risk is caused by changes in the composition and design of cigarettes. can you explain ways in which these secrets -- these cigarettes are more dangerous? >> sure. the other thing we have found disturbing around this in some ways unexpected finding is that it does raise concerns about the ability of innovation to automatically lead to improvements in public health without regulation. . .

>> so the technology was used to make a cigarette that was easier to inhale and contain substances that were more dangerous. >> whether they contain more substances or more dangerous or they allowed a smoker to inhale

them more deeply than they previously were inclined to do because of the cigarettes were harsher. again what we're viewing, what we're seeing in terms of the numbers is very large increases in the risk of lung cancer. larger in women than in men. but very large -- at least the way cigarettes are being used in smoke in the united states have become more dangerous and not less dangerous. >> mr. zeller, five years since we passed the family smoking prevention tobacco control act. again it's really a historic achievement. public health i know there's been some delays in implementing some provisions. i also recognize and thanks to the ability of the fda to regulate these products, strides has been made during that time.

the center for tobacco products has been key. that's who's charged with this responsibility. what has been some of the best accomplishments perhaps some of the biggest challenges confronting the center for tobacco products? >> in terms of accomplishments, it was no small task to start with literally two full time employees at the end of september of 2009. two, accompanied by 20 other people who temporarily alone to this brand new center. it was no small task to literally build the center into what it is today. it is a full pledged regulatory entity through public education, doing major work in terms of reviewing product applications and over seeing investments in research. because as i said in my remarks

we're a regulatory agency. we can only go as far as the regulatory science will take us. the regulatory science informs all the decision we make on product applications. on the accomplishment side of the ledger having a fully functioning center that's doing all of that and that has launched the campaign and is doing a massive enforcement of laws making a major investment in research and making progress on the product review submissions will be the short list of accomplishments. there have been challenges.

it took us time to get up to speed. it took us time to hire all the scientists and especially chemist and engineers. we needed some specialized science capability to do the best possible product. we've made extraordinary progress in dealing with the queue of applications. on the challenges side it's what comes with literally starting from nothing, inheriting over 20 mandatory statutory deadlines. been doing the best possible job that we could with the product submissions. i can report we've made extraordinary progress on the products admissions. there's concept known as substantial equivalence. for the queue of substantial equivalence applications for products not currently on the

market. review of new applications can begin as soon as an application is received. we couldn't have said that a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. there's more progress to be made. i think that we are meeting some of the greatest challenges that we have faced. >> i appreciate that. let's talk about warning labels. one of the key provisions was calling for larger warning labels on cigarettes. it's been implemented. however the specific warning labels proposed by fda, were struck down by a court, u.s. court of appeals over the d.c. circuit on first amendment grounds. after that decision, i wrote the commissioner to urge the fda to move quickly to implement a strong new graphic warning label

and rule. given the evidence that graphic warning labels encourages smokers to quit, i'm hoping this is a high priority for fda. is fda going to propose a new set of cigarette warning labels that's designed to withstand a constitutional challenge? >> the priority and we're doing this is getting the research done to inform our ability to write a new rule. so survive the likely litigation that would come. getting that research done is one of our highest priorities. armed with the results of that research and with paying attention to the court decisions that have come in in reviewing our first attempt which was struck down. will require some careful deliberations. we will do that crust as soon as we can complete the research. getting the research done to support a new graphic warning label rule is a very high

priority. >> i wish we had some labels i see in our neighboring countries to the north in canada. they got some pretty abu ghraib -- graphic labels. i guess they don't have a constitution like we have. they are great warning labels. does fda plan to exercise its authority in the area of standards to require changes in cigarettes and other tobacco products. for example limiting tar and nicotine levels to make them less addictive less harmful and less attractive. >> you're referring to product standards. it's one of the most powerful tools that the congress gave the agency. it is the power with one exception. it is the power it ban or restrict the allowable levels of

ingredients, constituents in the finished product. we have been saying publicly that we are investing in research to explore potential product standards in three areas. this is as far as i can go publicly. we are supporting research to explore potential product standards in areas of addiction toxicity and appeal. warmed with that information we will explore regulatory options. >> good. my last question dr. mcafee. i want to talk about sensation services. last year i wrote to secretary sebelius, many private insurance plans weren't covering tobacco services that were recommended by the task force and required the provisions i offered in the affordable care act. earlier this month the department issued guidance which a evidence must be covered

without copays or deductibles as the law requires. we know that a combination of medication and counseling is most effective in helping tobacco users quit. can you elaborate on the role of sensation services in stemming the tied of tobacco office and whether you expect this guidance to provide improved access to services. do you have any suggestions on the best way to increase the number of doctors who talk to their patients about quitting. >> well, thank you very much chair harkin for that we can. one of the things i did prior to coming to cdc was to work very hard as a primary care doctor within an integrated healthcare system to basically tra troy to figure out how we could mobilize the engine of healthcare to help

our patients quit smoking. this is proven to be something that is both -- has lots of very strong potential but lots of very strong challenges. a potential is basically 75% of smokers see a doctor in a year and doctor have a lot of respect and they also embedded in a system that increasingly knows how to adopt changes and influence behaviors. on the flip side, there has been predigitious onlies moving forward. there has been lack of medical training. particularly the lack of coverage and capacity to be able to provide services without seeming like something they're doing just as on top of everything else. the short story i learned from

my decade trying to do this, yes it is possible. it takes a lot of work. you have to make services accessible so that clinicians with refer people out to get deeper level of service. we spend a lot of time trying to build up services. you have to figure out ways they can have the time to get reimbursed for it. you can actually drop prevalence at a population level. in just a few short years by major promotion of a good benefit. the exciting elements associated with the affordable care act are really embedded in it requirements about barrier free coverage. there's been a devil in the details challenge how that gets

translated into language and guidance to health plans so they're able to do that encouraged to do that required to do that. i do think that the guidance at h.h.s. released last month gets bit more specific. this the health plans we're saying that will be helpful to them. many of them will move. it will continue to be a process. but one that has -- we try to integrate this in with the tips from former smokers campaign. it's gotten a lot of interest from healthcare organizations. >> i wish we had more emphasis. i'm going to be looking at this too. that people who are covered under the affordable care act that see their doctors on prevention and wellness with no copays, no deductibles. they go in and get their annual check ups. doctors have their list things that they do is to advise them

on smoking, if they smoke, to advise them on knowing why they should quit but how they should quit. what's available to them to help them and refer them to the quit lines, refer them to other activities that they might do to cease. and then if they need medication or the patches or the gum and stuff like that, to be able to advise them and get them on those. that's what i'm hoping we do. >> i strongly agree. we've actually done a pretty good job over the last 15 years of getting -- so that people are asked about their tobacco use status and give them brief advice. we still have a ways to go to try to make it so that particularly if people are interested, which most people are, they can gain access to

help everything from counseling right on the spot to referral for counseling or phone counseling and to medications. just having it more embedded the way we treat hypertension, cholesterol, the management of diabetes. having it be part of services. >> i want to just add one more thing before i close up here. that is, issues raised about premium cigars. then i read somewhere about more and more kids are smoking, not what you think as a cigar they're like little cigarettes but they're wrapped in cigar paper. they're little small cigars. those are also being flavored too if i'm not mistaken. there's a clear distinction between that and premium cigars. you said to me you're working on a rule how you define what a

premium cigar is. i don't know what it is either. i just hope there's delineation. >> to your point on flavor. the only flavor that's in there is tobacco. >> well are there primary cigars? >> we're proposing only flavors in the tobacco -- >> i know it when i see it. you know premium cigar when you see it. >> it's hard for a regulator to

take that approach though. >> very true. i appreciate that. >> i could just add a word or two around that. i would want to make sure that we emphasized the reality that all cigars are dangerous. they all contain most of the same toxic substances. we're burning tobacco and that creates thousands of chemicals including around carcinogens. there maybe some differences in how they are smoked, etcetera, but it's still a dangerous product. the question of how it should be regulated, is different from the question of whether it should be regulated. >> got that. the other thing i want to say i

had stuff on ecigarettes. the way they're being marketed, they're being marketed to kids. it's nicotine. nicotine is an addictive drug. they're marketing and addictive drug to kids. which gets them addicted on nicotine. if they can't get a hold of these, they'll get a hold of cigarettes. it seems like a gateway kind of approach to cigarette smoking. i urge you, i hope -- again i don't know about extending the comment that needs to be done. i hope we don't kick that can down the road anymore. we got to get a handle on this one and start nipping this in the bud this e-cigarette stuff. what you do on it with adults, i'm little less clear on that. but for kids, as far as i'm concerned, pretty clear what's

happening here and how we're marketing it. anyone of you have anything else or you like to say for the record or have us think about? >> i actually like to follow up a little bit on one of the things you had said about e-cigarettes. one of the things that's misunderstood about our findings last september cdc, there's some implication that we have to prove that children with e-cigarette will progress. it's related to what you said. it's an important thing to find out. we look forward to the path. but the bottom line is for at least three reasons, children should not be -- they should not

be using e-cigarettes. we as a society do not need -- there's no necessity for us to require marketing, sales and product characteristics that will result in millions of kids disproportionating -- experiencing these cigarettes. nicotine is addictive. we don't need to have e-cigarettes to get kids to not smoke. we have plenty of other societial tools that are proven to be very effective. we can get youth use down into low single digits. it is egregious. we're very worried the most recent surgeon report one of its finding it strongly suggested it

has effects on the development of the adolescent brain. this is not something we should fool around with. the last issue, we're not saying that it is a gateway, we have reasons to be anxious concerned that one of the results of millions of kids, if it becomes millions, playing around with e-cigarettes especially the reason they're fooling around with these cigarettes because they're watching, advertising and promotion . it's making it sexy and glamorous and using celebrity endorsement on television. this is a huge experiment. it is not fair to our children to ask them to pay a potential praise around that for a hypothetical benefit to adult smokers. we know that the tactics being used in the process of marketing

e-cigarettes half a dozen of characteristics are very similar to the same things that are in the 2012 surgeon general's report found. the tobacco companies engaged in caused kids -- increased the chances of smoking cigarettes. we don't think we can afford to or if there's any necessity to spend five or ten years proving that a 13-year-old using e-cigarettes will -- >> you're saying they're dangerous in and of themselves whether they're gateway or not? >> correct. the idea of gateway if you use a one drug, lady to another drug. if you use marijuana, maybe it will cause you to use cocaine or heroin. this is the same drug. the drug itself is a concern in

adolescents. >> just one closing thought. absolutely understand the concerns that you and dr. mcafee expressed about e-cigarette and any degree to it they are enticing kids. i'll just leave you with one big picture thought. let's not laws sight of the fact that this remains the leading cause preventive death of disease in our country. the opportunity that congress given to center for tobacco products would be authorities and the resources that you've given us is an opportunity to make a serious didn't in that disease toll. now that we can add the tool of product regulation and the impact that product regulation have to national comprehensive tobacco control efforts.

let's not lose our focus on what that primary cause is for those now more than 480,000 avoidable deaths each year. it's primarily burning come busting cigarettes. >> i might reemphasize, it's very important point that mitch made. along the same lines the surgeon general's report really emphasized this point. we can argue and we will about how e-cigarettes should be regulated. how should this happen. in which particular policy. the safest thing that we can do to minimize danger and maximize bents, the impact of the forms of nicotine delivery is much

more likely to be international than in environment where the appeal of accessibility promotion in use of cigarettes are being rapidly reduced especially among youth and young adults. >> in other words if e-cigarettes were market like the patch or if cigarettes were -- if the accessibility appeal motion -- >> i'm a little concerned about this approach now. i know there's a debate on whether e seg -- e-cigarette is a smoking sensation device or does it lead to youth to become more addicted to nicotine. i seen a lot of back and fort on this. well, if you can control the

marketing, e cigarettes are simply marketed or sold under the same divisions like a patch or nicorette gum. that's one thing. that's not what's happening. >> we tried that. the court said no. we tried that. >> e-cigarette -- >> we try toward regulate e-cigarette as unapproved drugs and device. we were sued and the court sided with the company that sued us. said in absence of a claim that automatically make it subject to regulation by the fda. the courts ruled that only way we would regulate e-cigarettes is under the tobacco authority. because the nicotine is derived

from tobacco. >> i'll think more about that. >> i guess you're right. bad decision. any way thank you both for all your leadership in this area. just can't let up on our efforts

and we got to figure out some way getting a handle on these e-cigarettes especially as they pertain to kids. i don't know whether i'm for extending the deadline on it or not. i don't know. all i know is that there should be some really compelling reasons to extend the deadline beyond 75 days. i don't know if there are or not. i haven't seen that yet. thank you all very much. thank you again for being so patient for being here and thanks for your leadership. >> thank you mr. chair.

>> earlier today eric shinseki testified on capitol hill on veterans health care issues and recent reports of delays in

patient care in arizona. that situation prompted a congressional subpoena. here is more. >> the fda is considerably committed to writing safe facilities necessary to improve their health and well-being. this commitment mandates a continuous effort to improve all the and safety. veterans served nothing less. the quality of safety meet high standards. that said, in health care, mr. chairman, or always areas in need of improvement. any allegation of patient care or employee misconduct are taken seriously. and based on the background that

you just described, that i followed most of my life, for 38 years in uniform, and i now have this great privilege of being able to care for people i went to war with many years ago, and people that i have sent to war, and people that raised me in the profession when i was a youngster, any allegation, any adverse incident like this makes me mad as hell. i could use stronger language here, mr. chairman, but in deference to the committee, i won't. at the same time, it also saddens me because i understand that out of those adverse events a veteran and a veteran's family is dealing in the aftermath, and i always try to put myself in their shoes. in response to allegations about manipulations of appointments, scheduling at phoenix, i am committed to taking all actions necessary to identify exactly

what the issues are, to fix them, and to strengthens veterans' trust in v.a. health care. first, the office of inspector general, as many of you pointed out, is conducting a review. if any of these allegations are true at phoenix and elsewhere we have invited the ig to come and look at issues that surfaced. if any allegations are true, they are completely unacceptable to me, to veterans, and i will tell you the vast majority of vha employees that come to work every day to do the best for those veterans. if any of those are substantiated by the inspector general, we will act, and i thank senator murray's encouragement to do something different, and, senator, i will. it is important, however, to

allow the inspector general to complete the review and provide results. second, i have directed v.a. to complete a nationwide access review of all other health care facilities to ensure full compliance with our scheduling policy, and as we have begun that, we already received reports where compliance is under question, and we have asked the ig in a number of those cases to also take a look. third i have asked for and received the assistance from president obama. the president has agreed to let his deputy chief of staff for policy rob nabors assist us in our review of allegations and and any other issues we might find in these reviews. rob is a fresh set of eyes, the son of a veteran, and a proven performer that brings experience

to this task, and i welcome his experience. i have known rob nabors' family for many years. we served together for many years, i know his mom and dad very well, and i welcome the assistance of rob nabors. it is important to remember that vha conducted roughly 85 million outpatient appointment clinics last year. vha operates over 1700 points of care, including 150 medical centers, 820 community-based outpatient clinics, 332 veteran centers, 140 living centers, 104 rehabilitation treatment programs, and 70 mobile vet centers.

this is a demonstration of concern by this department trying to make sure that every veteran, no matter where they live in this country, and even in our overseas locations, have an equal opportunity to have access to quality health care.

i want them to continue to have that level of trust. veterans deserve to have full faith in their v.a.. cha is committed to a process of full and open disclosure student families when every -- whenever

any adverse event occurs. we participate in reviews every year to ensure the safety and quality of health care. v.a. will continue to aggressively developed and sustained reliable systems and train employees to detect and prevent health care incidents before they happen. i have detailed some of our many significant health-care cobblestones vha over the past five years of my written testimony. i appreciate the hard work and dedication of the employees our partners, as indicated, in this room, community stakeholders, many of whom we deal with on a daily basis, and our dedicated v.a. volunteers. i deeply respect the important role that congress and the members of this committee play in serving our veterans, and i look forward to continuing our work with congress to better serve them all, and again, mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear here

today. >> a part of a hearing earlier today. you tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span or any time online here go to www.c-span.org. >> on the next "washington journal," a discussion on the state of the housing market. then a senior editor of telecommunications reports on the net equality proposal and what it means for consumers. later, a look at a government report that analyzes the gross domestic product. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments and weeds. live at 7:00 eastern on c-span.

tomorrow, the naacp legal defense and education fund marks the 60th anniversary of the supreme court decision brown v. board of education. we will also have remarks from deval patrick. live friday at 12:20 eastern on c-span. >> the fcc voted earlier today in favor of a new proposal aimed at guaranteeing internet and -- the plan would allow providers like netflix to pay for a guaranteed fast lane for service. >> [indiscernible]

[applause] >> [indiscernible] [applause]

>> [indiscernible] >> [indiscernible] >> ok, we now have -- >> [indiscernible] >> for the may 20 14th meeting of the federal medications commission. let me begin with a couple of housekeeping items. first of all, we have a particularly full agenda today and so for the benefit of my colleagues, we will be taking a

break between the third and fourth items of about 10 minutes. we will be coming back quickly for that. i just want to say at the outset insofar as before the meeting began, there was some activity here. the purpose of what we are doing here today on the open internet is to make sure that he hear from everyone and that we start a process that fully opens the doors for comment by the american people. we are going to move through that process today and disruption does not help adding to the point where the american

people can provide input to the process. we look forward to a full and complete discussion of all of these issues. and that is the important thing that we are beginning today. so, madam secretary, will you please introduce our agenda for the morning? >> thank you. good morning to you and to the morning -- and good morning commissions. for items. first you will consider a notice of proposed will making it testing -- addressing the ec court of appeals reman a portion of the 2010 open internet order and proposing enforceable rules to protect and promote the open internet. second, you will consider an order that provided limited expansion to the class of wireless microphone users eligible for a license.

third, you will consider an order that adopts key policies and rules for the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction, laying the groundwork for an unprecedented market-driven process for repurpose and spectrum for mobile broadband use in promoting competition and innovation. last on your agenda, you will consider a report and order that modifies the commission's policies and adopt rules regarding the aggregation of the spectrum for mobile wireless services through initial licensing and secondary market transactions to preserve and promote competition. this is your agenda for today. the first item will be presented by the wireline cognition bureau. the chief of the bureau will be the introduction. >> good morning, mr. chairman, and commissioners.

we present for your consideration an item seeking broad public comment on the best way to protect and promote the internet. the commission has emphasized for almost a decade the importance of open internet protections. but following the court of appeal's decision earlier this year, there are no legally enforceable rules insuring internet openness. to remedy this absence, the item before you reposes rules to protect and promote internet as an open platform for innovation, competition economic growth and free expression. as well as being a driver of broadband investment and deployment. i would like to thank our colleagues in the consumer and government are all affairs bureau, the bureau or oakham and the wireless bureau, as well as the office of engineering and technology for their significant contributions to this item. with me at the table are roger

sherman of the wireless bureau. stephanie from the office of general counsel. matt and christine of the wireline bureau. i would like to acknowledge carol simpson of the wireline bureau for her terse efforts on this item. christine will now present the item for your consideration. >> good morning. >> to notice we proposed a six comment on that framework of internet rules that would affect consumers identified in the 2010 order, and fosters innovation. the goal of this notice is to find the best approach to protecting and promoting

internet openness. there are six key elements to this notice. first, in order to fulfill the objectives of the 2010 open internet order, the notice for postals -- proposes to retain the scope of the 2010 rules. it seeks comment on whether to read visit the scope of the money 10 rule including with respect to the differential treatment with against -- with a guard to mobile and fixed for broadband internet access. second, the notice tentatively concludes that the commission should enhance the transparency rule that was upheld by the d c circuit to ensure that consumers and providers and the internet community at large has the information that they need to understand the services that they are receiving an offer to monitor practices that could undermine the open internet. third, the notice reposes --

proposes adopting a tax of the 2010 no blocking role that the role prohibits brought been providers from providing edge providers of a minimum level of access to the broadband providers' subscribers. this would provide an important foundation in the efforts to protect and reserve internet openness. fourth, for contact not prohibited by that no blocking rule, the notice reposes a rule that would require broadband providers to adhere to an enforceable legal standard of commercially reasonable practices. the notice asks how internet can be prohibited under this standard and whether certain practices like paid prioritization should be barred altogether. for any practices that are not prohibited outright them at the

notice proposes a number of factors that the commission can consider when determining whether the conduct in question would harm internet openness. . this enforcement mechanism is intended to provide legal certainty, decision-making, and effective access for anti-users from a providers from and broadband networks alike. for instance, the notice proposes to establish the role of an on bets person who would act as a watchdog that would represent the interests of consumers, startups, and other small entities. the notice proposes these enforcement mechanisms include the self initiated investigation and formal complaints and formal complaint russes is adopted in the 2010 open internet order. sixth, and finally, the notice proposes to rely on section 706 of the telecommunications act of

1996 as the source of authority for adopting the roles that will protect the open internet. it seeks comment on the best source of authority for production of internet openness, whether section 706, title 2 or another source of legal authority, such as title 3 for wireless services. with respect to the possibility of proceeding under title 2 the notice seeks comment on whether and how the commission should exercise its authority under section 10 of the act or section 332 c1 four wireless services, to forbear from specific title 2 obligations that would flow from the classification of service. the bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges. thank you. >> thank you, and all the bureau. let's get comments from the bench.

commissioner? >> thank you, mr. chairman, when my mother taught with public policy concerns, i knew there was a problem. in my 16 years as a public servant, emily clyburn has never called me about an issue under consideration, not during my time serving on the south carolina public service commission about not during my tenure here at the commission, nor as a chairwoman, never. but all that changed for me and us on monday, april 28. indulge me for a moment. my mother is a very organized intuitive, and intelligent woman. she was a medical librarian who earned a master's degree while working full-time and raising three very interesting girls. she is smart, thoughtful, and engaged and she is a natural researcher. so when she picked up the phone to call me about this issue am i knew for sure something was just

not right. she gave voice to three basic questions which as of today's date her message remains on my telephone. what is this that neutrality issue? can providers do with them want to do? and if it already passed? like any good daughter with an independent streak, i will directly answer my mother's questions in my own time and in my own way. [laughter] but her inquiry truly echoes the calls, letters, e-mails i received from thousands of consumers, it investors startups health care providers and educators, and others across this nation who are equally concerned and confused. all of this demonstrates how fundamental the internet has become for all of us. so why are we here at exactly what is net neutrality or open internet? let me start from a place where

i believe most of us can agree that a free and open exchange of ideas is critical to a democratic society. consumers with the ability to visit whatever website and access any lawful content of their choice can interact with their choice can interact with the government, apply for job, or even monitor their household devices, educators having passive -- possibility to access the best digital learning tools for themselves, and students can health care is treating asians with the latest technology, all of this occurring without the services or content being discriminated against or blocked all content being treated equally. small startups on a shoestring with novel ideas having the ability to reach millions of people and competing on a footing with those established carriers and their considerable budgets, innovation abounds with new applications, technologies,

and services. at its core, an open internet means consumers are not a company, not the government determine winners and losers. it is a free market at its best. all of us, however, does not nor will it ever occur organically. without rules governing an open internet, it is possible that companies and broadband providers could independently determine whether they want to discriminate or blocked content pick favorites, charge higher fees, or distort the market. i have been listening to concerns not just for my mother but from thousands of consumers and interested parties. startups this year, they want a chance to succeed if access is controlled by corporations rather than a competitive playing field. investors who say they will be reticent to admit to companies

because they are concerned their new service will not be able to reach consumers in the marketplace because of high costs or differential treatment. educators, even where there is high capacity connection at that school, feel their students may not be able to take advantage of the best and digital learning. health care profession als worrying the images they need to view will load too slowly and patience will be unable to benefit from the latest technologies and specialized care made possible through remote monitoring kit and i'm hearing from everyday people who say that we need to maintain the openness of the internet and that this openness enables today's discourse to be viewed by thousands and offers them the ability to interact directly with policymakers and engage in robust exchanges like we are experiencing today. in fact, let me say how

impressed i was when i spoke to some of you on clear this week. you came from washington, north carolina, new york, virginia, on your own dime, to a farm house this important -- how important this issue to you. average consumers should have the same access to the internet as those with deep pockets. there are dozens of examples across the globe where we have seen firsthand the dangers to society when people are not allowed to choose. government locking access to content and stifling free speech and public discourse countries including some in europe where providers have degraded content and apps are being blocked from certain mobile devices. problems have occurred at home, particularly with regard to apps on mobile devices, even though

providers in the united states have been subject to net neutrality principles and rules with the threat of enforcement for over a decay. to mom and all of you, this is an issue about promoting our democratic dahlias of free speech, competition, economic growth, and civic engagement. the second question she posed was, can providers do what they want? the short answer is yes. as of january, we have no rules to prevent discrimination or blocking. this is actually a significant change because the fcc has had policies in place dating back to 2004 when the commission unanimously adopted four principles of an open internet and internet policy statement. these principles became the rules of the road with the potential for enforcement. in 2010 commission formally adopted rules to promote an open

internet by preventing blocking and unreasonable discrimination. when the commission approved these rules, i explained why i would have done something differently. for instance, i would have applied the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband inhibited paid prior to the agreement, limited any exceptions to the rules, and i am on record as preferring a effort legal structure. the 2010 roles but the compromise. yes, mom i do compromise at times. in january of 2014, the d c circuit disagreed with our legal framework, and here we are again. so i say again, that the court decision means that today we have no unreasonable discrimination or no blocking rules on the books so nothing prevents providers from acting in small ways that go largely undetected.

and nothing prevents them from acting in larger ways to discriminate against or even lock certain content. to be fair, providers have stated that they intend for the time being not to do so and have publicly committed to retain their current policies of openness. but for me, the issue comes down to whether broadband providers should have the ability to determine on their own whether the internet is free and open or whether we should have basic clear rules of the road in place to ensure that this occurs as we have had for the last decade. and this may be surprising to some. but i have chosen to view the court decision in a positive light, for it has given us a unique opportunity to take a fresh look and evaluate our policies in light of the developments that have occurred in the market over the past four years, including the increased use of wi-fi, deployment of lte,

and the increased use of broadband on mobile devices, to name a few. we demand -- this enables us to issue a clarion call for the public or they can once again help us answer that most important question of how to protect and maintain a free and open internet. that ability officially begins for everyone today. the third question, and judging by the headline and subsequent reactions, my mother is in good company here, was has a passed ? no it has not, but let me explain. some accounts have reported that the chairman's initial proposal is what we are voting on and have conflated proposed rules with final rules. neither is accurate. for those of you who practice in this space can i ask that you

bear with me for a few minutes. the chairman circulates an item, it is indeed a reflection of his vision. my office then evaluates the proposals, listens to any concerned voice by interested parties, including consumers and considers whether we have concerns, and if so, what changes we want to request so that we can move to a position of support. this item was no different. it is true, i too had significant concerns about the initial proposal, but after interactions among staff, my office and the chairman's office, and the chairman, this item has changed considerably over the last few weeks, and i appreciate the chairman for incorporating my many requests to do so. though i still may have preferred to make a portion of the draft more neutral, what we are voting on today asks about a number of alternatives which will allow for a well-rounded

record to develop on how best to protect the public interest. second today we are voting only on proposed rules, not final roles. this item is an official call inviting interested parties comment to discuss pros and cons of various approaches and to have a robust dialogue about the best path forward. when the chairman hits the gavel after the vote is cast on this item this morning, it will signal a start of 120 unique days of opportunity, each of you have in shaping and influencing direction of one of the world's most incredible platforms. the feedback up to now has been nothing short of astounding. but the real calls to action begin after this vote is taken. comments are due on july 15 come and there's ample time to evaluate any of the proposals

and provide meaningful feedback. you have spoken, and i am listening. your power will never be underestimated. i sincerely hope that your passion continues. as i have said to those i met outside of the fcc headquarters, this is now your opportunity to make your point on the record. you have the whole year of the fcc. the eyes of the world are on all of us. usual voice, and this platform to commute to be heard. i will do all that i can independently and with the chairman to identify ways to encourage more interactive dialogue with all stakeholders, town halls workshops, social media, because i know with a robust record this commission will be able to move quickly and get to the finish notline with

rules that are clear and enforceable. so mom, i hope that answers most of your questions. and i sincerely hope you will not be compelled to ask me any more significant policy questions for another 16 years. in all seriousness, i want to thank the dedicated staff from the office of general counsel, including jonathan and stephanie, as well as the wireline competition and telecommunications bureau for their work on this significant item, and i want to thank my wireline legal advisor rebecca for her expert work on this item, and, rebecca yes you may take tomorrow off. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, commissioner, both for your significant other deletions to this item as well as to explaining to your mother and everyone how this process works. commissioner? >> thank you.

i support an open internet, but with despot i would have done this differently. i would've taken time before proceeding to understand the future, because the future of the incident of the internet is the future of everything. there is nothing in her commercial and civil -- and civic lives that will be on touched by its influence or unmoved by its power. i would have taken time for more input, because i think as public servants we have a duty to acknowledge and respond to the great tide of public commentary that followed in the wake of the chairman's proposal. even now, the phone calls continue, the e-mails poured in, and the web itself is ablaze with commentary on how this commission should proceed. it is no wonder. our internet economy is the envy of the world.

we invented it. the broadband beneath us and the airwaves all around us deliver its collective might to our homes and businesses in communities across the country. the applications economy began here on our shores. but produced this dynamic engine of entrepreneurship and experimentation is a foundation of openness. sustaining what has made us innovative, peers, and creative should not be a choice. it should be an obligation. as we proceed, we are also obligated to protect what has made the internet the most dynamic platform for free speech ever invented. it is our modern town square. it is our printing press. it is our shared platform for opportunity. online, we are sovereign.

we can choose, create, and consumed content unimpeded by that prefaces of our broadband for writers. sustaining this freedom is essential. so as we proceed, we almost keep in mind the principles of fairness and protection from discrimination, that have informed every proceeding involving the internet that has been before this agency. these are the essential values in our communications laws. they are the ones we have honored in the past. they must guide us in the future. so going forward, we must honor transparency, ban blocking, and prevent unreasonable termination. you cannot have a two-tiered internet. so i support network ecology. i believe the process that got

us to this rulemaking today is flawed. i would have preferred a delay. i think we moved too fast to be fair. so i concur. but i want to acknowledge that the chairman has made significant adjustments to the text of the rulemaking we adopt here today. he has expanded its scope and put all options on the table. our effort now covers law and policy section 706, and title 2 . if passed, this prologue, the future of this proceeding, the future of network neutrality and the internet is still being written. i'm hopeful we can write it together, and i am mindful that we must get it right. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner? >> thank you. a few years ago google's ceo was quoted as saying the internet is

the first impact humanity has the that humanity does not understand. if this is so, then every american who cares about the future of the internet should be wary about five unelected officials deciding its fate. after the u.s. court of appeals here in washington struck down the agency's latest attempts to regulate broadband providers practices, i recommended that the fcc seek guidance from congress. instead of plowing ahead, yet again on its own. in my view, recent events have only confirmed the wisdom of that approach. let's start by knology the obvious. the chairman's proposal has sparked a vigorous public beta. but we should not let that debate app store important common ground. namely, a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet.

indeed, this consensus reaches back at least a decade. in 2004, then fcc chairman michael powell outlined four principles of internet freedom. the freedom to access lawful content, the freedom to use applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the freedom to obtain service plan information. one year later, the fcc unanimously endorsed these principles when it adopted the internet policy statements. respectful of these it freedoms has propelled the internet's tremendous growth over the last decade. it has shielded online competitors from anti-competitive practices. it has fostered long-term investment in broadband infrastructure. it has made the internet and unprecedented platform for civic engagement, commerce entertainment, and more. and it has made the united states the epicenter of online

innovation. i support the four internet freedoms, and i am committed to protecting them going forward. it is not news that people of good faith disagree when it comes to the best way to maintain a free and open internet. or as i think of it, how best to preserve the four internet freedoms for consumers. some would like to regulate broadband providers as utilities under title 2 of the communications act. this regulation would scrap the clinton-era decision to let the internet grow and thrive free from price inflation, and other obligations applicable to telephone carriers. there are others, and i am one of them, who believe that president clinton and congress that right in the telecommunications act of 1996, when they declared the policy of the united states to be preserving the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the

internet, unfettered by federal or states'regulations. a think we should recognize the benefits made possible by the regulatory regime that has been in place for the most art of the last decade. after all, nobody thinks of plain old telephone service or utilities as cutting edge. but everyone recognizes that the internet has downloads potential, and that is because governments did not set the bounds early on. today's items strikes yet a third approach, a law your lead proposes a minimal level of access role, and not too much discrimination rule. it allows for paid prioritization under unspecified circumstances. to date: outside this building has asked me to support this proposal. i remind you of an observation that there is nothing in the middle you wrote that yellow

stripes and dead armadillos. i think less than the future of the internet depends on how we resolve this disagreement. what we do in this proceeding will imperil or preserve internet freedom. it will promote or deter broadband infrastructure investment throughout our nation. it will brighten or hamper the future of innovation, both within the networks and at the adage. it will determine whether control of the internet will reside with the u.s. government or with the private sector are. it will impact whether consumers are connected by smart networks or dumb pipes. and it will advance or under main american advocacy -- or undermine american advocacy for an internet free from government control. my view of the dispute is not for us to decide. instead, it should be resolved at the people's elected

representatives, those who choose the directions of government, and those whom the american people can hold directly accountable for that choice. therefore i am disappointed that today rather than turning to congress we have chosen to take matters into her own hands. it is all the more disappointing because we have an down this road before. ouour prior attempts ended in court if he. even with the newfangled tools that the fcc will conjure up out of the legal grab bag, i'm skeptical that the term time -- that the third time will be the charm. for these reasons, along with others that are detailed in my written statement, i respectively dissent. nevertheless if we are going to a suitable role of many legislatures and punch the commission into this morass, we need to use a better process going forward. i agree with my colleague that we have rushed headlong into this rulemaking by holding this

vote today. and when there is any bipartisan agreement on net trilogy, that is something. -- net neutrality that is something. we have seen what happens when the american people feel excluded from the fcc's deliberations. on several recent issues, many say that vision has spent too much time speaking at the american people and not enough time listening to them. we need to give the public a full and fair opportunity to participate in this process. and we must ensure that our decisions are built and based on a robust record. so what is the way forward? here is one suggestion. just as we commissioned a series of economic studies and passed media ownership proceedings, we should ask economists to study the impact of our proposed regulations and alternative approaches on the internet

ecosystem. to ensure that we get a wide range of perspectives, that each commissioner pick two authors to ensure accuracy. each study should be peer-reviewed. and to ensure public oversight we should host a series of hearings where commissioners and questioned the authors of the studies and the authors of these studies could discuss their differences. surely, the future of the internet is no less important than media ownership. but we should not limit ourselves to economic studies. should also engage computer scientists technologist's, and other technical asked birds to tell us how they see the end internet's infrastructure evolving. they should be subject to peer review and public hearings. alternately, any decisions we make on internet regulation should be based on sound economics and engineering, and an accurate understanding of how networks actually function.

they should be informed by the judicious and successful regulatory approach embraced by both democrats and republicans in recent years. and they should and void -- avoid amber alert everyone in yet another years long legal waiting game. in short, getting the future of the internet right is more important than getting this done right now. going forward, i hope that we will not rush headlong into enacting bad roles. we are not confronted with a meteor crisis that requires immediate action. if we are going to usurp congress' role and make fundamental choices for the american people, we must do better in the process that led us here today. i respectfully dissent. >> commissioner riley? >> thank you. it should come to miss a price that i cannot support today's notice. as i said before, the premise for imposing net neutrality

rules is fundamentally flawed and rests on a faulty foundation of the believed statutory authority. i have serious concerns that this item will create damaging uncertainty and head the commission down a slippery slope. the notice proposes to grant the net neutrality rules in section 706 of the telecommunications act of 1996. have expressed my views that congress never intended section 706 to be an affirmative grant of authority to the commission to regulate the internet. at most, could be used to trigger the regulation. the notice does not stop there. it takes comments on way to ensure additional language in section 76 and events just using section 230-be to broaden the scope of the usurp authority. this is absurd. now the mission is trying to cast a wider net of authority. i other services provider could become it and snarled its future.

the notice explores years of investment by reclassifying access as a title 2 service. the commission examined applying monopoly era telephone rules to modern broadband services solely to impose unnecessary and effective net neutrality regulations. courts can recognize that they may legally reverse course as long as it explains the reasons for changing its position, i am concerned about real world impact that such a decision could have on the communications industry and the economy as a whole. the current framework has provided a climate of certainty and stability for broadband investment and internet information. i also worry about the credibility of an agency that consistently fails to meet statutory deadlines to eliminate all rules by supposing obsolete provisions.

the notice just because location could be accompanied by substantial forbearance from the title 2 requirements. the need to forbear from a significant number of provisioned in title 2% for that title 2 is an inappropriate framework for today plus an technologies. indeed, title 2 includes arcane provisions. the idea that the commission can impose or squiggle just the right amount of title 2 on broadband providers is giving commission more credit than it ever deserves. additionally before taking any action on any issue, the commission should have a specific evidence that there is a market failure. the notice does not examine the broadband market, much less identify any failures. a true and accurate review of the broadband market which must include wireless broadband which show how dynamic it is. the nose fails to make the case that there is an actual problem resulting in real harm to

consumers. the notice identifies at most two additional examples of alleged harm, and in one instance the condition conceived it did not find a violation. in an attempt of a problem, the notice points to suppose it had conduct occurring outside the united states without explaining how it is relevant to a very different u.s. broadband market and regulatory structure. having come up empty-handed, the nose proceeds to explore hypothetical concerns. at the top of the list is prioritization. even ardent supporters of net neutrality recognized that some amount of traffic prioritization or differentiation must be allowed or even encouraged. voice must the prioritized over e-mails, video over data,. prioritization is not a bad word, a necessary component of a reasonable network management. the nose is skeptical of -- the notice is skeptical of paid participation.

companies that do business over the internet, including some of the strong supporters of net neutrality, or teeny pay for a variety of services to ensure the best possible experience. they have been doing it for years. fears that paid prioritization will a great service for other users, relegating them to slow link them have been this disproven. because there has been no evidence of actual harm, they are not tailored, but vague and unclear. the notice just providers could seek a binding staff guidance or prospective reviews of their practices. but that is very troubling when legitimate committees are put into the position of having to act -- ask the government for its bus every time they need to make a business the schedule -- decision in order to enforce ted -- and void litigation. it is more telling - where are on but men -- om

budsmen mentioned/ the notice devotes several pages to a wish list of disclosures requirements, and certifications. they will impose new burdens and carry real costs, they may not ever wind up having meaningful ends to use. what will be the average consumer do with the information on packet corruption and jitter question at the approach to cost-benefit analysis cannot continue, and i intend to spend time in the proving this important fraction. proposed net utility rules and legal theories will stifle innovation and investment by private sector can provide no help to consumers, and thrust the commission into a place it should not be. i respectfully dissent. >> [indiscernible]

>> please. we are trying to move ahead. >> [indiscernible] >> we are trying to move ahead. [applause] >> i strongly support an open internet. this agency supports an open internet. although you have seen today that the ability to a sure and open internet is a matter of dispute. there is one internet. not a fast internet. not a slow internet. one internet.

attention is being paid to this topic throughout the country here in this room, is proof positive as to why the open and free exchange of information must be protect did. thank you to all of the thousands who have e-mailed me personally about this. thank you to those who feel so strongly about this, that they have been living in tents outside the building, and i enjoyed our meetings. one could only conclude that the founding fathers must be looking down and smiling at how the republic that they created is carrying out the ideals that they established. by releasing this item today

those who have been expressing themselves will now be able to see what we are actually proposing. they have been heard. we look forward to further input , and i say thank you for your passionate caring about this very important issue. but today we take another step. this is been a decade-long effort to preserve and protect the open internet. those previous efforts were blocked twice by court challenges who sell internet connections consumers. today this agency moves to surmount that opposition and to stand up for consumers in an

open internet. there has been talk up here about freedoms, about whether or not there has been market failures. the d c circuit in its opinion on the 2010 decision of this committee -- commission made an interesting observation that i would like to quote. there is little dispute that broadband providers have a technological ability to distinguish between and discriminate against certain types of internet traffic. the court found. there have been examples of abuses from individual cases to mobile carriers denying access to apps for banking or voice or

video. so this notice of proposed rulemaking starts an important process where it ends, we will learn during the process. that is why am grateful for the attention this has received. we start with a premise -- protecting the open internet is important for both consumers and economic growth. we are dedicated to protecting and preserving an open internet. and as commissioner clyburn much more eloquently pointed out, what we are dealing with today is a proposal, not a final rule. with this notice we are asking for specific comment on

different approaches to o'connor's same goal -- an open internet. nothing in this proposal, by the way, authorizes paid prioritization despite what has been incorrectly stated today. the potential for there to be some kind of an "fast lane," available to only a few, has many concerned. personally, i don't like the idea that the internet could become divided into haves and have-nots, and i will work to see that that does not happen. in this item we specifically ask whether and how to prevent the kind of paid prioritization that could result in "fast lanes."

two weeks ago, i told the american convention of -- the convention of america's cable broadband providers something that is worth repeating here. "if someone acts to divide the internet between haves and have-nots, we will use every power at our disposal to stop it." i will take no backseat to anyone that privileging some network users, in a manner that squeezes out smaller voices, is unacceptable. today, we have proposed how to stop that from happening including consideration of the applicable it he of title ii. there is one internet. it must be fast. it must be robust, and it must be open.

the speed and quality of the connection the consumer purchases must be unaffected by what content he or she is using. and there has to be a level playing field of opportunity for new ideas. small companies and startups must be able to affect the ugly reach consumers with innovative products and services and they must be did against harmful conduct by broadband providers. the prospect of a gatekeeper or choosing winners and losers on the internet is unacceptable. let's stop for a minute and look at how the internet works at the retail level. the consumer accesses the internet using conductivity that they have her just from an

internet service provider. that on activity should be open and in violet. it is the simple purchase of a pathway. i believe it would be commercially unreasonable, and therefore not her metadata under this proposal, for the isp not to deliver the contracted for open pathway. but let's consider specifically what that means. i want to get rules that work like this. if the network operators slowed the speed below that which the consumer bought, it would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited. if the network operator blocked access to lawful content, it would violate our no blocking rule and be commercially unreasonable and therefore doubly prohibited.

when content provided by a firm such as netflix reaches the consumer's network provider it would be commercially unreasonable to charge the content provider to use the bandwidth for which the consumer had already paid and therefore prohibited. when a consumer buys specified capacity from a network divider, he or she is buying open capacity, not capacity the network provider can prioritize for their own profit purposes. prioritization that deprives the consumer of what the consumer has paid for would be commercially unreasonable, and therefore prohibited. simply put when a consumer buys a specified bandwidth it is commercially unreasonable, and

thus a violation of this proposal, to deny them the full connectivity, the full benefits that connection enables. also included in this proposal are two new powers for those who use the internet and for the commission. expanded transparency will require networks to inform on themselves. i call it the "rat out rule." the proposal expands existing transparency rules to require that networks disclose any practices that could change a consumers or a content provider's relationship with the network.

i thus anticipate that if a network ever planned to take an action that would affect the content providers access there would be time for the fcc to consider petitions to review such an action. recognizing that internet entrepreneurs and consumers should not have to hire a lawyer to call the commission's attention to a grievance and on the buds person would be created within the fcc to receive their complaints and, where warranted, investigate and represent their case. a separate and apart from this connectivity is the question of interconnection between the consumer's network provider in the various networks that deliver to that i asked he. that is a different matter that is better addressed separately. today's proposal is all about what happens on the broadband providers network and how the

consumers connection to the internet may not be interfered with or otherwise compromised. the situation in which the commission finds it self is inherited from the actions of re-vs commissions over the last decade. the d c circuit's ruling in january of this year upheld our determination that we need rules to protect internet openness and upheld our authority under sections of an hundred hundred six to adopt such rules, even while it found the portions of the 2010 or net order were beyond the scope of our authority. in response, i probably stated that we would reinstate rules that achieve the goals of the 2010 order using section 706-based roadmap laid out the court. that is what we are proposing to do today. section 706 is one of two

personal methods proposed to accomplish the goals of an open internet. today we are seeking input on both sections 706 and title ii of the communications act. we are specifically asking for input as to the benefits of each and one -- why one might be preferable to the other. we have established a lengthy comment and reply period to allow everyone the opportunity for debate. >> mr. clyburn observation of personal point. i would like to make a personal point as an entrepreneur and venture capitalist. i know the importance of openness firsthand. as an entrepreneur, i have had drawbacks and services shut out of closed cable networks.

as a vc, i have invested in companies that wouldn't have been able to innovates if the network weren't open. i have hands-on experience with the importance of network openness. i will not allow the national asset of an open internet to be compromised. i understand this issue in my bones. i've got scars from when my companies were denied access in the pre-internet days. the consideration we are beginning today is not about whether the internet must be

open but about how and when we will have rules in place to assure an open internet. my preference has been to follow the roadmap laid out by the d c circuit in the believe that it was the fastest and best way to get protections in place. i have also indicated rick heatedly that i am open to using title ii. this rulemaking begins the process by putting forth a proposal, asking important and specific questions, and opening the discussion to all americans. we look forward to the feedback on all of these approaches. and now we will proceed to a vote. all those in favor say i. opposed.

the eyes have it. the order is adopted. the request for editorial privileges is granted. now, before we move on to our next item, i would like to note that the order will be slightly different for the next two items. we will first hear presentations from the fcc staff for the next two items followed by statements from the bench on both items. after that, we will proceed to individual votes on the two items. madame secretary, will you please announce our next item and to the bureau and all caps staff who have worked so diligently on the id. we just adopted, our hearty and heartfelt thank you. >> as a reminder you can see this again tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two.

here on c-span, veterans affairs secretary ericsson shakey testifies about veterans health care issues and responds to recent reports about long-delayed patient care at a veterans hospital in arizona. on c-span three, the f c c looks at proposed regulations on e cigarettes and other products. on tomorrow's washington journal, the current state of the housing market. the former communicator -- former editor of communications reports talks about the net neutrality proposal that we just saw and what it means for consumers. later, we look at a recent government report that analyzes the gross domestic product for 22 industry sectors. plus your phone calls facebook

comments and tweets. washington journal is live tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. earlier today president obama and first lady michelle obama toured the national september 11 memorial and museum in new york city. they were joined by governor andrew cuomo and former mayor michael bloomberg. this is one hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> ♪ there's a place for us,

somewhere a place for us he's and quiet and open air, wait for us somewhere. there's a time for us, someday a time for us time together with time to spare, time to learn, time to care, someday. somewhere. we'll find a new way of living.

we'll find a way of forgiving. somewhere. somewhere. there's a place for us. somewhere a place for us. ♪ ♪

>> present. halt.

>> ♪ oh, say can you see by the dawns early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight. o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming, and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, o'er the land

of the free and the home of the brave. ♪ >> halt.

>> we are here today to help dedicate a great museum, one that rises out of the bedrock of our city, our history and our hearts. in the years to come, the 9/11 memorial museum will take its place alongside the fields of gettysburg, the waters of earls

harbor and the vietnam veterans memorial as a sacred marker of our -- the waters of pearl harbor and the vietnam veterans memorial as a sacred marker. the outstretched hands that rushed forward that day and in the hard weeks and months that followed. in the streets of new york, on the grounds of the pentagon, in the fields near pennsylvania, from all across america and the world kindness poured forth. we saw only the humanity in one another. this museum, built on the site of rubble and ruins, is now filled with the faces the stories, and the memories of our common grief and our common

hope. it is a witness to tragedy. it is an affirmation of human life. it is a reminder to us and to all future generations that freedom carries heavy responsibilities, and a reflection of our believe that compassion and kindness reside within one another. walking through this museum can be difficult at times, but it is impossible to leave without feeling inspired. each story here eats with the human heart which, if we allow it, touches our own. what we do and the choices we make affect each other's lives and the course of human history. this morning we would like to share just a few of the stories the museum tells. ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to introduce the president

of the united states of america, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. please be seated. mayor bloomberg, governor cuomo honored guests, families of the fallen. in those awful moments after the south tower was hit, some of the injured huddled in the wreckage of the 78th floor. the fires were spreading. the air was filled with smoke. it was dark, and they could barely see.

it seemed as if there was no way out. and then there came a voice -- clear, calm, saying he had found the stairs. a young man in his 20s, strong emerged from the smoke, and over his nose and his mouth he wore a red handkerchief. he called for fire extinguishers to fight back the flames. he tended to the wounded. he led those survivors down the stairs to safety, and carried a woman on his shoulders down 17 flights. then he went back. back up all those flights. then back down again, bringing more wounded to safety.

until that moment when the tower fell. they didn't know his name. they didn't know where he came from. but they knew their lives had been saved by the man in the red bandana. again, mayor bloomberg; distinguished guests; mayor de blasio; governors christie and cuomo; to the families and survivors of that day; to all those who responded with such courage -- on behalf of michelle and myself and the american people, it is an honor for us to join in your memories. to remember and to reflect. but above all, to reaffirm the true spirit of 9/11 -- love, compassion, sacrifice -- and to

enshrine it forever in the heart of our nation. michelle and i just had the opportunity to join with others on a visit with some of the survivors and families -- men and women who inspire us all. and we had a chance to visit some of the exhibits. and i think all who come here will find it to be a profound and moving experience. i want to express our deep gratitude to everybody who was

involved in this great undertaking -- for bringing us to this day, for giving us this sacred place of healing and of hope. here, at this memorial, this museum, we come together. we stand in the footprints of two mighty towers, graced by the rush of eternal waters. we look into the faces of nearly 3,000 innocent souls -- men and women and children of every race, every creed, and every corner of the world. we can touch their names and hear their voices and glimpse the small items that speak to the beauty of their lives. a wedding ring. a dusty helmet. a shining badge.

here we tell their story, so that generations yet unborn will never forget. of coworkers who led others to safety. passengers who stormed a cockpit. our men and women in uniform who rushed into an inferno. our first responders who charged up those stairs. a generation of servicemembers -- our 9/11 generation -- who have served with honor in more than a decade of war. a nation that stands tall and united and unafraid -- because no act of terror can match the strength or the character of our country. like the great wall and bedrock

that embrace us today, nothing can ever break us; nothing can change who we are as americans. on that september morning, alison crowther lost her son welles. months later, she was reading the newspaper -- an article about those final minutes in the towers. survivors recounted how a young man wearing a red handkerchief had led them to safety. and in that moment alison knew. ever since he was a boy, her son had always carried a red handkerchief. her son welles was the man in the red bandana. welles was just 24 years old

with a broad smile and a bright future. he worked in the south tower, on the 104th floor. he had a big laugh, a joy of life, and dreams of seeing the world. he worked in finance, but he had also been a volunteer firefighter. and after the planes hit, he put on that bandana and spent his final moments saving others. three years ago this month after our seals made sure that justice was done, i came to ground zero. and among the families here that day was alison crowther.

and she told me about welles and his fearless spirit, and she showed me a handkerchief like the one he wore that morning. and today, as we saw on our tour, one of his red handkerchiefs is on display in those we lost live on in us, in the families who love them still, in the friends who remember them always and in a nation that will honor them now and forever. and today, it is my honor to introduce two women forever bound by that day united in their determination to keep al