in terms of how people use violence to pursue their objectives and unfortunately i think religion has been one of the most common bandwagons that some of these individuals have jumped onto. it's not specific to one religion or one society or people. >> one last question that i'm going to ask. beyond weapons of mass distraction, some have argued that the cia did not see the arab spring coming and they did not see ukraine. it did not see the rise of isil. if those were mistakes, why? >> you said if those were mistakes. ..

>> ways of intelligence collection may not render that insight. they might not be giving the right perspective. we need a better sense of what is happening in the street and that is why looking at social media and other things give you a better sense of the bear

metrics is a country. in ukraine, people say you didn't predict putin was going to do this or that. well i think we identified what the pros and cons were and what his calculus was but i think putin and other leaders have not determined what the next chess move is until their opponent's shows their chess move and they will bend. intelligence isn't a sea as far as having a crystal ball. what we need to do is help policymakers understand the forces at play and how certain developments and actions may affect that calculus and that is what i think is important for the cia particularly in this world where we have so many challenges across the board. we have not talked about africa even. this is something we need to stay atuned to because this

mission requires -- attuned -- us to have insight and expertise and working with individuals and the council and other parts of the private sector we know are able to flush out our appreciation. >> john, thank you for coming. [applause] >> up next on the communicateers we will talk to an fcc commissioner about the newly adopted net neutrality reports. federal agencies made $125 billion in improper payments last year and we will hear from the social security officials in about 30 minutes. later, the u.s. commission on civil rights holds a forum on

workplace discrimination. c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> well one of the few people who has read the fcc's order is fcc commission mignon clyburn. commissioner clyburn, when we are we able to read the report? what is next? >> next is a series of changes at the fcc that requires the judicial body. we have an item vote on the item and when that happens, we have the opportunity to weigh in even after the fact. meaning there were two defenses

as you know. we will respond to these and real soon the public will be able to see the finish producted. >> host: did you have any issues about voting for it? >> in 2010 i was pro-title two. i thought it gave us the best framework to fuel the innovation and opportunities we enjoy today. so i had no reservations in moving in this direction because i felt it was the least sustainable framework in which we need to have a certainty and can acustomed to. >> technology reporter for "the national journal" is joining us

here. >> commissioner, i understand you pushed for some changes that got incorporated into the order and some didn't. can you talk about the changes you wanted and if you have cis appointed you didn't get combining everything you asked for. >> one thing you learn at a certain age is crow don't get everything you want. i was concerned about small carriers because they said some of the things might be burdensome. so those with fewer than a hundred thousand customers we said we will have exchanges with you and see how it will impact you with the transparency compliant issues. there was an exchange with state regulators when it comes to the universal funds. and one of the things that was

troubling to me is that we took a posture i thought might jeopardize the relationship with the state. those where the two noteworthy things that come to mind that i thought we need to make sure our rules are tailored to the needs of all sizes and players in the space so those are two of the many things we asked for. >> are you concerned at all there is this general conduct standard that the fcc adopted which is a catch-all provision. are you worried it is too broad or vague? >> one of things we have to do is be number one for what we don't know is going to come. over the past four years since the rules in 2010 were adopted we have seen explosive growth as

it relates to technology innovation, lte lte had 75,000 people a few years ago using those devices and now it is about 125 million. so things have changed in such a small period of time that i believe what some might classify as a catch-all will give us the dexitary we need to change and evolve with the time. >> some of the companies advocating for title two or this order are very successful companies. why do they need this regulation when they have not to this point? >> one of the things and when you say we have not to this point i have to take a sort of friendly liberty here to remind everyone that in 2010 we adopted an order earlier this year the court remanded the majority of that order. but we had rules of the road.

it even goes back further than that. we had principles that were adopted in the mid-2000 that set the stage for principles to be followed. we codified them in 2010. we got a love letter from the court and we resonded last month to answer those -- responded -- so we have been governored for a number of years by principles that have been codified and that is fueling the fight and that is the part you rarely here. and it is so important with companies that might be successful is because they are helping, they are part of the eco system that is fueling the innovation and investment. there would be no bill if there were no demand. these companies are content

providers or providers that help mead the critical needs and makes all of the entities are interwoven. it is important to take all of the entities into account particularly are the consumer. >> it seems congress is interested in getting involved in the net neutrality issue. do you think this is an issue where congress should have a voice or do you think the fcc has enacted the gold standard here and we don't need further action. >> i have a hearing coming up soon. so what i will say is respect to role of congress. i think they have a duty and obligation to look from there perch as to how things are evolving in terms of the eco system but we are the expert agencies when it comes to communication and technology in the light and i continue to believe that a strong rules,

clear rules from us and congressional guidance is the best course. the reason we are the envy of the world is we have that inner exchange and independent body that is applying congressional man date and you have the dexterity you need to fuel all of this. we are the envy of the world because we have an interactive system. four million people weighed in on the open internet proceeding. unprecedented by all standards. you have not heard about that type of engagement anywhere else in the world. it is because we have an interactive process whether that be the whitehouse to the hill to the fcc to the people. and that is what i think we should be celebrating. >> the vote was political. 3-2. dems verses republicans. did it damage relationships among the commissioners?

>> i don't think it damaged relationships. we want the same thing. we want a vibrant economy and clear rules of the road but we have a different philosophy of getting that. it reinforced what we know about each oat and that is some of us think clear, codified rules are the best to send as it relates to conduct and others have a more relaxed approach and don't see where there is a problem. i counter as i said earlier one of the reasons thinks are so successful is we have a pathway that included the framework for clear rules. what about potential law suits? could this hold up the order? >> my joke is there is 99.9% chance that this will be

challenged. that is the nature of this space. i wish it would not be because what we saw in 2010 was all of this innovative growth that blossomed as a result of what i think were clear rules. i think i feel confidant that with this frame pleawork we will see more of this growth. i hope it isn't challenged but i think my hopes will be dashed. >> i think since the fcc voted on this you might be moving on to other issues. i want to ask you about lifeline. the fcc's subsidy program. you talked about wanting to update that. can you talk about what you want to see done and when it might happen now net neutrality is out the door? >> it is interesting because none of these are divorced from

the other. the lifeline program is one of four universal programs designed to be a competitive force designed to meet critical communication needs. the lifeline program established in the mid-80s has been stuck in the mid-80s and has strictly been supportive of voice-only services. you and i know the way we communicate is totally different. we now have moved from a wired infrastructure to over 320-some odd million people in this nation with a mobile structure. that particular program, which is designed to meet the affordability needs of individuals, most of those people who are eligible about 56% at last count, are wireless-only customers.

that means this program that has been stuck in the '80s for a long time needs to meet the critical needs of our nation and of that particular population and that is why i was so concerned when it came to the open internet item. health care needs educational need how we communicate with government and the like all of those things are important if we are in this eco system that gives 250 minutes -- it is 250 in terms of data services and e-mails and the like -- if you are stuck in the text message chat you are not going to be able to communicate with your doctor. i have had people say to me i can tell when it is the middle of the month and people are running out of benefits because i don't hear from patients. we have to address that. what i am proposing, number one,

that we do is overhaul the lifeline program and make it con current and in sync with the information age and challenge the providers to give more to their consumers. the prices and opportunities have been more explosive for the rest of us and it should be for the lifeline customers. get the providers of out the business. that is the number one problem with not so positive headlines. there is a vulnerability in the system we need to plug. let's leverage the plat plea forms that help with certification and privacy and security. we are pushing to do all of the these things because this program as a lifeline and opportunity for those who have significant financial challenges to be able to keep in touch with their doctors educators, with

their communities, with their lufb loved ones and it is vital we reform that to meet the needs of our vulnerable population. i hope by this summer we have something to do just that. >> you are saying it should cover broadband as well as the voice services it does now >> when you talk about citizens particularly african-american citizens and latinos, when you talk about their access to the internet a lot is mobile. it was important going back to the open internet to have mobile parody. you should not have a second-class engagement regardless of if you access either in a wired or mobile -- that is why we fought for that. and so it is important for -- that is one device that might be their only communication device.

it is vital it is broadband enables. >> commissioner clyburn you talk about the area of health care. what are you seeing? >> more telemedicine engagement. when you look at the stats they are frightening. three of us around the table may not worry about this but i have been having a tough time getting an appointment with my doctor but so many others we have about a million physicians in the nation. last time i checked fewer than five million lpn's and the like. this is to serve over 300 million people. we have a health care disconnect i believe can only be addressed through technology. when you talk about a more

robust lifeline of products and making sure there is mobile parody and when you talk about insuring we have a means for the infrastructure needed particularly in rural or unserved areas in terms of broadband that is the key to bridge the communication divide with it comes to health care delivery. i think and i know and we have seen it with veterans and seen it in the mississippi delta where i just visited where you have positive outcomes with those who have been hypertensive. they have not running into the doctor every five minutes or going to the emergency room to have casual care. they have a laptop that is assigned to them and health care cost are going down and their outcomes are getting more up and increased and all of this is

made possible through connectivity. that is why on a mobile front wireless front and the legacy front we need to connect. >> this is an expansion of the fcc's traditional role in communication. >> we have been in the rural broadband business for a while. i don't know if you know that but one of the parts hof the universal service -- of the -- program is designed to help connect rural health care facilities to provide affordable broadband infrastructure. >> all of these programs are funded through the fees on the phone bill so people are paying into this. is it possible to expand the lifeline program without increasing the fees on the phone bill? >> we are hopeful of doing that.

if we gain efficiencies in terms of the existing programs and demanding more from consumers as well as from providers i am hopeful that we will be able to extract efficiencies as we go along and extract them all across the program and hopefully if we make this more inviting it would be more competitive and other providers will off newer or novel service. i am hoping three reform we will create a competitive landscape that realizes the inefficiency and hopefully attract or tempt others to get into other leverage partnerships we had not thought of today. >> one of these other partnerships is the comcast

essential program and this was part of the nbc-universal deal. do you think the program has been working? or should they be doing better? >> what i know is over the course of the inception it has evolved tremendously. they will tell you i was pushing for eligibility not just for those qualified for free or reduced lunch but those who were a step above. they didn't think they could handle but within a few months they did. can there be improvements? yes. there are people and entities pushing to improve the product and offering and i will be among them. i think it was a good first step. it was a template no body else was following. it is providing affordable broadband under $10 a month for people who might not have signed up before and what i can

continue to be hopeful of is more me toos in the space. i think we will see that. >> commissioner clyburn, to you foresee usf expanding to broadband? >> in essence it is. what is happening is -- well so that part of it -- just the previous previous chairman laid framework saying we would have to be in the budget. the e-rate program got a boost as you know. i think this is a part and this is why we need more dialogue about what we truly want and expect when it comes to infrastructure needs. infrastructure is now not just roads and water. infrastructure is including

technology now. if we want to grow and evolve and meet our critical, national priorities the technology side of the house has to be a part of it. we have to think about it continue to think it is critical infrastructure and the reason i say something about the broadband with the legacy -- before we reform to the connect america fund is what is happening because you are using the same platforms they were providing broadband using the same infrastructure. so we were also in essence sub-saharansub subsidizing broadband before making it explicit. this is the next thing we need to keep in mind when we have policies and that is why it is important to have the dexterity we need to grow and evolve and we have to be in tune with how things are evolving from a

regulatory stand point so we can say here is how things are trending and how can we make sure everybody regardless of where they live income or hyperrule or dense area, a lot of times they have the same needs when the comes to challenges and we need to figure out and continue to figure out how policies would be in line and benefit them all. >> as you know on the day of the infamous net neutrality vote there was another vote on municipal broadband. do you foresee others coming together and petitioning for clearance? >> i talked before the national league of cities this week and whene just that. and what we did for those who

don't know is we looked at two cases. we had an application from chattanooga, tennessee from the electric power board and the other from the city of wilson north carolina. both have been asked by their neighbors to serve me because there is a -- what i call, technology bad land. incredible gaps outside of the city limits. they are not being served appropriately. city fathers and mothers have been asking and begging those countries that are indigenous to those area do is provide affordable services and in one case they were laughed at. i think when you are laughed at and you have the opportunity to provide service if you have existing telecommunication infrastructure, if you have the needs to expand the communities that want to heal and sever

serve themselves should be getting the opportunity to do so. that is why the other vote that is delayed is important and is not getting enough headlines. this is giving these individuals, these persons responsible for the critical needs of their community, the opportunity to serve with fewer and fewer restrictions. i am hopeful others follow suit and see the advantages and the growth that wilson and chattanooga realized. if they apply we will give them the same time of consideration we gave the other two. >> one of the issues you took on when you were acting chairwoman was the high prices the prisoners are paying for phone calls to their families. that order only affected the calls across state line. when do you think the commission might address these calls within

states? which i imagine is what a lot of prisoners are trying to do. >> absolutely. 85% of the calls by estimate are made within intra-state and each individual state. even though that was a tremendous victory for us it was a critical first step. and what we are reviewing now with about 110 comments with a further notice that we offered last year was an opportunity for us to ask those questions what do we do about the date and the bulk of it and what do we do about the fees we have been hearing and have been going up? what do we do about the commissions which some of the providers said the commissions have been at the heart of the rates. how do we provide affordable services for a population that is most vulnerable.

it is not the inmates paying for the services. it is the family's of the inmates who come from low-income communities and those who are deaf and hard of hearing it is not uncommon for a call to cost $2.25 a minute plus a $4 service charge each time. you are charged to open an account, close an account and even to get a refund. there are so many charges along the way for people that can least afford it. this is an issue that is hard for me to contain my emotions. it is exploitation of the most vulnerable and it is punishing families to a degree they don't deserve. and i will see that to the end in terms of providing the

certainty and the justice that those individuals need. i will do everything i can to bring an order to the floor this summer and when you don't see me when i go missing you know i am working behind the scenes to see that happens and get staff support we need. >> can you give us a preview of the march 26th meeting? >> i think you know one thing before us and that is we are going to do the reauthorization and that is the satellite service authorization as well as there is a local number portability item which is averages of possible which is speaking about -- we have one of our task forces one of our support