advance. then the staff would wait for a week, two weeks, sometimes almost three weeks to get direction on how it was going to change. sometimes it would change significantly. i was a staffer myself. , theyght before a meeting would decide to go in the opposite direction and you've got to rewrite it. it's a significant burden. that is when the decision-making can run into trouble. there can be some problematic issues pop up. from a policy perspective, it is hard on the staff to think through what it means for future issues. stepsd think that these work is frontloaded. they work exceptionally hard. they get the item in shape. my philosophy is a fine working for my commissioners to vote on something in may or june or whatever, the item we post in advance of the meeting date ready for prime time, so to speak. they do a terrific job of doing it. they don't have these late-night marathons where they are not sure with the direction is going to be or how late they are going to stay. i think the end result is good for everybody. there is no more guesswork. you can agree or disagree, but you know what is in paragraph 78 or whatever. >> you've got to write orders that don't get up to footnote 332. say, i know commissioner o'reilly has championed that change were just talking about of the process. i want to give a shout out to him. i know you share that sentiment. let's shift from these process matters to substantive matters. as i'm doing that, i want to call your attention, we've got a few copies left in our inventory that are out at the desk. you may have heard me say that before. copies, twofew books. in is new directions communication policy. communications law and policy in the digital age, this is five years old now. they are on sale for $10. that's not the reason i bring them up. you may want to grab a copy. a lot of the ideas that are in concern matters we are going to be talking about like net neutrality and broadband deployment and the substantive issues. they are discussed by the free state foundation scholars. because of the administration that has been in place after these books were published. they are still timely. not a lot of the things we recommended have been adopted. i'm hopeful you can help make these books less timely. about some sums of -- substantive matters. have you talk about your regulatory philosophy as a backdrop to that. remarks at the mobile world conference in february for worthwhile reading for anyone that wants to understand how you think about regulatory policy. then the united states is in the process of returning to the light touch approach to regulations that produce investment and innovation throughout our entire internet at system, from the core of our networks to the edge. less regulation, more investment, more innovation. explainou to just why in your view it's almost always the case that light touch regulation rather than have the regulation leads to more investment and more innovation as a general proposition. ajit pai: the past is often prologue. i think back to chairman kennard. ammunications policy was at crossroads. there was a debate over how these networks should be regulated. theld we import some of heavy-handed economic regulations that were inspired in decades pass or should we take a more market waste approach. his philosophy which i share was the right one, to make sure that we have these networks across the country, to have infrastructure investment that wars into every corner of the country. we need to make sure that companies have the incentive and the ability to invest. they need regulatory certainty. they need to know the rules are not going to shift depending on the year. they need to have those regulations market taste so that prescriptive,ng it's more light touch. let the market developed organically. targeted action against a company or bad actor. i think that is the philosophy i embrace. we sell $1.5 trillion in technology investment. started by just a few people with nothing but an idea. that's an incredible amount of innovation in a short amount of time. think the free market approach he embraced as one that would serve us well in the future as we embark on 5g networks and satellites and wireless. they are doing more and better things with networks. speech in same february at the mobile world conference, you said this. this is like meet the press with tim russert. you said this. >> i read your speeches. in return for that, i asked that you read what i write. this was interesting to me. rules designedx to regulate a monopoly will inevitably push the market toward being a monopoly. i think i understand what you meant i that. some that may seem like a puzzling conundrum. what did you mean by that? ajit pai: for more detail, you can go to the kingsbury commitment. for those of you looking for evening reading to put you to this is something i think is lost on many people because they think the heavier the regulation, the better it is for the competitors. heavy-handed regulation serves to benefit the larger companies at work in that space. smaller companies don't have the compliance resources to fill out the paperwork or the capital to further build up their networks. it's more of a burden on them. over time, they get squeezed out of the marketplace. every single space you can think of. it's important to have light touch market-based regulation as opposed to the review of conduct to ensure that the smaller companies, we want them to have competitive entry and get approval in the marketplace. if there is bad action, we want to take targeted enforcements against those happenings. you regulate everything with a sledgehammer, it's not going to benefit consumers. you were going to get what you got in the 1930's, which was a regulated monopoly. that's not something that serves consumers. my colleague seth cooper who is sitting right here in the audience, he and i suggested the commission allow a rebuttable presumption when the agency is considering forbearance petitions for the section 11 periodic review. essentially, these would be rebuttable presumptions so they are not outcome dependent. you would still have the same statutory criteria in place protecting consumers. behind that idea is the marketplace has changed so much generally. the marketplace has changed so much in the direction of competition that it would be useful for the commission to at least in those contexts in case your weed wacker is not otherwise working at that time, to have in place these deregulatory presumptions. i really have one question about that. that's a really brilliant idea. what i will say is if you look at the marketplace on a continuum where one part is a monopoly and another is a highly competitive marketplace, there is a place for the regulatory burden lessening as you get to a more competitive marketplace. topetition is the best tonic the problems you might otherwise see among firms. i think there is something to that suggestion and i would be open to it in the context of forbearance or any other procedural mechanism. theet's turn now to -- i'mt in the room, going to share a secret with you. this may have been three or four years ago. net neutrality was still the topic than. maybe there were other things at this conference. sure that theke chairman talked about net neutrality. emailairman sent me an that said he planned to talk about a.m. radio the next day. the had me worried until actually showed up that day. we are going to talk about that neutrality or the open internet or what restoring internet freedom, whatever you want to call it. we will talk about that. i want to make clear so everyone believe thisnd i to be true, that the chairman hasn't made up his mind about the some of the proceeding. you wouldn't until it's time to do that and you haven't foreclosed things. within that context, we can still talk about it or it the first question is pretty simple. 10th anniversary celebration in december, when you did talk about net i don'tty, you said know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by congress, or overturned by future commission. i do believe its days are numbered. how many days does it have left? you don't have to answer that question. ajit pai: we're going to go where the facts go for the decision. this may be puzzling to some people. understand. both tom wheeler and yourself both say you are in favor of free and open internet. you both proclaim that's the case. i'm sure both of you do that in good faith. nevertheless, you have very different views about how to get there or what we might call the right way to get there. i don't want to take a lot of time reciting what sin the proposal. -- what in the proposal. most people here know the principal elements of the notice. i want to ask you a few again, i understand that you are not at liberty and that you don't know exactly where you are going to come out. i will take that as a given. ask -- expressed that the title to classification are very problematic. you have said that over and over again. just explain to our audience think is the problematic nature of those two elements that are in the rulemaking. with respect to title one it was unnecessary in 2015. number two, these regulations are harming investment in infrastructure. there has been evidence that suggests among the biggest service providers, investment is down. of the any canaries in the coal mine, the smaller providers including 19 government owned companies,all cable many of them have written to us and say it's a black cloud over their businesses and kept them from getting financing. that is a serious concern for people in rural areas or urban areas and don't have internet access or don't have the kind of internet access they want. having an that authority for the agency could be trouble manic -- problematic. the example i used is the free data investigation was -- in which they gave customers more and better services for free. that seems to be the last thing we want to prohibit or put under the microscope. you go forward. i think the light touch regulation is the right one. he faced similar questions in the late 90's and he gave a speech in which he said if you want to have massive investment in networks and a vibrant internet economy, you don't want to import more heavy-handed rules and lay them on this new technology. you want to have a more calibrated approach to the consumer interest and infrastructure investment. >> i remarked during our panel discussion about net neutrality. the commission referred to the good conduct rule as a catchall provision. admissionlike an against interest. there was quite a bit of agreement when i tried to probe about bottom line positions of the company in terms of what would be acceptable. no locking and no throttling seem to be elements. on the paid prioritization i know we tried to explain some of the reasons why that might be i problematic in terms of it. he wrote a paper on it several that discussed that extensively, how that type of regime of is common iniority other parts of the marketplace. there can be investment suppressing effects from the pay private -- prioritization. , i know think about it you have a lot of time to do that. how do you feel about the paid prioritization vanity considerations that you are examine as you move forward. if you submit it to the record, it's something we will look at. i would encourage anyone who is interested to participate and submit evidence on that port. the reason we're having this rulemaking is because it's the beginning of a conversation. we want to learn about the variety of economic and other policy arguments about prioritization with these regulations. we don't have any position preordained. that's why we want to hear from people. question on the current proceeding is this. this is where you can help me out. you are a because deputy general counsel prior to your commissioner ship and chairmanship. i know you are a great legal mind. just suppose hypothetically that the commission decides to classify broadbent internet as an information service and it decides section seven of six is not an affirmative grant to adopt rules. those are both positions in the past the commission has held. it broadbent internet was not common carriage. it was an information service. in a previous stage, they determined section seven of six was not -- 706 was not. just suppose the commission were to reach conclusions that those things were true. under what authority did the commission continue to regulate i, practices and does title does it constitute an affirmative grant of regulatory authority. i might be harkening back to the comcast case, which originally dealt with this. one final way of putting this is if the commission were to conclude both of the two predicates, would that necessarily mean the commission would be ousted from all authority to oversee broadband internet access services? ajit pai: i hate to dodge, but there are two hypotheticals and that question. you would've been happy of congress want first of this issue. ajit pai: there is great interest in this issue. if they make a decision we will be duty-bound to implement it. >> let me ask you this. assume that congress does get to a point where it wants to establish policy on net neutrality and adopt legislation. let's assume that's true. i's always been my view that appreciate you don't tell congress what to do. i get that. on the other hand, your chairman of the fcc. you have a lot of expertise in the area. i would think they would look to you for some guidance. congressre advising tellrning new legislation, us what you would tell congress about what this legislation would look like that would resolve this issue. ajit pai: there are so many issues that congress has to think about. say since the inception of the communications updated the rules of the road for more certainty to the public about this or that. if they see fit to update those rules and give us the rules of the digital road going forward, i think we would welcome that. especially when it comes to some of the core protections of the internet. i think there is a lot of agreement once you put aside the rhetoric and the partisan affiliation. people can sit down and reach a consensus. that will service well going forward. >> i want to turn to privacy. washingtonouhaha in about privacy after you took some actions to either stay or theyenforcement of the passed a resolution that rescinded the rule. it's been controversial. it remains so. this morning at our session, president obama's administrator actually volunteered that he disagreed with the privacy regulation adopted by the commission. he ultimately thinks all privacy regulation with internet players should reside at the ftc, which is consistent with your position. this is what i want to ask you. i know one objection to those that the the fact internet service providers were treated in a disparate fashion. the fccfashion under regime then over at the ftc. that was the focus of a lot of the concern. the chairwoman was introduced legislation to regulate the privacy area of the browser act. one of the things it would do ford read to require opt in the collection of certain that at the ftc has been considered nonsensitive, like browsing history and app usage. the fcc has look at those trade-offs and concluded that unlike other data that is considered sensitive, it should be subject to opt out rather than opt in. what do you think? either you or commissioner riley , in addition to the level playing field argument, there was concern expressed about the opt in requirement in the impact that would have on the businesses of the internet service providers in that type of regime. the you have thoughts on that? consumers who go online have an expectation of privacy. .o them, it shouldn't matter if they are looking at sensitive information, they wanted to be protected in a consistent way. from a regulatory perspective, the lesson i draw from that is the framework should be consistent. that's why i have often said whatever the rules of the road are, they have to be part of a level playing field. when sumer's go online they will know that certain information will be protected. i know members of congress have taken an interest in this issue as well. that is for them to decide. the core principle is one i think everybody embraces. policys us think about and a much clearer way instead of battling over sections of the act or different agencies doing different things. the uniform expectation of privacy is something lost in the debate. >> we are getting close to moving into that lightning round. i know i wouldn't want to keep you much longer. a couple of more areas i want to ask you about. promoting 5gcy and deployment, that was discussed at the panel this morning. meredith baker talked about some deploymentdiments to , that arise. you have proceedings now, actually you called them infrastructure month during april, wireless infrastructure proceedings. together inat focus one meeting in that one month was useful. in helping to raise the consciousness of the way these issues, you are going to have to relate. we hear so much about theastructure these days, public understands a lot of what goes on at the fcc properly. hand localon the one restrictions, whatever. reasonslity adopts for that in their view are and their close to the people so to speak. on the other hand, you have imperatives for getting these new innovative technologies out into the marketplace. you know that an you discuss that. as youe audience really approach these issues and will be approaching them, how do you think about in your own mind how you're going to balance the inerest of the localities the interest of the fcc and the federal government and not have innovation investment stymied. it's not an easy question. ajit pai: it's not. the bottom line is we're all in this together. our consumers are increasingly demanding a faster connectivity. to me that means every official at every level of government should work cooperatively and proactively to make sure we have a regulatory framework that incentivizes the construction of five g networks and spectrum and allow services to thrive. at the federal level, i have inconsistently talking about the need to examine or to streamline certain requirements. for the deployment of small cells, you shouldn't have to jump to the same hoops. on the local level, we want to make sure that the local municipalities have the ability to review applications. the moratoria that are permanent on infrastructure, that does not serve consumers either. we are striving for the same goal, a public interest that is well served with the mobile revolution of the future. commissioner baker has talked more eloquently about this. from our perspective, this is a cooperative effort during going forward, it's going to be moving quickly. hopefully everybody will be on the same page. we all stand to gain from it. >> i'm going to ask you one more question. one of your staff came over and taps me on the shoulder. this will be the last question. i'm going to ask a two-part question. here it is. number one, you have talked raisingking economics the level of economic inquiry considerations at the commission to a higher level. that has been talked about a lot. one of the members of our board of academic advisors refer to a certain context. he referred to the fcc's consideration of the previous net neutrality as an economics free zone. tell us what you have done so far in that regard and one other plans you have. my second question and final question is i've always been interested for a long time in the fcc's merger review process and possibilities of reform. i think there is duplication that goes on with doj and the fcc wanders off from what ought to be a central focus. mind inwhat you have in that area. with respect to the economics question, i proposed in april that we start the process of an office of economics and data. for the legal function, we have a general counsel and for engineering and technology, we have an office of engineering. , wethe economic function should be putting economists on the frontlines of our decision-making. they are sprinkled in various bureaus and offices. some economists are very busy and others are not. economists don't have a seated at the table with these decisions are being made. us to be a data-driven and economic analysis driven agency. me the creation of this would centralize the function so that you have all of these economists working in one space. methat would enable us to say f we are proposing to do something on wireless infrastructure, let's ring in oed early so they can evaluate it and let us know this idea might seem good on paper, but it's crazy. instead of going down a policy path and being told the night before the idea is economically unfeasible. secondly, the other reason i was excited is it has always affects. number one, it would encourage more collaboration among economists. closer and are in closer quarters, they are able to think about ends in a more innovative way. we want to encourage a culture of the more academic side of things. some the greatest innovations have been through economic working papers. these all stem from economics papers. since 2012, we have had zero economic working papers. i want to encourage more of that academic environment. benefit of which, the is we will attract better economic talent to the agency. the sec, theing as ftc, and many others. it would make it easier for us to attract the best and brightest if we can say we take economics seriously and we have a central office were you can work on some of the most cutting-edge issues in the industry. i'm hopeful that will be something that there's fruit. we have a working group that is talking to people within the agency about the best way to do this. as much wisdom from any quarter we can. that would be optimal. i think moving forward we are excited. with respect to transactional review, i have been consistent on this. when i was asked about how i would handle transactional review, i am a recovering antitrust lawyer. you evaluate the facts and determine what is in the public interest. that's obviously an issue for congress to decide. that's an area that has been under much discussion. anything congress decides to doing that topic >> i want to say that i am familiar with that reference to the federalist papers. hamilton's paper about energy in the executive. i want to say again mr. chairman --ppreciate someone who is has served, the energy you are bringing to the task. i very much appreciate what you have said about the staff, and i at work at the fcc have a lot. i'm not going to use that phrase, make the fcc great again. i have a lot of confidence that fccr your leadership the will do a lot of good things for the american public. agree, but ialways have confidence that at the end of the day whatever that is, the american public will be well served for what you are trying to do. i thank you for that. i thank you for being here with us today. i asked the others to join me in thanking you. [applause] ajit pai: thanks so much. i really appreciate it. >> washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. deang up this morning, scott will be on to discuss reports of the trump administration withdrawing from the paris climate accord. eric lipton of the new york times will talk about how the pharmaceutical industry is responding to pressure to lower prescription drug prices. we will discuss the investigation into russia and the elections. we will talk about challenges to u.s. retailers. be sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> it resulted in a naval victory for the u.s. over japan just six months after pearl harbor. friday, american history tv will be live all day from the macarthur visitor center in virginia for the 75th anniversary of the title of midway. featured speakers in clued the author of "the admirals." book.t carlson with his anthony tulley, the author of "shattered sword." watch the battle of midway 75th anniversary special live from the macarthur memorial visitor center in virginia on friday beginning at 9:30 a.m. on american history tv on c-span3. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. 19 79, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. it is brought to you today by your cable or satellite divider.

Related Keywords

United States , Virginia , Paris , France General , France , Russia , Washington , America , American , John Edgerton , Eric Lipton , Seth Cooper , Meredith Baker , Dick Wiley , Tim Russert ,