hundreds of those workers were making $149,000 a year and then got a couple of thousand dollar raises and took them over that threshold. i'm not necessarily asking for an explanation today because there may not be one that can better be supported by what research can uncover, but i snit hearings with the national nuclear security administration and health ins students and oth institution and very high level, high competency level bureaucracies in this government, and i would be shocked if they all came with this kind of a appreciated number between 2008 and 2009. so i give awe chance just to comment about that significant jump in one year. but i do, for the record, would like to see the justification and where we are headed on this

path. >> so we certainly can provide you a more detailed explanation. i understand from our staff that in that period from '08 to '09, a certain class on the gsis pay scale went from just under $150 to just over $150. we'll get back to you on whether that is the explanation. i can tell you in my time as chairman, there was no effort to say, let's inflate the salaries of employees. >> i hope so. surely you and the commissioner here would agree that on paper in front of the discerning public out here that is an astonishing jump in one year. i'd like to understand the numbers better myself. again, it's possible that pay scale went, this is what i understand from just under $150

to just over $150 in that year, but we'll work with you and the committee to provide the underlying facts. >> at the rick of being hard-headed and not satisfied with that particular response, let me say it again. that a member of the discerning public, you have to agree would look at that, discrepancy, 46 in 2008. 431 in 2009, unless there is a general support argument like you've indicated that is change in the pay scale, which goes back to what i said a minute ago. if everybody, if hundreds ever those peop of these people went from $148.5 or $145 to in excess of 150 overnight, that would be a logical explanation, but absent that, if that's not what we get back, would you agree that that's a hard number to justify? >> oh i would agree that that number needs to be understood.

it appears to have taken place before i got to the fcc, but in any event, we will provide that information to you and the committee and understand it. >> thank you. i promised a broadband question. i'm going to make this a softball generalized question. there's been a lot of talk already about rural broadband. i represent an area in arkansas that is very cosmopolitan, along the interstate 540 corridor and home to some great companies, in america, but i also represent an area of arkansas that is very rural. i mean, very rural. so rural that i've got areas in my district that probably don't get the grand ole opry until tuesday. it's that rural. assu assure -- i'll have to explain ta tha to my colleague from kansas. assure mae me and help me assure rural america that given the

tremendous pressure on our public schools, in distance learning programs, health care, in the enormous impact that broadband is having on the delivery of health care services, and the whole plethora of other issues impacted, i would even go so far as to argue that in some cases adequate broadband is as important if not more important than highways where once upon a time until our nation's history. so assure me, help assure rural. >> mike: that we're going to do what it takes to get broadband services, of sufficient bandwidth to the people that need it. >> completely agree on your statement about the importance of broadband to basic participation in our economy, in education and health care, and it's what drove our effort to reform and modernize the universal servicing. the challenge we face and we

look forward to working with the committee and congress together is we made the decision driven by fiscal responsibility to fund the connect america fund out of savings from the program. and to respond to some of the concerns from other parts of rural america, phase in some of the step wes took to increase first efficiency and accountability. it will be a step program to get broadband to rural america. i've argued the return into the universal service fund would have a very significant payoff, because it would allow us to accelerate deployment without turning the dial on the other side so fast that we hear more complaints and concerns from that side. it was in our national broadband

plan that suggestion, and i look forward to working on that with you because i think it would have positive payoff in terms of rural america as well as improvements to education and health care. >> thank you. commissioner, finally, last question is for you. last month there was an op-ed i think that you wrote in the "wall street journal" on the internet. and it was largely about the united nations potentially having more significant authority over the internet. can you -- this issue hasn't received a great deal of attention and i was hoping you could discuss for this panel just briefly what's happening in this arena? >> this is a very real problem and for the past several years there's been a group of countries throughout the world that have been pushing for international regulation of the internet. it sounds crazy, but it actually happens to be true, unfortunately. and in years past, the united states or the uk and other allies have been able to use parliamentary maneuvers to table some of these actions.

but this coming december in dubai, there will about treaty negotiation a renegotiation. so back in 1988, well, most of the countries in the world got together and negotiated a treat they set up the trend for the internet could be not regulated by governments, but to be regulated from the bottom up, in what we call the multistakeholder model, which is the private sector, academics, nonprofits and such, with engineers and academics and user groups and all sorts of folks to come and make the sort of bottom-up rules for how the internet works and how it's going to grow and thrive and succeed. but in the past couple of years in particular there's been a bit of a gathering storm of some countries, perhaps led by russia and china, vladimir putin himself i quote him in that "wall street journal" op-ed has said, pretty much it's a direct

quote, he was international control of the internet through the international telecommunication union. the itu, which is an arm of the u.n. based in geneva, and it does a lot of good things. it helps -- negotiates and manages international telecon's traffic, but it's been up to this point relegated to telecommunications and some international aspects of speck tru trum mblgt but not internet. everything from privacy and mainland administration to engineering, currently administered by the engineering task force, a nongovernmental group and other technical aspects of internet governance through the internet society. again, another nongovernmental group, as well as the peering arrangements of the long-haul internet back bone where they're negotiating traffic swapping

against -- all of that on the table to be consumed through the itu and give it jurisdiction over that, among many others. so it's a real concern. the -- the obama administration and i and others are all in agreement on this. there seems to be bipartisan support in this country, but it's becoming a kbit bit of an issue of the developing world versus the -- should a treaty goes the distance and actually become effective, it would actually undermine economic and political progress in the developing world. developed nations hopefully our own would opt out of such a treaty, but, and the rett rest of the world, that might not be the case. they see an opportunity to charge some website, applications, google, facebook, whatever, to charge them on a per click basis and have that money flow to sometimes state-owned telephone companies in their country. so there are a lot of issues

there. i don't want to go on and filibuster here but it is a very real concern and we should all be working hard to make sure it doesn't happen and i'm quite concerned about it, because it just doesn't take place in december. there are meetings throughout the globe between now and december where positions across the globe will start to harden. and i do want to thank the chairman for also voicing concern over this as well. >> mr. chairman a second to comment. >> preserving internet freedom globally is of vital importance. important to the american economy. important to the global economy. important to the economy of developing countries and important to freedom everywhere. and it is important that we work together on countering proposals that some countries have made that would not be consistent with internet freedom, and that would have the opposite effect of that claim. so it's have very important topic and it's important that we

all work together to observe free flow of data and internet freedom globally. >> i want to thank you both of you gentlemen personally for your service to our country and coming leer and answering these questions. thank you. >> thank you. what you all said, thank youing you both for your service. let me very briefly go back to what mr. womack, follow up wloon he just said about the salaries. you're absolutely right. there may be a good explanation if there is a whole category of individuals that went up. look at change between 2009 and 2010 and 2011, a large increase again. i'm sure an explanation, what gives me a little bit of reason to pause is the fact that -- by the way, i for one have no problem with, if you need qualified people and have to pay them well. if that's the policy, i don't have a problem with that, but we should know that's the case. if that is the policy.

if it isn't the policy and then, again, why are these numbers taking place? i they obvious lay to be answered and i know you will. i know you will. but in -- kind of a, also technical question. in several areas of your request you indicate you expect to keep 1,970 employees and funding that and other places there seems to be an indication that fcc expects to maintain only 1,776 employees. what is the actual number? >> the number is the lower number. the flexibility is requested so that we can continue to look at more efficiency in the overall budget by, for example, moving from contractors to ftes. no specific plans on the table.

but if it would save the government money doing something in-house instead of contracting it out we should look at that as part of it. but the number in our planning is the lower number, which -- >> 1,700. >> 1,770. >> what would the actual number be -- if you're requesting funding for 1,776 versus 1,917. what are we talking about moneywise? in other words i know that's not the case. some skeptics might say that sounds like a slush fund. you're going to have 1 is 776. what is the difference in the money? >> if i may, the opposite. asking fundsing for the 1,700 -- >> okay. >> it's within that funding -- flexibility of being aible to get to 1,900 with the fund are of 1,700. >> exactly right. >> could you get the difference

if it wasn't 11 z 1900? >> in general it's a better model. either you need someone or you don't. some circumstances and auctions may be an example. for a limited period of time contracting with an expert makes sense. for tanks that are basic recurring tasks, as general rule, it's probably more efficient to do it in-house. we don't have specific plans to do that but the team that developed the budget did it with that in mind. >> great. thank you. >> i just have one more question and then i'll submit a couple for the record. okay? >> yes, please. without objection. >> and mr. chairman, one of the fcc's goals increase broadband adoption. a long-term goal and internet consuming more and more band winged as people move from checking e-mail and reading news

to playing games and watching more things online, how do you define broadband and does your definition change as people need faster speeds to fully use the internet? >> so over time i expect that our basic definition of broadband will go up. i would note without being too theoretical the challenge of universal broadband is different and harder than the challenges of universal telephone or universal electricity. because telephone and electricity were binary. either you had a dial tone or you didn't. either you had electricity or you didn't. broadband is different. whereas you point out, could you have different speeds. and so in some ways it's the first time the country is wrestling with these issues of how promote bodband everywhere to all people, when it can mean different things over time. what we've done at the fcc is done two different things. we've set goals for where the

country should try to strive to on broadband. for example, set a goal of 100 megabitz to 100 million people by 2020. 1 gigabyte access to everyone in country. at the same time, universal service fund. we have to decide what are we actually going to pay for? it doesn't make sense to say we're going to pay for 100 megabytes for everyone in the country based and current usages. in the university service fund ord frerd a few months ago we defined that level as 4 megabytes buy an ongoing obligation for the krk fcc to look at looking for a job, for education and making adjusts to that over time as is appropriate. >> you know, let me close by saying that, something that you both know already, bumt i think it merits repeating in public. you have one of the most

important responsibilities in our society, in our government, and i mean that. because a lot of people who work in government and head agencies and sit on boards, affect certain segments of the population and don't effect others. but the most important person in corporate america is touched by your decisions and the poorest child in a classroom in a rural area in the inner city is touched by your decisions, too, and i think your challenge concerning what i think should be your mission, is to make sure that while we don't interfere with those up here's ability to use the internet, use technology to move ahead, that we leave no one behind, and we're running the risk already of leaving a lot of people behind and you should always keep that in mind. and also something you're not allowed to comment on, i know, you have one of greatest jobs around, because you know before we know what's being tested out there, and we all would love to

know what's next. so -- but i know you can't tell us. there would be a rush on the market tomorrow and a vaccine, but from my part i want to thank you for your testimony, for your work. we disagree at times on some issue, but in general, we approve of the work you're doing and just keep doing it, and remember that it's broadband for all folks. it's broad. not just for some. thank you. >> thank you, mr. serrano. let me, by the way, because mr. s serrano is probably one of the most tech savvy members of congress. you might be responsible on your ipad, consuming half the battle within the entire congress, just on your ipad. >> just when i'm wagie i watchi binchts didn't realize the yankees were on more than one channel. >> the yankees are throughout the world. there's baseball and then there's the yankees. >> well, let me thank both of you for, on that note, let me

thank both of you for your service. i also echo the words of our colleagues, and i also want to finish as i started. i want to thank you in particular for being decidingly accessible to me and my staff. you always have been and i know we'll get the answers to some of these questions that we've had, and i think with that, this meeting is adjourned. thank you. >> thank you very much.

it's budget day for republicans on capitol hill as this morning budget committee chair paul ryan released the republicans' 2013 budget plan. during a news conference, he offered details. it includes cuts to medicaid, food stamps, pell grants and a number of other programs that president obama has worked to protect. it would also change medicare into a voucher system to pay private insurance premiums. you can see the gop's 2013 budget proposal and read the details at our website, c-span.o c-span.org. we've been getting reactions to the gop budget plan throughout the day. representative ryan's counterpart on the budget

committee, represent stiff chris van hollen, had this to say. the republican plan will do nothing to promote jobs, rebuild our country or support working families. it ends the medicare guarantee and shifts the burden of rising health care costs on to seniors. white house communications director dan pfeiffer also released a statement on the gop plan saying in part, it would shower the wealthiest few americans with an average tax cut of at least $150,000 while preserving taxpayer giveaways to oil companies and breaks for wall street hedge fund managers. the road to the white house winds through illinois today. join us this evening for a live coverage of the results from the offices of politico. we'll also have speeches from mitt romney and rick santorum, ron paul and newt gingrich have no plans to speak. that's tonight on the c-span networks. and don't forget to make

c-span.org your clearing house for all things related to the campaigns. watch the latest video of republican presidential candidates and president obama from the campaign trail. search the candidates on the issues section for video of the candidates' views on major campaign issues, like the economy, the deficit, national security and immigration. again, that's all at c-span.org/campaign2012. more about the 2012 elections now with a discussion on latino voters from today's "washington journal." this is about 40 minutes. >> arturo vargas from the national association of latino elected and appointed officials. when it cams to latinos, how does 2012 differ than 2008 potentially among potential voters? >> well, in the first place we expect a 26% increase in the number of latino voters over this four-year span, so 9.7 million voted in 2008, and we're

anticipating 12.2 million in 2012. >> so when you look at those potential voters, what do you see as far as issues starting with the most important and working your way down? >> well, the most important issue definitely is the economy. latinos have been most affected by the recession. they have the highest unemployment rate. they have the highest foreclosure rate. the loss of jobs has really hit the latino community more than any other community. in addition to that, you know, latinos are also concerned about health care, public education, immigration reform is an important issue. you know, both things think that immigration is the latino issues. it's one of the many issues that latinos care about. >> when it comes to terms of then the economy, is there anything on the republican side, especially amongst republican candidates, that are of interest or could be of interest to latino voters? >> well, i think latino voters are still looking to see what the republican candidates really have to say to them. what we've heard from the campaign, they have been focusing very much on

immigration. i think what they want is to hear how our -- how is any candidate going to create more jobs and help those most affected by the recession to survive this economy. >> but they haven't heard that yet? >> i don't think they have heard it from anybody really. >> what did puerto rico show as far as mr. romney's victory there? >> well, puerto rico showed that a republican candidate was going to win. i don't think it really shows that there's latino support for any candidate because by definition puerto ricans were going to vote for somebody. i think romney's challenge is how does he translate that to the rest of the 50 states? >> as far as the president's supporters, those who supported him amongst the latino community in 2008 and 2012, where are they now? >> well, the president still enjoys a higher level of support and approval rating among latinos than non-latinos. there is some, i think, disappointment with his lack of being able to move immigration reform forward. i think he needs to go out and talk to latino voters directly

and speak to their issues, again, the economy, health care, public education, immigration. >> as far as the immigration reform and starting there, why hasn't it advanced? >> in my view the president used his political capital in his first two years, and with the majority of the congress to move health care reform and got that through and once that happened he lost the congress and wasn't able to move any major initiatives forward, including immigration reform. >> we saw that effort, made, saw that effort being made in the previous administration as well, but to be -- to the degree it advanced. why doesn't this issue advance, do you think? >> it doesn't advance because we don't have enough support in the congress to move this forward and to break our broken immigration system. many people are suffering. our economy suffers as a result. we don't have enough workers who are coming into this country to take the jobs that need to be taken, and then we have families that are being separated, so it -- it really is an issue that needs to be fixed, and we just

need the courage, both in congress and in the white house, to get this done. >> what does a fix look like? >> i think a fix looks like a rational way for people to immigrate to this country, because right now it doesn't exist. we do have some 11 million people who are living in the shadows in this country. we need to regularize their status in some way so they can contribute fully to our economy and society and a way to keep families together. right now families are separated by our immigration laws, and if we really believe in the strength of the family, we need to keep families together. >> our guest is going to be here until 9:15. can you ask questions on one of three phone "l.a. timelines. you can spend us tweets via twitter and e-mail as well. first call from woodbridge, virginia. scott, republican line. you're on with arturo vargas. >> caller: good morning,

mr. vargas. >> good morning. >> caller: i have a few questions, and i want to couch this by saying i don't expect you to obviously speak for the entire latino community, just as i don't speak for the entire mutt community, english, scottish, whatever the heck i am, but that being said. i wonder what your perspective is you mentioned immigration reform and a few items of making it easier and so forth. what would be your acceptance or what would be your preference i guess to do what -- number one, what those illegals currently here that are already -- already have been here and are under illegal status, what do we do with them, and number two, what are your feelings as far as the constitutional argument regarding quote, unquote, someone who comes here illegally and that child is -- through manipulations of the constitution are considered u.s. citizens. that are your thoughts on those two items, i would really think

of it? >> what do we do the with the 11 million people that are here. i think what many of the candidates have said, that it's irrational to expect -- that they are essentially going to support 12 million people, 11 million people. what we need to do is give them an opportunity to regularize their status, pay their taxes, pay whatever fines they need to pay and then get in line to be able to become a legal permanent resident. many of them are contributing members of society. they have had children here. they have created families, create at home. they are contributing members of their community. it's time to make them full members of our society. >> don, north carolina, robert independent line. >> caller: yes, sir, mr. vargas, and thank you for taking my call. i just have a general comment, and i want your observation. a lot of the people in the republican candidates now are running away from mr. bush which

actually was a wartime president and had a lot to do with what was on his plate, but when he got in before 9/11 the first thing he did was reach out to mexico, and he tried to start rational immigration policy, e-verify and some kind of semi-and i know this is a bad word, amnesty, and some sort of rational policy of how workers from mexico could come up and work in our economy and we could know who they were, and they could pay a fair amount of tax es and then 9/11 started, and he to make a shift because we had to respond to this attack which is a pearl harbor type of event that happened. i would like you to make a comment on that. thank you very much for taking my call. >> well, i think you're absolutely right. the fact is before 9/11 the president stood up and said that the most important relationship