at a local facility, but i don't know if it will solve the deeper rooted problems. >> i would envision that an assessment of the entire v.a. health care system was involved not just in this process that has been described to us, but it would be an ongoing kind of assessment. i hope that will be the case. the secretary is still here and to heart he is taking the suggestions and comments you are providing. secretary, ine regards to all that we have been discussing, whether you think this is taking away from the v.a.'s core mission of providing health care for the veterans. does anybody care to respond? as aere is no such thing homeless veteran.

there are veterans whose problems have been so acute and not address that they have ended up without homes. if other services come through, people do not end up on the street. each one is a failure. it does not mean people set out to fail, but we have failed those folks coming home somehow. the vfw believes the resources the v.a. can provide should never come at a trade-off. the obligations to provide holistic services to the assistance,ployment but also health care has to remain a cornerstone. when veterans transition off of active duty, there are a litany of transitional resources that need to be made available to them. -- to deliverhe most of those.

seeould never want to trade-offs made on how we deliver other benefits. , other --t injecting will suffer. >> senator moran did not talk about audits, i just one of the theesses to know that was assessment of chairman miller, from the house committee. jackson. i am not sure how many facilities he is covering. that was his assessment of the audit process. not that i do not love you guys, but we're going to try to get the next panel and before we get into a series of votes. thank you. >> thank you. let me just say this. thank you for what you do everyday representing veterans. most importantly, we all know

that we are not going to create the great health care system without your active participation. we need you. thank you for being here. keep up the good work. >> let me introduce our third panel. 'spresenting the v.a. independent inspector general office is its acting inspector general and he is accompanied by feday.n from the national association of state directions of the veteran affairs, we have clyde.

from the government haventability office, we debra draper. finally, joining us today, senior research fellow. thank you for being here. mr. griffin, you may begin. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony at this hearing. i would like to provide an overview of our ongoing review at the unix health care center. the aig has assembled a multidisciplinary team, comprised of auditors, health care inspectors, board-certified -- to address these allegations. our team toted focus on two questions.

where the facilities electronic waitlist or parsley amended the names of veterans waiting for care, and if so, at whose direction. number two, whether the depths ofany of these -- the deaths any of these veterans were related to delaying care. this, we the bottom of have an exhaustive review underway that includes seven parts. number one, interviewing staff with knowledge of patient scheduling practices and schedulingncluding clerks, supervisors, patient care providers, management staff , and whistleblowers who have stepped forward to report allegations of wrongdoing. number two, collecting and analyzing reports and documents

from information technology systems related to patient scheduling and enrollment. medicalhree, reviewing records of patients who may be related to delays in care. number four, reviewing .erformance ratings number five, reviewing past and newly received complaints to the as well as those complaints shared with us by members of congress and by the media. reviewing other prior reports to these allegations, including reports from veteran health administration offices of the medical inspector. finally, number seven, reviewing massive amounts of e-mail and

other documentation pertinent to this review. to facilitate our work on may 1, place thesecretary to phoenix director, associate director, and another individual on administrative leave. this was done because of the gravity of the allegations and , some whocooperation have expressed concern about talking to the team. techie -- thee secretary agreed to my request. we have the resources and talent to complete a thorough review. we are using our top audit examine all of the scheduling related records.

board-certified physicians will ,e reviewing medical records treatment and harm that may have happened. forensic experts are assisting the team. we are working with federal prosecutors from the united states attorney's office from the district of arizona and a public integrity section from the department of justice here in washington. we will determine any conduct that merits criminal prosecution. since the phoenix story broke, we have received additional reports of manipulated waiting even at other facilities,

through the hotline, members of congress and the media. these reviews are being conducted by other staff to enable the team working on the phoenix review to complete efforts on their project. we expect these reviews will give us insight into the extent scheduling -- in other facilities. while much has been done, much more remains ahead. review is theis top priority and maximum resources, dedicated to bring about its timely conclusion, we intend to bring you and other and areof the congress

ready to publish our reports. we project finishing the project of publishing the report in august of this year. inc. you -- thank you for holding this hearing and we would be pleased to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. >> my name is clive marsh. i am the president of the state directors of veterans affairs. present in the news of state directors from all 50 states. agencies,vernmental we -- the processing of claims.

we provide over half of all of the long-term care in our state nursing homes. state health care is strong. the v.a. has medical centers in the majority of major cities in america. community -- expanded our community base in recent years. the vha has moved out of the box, taken advantage of technology to provide tele-help, and have also taken steps to provide transportation for those veterans in rural areas to make their appointments. customer satisfaction has been trending higher. the v.a. may not get everything perfect every time, however on a

national level, we are one of the leading health care providers in the country and providing good, quality health care. those of us in the health delivery business or v.a., we strive to get it right and we work on that every single day. experience, we are on the same page. endorse the resignation along with his top administration officials. they will be needed to follow actions to swiftly correct any procedural issues that may be identified. and is not ine the interest of our veterans to

make premature decisions. the u.s. department of veteran affairs is transforming a pre-world war ii claims process into a paperless system that has reduced compensation and claims backlog by 44% as reduced veteran's homelessness by 24% and has enrolled more than 2 million veterans in the health care system since 2009, receiving some of the highest quality care ratings in decades. to supportinged vha and the health care system. at the local level, state directors are in constant coordination with the medical center directions -- center directors. attention to

confirming those individuals who have been nominated to fear -- to fill vacant leadership positions. it is imperative that the a -- that the v.a. and vha received .he necessary support those folks will be coming as a result of the war and military drawdown. the bottom line is, the v.a. may require more in terms of the budget. doctors,need more nurses, technicians, clinicians, and even facility expansions or operations.

we look forward to participating as copartners or facilitators. we remain dedicated and committed to doing our part. believe that v.a. leaders will transform into a technology-based and veteran centered. have the director of health care. collects i appreciate the opportunity to discuss access to care problems in v.a..

for over a decade, gao and thats have reported medical centers do not provide timely care. in some cases, these delays have resulted in harm to veterans. across our work on access, several common themes have emerged. policies andguous processes, subject to interpretation, resulting in variation in confusion at the local level. antiquated software systems that do not facilitate good practices. ofaining, and use unreliable data for monitoring. they did not always record the desired appointment date, the date the veteran or

provider wants the veteran to be seen. this is due to lack of clarity in the scheduling policies and how to record the desired date. byituation made nor -- worse the large number staff that could schedule appointments. during our site visits, more than half of the schedulers we observed did not record the desired date correctly, which may have resulted in a shorter wait times and veterans experienced. some staff said they changed the dates so that they aligned with the v.a.'s goals. we found follow-up appointments being scheduled without ever talking to the veteran, who would then receive notification of their appointment through the mail. in addition, we found scheduling systems electronic waitlist was not used to track new patients.

they put these patients at risk for delayed care were not receiving care at all. ofalso found the completion required training was not always done, although officials stressed its importance. additionally, we found a number of other factors that negatively impacted these usually processed area for example, officials described the software system used for scheduling as antiquated, error-prone, and cumbersome. turnovershortages in of scheduling staff, provider staffing shortages, i telephone call volumes without sufficient staff to answer the calls. takecommended the v.a. actions to improve the reliability of its way time theures, and sure consistent implementation of a scheduling policy, allocate scheduling resources based on need, and improve telephone access for medical departments. the v.a. concurred with our recommendations and told us he were taking steps to address them.

we are pleased that actions are being taken, but more progress is needed to ensure timely access to care. work examiningng v.a.'s management, which is a type of medical plan. the preliminary work has identified a number of problems, including delays in care, or care not being provided all comment at each of the five medical centers included in our review. console data, systemwide closure of 1.5 million consoles older than 90 days with no documentation as to why they were close. we expect to publish our findings this summer. as the demand for the health care continues to escalate, it is imperative that v.a. addresses this. since 2005, the number of patients served by v.a. has increased nearly 20% and the number of annual outpatient medical appointments has

increased by approximately 45%. in light of this, the failure of the v.a. to address the access to care problems, including the accurate tracking and reporting of wait times and specialty care consults will worsen. this concludes my opening remarks. i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much, mr. eber. >> thank you for giving me this opportunity. different than the other panelists. i am not a veteran. i am not affiliated with the v.a. in any way. i am not affiliated with veteran service organizations. bookhere because i wrote a anywhere: whyare

v.a. care would be better for anyone." for my book came from losing my wife robin to breast cancer. in oneas treated prestigious corner of the american health care system in washington, d.c. suffice it to say, what i saw during the six months between her diagnosis and demise caused me to become radically interested in the questions of medical quality and safety. died, theyer robin instituted a report that has been alluded to already, showing that there are 98,000 people that are killed by medical errors. that is equivalent to a jumbo

jet falling out of the sky, killing everybody on board every third day. the chairman has alluded to other estimates, showing that as many as a quarter of a million people are killed by various forms of overtreatment, under treatment, maltreatment. i set out to find out who is doing a better job. i was surprised to find, after healthng literature on care quality and talking to many experts and veterans and such, that the da health care system, by many metrics out performs the rest of the u.s. health-care system as a whole.

i seem to have come to a broad consensus, is he a health care -- v.a. quality health care is very high quality health care. the problem is access. robind have welcomed being treated in a hospital that had an inspector general. would that not have been wonderful? ifld it have been wonderful two committees of congress exercised oversight of that hospital? would it have been great if there were various broad-based effective citizen organizations akin to the american legion that erplied scrutiny to that corn of the american health care system. i also would want to draw attention to the fact that we have a problem with someone

times ormetric on wait some other metric that the v.a. applies, that is because there is a metric. health-careof the system, there are no quality metrics that are exercised, let alone wait times. it took me 2.5 years to find a primary care physician who is still taking patients. mammogram momor a enough for her tumor to grow from this size to the size areas many people in the united states live in places where there is a queue primary care shortages. we have a problem with access. times, so much of what we are doing is trying to has aine whether somebody

service related disability or not. hearing allou are of this -- losing your hearing -- we have this tremendous administrative machine that adjudicates that kind of question. how much smarter when we be if we opened the v.a. to all veterans, thank you for your service, come in. thank you. >> thank you. all the testimony was excellent. thank you. a few questions. let me reiterate. we chatted on the phone.

do you have the necessary theurces to undertake investigation that needs to be done regarding phoenix. >> yes, we do. have 120 medical clinicians, who for a number of years are doing reviews of the a medical centers. and --.doctor the reason the system was set up the way it was is so you have people with knowledge of the department. that is why we're the right group to do this review. >> when you told us a few moments ago that you do not -- isyou can do this

there anyway you can give us a preliminary review? many members would like to get a sense of what you found out there. progresses,view part of this review could lead to criminal charges and we do not want to do anything to jeopardize the ultimate outcome. >> what we have been reading in the media, at least 40 u.s. veterans waiting for appointments at the phoenix veteran affairs health-care system. many were placed on a secret waiting list. at this point, can you tell us how may people you have

identified who have died while waiting on a secret waiting list. >> i cannot give you that number. the number that has been wildly pressd -- quoted in the does not represent the total number of veterans we are looking at. that was one list created by the facility. we need to do an analysis of recordst, both death --. there are also other people who have come through the congress, who have come to the media, who have come through our hotline. , none ofultiple lists them identical. we are going through the basis of going through those lists and the initial list that we were given, we have gone through and there were only 17 names on that list.

our review to date, we want to have more than one set of eyes look at all of the records. those 17, we did not conclude that delay caused death. be on ae thing to waiting list, is another thing to conclude that as a result of being on a waiting list that is the cause of death. it is dependent upon what your illness might have been at the beginning. >> you have not identified anyone that has died as a result of being on the waiting list as of this point. this is complicated stuff. >> we have been provided names of people who are on various

lists and it is true that those veterans whose names were on the list have died. we have looked at a substantial number of cases and we have been looking at those cases to determine that yes, there was a delay in care, as has been expressed. quality standards were not met. -- we have found that some patient harm. to draw a conclusion between patient harm and death has so far been a tenuous connection. to records we have looked at date are mostly v.a.'s medical records. to the extent that a patient died, we are in the process of getting death certificates, autopsy reports, if they were in

another hospital, there are procedures we need to go through to get the rest of those records. we may need to interview people who are knowledgeable about the events surrounding the death. it is a serious problem. we won't work through that. >> thank you. the conclusion states unreliable ait time has resulted between positive way time. this is v.a. report that you are talking about was the report presented to the v.a. in

december 2012. it became a public document in january 2013. what i have said so far about your comments are on record. the secretary of the v.a. was --ommended to take action to the reliability of wait time measures. the sector of the v.a. under the secretary of the director felt to take action to consistently and accurately implement the scheduling policy. for the two recommendations, v.a. specified in their comments that these recommendations had a ofgeted completion date november 1, 2013. let me ask you -- based upon the knowledge you have today, has this process at the v.a. been

completed as it relates to those two actions in your report from december 2012? >> and has not been fully completed. >> is this an ongoing communication? to be quite frank, it has been almost a year and a half. we would have expected more progress to be made. >> do you or your predecessor, and thank you for serving in that capacity. you are a standup guy. we have great confidence in what you and your team will do, can produce, and accuracy of it in the reliability of it. please share that with the folks who are working so hard. >> do you or did your predecessor have a scheduled meeting with the secretary?

meetings with the entire leadership team every two weeks. my predecessor went to one, i went to the other one. we had occasional meetings with the secretary at different times during the year. >> how many meetings have you had since the issue of phoenix arose. had one meeting that was unconnected to the review. it was a budget related meeting. we had a second meeting when i went over to request certain individuals be put on administrative leave. >> from a standpoint of the who is handling that? of theng the course

administrative leave discussion, not un-similar to the -- we are going to be looking at. i put someone in administrative leave that i thought was completely appropriate. we are independent. we cannot be told to not do something or to do something because it would violate our independence. a report that completes, when phoenix is finished, if it happens like every other work, will you or your staff sit down with the secretary and brief him on the findings? we issue probably 300 reports a year. not all of them would rise to the level.

at the assistant inspector general level, dr. jay meets with the bha senior staff to discuss these things. we just heard about the process of getting closure and reports. there is an ongoing follow-up process. >> how many years have you been in the v.a.? >> about 13 out of the last 16 years. >> how many times have you set awn -- sat down with secretary and brief them? i would say, a report of this magnitude, maybe a couple of times a year. depending on -- there are 300 reports. i would say at most, quarterly.

>> on a reporter multiple? >> on a report. the doors open. it is just the issues are resolved. meetingave requested a -- have you ever had one ray meeting was not made available to you? >> no. >> thank you. i want to thank you for your testimony. you said you have 120 medical investigators. are there more investigators than that? have about 615 personnel in the ig organization. david andm work for they are health-care inspectors. they are doctors, nurses, psychologists, clinicians. we have about 150 criminal investigators.

we have people in 39 cities around the country. we have over 200 auditors. >> how many people are working on this investigation. 185 people have touched this investigation. >> for how many weeks? >> this is the third week. >> you anticipate a final by august? >> correct. anticipate a preliminary report before that? >> to the extent that it will not impact the outcome of the work to include the fact that we are working with two different groups from the department of justice, looking at a possible criminal violation. about seniortalk management staff, including the secretary and the v.a.. asked those folks for information?

>> no, we have not. we did ask them for a list that they suggested to us that they had of veterans who died on an electronic list. >> this is where want to get to. have they been open? have they been transparent? what is the other word i am trying to think of? helpful in your investigation. >> they have. resources, buted we do not want to give anyone the impression that our independence was being questioned. we have not received any resources nor do i intend to. >> up to this point, being fully transparent with what you need, would you

it's want a now issue, but i'm confident that when we finish our work in phoenix, it will be the same outcome as these previous reports. >> ok. that is all, mr. chairman. i would just say we look forward to this investigation. i know you need the time to do it right. of course, in the society we live in, this case is already being litigated and convicted in the media by some, so we're

ready to get the facts out there so that we can help the v.a. do their job better, to serve the veterans who serve this country so well. thank you all. >> the only thing i can say is we are not going to rush to judgment at the sacrifice of quality. i know you're not suggesting that. we're going to nail this thing, and at the end we'll have a good product for you. >> yeah, and it's a sacrifice for people who are innocent. thank you. >> mr. chairman, i understand there's only a meant or so left in the vote, so i'll try to summarize very quickly. then i'll call up with mr. griffin, the g.a.o. report, what is the process by which you have assured that your report is acted on by the department of veterans affairs? what's the followthrough, and what has been the result of g.a.o. reports at the v.a.? >> yes, for this particular

report that we issued, it was publicly released in january of 2013. we did a 0-day letter on status of the recommendation, so we do have that, and then we provided congressional testimony for the health committee in april, so we followed up with v.a. to get an update on where the recommendations were. we have periodic updates with v.a. on the status of the recommendations. >> you testified earlier about this particular report in its current status, about other reports, do you have a sense that the v.a. is successful, useful, your report is useful in implementing the proposals that you suggested? >> it varies. that i think we have quite a number of open recommendations at the v.a. at this time, across g.a.o. >> mr. griffin, in regards to he report, what -- how are you able to determine whether or not your report and its suggested recommendations are followed through by the department of veterans affairs? >> well, we do it two different

ways. in some instances, we will review -- if we say you need a new policy on staffing or need a new policy on waiting times or you need to train the schedulers and you need to create a methodology where you can audit scheduling process and make sure someone's not cooking the books, if they can satisfy us that here's a new policy, here's how we're going to make this work, we may close that at that time. more often, if you don't have a comfort level, we will send a team back six months later and go to the same facilities and look and see if fixes are in place. >> what's your sense of, in your time as acting, or if you have information about your predecessor, what's your sense of the department of veterans affairs following the recommendations and implementing them following a eport?

i think the answer is mixed. frequently policies emanate from washington. policies look good on paper, but theernt always used by the managers in the field. it's an accountability question for the managers. when they don't follow it, something is going to happen. >> one of the things that i don't think you have anything to do with, but is an important component of the investigation, would not office of medical inspector reports. and one of the things that we've discovered is that those are not made public and not submitted to congress, and so we don't know the result of those types of audit investigation or reviews, and i'm pursuing legislation to change that so we can see what that report says. we can exercise, excise the names and keep the confidentiality of patients straight, but i think there's a

whole set of other reports that there is no ability for to us gauge whether or not a recommendation is followed. let me just ask in conclusion, mr. griffin, are there reports -- let me say this way, are there investigations ongoing that involve facilities in kansas? >> i would like to take that for the record. i know that in the past week and a half our criminal investigators who are located around the country who had a rapid response to have new allegations, and in a matter two days over the previous week, i went to 50 medical centers unannounced to see what was being occurring at those facilities. i actually was referring to more not necessarily a insurance as a result of the current circumstances, but over

the last year or so, the reason i ask the question is that there have been allegations of incidents, circumstances, consequences within the v.a. in my state and our efforts to find out what's going on, what response has the department taken as a result of these stories that are out there. we've never received a response from anyone in the department of veterans affairs, either here in washington with the secretary and his testimony or with kansas officials, individuals who work the v.a. within our state, and i did not know, do not know whether or not any of those circumstances that are at least having a conversation are being investigated by you. can you follow up? >> i will. the majority of our you'dity and healthcare reports go to the member whose district that facility is located in. some of the criminal reports take longer because of the traditional process and privacy issues involved with criminal may not t you may or

see. >> i know there are 95 senators waiting for us to vote. this was a great panel, and i very much appreciate the wonderful testimony. thank you all investment the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> several members of congress acting in good faith have put forward plans that address our long-term funding issue, and we applaud them for their efforts, and i know there's going to be more discussions in town this week on those attempts. others are suggesting that the political reality is we'll have to settle for an infusion of cash into the highway trust fund as a stop gap measure. where are you going get the cash? used to be there were ways to do it. i think it's tighter now than

it was. it may be true that you can get an infusion, but it's hardly the long-term solution we need if we want to maintain a world-class infrastructure system. this is like the movie, "groundhog day." every few years we wake up, have the same conversation about funding the same fight over the gas tax and the same scramble for money. the only problem in recent years, we haven't been doing very well. it's around 20 years since we increased the gas task. don't get me wrong. you can't make the dash if you don't have the cash, but don't think that's all we have to do to get the infrastructure issues working. if you look at everything that's being discussed in recent days and weeks around the environmental issues, many of those are somewhat in conflict, not because they're

wrong, but in what we're trying to do, where we're trying to spend our money. in fact, what everybody would agree to is we need a comprehensive, forward-looking program that needs the needs of a competitive 21st century. that embraces innovative approaches, it instills confidence and earns the upport of a jaded citizenry. >> this weekend, a look at america's aging frain structure, saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. and on book tv, we're at the gaithersburg book festival with live coverage throughout the day, starting saturday morning at 10:30. at 10:00 p.m., former justice john paul stevens on suggestions to improve the constitution on c-span2. and on american history tv, national review editor on the 14th president's work ethic and political combegs in "lincoln unbound," sunday night at 8:00 n c-span3. >> on "washington journal"

yesterday, we spoke with michelle diggles of the third way about how the major political parties are working for hispanic votes. here's a little of that conversation. >> "washington journal" continues. host: as promised, joining us, michelle diggles from third way, serves as a social policy and politics senior analyst. good morning. guest: good morning! host: what is third way? guest: a think tank, we focus on the center of the leck rate, which is in short supply here in the beltway and we aim to have ideas, progressive ideas to help us have a strong national security grow our economy and support the middle class. host: so one of the things you turned your attention to in the recent survey takes a look at hispanic americans. why is that? guest: hispanics are the fastest growing groups in the american population. they've had a real impact on

elections and i think they're vastly misunderstood by both parties. host: how so? guest: well, republicans seem to stereotype them as being undocumented imgrants, poor and being unwilling to assimilate into american values. democrats, while they've done better at the ballot box in recent elections, tend to focus only on immigration reform when agressing the community, and tend to think that hispanics agree with the entire lib cal democratic agenda, which isn't true. host: if they take a look at hispanic that way, how do they view republicans and democrats in light of that? guest: i think many think the republican party is openly hostile to them and it affects the community. for example, 47% of hispanic republicans actually think the party is hostile to hispanics. but on the democratic side, only 27% of hispanics think democrats care a lot about the issues and

needs of the hispanic community. host: those are big ratios either way. what does it mean for parties as far as outreach? guest: i think democrats have done better and partially that's because republicans aren't really sitting at the table. they're not really part of the conversation right now. so by default, democrats have been able to win over large swaths of the his tan i think community and for sure democrats have proposed policies, including the comprehensive immigration reform that resonate among hispanic voters. but it's important to note that they care more about immigration reform and democrats make sure they're appealing on other issues such as growing the economy, health care and education. host: so looks at some statistic as far as hispanic population depoip l influence --

the two most vote rich states california, and texas hispanic make up nearly four in 10 voters. lls 50% of voters in new mexico and at least 20% in key swing states like colorado and nevada. and so, what we're seeing is this community's growing and they have a lot of political muscle to flex. host: so michelle diggles, what does it mean as far as what you said about republicans and the front page of the washington times taking a place at the tea party leader. urges g.o.p. to fix immigration this is the quote, he said today a lot of conservatives when they hear immigration reform, what they really hear is am nesty and vocabulary needs to change. guest: i think that's absolutely right. i think they need to work on immigration reform and their language. they need to have a much better understanding of their

community. the vast majority of hispanics are not undocumented, they are not all poor, attending college. so i think the republican understanding of hispanics is very outdated. but at the same time they need to go beyond immigration reform and tackle the range of issues that appeal to the community. for example, hispanic entrepreneurism is up 17 times what it was in 1990. so, small business ownership has increased by 17 times since 1990 rate. that means policies aimed at small businesses should appeal to the community. host: would that appeal to a free market mess san, especially if they appealed to that kind of segment? guest: i think it could, but until republicans get over their anti-hispanic, anti-latina rhetoric, it will be difficult to make any end roads with the community. but the hispanics are trying to reach out to the community. i saw an article about the coke brothers making roads in the communities and look at the key

leaders, cruz, rubio and martinez. obviously a rising number of hispanic stars. host: those factors, the "washington time" story, is there a change in the party itself? guest: remains to be seen. folks are trying to change, we'll have to see how much traction that can get over the next few months and the next few years as we go into the 2016 election. host: our guest michelle diggles from third way, social policy and senior political analyst. want to ask her questions about this outreach, the survey taking a look at hispanic-americans and how republicans and democrats reach out to them, here's how you can do so. we've set aside a line for hispanic-americans. if you want to ask our guest questions. how do we define hispanic?

guest: that is a very good question. something that's a little bit controversial because some people think of hispanic as a race, but generally, the census bureau thinks of it as an ethnicity. many people view hispanic as a sense of common relatedness, usually somebody from latin america and also common language, in this case spanish. but it's self-identification, how people identify themselves as spanish, or hispanic, excuse me. so, with a cen >> on the next "washington ournal," dina elboghdady and daren blomquist. and later, the baugh rue

economic analysis and gregory of "the economist" have a report that analyzes the gross domestic product for 22 industry sectors. plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. several live events at play today, including a speech by former secretary of state hillary clinton with the new america foundation. you can see that at 11:30 a.m. eastern. hen at 12:20 p.m., the naacp marks the 60th anniversary of the supreme court's unanimous brown vs. board of education decision that found that state laws establishing separate schools for black and white students was unconstitutional. >> c-span's newest book, a collection of interviews with

the nation's best story tellers, including david mcculloch. >> we're sitting here today in a city designed by frenchmen, l'enfant, the french engineer and architect, the great symbolic way of the sculpture, the gang way to the country in new york, the statue of liberty, a gift from french by a french sculptor, countless rivers and towns and universities and colleges all over the country with french names. we don't pronounce them the way they do. but the french influence on this country is far greater than most americans appreciate. >> read the interview, along with other noted story tellers from 25 years of our book notes and q&a conversations in c-span's "sundays at eight," now available at your favorite bookstore.

>> the federal communications commission voted 3-2 on thursday to open for public comment new rules in guaranteeing an open internet. while allowing broadband companies to charge content providers for faster delivery. this is an hour. >> we want the f.c.c. to do its job and not to regular gait the

orporations -- >> in the 21st century, the internet is our free speech, but in this losing we're losing our right to free speech. the internet was created with ur public dollars -- >> the united states constitution, including the first amendment, you're trying to destroy first amendment rights of free speech and free press. i am totally against this.

that's ok. >> ok, we now have a full quorum, and will meeting will come to order for the may 2014 meeting of the federal communications commission. let me begin with a couple of housekeeping items. first of all, we have a articularly 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 or 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 we 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 omplete 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 good morning, commissioners. today's agenda includes four items for your consideration. first, you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing the d.c. court of appeals remand a portion of the commission's 010 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 of 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 ureau. 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 est way to protect and promote he 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 proposes 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 governmental affairs bureau 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 kristine of the wireline bureau. i would like to acknowledge carol simpson of the wireline bureau for her efforts on this item. kristine will now present the item for your consideration. >> good morning. >> to notice we proposed a six

comment on that framework of nternet rules that would protect scourms against the harms identified in the 2010 open internet order and foster innovation, both within network and other edges. 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 proposes to retain the scope of the 2010 rules. it seeks comment on whether to revisit the scope of the 2010 rule, including with respect to the differential treatment with

regard 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 proposes adopting a tax of the 2010 no blocking rule that the rule rohibits broadband providers from providing edge providers f a minimum level of access to the broadband providers' subscribers. this would provide an important foundation in the efforts to rotect and preserve internet

openness. ourth, 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 ommercially 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, the notice proposes a number of factors that the commission can consider when determining whether the conduct in question would harm internet openness. fifth, the notice proposes a multifaceted dispute resolution process to enforce the open internet world. this enforcement mechanism is intended to provide legal certainty, decision-making, and effective access for users from providers and broadband networks alike.

for instance, the notice proposes to establish the role of an ombudsman 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 omplaints and formal complaint processes 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 rules 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 332c1 for 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 called about 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, 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 orking full time and raising three very interesting girls. he is smart, thoughtful, and ngaged, 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 net neutrality issue? can providers do what they 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. but her inquiry truly echoes the calls, letters, e-mails i received from thousands of consumers, 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 nternet? 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, r even monitor their household devices, educators having the possibility to access the best digital learning tools for

themselves, and students in health care treating patients 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, 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 by a competitive playing field. investors who say they will be reticent to commit money to new companies because they are concerned that their new won't 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 that their students may not be able to take advantage of the best in digital learning. if the quality of the content is poor. health care professionals worrying the images they need to view will load too slowly

and patients will be unable to benefit from the latest technologies and specialized care made possible through remote monitoring, 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 earlier this week. you came from washington, north carolina, new york, virginia, on your own dime, to voice how important this issue is to you. you made it clear that the internet is a great equalizer in our society and that 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 block access to don't and sifling free speech and public discourse, countries like including some in europe, where providers have congested or degraded content andance 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 decade. to mom and all of you, this is an issue about promoting our democratic values 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 under the former chairman unanimously adopted four prince pells of an open internet in the 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, prohibited paid party agreements, limited any exceptions to the rules, and i am on record as preferring a different legal structure.

the 2010 rules reflect a compromise. yes, mom, die 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 block certain content. to be fair, providers have tated 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. 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 or everyone today.

the third question, and judging by the headline and subsequent reactions, my mother is in good company here. has it 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. when 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 rules. this item is an official call inviting interested parties to comment to discuss pros and cons of various approaches and have a robust dialogue about the best past 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, 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 ear of the fcc. the eyes of the world are on all of us.

use your voice and this platform to continue 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 line 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 contributions 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 i would have done this differently. i would've taken time before proceeding to understand the future, because the future of the internet is the future of everything. there is nothing in our commercial and civic lives that will be untouched 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 roposal. even now, the phone calls continue, the e-mails pour 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. it produced this dynamic engine of entrepreneurship and experimentation is a foundation of openness.

sustaining what has made us innovative 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 consume content unimpeded by the preferences of our broadband providers. 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. with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. so i support network neutrality. 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. ur 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. commirgs pai? >> thank you. a few years ago google's ceo was quoted as saying the internet is the first thing humanity has made 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 acknowledging the obvious. the chairman's proposal has sparked a vigorous public debate. but we should not let that debate obscure 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 prince prells of internet freedom, the freedom to access lawful content, the freedom to use application, 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, these freedoms have 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 got it 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. i think we should recognize the -- they think that we should 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 potential, and that is because governments did not set the bounds early on.

today's items strikes yet a third approach, a lawyerly proposal of a minimal level of access role, and not too much discrimination rules. it allows for paid prioritization under unspecified circumstances. to date, people outside this -- no one outside this building have 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. nothing 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 within the

networks and at the edge. it will determine whether control of the internet will reside with the u.s. government or with the private sector. it will impact whether consumers are connected by smart networks or dumb pipes. and it will advance 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. -- into our own hands. it is all the more disappointing because we have been down this road before. our two prior attempts to go it

alone ended in court defeat. even with the newfangled tools that the fcc will conjure up out of the legal grab bag, i'm skeptical 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 assume the role of a mini and put 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 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 the commission 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, each commissioner should 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 can question 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. we should also engage computer scientists, technologists, and other technical experts to tell us how they see the internet's infrastructure evolving. their studies, too, 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. -- they should embroider they should avoid embroiling everybody from the fcc to the industry to the average american consumer 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. we willrward, i hope not rush headlong into an acting bad rules. we are not confronted with an immediate 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 than the process that led us here today. i respectfully dissent. >> commissioner o'rielly? >> thank you. it should come as no surprise 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 -- of make believe statutory authority. i have serious concerns that this item will create damaging uncertainty and head the commission down a slippery slope of regulation. the notice proposes to grant the net neutrality rules in section 706 of the telecommunications act of 1996. i 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, it could be used to trigger deregulation. but the notice does not stop there. it takes comments to ensure additional language in section 706 and events just using section 230-b to broaden the scope of the commission's usurped authority. this is absurd. now the commission is trying to cast a wider net of authority. service providers could become ensnarled in its future. in case section 706 rooms to be inadequate for this regulatory boondoggle, 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 defective 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 innovation. i also worry about the credibility of an agency that consistently fails to meet statutory deadlines to eliminate all rules by supposing obsolete -- deadlines to eliminate old 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 provisions in title 2, for that title 2 is an inappropriate framework for today's technologies. indeed, title 2 includes arcane provisions. the idea that the commission can magically impose or sprinkle

just the right amount of title 2 on broadband providers is giving the 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 -- would show how dynamic it is. moreover the notice 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 -- the commission 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 notice proceeds to explore hypothetical concerns.

at the top of the list is prioritization. even ardent supporters of net neutrality recognize 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 notice is skeptical of paid participation. companies that do business over the internet, including some of the strong supporters of net neutrality, pay for a variety of services to ensure the best possible experience. they have been doing it for years. fears that paid prioritization will be a great disservice for other users, relegating them to a slow internet, have been disproven. because there has been no evidence of actual harm, they are not tailored, but vague and unclear. the notice allows 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

ask the government every time -- legitimate companies are put into the position of having to ask the government for its very blessing every time they need to make a business decision in order to avoid litigation. it is even more telling that the commission is suggesting new layers of enforcement option for which it has no experience. for instance, where are him bondsmen -- ombudsman mentioned in the statute? the notice devotes several pages to a wish list of disclosures, reporting requirements, and certifications. they will impose new burdens and carry real costs, but they may not ever wind up having an

meaningful and to users. what will be the average consumer do with the information on packet corruption and jitter? time improvingnd this important function. sum, the- in regulation will provide no help to consumers and thrust the commission into a place he should not be. i respectfully dissent. i protest for a free and open internet. please come a we are trying to move ahead. >> providing service in general terms and indiscriminately. internet! open [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 interneture an open there is one internet. is a matter of dispute. 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. -- must be protected. 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. in what has been a decade-long effort to preserve and protect the open internet. unfortunately, those previous efforts were blocked twice by court challenges who sell -- court challenges by those 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 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 simple, obvious

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 accomplish the same goal an open , internet. nothing in this proposal 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 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 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 the 2.licability of title as i said, 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 -- to effectively reach consumers with innovative products and services and they

must be protected 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 -- conductivity that they have purchased from an internet service provider. that on activity should be open and in violet. -- that activity should be open and in violate 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 ombudsperson would be created within the fcc to receive their complaints and, where warranted, investigate and represent their case. separate and apart from this

connectivity is the question of interconnection between the consumer's network provider in -- and 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 provider's 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 over -- from the actions of 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 -- i promptly 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 -- principal methods of proposed 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 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 made an observation, a personal i would point. like to make a personal point as a former entrepreneur and venture capitalist. i know the importance of openness firsthand. as an entrepreneur, i have had products and services shut out of closed cable networks. as a vc, i have invested in companies that wouldn't have been able to innovate if the network weren't open. i have hands-on experience with the importance of network openness. and 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 -- in the belief that it was the fastest and best way to get protections in place. i have also indicated rick

-- i have also indicated repeatedly that i am open to using title 2. this rulemaking begins the process by putting forth the andosal, asking important 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 aye. aye. opposed? the ayes 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 -- to the bureau and off the general counsel staff who have worked so diligently on the id. we just adopted, our hearty and heartfelt thank you. >> good morning, everyone. are you