invitation. -- intend to accept that invitation. using our authority we will readjust the concept of the open internet order, as the court invited, to encourage growth in innovation and enforce against the abuse. we noted with great interest the expressions from many internet service providers to the effect that they will continue to honor the open internet orders concepts even though they may have been remanded to the commission. is the right and responsible thing to do, and we take them up on their commitment. , we accept thee court's invitation to revisit the structure of the rules that it vacated.

host: robert mcdowell, what is your reaction? isst: i think tom wheeler the type of leader who is going to do what he says he is going to do. i have known tom a long time. he is saying there is that hole in the fence, and he will look at other ounces. whether it is under the legal authority the cap -- court granted him under section 706, i think he will explore that. i think you will explore all his options. ,t may be full court of appeals or an appeal to the supreme court and it could be an attempt to try to reclassify broadband under title ii, phone service. i think that would be a huge mistake for the economy. but he could do that. there is a docket that has been sitting there since may of 2010. he has a number of options in front of him. and, by the way, the transparency option. let me talk about that very quickly. that was left standing. service provider,

needs to, as a matter of law, disclosed to the public, disclosed to the world, what plans are. act in anns are to anti-competitive way, it has to say so. if it acts in an anti-competitive way and has not said so before hand, then the fcc can come down like a hammer on that internet service provider. but in the meantime, i would hope chairman wheeler would meet with the leadership of the federal trade commission, state attorneys general, consumer advocates at the state and federal level, as well as even trial lawyers to lay out all of their weapons whether statutory or common law, put them on the table, meet with internet service providers and say we have all of these weapons at our disclosed -- disposal. if you start harming consumers, we will come after you. that is and will be in as a huge deterrent. host: commissioner copps used ization acable-

broadband. "wall street journal" has a ofumn beware of cableization the internet and he talks about some of the new business models. i want to get your view of whether it will be good, bad, you are indifferent to them. "the regulatory details are complex but the critics and proponents agree that the new rules could alter internet and basic business model" --

guest: right, these are actually old arguments. i disagree respectfully. first screen the computer -- for consumers increasingly is mobile. i look at my three kids, my focus group, and their first screen is the mobile screen. more often than not, that is spectrum,licensedvia which i have been a proponent of that the commission. that mixes up the competitive equation quite a bit. so there's a lot of competition. so, if a cable company literally that is offering broadband that is at thing in an anti-competitive way or somehow frustrating consumer demand, there are alternatives for the consumer. there is also the fact that the fastest-growing segment of the broadband market is the wireless segment. that mixes up everything and waters down the cableization

argument. but the premise of that argument is that there is market power and an abuse of that market power. if that is the case, you can look to section 5 of the federal trade commission act, you can look at the department of justice antitrust division, and there would be investigations right away, if not lawsuits filed by the government and consumer activists and plaintiffs attorneys. that acts as a determinant for the so-called cableization. the cable industry is under threat by unlicensed wireless. commissioner cox, what is wrong with netflix and at&t teaming up saying, hey, we will give you a discount and you can access netflix or whatever service provider if you join at&t. what is wrong with that? guest: big-money joining hands

with big money and discouraging the garage entrepreneurs, the small website operator, the small content producer. i want to go back for just a second to your playing of chairman wheeler's remarks, because they are good remarks. wise toink we are realize how difficult really this is to do. it is easier said than done. i had been in this town for 40-some years right now, and during all of that time i have seen the power of the special interests and the power of big-money proliferate. so, the folks on the other side who are against this kind of open internet have armies of fullists and wheelbarrows of money to deploy in this crusade. so, this is not something that will be politically easy for am counting on the

fact for the commission to be as immune as possible. are allransparency, we for transparency, but if there's no rules about what will be transparent and then i think we've got a problem. if we are going to count on companies, because they say we are going to be in the mode of good behavior, well, that is taking a leap. because the dynamic of capitalism and free enterprise is to try to get market control and to try to get the gatekeeper control. there is nothing wrong with that. youif you let it go and have no public oversight and you can't say stop at some period before it becomes a doo-wop and monopoly.ly host: we have gone too long -- i apologize to the viewers. statel, i don't know what

you are calling from but you are calling on the republican line. go ahead, michael. pennsylvania. i'll echo -- bestr: thank you tuesday's to c-span. the fcc is integral to a free and open society. i agree with both. i particularly like what mr. cox is saying-- copps about the openness of the internet and the freedoms allowed because of this new entity, so-called new entity. but i had a question for both gentlemen. it may not be completely related to the internet. showve a local radio talk that recently has been taken off of the year, and i think it was very popular. and i think it was taken off for political reasons. fcc, this newe rule that the senate, without the 60 votes, you can improve -- with thesimple

simple majority. i think you don't have the mainstream american political thought now than you used to have because of this ruling. and i think you can pack the fcc with radical viewpoints. i think that is one of the things that is detrimental to our free society. i was wondering your take on some of these appointments. host: robert mcdowell? any word for that viewer especially when it comes to the radio issue? guest: i am not familiar with the facts of that particular matter of a show i guess being taken off the air, a radio station in pennsylvania. and you think it was for political reasons. i don't know how to respond directly to that. is if you are saying there some fcc action involved, i would love to know more about that. that would be probably patently unconstitutional. there is something called the

fairness doctrine which came up in the late 1940's, which was the government effort to balance political speech over the airways. it was a pale -- upheld but barely in a sip record case in 1969. but i think today would be viewed as unconstitutional under the first amendment. we think of other platforms -- let's say, a newspaper, the government would have no rights under the first amendment to try to balance political speech there, and this and not on the air and should not try to do so on the internet, either, and does not need to a cause of the very low barriers to entry. regarding whether or not the commission can be hacked -- packed. they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate that you mention the nuclear option, that no longer it takes 60 votes to get nominees through. we will see. that is going to be invoked from time to time. i agree with senator mcconnell, i think the majority in the senate will regret that someday

when the tide turns. but it is entirely possible. but right now i think you have five highly intelligent committed public servant serving on the fcc. it is one of the most qualified ever. i disagree philosophically with there, but folks some very intelligent people and i think the american people should take some comfort. -- i may regret the statement later if they do something egregious. now otherpacked right than the white house's party tends to get the majority. host: michael copps, a viewer tweets in -- guest: well, i think you can make the case probably and government by and large, in

agencies, not just the fcc, that there has been something of a which is power and trends in power. entrenching power. they try to put in some curbs on that. i do not think it has worked 100%. but the fcc mission in life is to preserve the public interest. it is a consumer protection .ublic interest agency that is its job. host: new chairman tom wheeler served as as the head of served -- some interest groups -- corporate interest groups, etc. is that a mistake to put him as chair of the fcc after that? performancenk the test will count. tom is a tremendously capable man who understand how the town works. i think he is looking for

another job anywhere in his career right now. i think he is going to be dedicated to public interest. i certainly hope so. but that being said, i still think as a general matter, given the amount of money and given uninhibited campaign --enditures, we ought to we've got to start putting the public interest back on top. host: starting with you, commissioner mcdowell, should communication and wireless communications between the same? they are currently not, correct? guest: let me throw out a #for commactupdate. i do think we need a rewrite of our communications laws. the last time they were fundamentally written was really 1934. we had an amendment to that in 1996. but the foundation are still rooted in 1934. and if you dig deeper it goes

railroad9th century monopoly law. what it does is it regulates different technologies based on the history. again, if you look at the average american consumer, they don't really care what conduits their content came over or if they are generating their own applications. we right now now have a statutory construct where is -- if it is over the air one way, broadcast, it is to do differently, and another way, unlicensed mobile wireless, treated another way, and licensed wireless is treated another way. coaxial cable, treated another way. fiber is treated another way. twisted wires, another way. what is actually happening with everything you are doing on your computer right now and what i might do on my phone later, as the communications traversed, they are going through a number of technologies but with a different regulatory treatment.

that creates distortions in the marketplace. i think we need to look at all of this through the lens of competition law and with the goal being consumer protection. what harms are there being put forth to consumers? so, i would hope that the fcc would actually do a market study of the broadband market, a bona fide, peer-reviewed market study before it acts. and also before congress asked to rewrite the law. my hat off to chairman fred upton of the energy and commerce committee and the subcommittee chairman for launching last month a dialogue which will take years, but a dialogue to examine how can we modernize, bring up to date our communications laws. they are out of date and they are creating a lot of distortion. guest: i don't think wireless and wireline have to be regulated exactly the same, but certainly when you get to fundamentals like consumer protection and you say, well,

one can't discriminate but the other can, that is a dissimilarity that i do not think is appropriate for this day and age. and i don't think we have years to ponder all of this. because every year that goes by seized the power of these big companies grow and more and more consolidation, more and more mergers pending, more and more and gatekeeping. so generally the protections it should be the same -- protections should be the same. you get into the weeds and -- it harkensate back to a previous error, so is the constitution and the declaration of independence. host: stephen is calling from new york. canandaigua. caller: one of the beautiful

finger lakes. is copps is correct everything he has said and mr. mcfaul likes to focus on the consumer experience -- mr. mcdowell likes of focus on the consumer experience but small businesses like ours are being locked out by big internet players. let me give you some detail. we are a small business in upstate new york whose largest customer is the federal government. we were pioneers of the internet and we have been sending personal and business e-mail from our own servers since 1995. ever,not, nor have we been a source of spam. last year, without explanation, yeah. delivering our mail to its yahoo! e-mail customers, including my own brother-in-law. verizonhe same time, aopped answering our server's connection request. so i can't even send e-mail to my sister-in-law, either. nor verizon were

responsive to requests to resume delivering e-mail. messages refer me to a nonexistent yahoo! website and verizon simply ignores all communication. host: we will bring this to a close. if you could put a conclusion on that. caller: it has no authority in this matter. host: you are saying the fcc has no authority? caller: i went to the fcc about this and it replied it has no authority in this matter. host: you guys are hearing just a little bit of a story here. i think these are details that fill in the argument that i have been trying to make any more eloquent fashion and more fact-based fashion van i was able to do. these companies have tremendous power to run over small providers and small websites. that is what we are talking

about. guest: i don't know the specifics of your case, and i would obviously love to talk more about that. but if indeed that is the case, under the net neutrality rules that stood, one could make the argument that you could have filed a complaint with the fcc. i don't know if you filed a complaint during that window of time or not. but if it is a matter of traffic congestion, then the fcc might come back and say it is reasonable traffic management. i don't know the specifics of what you are saying, but if there is a market power concerned that is harming you maybe you have -- maybe deceptive trade practices claim or maybe antitrust claim. there are a lot of other legal tools for you to look at. i would write to the federal trade commission and the state attorney general if you think you are being unfairly treated. again, i don't know your specific facts. robert mcdowell, a viewer tweets in --

guest: so, a network engineer would actually say, no. and here's why. ,f you are downloading a video you want that experience to be seamless. you don't want fragmentation and pixelization of the video. the video bits have the be given priority over the e-mail bits, let's say, or other bits like voice over ip. ,o, when you are using skype voice over ip, you want that to be a good experience so those bits have to be given priority. that is not treating all bits of the same. some would say, of course, that is reasonable traffic management, network management. there is a lot of engineering that goes on here. we have to be careful of bumper stickers saying treated all the same. that is how the mainstream press likes to oversimplify it.

it is much more complicated than that. day, ishe end of the the consumer experience being frustrated, and why? is it an application that is clogging the pipes for the some otheris it nefarious purpose like being anti-competitive? so, treating this all the same sounds good if you say it fast, but it is not the way an engineer would look at how best to run things. host: michael copps, from "the wall street journal" this sprint -- talking about taking t-mobile in a merger. if you were sitting on the fcc right now, just generally, how do you think he would vote on that? guest: first of all, i would like to see the background and listen to the arguments on both sides. historically, as you know, i have been an opponent of all of this consolidation that we have had. some have argued it is better to have the third big competitors, so you have verizon and at&t and then this combined entity, but i

don't think it represents the kind of competition the wireless industry really needs to have. and you can't unwind the clock. thousandsgo back to and thousands of wireless providers but you can do better than we are doing now through spectrum auctions and screens to encourage some kind of competition. skeptical.k at it as i would have an open mind if somebody comes up with some facts i have not thought of. but it has not been a good friend and i have not favored the trend. marietta, georgia. you are on with former fcc commissioners mcdowell and michael copps. caller: good morning. first, i want to say off the top , mr. copps is my hero. i watched him some time back when william powell, colin powell's son was sitting on the tord pretty much trying

throw the fcc under the bus, as far as i was concerned. that observing all of this, me as a consumer, customer, i go to places like abc, link tv which i contribute to in order to get news -- bbc, link tv that i contribute to or al jazeera. i do this because i cannot get content that is informative in this country because it is owned by big business. here is mr. mcdowell tried to calmly thatt -- these companies have the right to come into the internet, which taxpayer subsidized, even though the military comes out with it, and they basically want to privatize this. control thel content now. another place to go to for news,

of course, in the internet. now when i go to the internet i will have to be concern i would access tonal have independent content because these would have to be noted as not-competitive -- i would have access to independent content. who is going to prove it? how many lawyers will it take to disprove it? it is just ridiculous. host: i think that appointment let's get a response from robert mcdowell. sharon, tould point, paris december 21, 2010, internet, the date the net neutrality order was voted on. robust, buries the entry low, it was blossoming -- barriers to entry were low. more news on internet than any other time in history. consumers have more in tune -- information on the fingertips within just minutes that people did in their entire lifetimes.

if you want to go back to the days of three broadcast networks and maybe one or two newspapers per city and have lots of government oversight and regulation of that, i would not take those days again. i think we are in the best possible situation here. we are just not entering the golden age of public his course and access to information, and that is why there are a lot of authoritarian regimes throughout the world wanting more steak and involvement. the internet has blossomed beautifully precisely because it has been unfettered. the concern i have is with more and more state intrusion, whether the nsa incidents or international attempts to try to have more government involvement with the net, that is the wrong direction to go in. enjoying, sharon, more information and opinion at your fingertips than any other time in your life, and that happened precisely because the internet space was deregulated. i think you put your finger on one of the central problems facing us today. what you are talking about is

largely the result of all of the consolidation the media industry has gone through over the last generation. it is a documented fact that when these companies merge, then they are looking to pay for the mergers and to finance the transaction and the first place where a lot of them look to fire people and to make these so-called economies is the newsroom. i have seen various figures but since the turn-of-the-century we have lost maybe 40% or 50% of our investigative journalists in the united states. that is no way to hold the powerful accountable. last time i looked there were 26 states that don't even have a reporter accredited on capitol hill. how can you hold the powerful accountable? passing laws on voter suppression and deregulation and all -- the coverage of those state capitals is almost nonexistent. problem inen the traditional media, but now it is the problem in new media, too. much more difficult to

start right now than five years ago. we don't have a model of investigative journalism in the internet and unless we face off -- face up to the problem we will dumb down civic dialogue to the extent we will make even worse position for the future of the united states of america. -- i think it is much easier to start a blog than 10 or 15 years ago. you can do that on your wireless device right now. just start blogging away. certainly something we did not have in the day that the printing press or a.m. radio or three tv networks. now it's really the golden age for information for consumers. they are much more empowered than any other time in human history. in --virginia weighs guest: i am a virginian and my dad is a texan -- hopefully not

a relative of mine. mentioned caller michael powell, the former chair of the fcc and is now head of the national cable and association. he has an op-ed piece in "usa today" and he writes about this. ask, is the internet so heavyhat you need injection of rules and regulations to fix it? answer is no. guest: we are going down the path on the internet that we radio, cable,nd television, more consolidation, controlled by a few and gatekeeping. this ought to be a golden age of media. it ought to be a golden age of reporting and journalism. exactlyeaded and just the opposite way. we've got the tools but we will not use the tools but i think my

friend michael is wrong on that. host: michael copps served in robert 2001-2011 and mcdowell served 2006 until just this year, 2013. and both have appeared on c-span's "communicators" program on a regular basis. this weekend, current fcc .ommissioner senior republican here's what he had to say about the decision on the open internet rules. [video clip] >> to be sure, there are some who argue there should be invested back to the future solution to internet regulation. that and looking at this innovative dynamic, broadband industry, we should apply the outdated, in my opinion, 19th-century railroad style regulation. but i think the key for us if we really want to incentivize broadband deployment and greater investment in broadband infrastructure is to have an approach that leaves behind a

heavy-handed economic regulations of the pass and recognizes the marketplace for what it is today, which is one of intra-modal competition, telephone companies, cable, satellite, wireless and other companies competing to provide the same service. if we do that, i am confident it will take care of the problem without the need a prophylactic regulations from the fcc. host: that to your calls. rory calling from virginia. go ahead. going to have to move on. it reminded to viewers, when you get through, turned on the volume on your tv. there is a delay. we are able to hear you through the phone and you can hear the program through the fun as well. huntington, west virginia, democrat. taking myink you for call. i am scared to death of this internet, especially in the school system. -- 90% of theunty

students cannot even afford the public lunch. that's why you have 100% free public lunch is. internet, they go home and they have zero access. [indiscernible] thank you. to talk abouts school? guest: i will. it is so important our schools do have the kind of high-speed technology that enables students to be able to keep but with their competitors in the urban areas of foreign countries. thank goodness to west virginia senator rockefeller, there is a program that enables a school to access this kind of technology and in many cases use it as an anchor institution in the community. but if you are a student in

you arest virginia, competing against everybody else. not just in your country but around the globe, for johnson opportunity. you are trying to do your homework or research on low speed or no speed tools while the kid in the urban area or a student overseas has access to really high-speed technology. you are trying to start a business in rural west virginia and you don't have any bandwidth, you don't have any markets, you don't have any opportunity. though you are absolutely right. thathis is not something the marketplace by itself can resolve. we have never built infrastructure in this country that way. it has always been to a public-private partnership with a national vision, goals set by the government, incentives provided by the government to get infrastructure built. whether it is roads, highways, interstate highways, electricity, you name it. going back to the founding of the country. why should we expect business to

go into an area where there is no business plan for it to go? it has to have some incentives and it has to have encouragement from the government. au put your finger on just tremendous problem for this country, if we are denying our kids access to the kind of tools they need. we are denying the future of the country. it's good jay rockefeller is currently chairman of the commerce committee in the senate. here -- host: jay rockefeller is currently the chairman of the commerce committee in the senate and this is what he said about net neutrality -- host: robert mcdowell, a viewer who tweeted earlier i wanted to follow-up. she is asking --

guest: the one i talked about the engineer giving your video get priority over the e-mailed it to make the experience better for you, that is because of consumer demand. just to make an assumption -- is there some sort of anticompetitive conduct going on? the answer is, no. early not in any systematic way. and there was not before the net neutrality roles. what is interesting the fcc never did conduct an economic study, market study of the broadband market. that happened was the federal trade commission in 2007, and it have a unanimous -- had a unanimous bipartisan vote that found that actually the broadband market was robust and competitive. and it warned in a bipartisan way of the unintended consequences of regulation, that actually costs go up especially for low end consumers who just

sip bandwidth may be subsidizing higher and consumers who guzzle it. something also want to point out. you want to go into the title ii direction, the phone monopoly style regulation of the internet, it actually allows for tiering and a two-sided market that all of these things that proponents of title ii do not like. it allows for that, but just in a regulated way. it would stifle competition. it would stifle investment. i think it would be bad for america. is the oldr that black rotary dial phone that was there for 60 years because of this type of regulation, rather than focusing on competition. but just people of that you mind. --t: would have been would've you been doing since you left the commission? visiting fellow at the hudson institute. a wonderful think tank here in washington, for their center on

economics and the internet. speaking and writing and spending more time with my family as well pit until this week. until this court decision came out, then i have been doing media interviews. host: michael copps, since you left? g come i thought i was retiring -- guest: i thought i was retiring but ended up spending time at common cause and a reform and democracy initiative, really to study civic dialogue in the country about the future of our media and the internet. i have had wonderful experience as a fellow at the harvard university center this past semester. i am keeping busy. but also finding a little more time for the kids and grandkids. host: what is your biggest concern when it comes to telecommunications today? createshat it opportunity and serves democracy. and these are not questions about terminology and semantics. these are questions about the future of where this country is going. all of the communication things are going to translate to

the internet, that internet becomes hugely invested with the public interest, and as a country would have to face up to that if we want a free and open internet, if we want people to have access to all of these communications tools and if we want a civil dialogue that is forms rather than diminishes the state of the nation. guest: my concern is there would be some public policy adopted that would have perhaps the best of intentions but unintended consequences that will actually harm innovation, investment, and the consumer experience. market.us look at the i think the fcc should wait and see. it should do a market study. again, peer-reviewed bona fide economic analysis -- what it has not done. i think it had done, it would find that the competitive, dynamic, robust and consumers a much better off because the internet was unfettered. the concerned about

unintended consequences and sometimes intended consequences of government action. host: rich in marion, ohio. go ahead with your question for two former fcc commissioners. caller: what a fantastic discussion. available topes get information in and out quickly. or someone downloading a movie, is it important for them to get it done and half a second or two minutes, or can they get a discount for taking mother to get it so we don't jam up the highway with things that people don't really care about having right away? other types of common occasion should go the speed of light and should have the right-of-way. the other thing, we build bigger pipes -- how long would it take to download library of congress? who will it be sent to? sent to our students are sent out to china within a half an hour? important questions. business, they are loading up a lot of junk -- "mob

wives" and stuff like that you can step out of your bill, but there are a lot of great things coming through. host: we will start with you, commissioner mcdowell? up a lot ofring issues. but under the net neutrality roles there is a disincentive to try to foster pricing freedom. if you wanted to download a movie and you wanted it done quickly and you didn't want to -- big,a 24 by seven fat, expensive broadband hype to your home, if you could for $.50, let's say, download that movie with an extra burst of speed so you get a very quickly, that is good for you. , ifare actually paying less speed is important. paying less than if you had a full-time big fat high-speed pipe to your house. it gives the movie to you quicker. you are happy. there is an economic efficiency

for both the supplier and the buyer. is the time for experimentation. if that becomes anti-competitive , then let's look at it and stop it, obviously. but i think this is a wonderful time to try to experiment with pricing freedom because we don't know. the private sector there are billions of ideas and decisions made. some succeed and some fail of their own merits. we want them to continue to succeed or fail on their own merits. but this is one possibility that offers a great deal of benefit to consumers going forward. i think there is an expectation on the part of consumers for really fast downloading. one reason why it is more and more difficult to establish i think we ought to see this discussion in a different perspective.

we're talking about rationing scarcity. companies are saying we need data caps. big companies saying, were not going to build that much fiber anymore to the country. they're prospering on the current scarcity they have a broadband capacity. if we had a national mission to every cranny of this land, we would have fewer discussions because we would have capacity to facilitate quick transmission of everything. host: unfortunately, we are out of time. thank you for being on the "washington journal." we do have to close with one more tweet.

>> tomorrow, james bamford reacts to president obama's speech from earlier today about changing government surveillance programs. we will also take your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets on the issue. later today, robert gates will talk about his memoir. he will be speaking at the national constitution center in philadelphia. you can watch it live on 6:30 p.m. on c-span 2. state of the state addresses from the governors of colorado, iowa, vermont, and indiana. those speeches start at 8:00 on c-span 2. officialsday, help

discussed a recent surgeon general's report on smoking. they criticized the tobacco industry. here is more on that now. >> since the first surgeon general's report in 1964, over 20 million premature deaths can be a trip he did to cigarette smoking. the annual death toll today is approaching 500,000 per year. enough is enough. the tobacco epidemic was initiated and has been sustained by the aggressive strategies of the tobacco industry. which misled the public on the risks of smoking cigarettes. tobacco companies spend a million dollars an hour 24/7 to market their deadly and addictive products. enough is enough.

since 1964 report, cigarette smoking cause diseases in nearly all organs of the body. the science has revealed that, diseases --, diseases are also caused by smoking. secondhand smoke causes cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and adversely affects the health of infants and children. enough is enough. the disease risks by smoking from women have risen sharply over the last 50 years. enough is enough. cigarette smoking causes , reducing the body's ability to fight off infection and disease. enough is enough. cigarette smoking has declined significantly since

1964, very large disparities and tobacco use remain in cross groups defined by race, ethnicity, education level hama and socioeconomic status. -- education level, and socioeconomic status. enough is enough. we need to use them across the nation if we are fully to benefit from their success. further gains cammy made with the sustained -- further gains can be made with the sustained use of these measures. the burdens of death and disease from tobacco use in the united states is overwhelmingly caused by cigarettes and other tobacco products. rapid elimination of their use will dramatically reduce the burden. for 50 years, the surgeon general's report on smoking have

provided a critical scientific foundation for public health action directed at reducing tobacco use and preventing tobacco related disease and premature death. we pray that the 75th anniversary report will have many zeros. and the hundredth anniversary will be marked with grainy pictures from the past. enough is enough. >> that was a portion of an event held earlier today here in washington cap smoking and health. you can watch the entire event today or you can watch at any time online. >> internet service providers are gatekeepers and they also .re two-sided networks somebody on one side and somebody on the other side. the situation is very similar to

the credit card industry. we all have credit cards and then there is the credit card company and on the other side of that, there is the restaurant. it is very useful for restaurants that we all have credit cards and is useful for us that all of the restaurants will take them. it is not so useful if the gatekeeper says, some of these restaurants, we will not allow them to participate in the system. if the internet service provider were to say, not all the people putting the content on their computers, we do not want all of them to be able to have access to all of the users, that is a problem. thehis weekend, a look at impact of the d c circuit court ruling on broadband and high- speed internet regulations, saturday morning at 10:00. gary young examines the speech.

part of three days of programming this holiday weekend . american history tv looks that emancipation, reconstruction, and race in atlanta after the civil war. obama delivered remarks at the justice department about change in government surveillance programs . he spoke for about 45 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you so much. please, have a seat. at the dawn of our public, a small secret surveillance committee born out of the sons of liberty was established in boston.

in the civil war, union balloons reconnaissance tracked the size of confederate armies by tracking the number of campfires. in world war ii, codebreakers gave us insight into the japanese warplanes. they intercepted communications, help save the lives of the troops. after the war, the rise of the iron curtain and nuclear weapons only increased the need for sustained intelligence. in the early days of the cold war, president truman created the national security agency, or nsa, to give us insight into the soviet lock and provider leaders with information they needed to confront and avert catastrophe. we have benefited from both our constitution and our traditions of limited government.

u.s. intelligence agencies were anchored in a system of checks and balances with oversights from elected leaders and protections for ordinary citizens. meanwhile, totalitarian states like east germany offered a cautionary tale of what could happen when vast unchecked surveillance turn citizens into informers and persecuted people for what they said in the privacy of their own homes. even the united states proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. in the 1960's, governments spied on civil rights leaders. additional laws were established in 1970's to ensure that our intelligence capabilities would not be misused against our

citizens. in the long twilight struggle against communism, we have been reminded that the very liberties that we thought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security. as the fall of the soviet union left america without a competing superpower, emerging threats from terrorist groups and the proliferation of weapons of mass distraction placed new and in some ways more complicated demands to our intelligence agencies. globalization and the internet may be spreads more acute as technology a raised borders and allowed individuals to protect great violence, as well is great good. these new threats raised new policy questions. while few doubt of the legitimacy of spying on hostile states, our framework of laws was not fully adapted to prevent terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own or acting in small, ideological-driven groups.

the horror of september 11 brought all these issues to the forefront. across the local spectrum, americans recognized that we had to adapt to a world in which a bomb could be built in the basement and our electrical grid to be shut down by operators and ocean away. we were shaken by the signs we had missed. phone calls were made to extremists. they traveled to suspicious places. we demanded that our intelligence community improve it's capabilities. and that law enforcement change practices to focus more on preventing attacks before they happen rather than prosecuting terrorists after an attack. it's hard to overstate the transformation america's

intelligence community had to go through after 9/11. our agencies suddenly needed to do far more than the traditional mission of monitoring hostile powers and gathering information for policymakers. instead, they were now asked to identify targets, plotters and some of the most remote parts of the world and to anticipate the actions of networks that by their very nature cannot be easily penetrated with spies or informants. it is a testimony to the hard work and dedication of the men and women of our intelligence community that over the past decade we have made enormous strides in filling this mission. today, new capabilities allow intelligence agencies to track who a terrorist is in contact with and follow the trail of his travel or his money.

allow information to be collected and shared more quickly and effectively between federal agents and state and local law enforcement. relationships with foreign intelligence services have expanded an art capacity to repel cyber attacks have been strengthened. taken together, these efforts have prevented multiple attacks and save innocent lives. not just here in the united states, but around the globe. and yet, in our rush to respond to a very real set of threats, the risk of government overreach, the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security also became more pronounced. we saw an immediate aftermath of 9/11 our government engaged in enhanced interrogation

techniques that contradicted our values. as a senator, i was critical of several practices. all too often, new authorities were instituted without adequate public debate. the action by the courts, increased congressional oversight, and adjustments by the previous administration, some of the worst excesses were curbed by the time i took office. a variety of factors have continued to complicate america's efforts to both defend our nation and uphold our civil liberties. first, the same technological advancements that allowed u.s. intelligence agencies to pinpoint an al qaeda phone line or an e-mail between two terrorists also mean that routine medications around the world are within our reach. at a time when more and more of

our lives are digital, that prospect is disquieting for all of us. second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of shifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may fort impending threats. that is a powerful tool. the government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse. third, the legal safeguards that restrict surveillance against u.s. persons without a warrant do not apply to persons overseas. this is not unique to america. the whole point of intelligence is to obtain information that is not publicly available. america's capabilities are unique.

the power of new technology means that there are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. that places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do. finally come intelligence agencies cannot function without secrecy, which makes their work more subject to public debate. yet, there is an inevitable bias, not only within the intelligence community, but amongst all of us who are responsible for national security to collect more information about the world, not less. so in the absence of institutional requirements for regular debate, and oversight that is public as well as private or classified, the

danger of government overreach becomes more acute. it is particularly true when surveillance technology and a reliance on digital information is evolving much more quickly than our loss. for all these reasons, i maintained a healthy skepticism towards our surveillance programs when i became president. i ordered that they be reviewed by my national security team and our lawyers. in some cases, i ordered changes in how we do business. we increased oversight and auditing come including new structures aimed at compliance. we sought to keep congress continually updated on these activities. what i did not do was stop these programs wholesale. not only because i felt that

they made us more secure, but also because nothing in that initial review and the thing that i've learned since indicated that our intelligence has sought to violate the law or cavalier about the civil liberties of their citizens. to the contrary, in the next row nearly difficult job, one in which actions are second- guessed, success is unreported, and failure can be catastrophic, the men and women of the intelligence community, including the nsa, consistently followed protocol to protect the privacy of ordinary people. they're not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls or read your e-mails. when mistakes are made and which is inevitable in any large and complicated human enterprise, they correct those mistakes.

they are unable to discuss their work with family or friends. the men and women of the nsa know that if another 9/11 or massive cyber attack occurs they they will be asked why they failed to connect the dots. those who work at nsa and other intelligence duties throughout this pressure have the knowledge that they play a central role in the defense of our nation. now, to say that our intelligence maybe followed the law and is staffed by patriots is not to suggest that i or others in my administration felt complacent about the potential impacts of these programs. those of us who hold office in america have the responsibility to our constitution.

while i was confident in the integrity of those who lead our intelligence community, it was clear to me in observing our intelligence operations on a regular basis that changes in our technological capabilities were raising new questions about the privacy safeguards currently in place. moreover, after an extended review of our use of drones in the fight against terrorist networks, i believe a fresh examination of our surveillance programs was a necessary next step in our effort to get off the war footing we maintained since 9/11. for these reasons, indicated in a speech at the national defense university last may that we need a robust public discussion about the balance between security and liberty. of course, would i did not know the time was that within weeks of my speech an avalanche of unauthorized disclosures would

spark controversy that has continued to this day. given the open investigation, i will not dwell on mr. snowden's actions. our nation's defense depends in part on the fidelity of those in trust with our nation secrets. if any individual who objects to government policy can take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified information than we will not be able to keep our people safe or conduct foreign policy. moreover, the sensational way in which these disclosures that come out has shed more heat, revealing information to our adversaries in ways that we may not understand for years to come.

the task right now is greater than simply repairing the damage done to our operations or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future. instead, we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and constitution requires. we need to do so not only because it is right, but because the challenges posed by threats like terrorism and proliferation and cyber attacks are not going away anytime soon. they're going to continue to be a major problem. for our intelligence community to be effective over the long haul, we must maintain the trust of the american people and people around the world. this effort will not be completed overnight.

given the pace of technological change, we should not expect this to be the last time america has this debate. i want the american people to know that the work has begun. over the last six months, we created an outside review group on intelligence and communication technologies to make recommendations. i've listened to privacy advocates and industry leaders. we considered how to approach intelligence in this era of technological revolution. so, before outlining specific changes i've ordered, let me make a few broad observations on this process. first, everyone who has looked at these problems, including

skeptics of existing programs, recognizes that we have real enemies. we cannot prevent terrorist attacks are cyber threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications. whether it is to unravel a terrorist plot, to make sure that air traffic control systems are not compromised, or to ensure that they do not empty your bank accounts. we are required to have capabilities in this field. moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. there is a reason why blackberries and iphones are not allowed in the white house situation room. we know that the intelligence

services of other countries, including some who feigned surprise over the snowden disclosures, are constantly probing our government to listen to our conversations and view our e-mails and compromise our systems. we know that. meanwhile, a number of countries, including some that loudly criticized the nsa, privately acknowledge that america has unique responsibilities as the world's only superpower. they themselves have relied on information we obtained to protect their own people. second, just as civil libertarians acknowledge the need for robust intelligence capabilities, those with response abilities for national security readily knowledge the potential for abuse as

intelligence capabilities advance. after all, the folks at nsa and other intelligence agencies are our neighbors, our friends, and family. they have electronic banking and medical records like everybody else. they have kids on facebook and instagram and know more than most of us the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded and e-mails and texts are stored and our movements can increasingly be tracked through the gps on our phones. third, there was a recognition by all who participated in these reviews that the challenges to our privacy do not come from government alone. corporations of all shapes and sizes track what you buy, store and analyze our data, and use it for commercial purposes. that's what you see those ads

pop up on your smart phone. all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance programs must be higher. given the unique power of the state, it is not enough or leaders to say trust us and we will not abuse the data we collect. history has too many examples where the trust has been breached. our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power. it depends on the law to constrain those in power. i make these observations to underscore that the basic values of most americans when it comes to questions of surveillance and privacy converge a lot more than the characterizations that emerged over the last several months. those who were troubled by her existing programs were not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9/11.

those who defend these programs are not interested in civil liberties. the challenge in getting the details right is not simple. over the course of our review, i have reminded myself, i would not be where i am today if it were not for the courage of people like dr. king who were spied upon by their own government. as president, a president who looks at intelligence every morning, i can't help but be reminded that america must be vigilant in the face of threats. fortunately, by focusing on facts and specifics, rather than speculation and hypotheticals, this review process has given me and hopefully the american people some clear direction for change. today, i can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek to

create with congress. first, i have approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence communities at home and abroad. this guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence communities. it will ensure that we can taken into account our alliances come our trade and investment relationships come including the concerns of american companies, and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis so that our actions are regularly scrutinized by our senior national security team. second, we will reform programs and procedures in place to provide greater transparency to our surveillance activities. we will fortify the safeguards

that protect the privacy of u.s. persons. since we began this review, including information being released today, we have declassified over 40 opinions and orders of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. including the program targeting foreign individuals overseas and the section 215 telephone metadata program. the director of national intelligence in consultation with the attorney general will annually review for the purposes of declassification any future opinions of the court with broad privacy implications. they will report to me and to congress on these efforts. to ensure that the court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives, i am also calling on congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of

advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before foreign intelligence surveillance court. third, we will provide additional perfections for activities conducted under section 702, which allows the government to intercept the communication of foreign targets overseas who have information that is important for national security. specifically i'm asking the attorney general and dni to institute reforms that place additional restrictions on government's ability to retain, search, and use in criminal cases, communications between american citizens incidentally collected under section 702. fourth, in investigating

threats, the fbi also relies on what is called national security threats come which requires companies to supply limited information without disclosing orders to the subject of the investigation. these are cases in which it is important that the subject of the investigation, such as a possible terrorist or spy, is not tipped off. we can and should be more transparent in how government uses this authority. i therefore directed the attorney general to amend how we use national security letters so that this secrecy will not be indefinite. so that it will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy. we will also enable communications providers to make public more information than ever before about the orders they have received to provide data to the government.

this brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past months. the bulk election of telephone records under section 215. let me repeat what i said when this story first broke. this program does not involve the content of phone calls or the names of people making calls. instead, it provides a record of phone numbers and the times and length of calls. metadata that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization. why is this necessary? the program grew out of the desire to address a gap identified after 9/11.

one of the 9/11 hijackers made a phone call from san diego to a known al qaeda safe house in yemen. nsa saw that call, but did not know it was from an individual already in the united states. we need to see who they may be in contact with as quickly as possible. this capability can also prove valuable in a crisis. for example, if a bomb goes off in one of our cities and law-enforcement is racing to determine whether a network is poised to conduct additional attacks, time is of the essence. being able to quickly review phone connections to assess whether a network exists is critical for that effort. the program does not involve the

nsa examining the phone records of ordinary americans. rather, it consolidates these records into a database that the government can query if it has a specific reason. a consolidation of phone records that the companies already retain for business purposes. the review group turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused. i believe it is important that the capabilities that this program is designed to meet is preserved. having said that, i believe critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards, this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives. it could open the door to more intrusive bulk collection programs in the future.

they're also right to point out that although the bulk collection program was subject to oversight by the foreign surveillance court and has been reauthorized by congress, it has never been subject to vigorous public debate. for all these reasons, i believe we need a new approach. i am therefore ordering a transition that will end the section 215 bulk metadata program as it exists and establishes a program without the government holding this bulk metadata. this will not be simple. the review group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third-party retain the bulk records with the government accessing information

as needed. both of these options pose difficult problems. relying solely on the records of multiple providers could force companies to alter their policies. any single company holding the database could carry out what is essentially a government function with more expense, more legal ambiguity, potentially less accountability, all of which would have an impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected. during the review process, some suggested that we may also be able to preserve the capabilities we need through a combination of existing authorities, better information sharing, and recent technological advancements. more work needs to be done to determine how this system will work.

because of the challenges involved, i ordered that the transition away from the existing program will proceed in two steps. we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps away from a known terrorist phone number. the database can be queried only after a judicial finding or in the case of a true emergency. next, step two, i've instructed the intelligence community and the attorney general to use this transition period to develop a new approach without the government holding this metadata itself.

they will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on march 28. during this time, we will discuss the reauthorization of the program as needed. the reforms should give people greater confidence that their rights are being protected, even as law enforcement retains the tools they need to keep us safe. additional issues require further debate. some who participated in our review, as some members of congress would like to see more sweeping reforms. we have to go to a judge each time before these requests.

here i have concerns that we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that are higher than those involved in investigating and ordinary crime. i agree that greater oversight on the use of these letters may be appropriate and i prefer to work with congress on this issue. there are those who would like to see different changes to the court then i proposed. i'm working with congress to ensure that we build a broad consensus for how to move forward and i'm confident that we can shape an approach that meets our security needs while upholding the civil liberties of every american. let me now turn to the separate set of concerns that have been raised overseas. i will focus on america's approach to intelligence collection abroad. as i've indicated, the united

states has unique responsibilities when it comes to intelligence collection. they helped not only our nation, but our friends and our allies as well. our efforts will only be effective if ordinary citizens in other countries have confidence that the united states respects their privacy, too. the leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that i want to know what they think about an issue. i will pick up the phone and call them rather than turn to surveillance. just as we balance security and privacy at home, our global leadership demands that we balance our security requirements against our need to maintain the trust and cooperation among people and leaders around the world. for that reason, the new presidential directive that i've issued today will clearly prescribe what we do and do not

do when it comes to our overseas surveillance. to begin with, the directive makes clear that the united states only uses signals intelligence for legitimate national security purposes and not for the purposes of indiscriminately reviewing the e-mails and phone calls of ordinary folks. i've also made it clear that the united states does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we disadvantage people on the basis of ethnicity or race or gender or sexual orientation or religious beliefs. we do not provide advantages to u.s. companies or commercial sectors. in terms of our bulk collection of signal intelligence, u.s. intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements. counterintelligence, counterterrorism, counter

proliferation, cyber security, force protection for our troops and our allies, and combating transnational crime, including sanctions in asia. in this directive, i have taken the unprecedented step of expanding certain protections that we have for the american people to people overseas. i have directed the dni to develop the safeguards come which will limit the duration that we can hold personal information while also restricting the use of this information. the bottom line is that people around the world, regardless of their nationality, should know that the united states does not spy on ordinary people who don't threaten our national security. we take their privacy concerns into account in our policies and procedures.

this applies to foreign leaders as well. given the understandable attention of this issue, i've made clear to the intelligence community that unless there is a compelling national security purpose, we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies. i've instructed my national security team come as well as the intelligence community, to work with foreign counterparts to deepen our coordination and cooperation in ways that we build trust going forward. let me be clear -- our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation does. we will not apologize simply because our services may be more effective. heads of state and government

with whom we work closely should feel confident that we are treating them as real partners. the changes i've ordered do just that. finally, to make sure that we follow through on all these reforms, i am making some important changes to how our government is organized. the state department will designate an officer. we will appoint a senior official at the white house to implement the new privacy safeguards that i've announced today. i will devote the resources to centralize and improve the process we used to handle foreign requests for legal assistance, keeping our high standards of privacy while helping foreign partners fight crime and terrorism. i have also asked my counsel to

lead a comprehensive review of big data and privacy. this group will consist of government officials who, along with the president's council of advisors on science and technology, will reach out to privacy experts, technologists, and business leaders and look at how these challenges are being confronted by both the public and private sectors. whether we can forge international norms on how to manage this data and how we can continue to promote the free flow of information in ways that are consistent with both privacy and security. for ultimately, what is at stake in this debate goes far beyond a few months of headlines or passing foreign policy.

when you cut through the noise, what is really at stake is how we remain true to who we are in a world that is remaking itself at dizzying speeds. whether it is the ability of individuals to communicate ideas, to access information, or to forge bonds with people on the other side of the globe, technology is remaking what is possible for individuals and for institutions and for the international order. so while the reforms i've announced will point us in a new direction, i am mindful that more work will be needed in the future. one thing i'm certain of -- this debate will make us stronger. i also know that in this time of change, the united states of america will have to lead.

it may see some times that america is being held to different standards. i will admit, the readiness of some to assume the worst motives of our government can be frustrating. no one expects china to have it openly debate about their surveillance programs. or russia to take privacy concerns of citizens in other places into account. let's remember, we are held to a different standard precisely because we have been at the forefront of defending personal privacy and human dignity. as the nation that developed the internet, the world expects us to ensure that the digital revolution works as a tool for individual empowerment, not government control. having faced down the dangers of fascism and communism, the world

expects us to stand up for the principle that every person has the right to think and form relationships freely because individual freedom is the wellspring of human progress. those values make us who we are. we should not shy away from high expectations. for more than two centuries, our constitution has weathered every type of change because we have been willing to defend it and because we have been willing to question the actions that have been taken in its defense. today is no different. i believe we can meet high expectations. together, let's chart a way

forward to preserve the liberties that make our nation worth fighting for. thank you. god bless you. and may god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> president obama from earlier today. we would like to hear from you. you can also tweet us at #cspanchat. house had no clue what the nsa was up to -- ronald is saying --

taylor said -- we welcome your comments and opinions anytime including right now. any of theed president's comments, we will re-air them tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. on c-span3, senior health officials speak about the recent surgeon general's report. following a court ruling this past week from the d c circuit court of appeals on the fcc's net neutrality rules. here is a little bit more. the court held that the communications act does give the fcc some authority over broadband providers but it concluded the anti-blocking inattentive termination rule is

broadbandnt to treat providers as services. without getting into too much legal detail, the details of the statutory framework are that the communication act establishes tpwo broad categories. whichmmunication services a regulator under 12 to -- title 2. the law has provision that says providers of information services sign-up be treated as common characters which is a term that has a long history in common law. the core of the court's ruling without the anti-blocking an termination rule him out the common carrier rules and that means the fcc cannot impose anti-blocking and antidiscrimination which is

what the sec said broadband services are. which thea level in court was saying the fcc cannot have it both ways. they cannot decide that broadband is an information service and turn around and impose the kind of nondiscrimination requirements that have been characterized. eventwas a portion of an held earlier today looking at the fcc's net neutrality rules. you can see the entire event later today here on c-span or any time online. collects when you go behind-the-scenes as a photographer, you are there to see and not hear. not repeat anything that you hear. meetings thato

are sensitive. i was there when president obama was at a rally and at the same upe, the hurricane had come the east coast and was up in the north. he was on a secure phone talking trying tors and organize it at the same time he was running a campaign. a really unique time to be in in a reallyar him serious conversation about what was going on on the ground there and how we wanted things to take place. on the other side of the wall, people are yelling for more years. -- four more years. mills, sunday night at 8 p.m. on c-span q&a.

senior health officials discussed the recent surgeon general's report on smoking and health. they criticize the tobacco industry and said that tobacco products have caused more than 20 million premature deaths in the last 50 years. this is an hour. >> welcome to the white house. i am dr. howard koh. thank you so much for joining us on this is the workday to honor the 50th anniversary of the surgeon general's report on smoking and health. to begin the program, it is my pleasure to introduce cecilia muñoz, assistant to the president and director of the domestic policy council, the office which chordates domestic policymaking in the white house. prior to this role, she served as deputy assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs at the white house. before joining the obama administration, cecelia served as the community leader as senior vice president at the

national council of la raza, the nation's latino civil rights organization. please join me in welcoming cecilia muñoz. [applause] >> thank you so much. good morning, everybody. i should start by welcoming you all to the white house. this is a great day and we mark today the decades of public health research that have hermetically reduced tobacco use in this country. the commitment of those of you in this room and your colleagues across the country to any the tobacco epidemic is inspiring and i am proud to be here. hownt to be sure you know important this work is to this administration and to this president. improving the nation's health is the goal of every president. it is a priority for this one. he has spearheaded legislation, taken executive actions on and

using the bully pulpit to help make our children, friends, families, communities as healthy as possible. that is why he led the effort to sign into law and of lament the affordable care act. the law is not only helping to improve health by making coverage affordable but it isn't proving -- it is improving tobacco reduction. tools to support prevention and to help people to quit tobacco. we have made unprecedented investments in community prevention including new campaigns that reduces tobacco use which would not have been possible without the health care law. that is why the president signed the tobacco control act to give fda new authority over tobacco products and it is why we increase the cost of cigarettes and are proposing a new tax that will reduce smoking and support new investment in kids/ .

there is a lot of work ahead. far too many young people are smoking and tobacco use remains the largest cause of preventable deaths in this country. -- topause to knowledge acknowledge how far we have come, let's remember the lives lost two early due to tobacco. we look forward to partnering with you as we build a tobacco free generation. youme conclude by thanking for your dedication and the me thank the many public health leaders in the audience who have fought tirelessly to help improve public health and and the tobacco epidemic. with that it is my great pleasure and honor to introduce the secretary of health and human services, a tireless advocate, secretary kathleen sebelius. [applause]

>> good morning and thank you, not only for being here today in hosting this great event at the white house, but cecelia as head of domestic policy council is overseeing this unprecedented coordination of work across government agencies on a whole variety of public health issues, none more important than what we are here today to talk about. thank you for your leadership and your support. i want to start by extending a special word of welcome to the family of dr. luther terry, our knife surgeon general, who 50 years ago began this effort to warn about the dangers of smoking and the link to public health. we're joined today by members of his family. i would like them to stand and be recognized. grandsons,is wife,

granddaughter, and her fiance. just to tell you his granddaughter recently graduated from the harvard school of public health so the doctor's legacy continues not only here but in the family. [applause] i also want to welcome two of our former surgeon general's, regina benjamin and dr. david satcher. stand and be recognized. they played very important roles in pushing this effort forward. we also have ambassador michael froman with us today. he is our trade ambassador. thank you for being here. [applause]

mitch zeller who heads up the tobacco -- anti-tobacco efforts i should say in the fda. [applause] leaders special health close advisers to me on a regular basis to work on this issue for a very long time. we both have a chance to hear from them but i want to make sure you know they are here. the deputy sick -- secretary of health and human services bill corr. [applause] and the general counsel of the department of health and human services will scholz -- bill schultz. i can tell you the two bills make sure this item stays very focused in our department. you will have a chance to hear from dr. howard koh who is our

.ssistant secretary of health lushniak who is the acting surgeon general. they are incredibly involved leaders in this whole process. we have made a lot of progress in the 50 years since the first surgeon general's report on smoking and health. we are still a country very much addicted to tobacco. addiction, this epidemic has serious ramifications for our families, communities, our overall health, and the health of our economy. today we are calling on all americans to join in a sustained effort to make the next generation a tobacco-free generation. our message the american people is this -- there are things that each of us can do in our own communities, our own schools,

businesses that make significant contributions to ending this epidemic. saving the lives of our loved ones and making the next generation tobacco free. i invite you to think just for a loss ofbout what the one life means to a family. what that means to a neighborhood, a community. year,fter year after tobacco use claims nearly half a million american lives. across the world, tobacco kills and 6 million of our fellow human beings every year. those are more than just numbers. are friends, colleagues, our global partners, and our children. that is not to say we have not made progress. our tobacco control efforts over the past five decades have prevented by some estimates as many as 8 million deaths in this country alone. rank is haveoking to date what it was in 1964.

the fact that the matter is even with this progress, tobacco use is still the leading cause of preventable death and disease, both in our country and across the world. , the look around the room likelihood is that all of us have been touched in some way by the loss of someone in our lives due to tobacco use. one thing we know for sure, if we fail to act, we will continue to lose the lives of people we love. statistics tell us that most of the american to die from smoking this year began smoking when they were kids. every day we know that more than 3000 children under the age of 18 tried their first cigarette. nearly 1000 of those children become daily smokers. if we fail to reverse those 5.6 million american children who are alive today will die prematurely due to

smoking. 5.6 million americans. there are very serious economic consequences as well. you might've heard the recent report on npr that looks at tobacco prevention efforts in organ. egon. for every pack of cigarettes that is smoked, they pay an estimated $13 in lost productivity and medical -- and medical expenses. pack, $13.e that is just one of our 50 states. as a country, the total economic cost of smoking now tops $289 billion every year. billion with a b. at cecelia has said that no president has ever been as committed as ending the -- the epidemic of tobacco-related deaths as president obama. since the first phase of this

administration five years ago, we have taken a very coordinated approach to helping tobacco users stop smoking but to keep others from starting, and to use our regulatory authority to protect for consumers. the president signed landmark legislation into law that gave the fda the authority to regulate tobacco products for the first time. many of you in this room were involved with the effort for decades. could you stand up and be recognized because 2009 mark ed -- satntand up. you were a part of this. [applause] because of this new law, the fda has been able to implement a number of potential life-saving reforms already. no longermpanies can give free samples to get kids hooked.

they cannot use bogus or misleading terms like light or low or mild as part of their marketing campaign. these reforms had language in inhington for decades but 2009, president obama was able to sign that bill into law. the president signed the affordable care act in 2010 which had a number of key provisions. it requires insurance companies to provide tobacco services to the customers. it allows medicaid beneficiaries to access services at no out-of-pocket costs before they get sick rather than afterwards. the health care law also invest to the -- to support effective community-based projects across the country. a county in iowa is getting support further evidence-based tobacco control intervention which is geared toward low income populations. the affordable care act also invest in public education

campaigns that promotes prevention and helps people quit smoking. cdc's these efforts is tips from former smokers campaign. they are incredibly powerful. here is what we know about them. over the last couple of years, the campaigns graphic messages have helped convince 100,000 of our fellow americans to permanently quit smoking and to give its about 1.6 million more of our friends and neighbors to begin the process of trying to quit. they have a real impact on lives across this country. research suggests that we are able to add as many as i've hundred thousand years of life -- 500000 years of life. of thethe that -- one single most effective things is to decrease smoking by increasing the cost of cigarettes. as part of the 2009 children's health insurance program

reauthorization, we brought the federal tax to a dollar per pack. this year's budget reposes aipac $.94 so we canl discourage more americans from smoking, saving more lives and resources. this is a two-for. the additional revenues will give us universal childhood education to children across the country while strengthening health initiatives for infants and toddlers. we will save more lives by reducing tobacco use. benefit the next generation by making the best single investment we can in their future. ultimately, these actions will be most effective if they are paired with local efforts across our country. havethe past 50 years, we

been able to transform smoking from an accepted national pastime to an acknowledged health hazard. we have succeeded in driving smoking out of airplanes and out of a growing number of restaurants, bars, college campuses, and other workspaces. with the lives of 5.6 million children in the balance it is time to take these efforts to the next level. that ant obama believes tobacco free generation is well within our grasp. lesniak believes it is in our grasp and i believe that as well. the federal government cannot do this alone. we have to have a very significant role to play but it is not by any means the only role. we needed all hands on deck out ofh to take tobacco the hands of america's youngest generation. we need the partnership of the

business community and elected officials of the academic community, nonprofit organizations, and have committed health advocates and citizens and communities across the country. we need more schools to follow the lead of colleges and universities. like the university of south carolina which is adopted a tobacco free campus. stand up?d you thank you very much. [applause] engagement of young frome like ryan washington things i college high school right here in d.c. ryan.hear it for thank you. [applause] individualcountry,

americans are taking critically important action. there are statewide efforts underway like a bipartisan movement underway in kentucky. a representative is working across the out to make the bluegrass state smoke-free. thank you for your efforts. [applause] significant citywide efforts are going on. one of the cities that is leading the way is the city of to conduct a we are proud to be joined by the chicago commissioner public health. thank you very much. [applause] one of our great partners at the federal level is assistant secretary of defense for health affairs dr. jonathan woodson. leading anng -- effort across the military to

stop smoking and tobacco use and we can all agree that deserves some applause. thank you. [applause] we are pleased these local champions and statewide champions are here today because it is an example of the kind of very excited work underway. today we meet at a crossroads. over the past five decades, we have learned what it will take to end the tobacco epidemic and make the next generation tobacco free. researchers and policymakers have determined what works and what steps are necessary to end this tragic epidemic. the question is really -- what kind of a country to we want to lead our children and grandchildren? ben i think of where we can i see a country where smoking is no longer considered in vogue for young people.

i see a future where our kids are now burning through hundreds of millions of dollars each year due to tobacco use. of moms where millions and dads and sons and daughters are not lost before their time. that is a future that this president, president obama, sees as well. it is a future within our grasp if we are willing to work together to make it so. thank you so much for what you have done so far. rollup up your sleeves. we have just begun. thank you. [applause] dr. koh? he is coming back to the podium. >> thank you so much, not on secretary for your strong words and leadership. thank you everyone.

is a stork- day moment for reflection, recognition, and resolve. we recognize the national leaders who have passionately advanced tobacco control to make our country healthier. thank you. we have so many examples of your dedication. academic experts who have propelled the science. heads of voluntary organizations and community relations who have served as crucial leaders for change. legal experts who have challenged the tobacco industry in the courts. today we begin by recognizing these visionaries. because of you, tremendous progress has been made. 50 years after the landmark surgeon general's report, the tobacco epidemic still rages on in every community in every

corner of our country. far too many are still becoming hooked and dying well before their time. suffer, continue to preventable suffering, and i preventable death. should be inwhich uncommon illness, instead still remains the leading cause of cancer death. areuctions -- projections that the typical smoker loses at least a decade of precious life. later, tobacco addiction remains a public health catastrophe. healtharize -- our good is a precious and fragile gift and tobacco takes that gift the way. this is not an accident. these deaths do not occur just by chance. each year the tobacco industry

nearly $1billion, million an hour to advertise and market cigarettes and smokeless tobacco thereby outspending current state tobacco control programs by a factor of 18-1. each year the tobacco industry recruits customers to consume over 14 billion packs of cigarettes. with each a cigarette now understood to be a finely engineered nicotine delivery device. the tobacco industry adds up to an ever-growing array of novel products like flavored, small cigars that have special appeal to young people. these efforts have succeeded in creating a society where tobacco use is a social norm thereby leading to

devastating consequences. as a result, for each adult youngerom tobacco, two replacement smokers have been recruited to take their place. in this tragic way the cycle of dependence and death continues for yet another generation. this is unacceptable and intolerable. especially since the burden of tobacco now falls disproportionately on some of our most vulnerable such as persons of lower social economic status, sexual minorities, and those living with mental illness. as a nation, we should not be forced to accept the unexceptional and tolerate the intolerable. today our nation is at a crossroads. how will we address the tobacco epidemic for the future? our collective answer must be

that we renew our resolve and redouble our efforts for prevention. one of our biggest challenges is the misperception that the epidemic has already been solved when nothing is further from the truth. we cannot somehow assume the battle has been won when our toughest challenges lay ahead. it is time to commit to ending once andco epidemic for all, and it should not take another 50 years. [applause] we have at our fingertips many tools to solve the epidemic. we know what works. in 2