scher, edward smitty smith for their presentations and exchange special thanks to all staff members who spent hours briefing me and working with me to address my many questions about the items particularly, my wireless legal visor lewis peretz who of course i always thank, though he may not acknowledge that. i also want to thank paul dari, bill stafford, brenda boykin for their work on the wireless microphone order. thank you. >> thank you. >> during a long road trip, my family pulled off the the adults get the full-size menu, and the kids get the paper menus with coloring games and puzzles. armed with a cheap crayons and what i would like to think is wisdom beyond her years, i watched my daughter went through

a maze on her menu without lifting the crayon off the paper. she accomplished this feat by beginning at the finish line of the maze and ending at the start. my child,s watching she was playing out the old management begin with the end in mind. our reported order begins with the end in mind. the chairman and his hardcharging auction team have focused on the finish line. freeing up more spectrum for mobile broadband, providing more opportunities for broadcasters, and raising funds to support our first responders. i am also pleased that the report in order is largely faithful to the central building blocks to a successful incentive auction. simplicity, fairness, balance,

and public safety. simplicity is key. incentive auctions are an undeniably complex undertaking. at every structural juncture, i believe a bias towards simplicity is crucial. i am pleased that we choose simplicity with the dissenting clock auction rules we adopt today. design provides a simple on-ramp to the auction and allows broadcasters to come armed with little more than a willingness to participate. no need for a bevy of experts and lawyers. fairness is essential. this is especially true with regards to the treatment of broadcasters that do not participate in the auction. fairness demands we consider how repacking by minimizing unnecessary disruption and maximizing the ability of the public to continue to receive free over

the air television. balance is necessary. the of the three legs of incentive auction, reverse auction, repacking, or the forward auction can stand on their own. choicesrealize that the we make in one area have implications throughout the auction. i am particularly excited that we have found creative ways to strike the right balance between licensed and unlicensed spectrum. this creativity started with ditching the tired notion that we face the choice between licensed and unlicensed spectrum. this is a simplistic relic from the past that we should have long since retired. good spectrum policy requires both. servicesize that other striving for white space in the 600 megahertz span, like wireless microphones, and

medical telemetry, they matter too. foundng creative, we have ways to expand the duplex gap, find new locations for unlicensed microphones, and provide unlicensed opportunities in channel 37 while also protecting existing users. this approach can increase the value of license spectrum without diminishing the number of licenses we sell at auctions. it is all around good. finally, public safety is fundamental, built into the fabric of our upcoming incentive auctions is a recognition that they are intertwined with the future of public safety, communications. the revenues we raise our designated to support a nationwide interoperable wireless broadband network for public safety. this is important. pleased with the

general framework we put in place today, i would like to suggest a few areas or we should pause and lift our crayon from the paper to do more in the name of simplicity and fairness. simplicity remains key. station owners that operate small and medium-size businesses should be able to understand their options without hiring high-priced auction experts. to this end, i am pleased with kcls,sistance of kjla and we have explored the technical feasibility of channel sharing which could provide some broadcasters with a new way to operate. technicalt, the parameters of sharing are now well understood. we know too little about the legal and business arrangements needed to put sharing into operation. how do you address property ownership issues between

commercial and noncommercial broadcasters? should we consider developing some off the rack templates? i am concerned that without this kind of groundwork, we risk broadcasters sitting this opportunity out. fairness remains essential. we are asking broadcasters to make a fair assessment of the opportunities this auction provides the industry. i have spoken with many broadcasters, large and small, about what the commission can do to help them make a decision about how to proceed. every meeting yields the same refrain. we need a number. this is not need to be difficult, or resource intensive. until the agency can provide broadcasters with a better sense of what price they're spectrum might yield, including the tax consequences, broadcasters do

not have the tools to make smart and dispassionate decisions about whether or not to participate. matter oft just a fundamental fairness. this is a threshold matter that could very well determine whether or not these incentive auctions achieve their lofty goals. we have come a long way, and chairman wheeler deserves tremendous credit. so does our big and whip smart auction team. ofy took the difficult maze issues involved in incentive auctions and put us on a path to get this done. this is historic and exciting. i am pleased to be a part of it. i am pleased that we began with the end in mind. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i want to begin by thanking the staff that has worked on this, not just those before us, but of the many who are listed

on the page we saw in the overhead. when we adopted the notice of proposed rulemaking in this proceeding on september 28 of 2012, i reference the wire. i said the demand has to have a code. also want to thank you for your extensive efforts to educate us about the item and share your expertise. going back to the wire, that is all in the game for people who are used to how the fcc operates. we are lucky to have the benefit of all of your expertise. ien we adopted the nprn, shared several principles that would guide my deliberations. i said we should keep the auction as simple as possible. we should be as fair as possible to all stakeholders, and we should remain faithful to the statute passed by congress. this item strays from each of these principles.

in both the reverse and forward auctions, the commission for six simplicity for unnecessary complexity, primarily for the purpose of an appealing the market to suit its chosen ends. the rules we adopt or not fair to many important constituencies, including taxpayers, public safety officials, broadcasters, and wireless carriers that have chosen to participate in past spectrum auctions. the commission at key junctures substitutes its own policy preferences for the direction given by congress in the spectrum act. i respectfully dissent. let's start with simplicity. there are many pieces of the puzzle that have to fit together for this project to succeed. reverse auction, forward action, and repacking plan.

i thought it was important for the commission to keep the incentive auction as simple as possible. you don't need to introduce unnecessary complexities that could lead to failure. this item makes precisely that error. take the reverse auction. pursuant to this item, the commission will be setting individualized rices for each participating broadcast station. over 1000 such as. through a process known as scoring. how specifically will the commission value each broadcast station spectrum? i have read the item, every word. objection to scoring is simple. the commission should not impose a value on particular stations in the reverse auction. an auction of this kind or any kind should be a market-based

decision, not centralized planning. are the routes most likely to success. i believe we should adopt a simultaneous multiple round format for the reverse option. this is a format with which the commission and private sector are quite well acquainted. this process would be simple, and would not require scoring. each participating broadcast station would make its opening bid. the commissions, would calculate the optimal way to meet the spectrum clearing target. participants would be told which of their bids is provisionally winning. losing bidders could them lower their asking price. itselfocess would repeat until no participating broadcast station is willing to lower its bid. in addition to avoiding the complication of scoring, this

proposal has several advantages compared to the commission's complicated dissenting clock format. it would encourage more participation by broadcasters in the reverse auction. under my plan, broadcasters could name their price in the opening rounding. by commission's plan contrast, broadcasters may be deterred from opening in the option in the first place if they are dissatisfied with the commission set score. auction, there are yet more rules designed to manipulate the market. in my statement on the forthcoming mobile spectrum aggregation items, i will set forth my objections in much more detail. here i will focus just on the issue of complexity. ship vision -- vision of the forward auction is as simple as ebay's. let anyone bid on any block of spectrum, and let the highest bidder win. the system has served the commission well in past

auctions, and i'm confident it would work well here. the commission's vision is more difficult to explain. once bids reach a certain amount, a complex set of restrictions will kick in. certain blocks of spectrum in a given partial economic area or p.e.a. will be reserved for bidders with less than one third of low band spectrum in that p.e.a. all blocks of spectrum will be open to all bidders that are not named verizon or at&t. that's not all. should there be insufficient demand for so-called reserve spectrum, some or all of it reserve once again. first, to the lead mission must choose at which point spectrum will be divided into reserved and unreserved blocks. the commission must decide how

much spectrum will be placed in the reserve and unreserved buckets for each clearing target. though seemingly arbitrated decisions are made in the mobile spectrum aggregation item. the commission must decide when formally reserved spectrum will be unreserved due to lack of demand. whatever you might think of these three aspects of the scheme, it does not reflect fate in the market -- faith in the market. the 700 megahertz auction, the commission drafted well-intentioned rules for the facilitatesigned to construction of a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network. what did those complicated rules produce? nothing. other than a failed the block auction. -- d-block auction. a statutory mandate to conduct an incentive auction partly to

fund construction of that same network. d, turning from simplicity to fairness, i indicated repeatedly in this proceeding, my view to the commission must treat all stakeholders in a just manner. today's order also fails this critical test. this item is unfair to taxpayers and public safety officials. congress charged the fcc with the twin goals of pushing more spectrum in the commercial marketplace and raising $27.95 billion for a number of critical national priorities. public safety and deficit reduction. former, public safety, a successful auction will finalize the $7 billion in funding that congress specified for first net rate -- net. it will produce the 130 $5 million that congress marks for state and local safety officials.

million that congress marks for state and local safety officials. for deficit reduction, our upcoming auctions, including the incentive auction, hold the promise of raising more than $20 billion to help reduce our national debt. just yesterday, a bipartisan group of senate leaders, senators cordon, schumer, and brown called these funds a quote, critical return for the sale of a valuable taxpayer asset. counted on as meeting this target when it passed the spectrum act. so much so that it already spent these funds. if we don't need it, it -- meet it, the commission will be responsible for increasing the budget above current projections.

i'm disappointed that the commission is not -- structuring the auction to maximize net revenues. the item does attempt to raise money for first net. what about deficit reduction? the deployment of next-generation 911, wireless public safety communications research and development, the unmistakable message of today's item is that those priorities don't count. it would have been easy to thatlish auction rules would've maximize net revenues. the incentive auction could contain a minimum of two stages. the auction would continue until one stage raised less net revenue than the preceding stage. at that point, the outcome of the preceding stage would yield the final results of the auction. in this itemtained will and the auction after any stage, where we can cover necessary funds for first net, pay broadcasters in the reverse auction, and deposit $1.75 billion into the relocation

fund. my approach would have raised more money for the important national priorities i had contained in the spectrum act. it would have been better for first net. auctionwe head into the , still need to raise $4 billion for first net. no stage of the auction is able to produce more than $3 billion in net revenues. under the commission's approach, the incentive auction would fail and produce no money for first net. under my approach, first that would receive $3 billion. bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. this order also treats unfairly the broadcasters who choose not to participate in the auction. congress provided a $1.75 billion fund to reimburse the relocation expenses of broadcasters who stay in the business and will be required to relocate. commissionon, the

should have adopted a $1.75 billion budget for any repack. the commission declined to establish any limits on estimated repacking costs. the incentive auction may produce a repacking plan that will cost $2 billion or $3 billion to implement, with broadcasters stuck footing much of the bill. this outcome would be unfair. broadcasters who do not participate in the incentive auction are not asking for special treatment. they do not ask to be among the winners of a successful incentive auction. nonparticipating broadcasters are simply asking to be held harmless, rather than being made losers. this is a reasonable request, and we should have granted it. i'm also concerned that today's order is unfair to rule

americans. they often rely on translators for free over the air television service. the incentive auction will require many of these translators to relocate. some may disappear entirely. there will not be room for them when spectrum is reallocated and television stations are repacked. there is nothing the commission could have done to avoid these consequences entirely. we could've done more to mitigate for impact. when the time comes for the commission to find room for low power television stations and translators, we could have given a preference to applicants, providing the community with its only local over the air television service, as was proposed in the nprm. i'm disappointed the commission rejects taking even this modest step in today's item. as a result, there is a greater risk that some americans will have no over the air television

service after the incentive auction is conducted. rule america may be left behind. thely, i don't believe bidding restrictions we adopt today are fair to those carriers that have participated in past fcc auctions for low band spectrum. prevent somen carriers with at least one third of the low band spectrum in a given p.e.a. for bidding for certain blocks of spectrum in that p.e.a. in many cases, they bought licenses to use it in open and fair spectrum auctions. there are carriers the spent billions of dollars purchasing spectrum in the 700 megahertz auction. it raised substantial amounts of money for the treasury. that spectrum is being used today to deliver high-speed 4g lte service to american consumers across the country.

today, we're effectively penalizing those carriers for their past participation in that auction. by limiting their ability to bid in this auction. who do these restrictions benefit? carriers who choose to sit out the 700 megahertz auction. that was their decision, and i don't fault them for it. it's not my place to issue grades on corporate strategy. i object to rewarding such carriers for their failure to bid in prior auctions, as we are doing here. for some, the policy creates perverse incentives. those who forgo participation have special favors in the future. shifting from fairness to the rule of law. i don't believe this item stays faithful to the terms of the spectrum act. rules run afoul of congress's mandate during the repacking

process to make all reasonable efforts to preserve as of the date of enactment of this act the coverage area and population surge of each broadcast licensee. it is the last part, as determined using the methodology which id in o.e.t., will use in my statement. the commission decides to use for repacking purposes tv study software that departs from the methodology described in o.e.t. 69. iom a policy perspective, generally agree with the commission's decisions in this regard. for the most part, these departures from the o.e.t. 69 methodology appears to be changes for the better. i fear if from a legal perspective all these changes will be for naught if a court postpones or validates the

spectrum auction. in my written statement, i set forth the reasons why i believe our actions violate the spectrum act. you aorning i will spare discussion, which i'm sure you are eager to have, of such exciting topics as the three-arc rain -- train data and default antenna patterns set forth. stepping back from those details, there is a larger question that needs to be asked. why is all of this being done? the commission maintains a certain changes had to be made to our computer software so i could successfully support the incentive auction. i don't object to those changes. they don't affect the o.e.t. 69 methodology. many of the changes we're making don't fall into that category. they certainly are not worth the risk that the court will delay or invalidate the incentive auction because of our failure

to comply with the spectrum act. least, a brieft word about delegation. i don't dispute that the incentive auction to be a success requires the delegation of certain tasks to the commission's staff. today's item moves too much responsibility away from the five commissioners who have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, and two, theoretically direct the agency. i objected to no fewer than 10 such allegations of authority in this item. the commission delegates to a broad range of bureaus and to changee authority the rules adopted in this item as necessary to conform them to the text of the order that we adopt today. as a commissioner and longtime staffer in the office of general counsel, i found this curious. the commission's orders in my view are designed to explain the rules we adopt and intent to

publish in the code of federal regulations, not the other way around. to oconclude, i'm disappointed with where we find ourselves today. conducting the broadcast incentive auction is one of the fcc's most prominent responsibilities. it would've been ideal to move forward on a bipartisan basis. in good conscience support this item. i believe it will produce an incentive auction that is not fair to all stakeholders and is not faithful to the terms of the spectrum act. for all these reasons, i respectfully dissent. >> mr. o'reilly. >> let me start by thanking the incentive auction task force, and the commission staff who worked long hours to get us to this point. i appreciate your incredible efforts to consider the many complex legal and technical challenges posed by the incentive auction. i took my obligation to dig deeply into the item very

seriously, and i'm grateful for the numerous briefings provided to me and my staff, some of which went late into the hour. i must dissent from this order. though the bidding restrictions are embedded in a separate mobile spectrum holding item that the commission also adopts today, these two items are linked. bifurcating them does not allow me to ignore congressional intent or my own principles. establishing spectrum set-aside for well-capitalized companies is so fundamentally harmful that it paints the entire incentive auction process. aints the entire incentive auction process. i have a number of fundamental concerns about the incentive auction's structure itself. i disagree with the item's final speech rule, which would determine whether the auction can successfully close. in this order, the auction ends once enough revenue is raised to cover the payout to

participating stations, the commission's expenses, the $1.75 billion repacking, and any amount needed to pay for the first responders network authority or first net. while i support meeting the statutory funding targets, i do not believe the commission has the right to pick and choose which of the congressional funding priorities it is going to favor. congress has already allocated the funding expected from a successful incentive auction for many purposes. shouldal stage rule continue the auction until it has raised as much revenue as it can, beyond the payments to effectuate the relocation or reallocation of broadcast spectrum to wireless broadband users, with remaining revenues going to the list of congress's priorities. or, it should incorporate all of the items, including deficit reduction in the final stage rule. choosing one program for guaranteed funding smacks of politics and tarnishes the

agency's credibility. second, i'm concerned about the extent to which the order , to variousthority bureaus to make important decisions to implement the statute. such decisions should be voted on at the commission level. has given broad authority to determine how the commission reimburses repacking costs, including how to prioritize allocation of funds if $4.75 billion does not cover all the repacking expenses. what service rule waivers will be allowed in lieu of reimbursement. in the priority in which the commission will consider certain broadcaster requests to change channels following the repacking process. commentw, the auction and procedures public notices will be considered and voted on by the commission. third, the commission is

adopting rules -- although the commission is deducting rules, it prefers specific details about how many of these rules will work in further rulemaking for public notice. the commission acknowledges that it needs additional information on how it sets prices for the reverse auction. further it differs to deciding the methodology for preventing adjacent and co-channel interference between wireless and broadcaster services in in paired markets and determining if it was cap for broadcasters. these need be -- maybe fsm for decisions. i have serious concerns about the questionable price mechanism

by which broadcaster could accept this for broadcasting. or you have this to lower the amount afterward. must work out,cs i worry about establishing a mechanism that can cause more market impairment in lowering auction participation and revenue. we should do all we can to avoid market impairment except in very extreme circumstances. adoption capin the instead of this depending on this target as originally contemplated. it is not a decision grounded slowly on what is slow. i am a strong proponent of this as many of my colleagues are and have backed up my words with action. i have very real concerns that this cap is a political solution exposing them to a significant

.oss of revenue i will suggest there are legitimate questions as to whether this item complies with the requirement to protect broadcasters who choose not to participate. it seems to get across line. it may find difficulty supporting this. cleared that they wanted to harness them and the ability to serve their over the air viewers. i'm disappointed to see this juror did. americans will benefit from putting this to its higher use, the construction of; a public safety network and deficit reduction. i hope to collaborate with my team toe and the entire

ensure this auction has the a lotst chance at access. of uncertainty remains. many details still need to be finalized. i am hoping for the best. >> thank you to all of my colleagues. i have a date meant for the record which we will submit for the record. let me make one clip -- quick observation. not only is this a rubik's cube that has three simultaneous this, nobody has ever had event together. you cannot go on and find the quick solution. so much credit is due to the great work of the team. market lace so a that the market can decide the

highest and best use of the german. it has never been tried before. it is an credit easily -- incredibly complex. congress told us to do this. note that he wore presentation. nothing earlier, we will move to vote on number two regarding wireless microphones. all those in favor say 'aye' the ayes have it. then we will move to item three. all those in favor say 'aye.' the ayes have it.

the request for editorial glitches is granted. inc. you very much or all of your work. let me turn to my colleagues for a second. it is now 1230. it is not atypical that we are sitting here. does anybody feel a need for a break? would you like to charge on forward? we are moving on foreword. over to you. >> the fourth and final item resented by the wireless communications bureau entitled " allah sees regarding mobile spectrum holdings. >> "items regarding mobile spectrum holdings."

>> are you going to started off? >> it is my pleasure to introduce this report which would adopt policies that ensure that all americans, regardless of where they live enjoy the benefits of what they can provide. the report establishes the holdings. at the table by the senior deputy chief of wtd and the chief spectrum policy division, cap there and and tool, the senior.

>> good afternoon. i am pleased to present to use the mobile spec from report and order. items that would update the policies to secondary market transactions that would ensure that these policies promote competition in the mobile wireless mobile place to the benefit of every american consumer. updates this for competitive review for the secondary transactions. in particular, we remove this from the screen such as up to 700 megahertz and add others to

the screen such as awsx4 and hblock. this for approximately one third or more. this will be treated as an enhanced factor in our review of secondary market transactions. basedstablishes a market area of megahertz. ed for those that have low been spectrum holdings.

it includes safeguards to ensure that they all have a fair share of the cost of the incentive auction including fully funding that it was necessary under the auction. certain limits on the transactions of 600 megahertz spectrum licenses for 6 years post-auction. this allows them to acquire any amount of spectrum. the mobile spectrum holdings concludes that together these actions will advance the public interest by offering all service providers opportunities for additional access to spec trim that throws the concentration with significant adverse effects of competition. they find that the policies proposed today will promote

competitive choices, enabling all americans to enjoy the benefits of this into the future, regardless if they live in urban or rural areas. the bureau recommends adoption of this item and request editorial privileges. inc. you. like thank you. many -- thank you. >> thank you. >> we are investigating how this wireless industry. our last comprehensive review occurred more than one decade to and since then significant developments have impacted the structure of the market for mobile wireless services.

today 92% of consumers have access to providers offering regio or four g services. 37%.figure stands at only it is imperative that we develop policies that address the discrepancy and insure that all americans regardless of where they live enjoy the benefits of competition can provide. to account for the engineering differences between below and above gigahertz. this has been commenting on these differences in annual competition reports since 2010. morelad you taken a careful response of both sides of the issue and have made it a decision. this has superior

characteristics. ruralant to deploy in areas. i commend a decision to treat certain levels of increased it enhanced a factor during a case-by-case review of transactions. wouldort the role that reserve up to 30 megahertz for auction.egahertz it would encourage eligibility to bed whether a character holds 35 on a population weighted average. we have the statutory authority to allocate licenses in a manager -- in a manner that promotes competition. they instructed to avoid licenses among a wide

for i.t. of applicants including small businesses. act reaffirms the position of authorities to "adopt groups of general applicability including rules concerning spectrum aggregation that promote competition." also the consistent with our precedent. as the order it lanes, since the 1980's, -- explain, since the 1980's they have an designed to undo ostentation of licenses necessary to provide those services. there are numbers of factors that suggest we should apply such rules to the spectra made available. currently there is a standard consolidation of low one

gigahertz spectrum in the hands of a few nationwide carriers. megahertzng 600 options could allow the same carriers to increase this advantage over their competitors. there is unlikely to be another auction in the future that would permit them to require below one gigahertz spectrum. glad it is i am setting the unreserved reserve amount. we are doing so with the local market approach. i always focus on the number of people who live in rural markets would too if you fire list -- two or fewer wireless providers. i believe examining the relative aspects of a local market competitive structure helps to ensure that our policies are best able to promote more competition in rule markets.

orderare aspects of this i have problems with. these are the amounts of unreserved spectrums in the 60narios where we recover megahertz of spectrum. in the draft, the chairman originally circulated these lips of unreserved. much to my dismay, the original proposals for change to 4020 and 4010. i preferred the original proposals. they told my office they want the opportunity to acquire 20 megahertz. by allocating their the for unreserved spec terms, we would have created an incentive for these companies to compete

intensely to acquire that spectrum. hasuraging competition proved effective for revenues. take this to the north good it takes a similar approach. licensesserves some other than the dominant three carriers. it resulted in a very successful uction.ahertz a it allowed them to bid against each other for the block of unreserved licenses. assuming it generated the most revenue ever raised by a wireless option in canada. i shifting of unreserved spectrum in the recovery scenarios, we are encouraging the top two carriers in every

local market to each acquire the 20 megahertz of spectrum's without having to aggressively compete against each other. mostfails to promote a efficient allocation of spectrums. it will not provide incentive or wireless ones to bid this in turn that would further entice more rock customers to participate and relinquish their spectrum. taking valuable spectrums that smaller carriers would have a better opportunity to acquire and in order to remain competitive and provide their customers with enhanced products and services. it has allowed me to partially concur on this item. it is important that we have spectrum aggregation rules. a compromise here was necessary

in order to achieve a majority vote on the aspects of the order that makes the spectrum available. them for their -- i wishead things to ink them for their detailed readings and to thank them and who were charmed with very creative proposals. i want to acknowledge the excellent work of my wireless advisor. thank you. >> it has been nearly a dozen years since they conduct did their last major review of our approach to spectrum holdings. inc. about that. -- think about that. they were color displays on any

song that were new and novel. allras have not yet invaded of our wireless devices. it was a long time ago. a fresh look is not only in order it is overdue. the task of updating our policies for spectrum holdings. we are guided by section 309 j of the act which jerks the agency to promote economic opportunities and competition. we do not act in a vacuum. our rules for spectrum holding are intertwined with her upcoming efforts to identify new spectrums for wireless broadband. congress directed the commission to conduct a series of new incentive options. we have a solemn duty. we are entrusted by congress with the responsibility to

ensure that the proceeds from these are sufficient to support a nationwide under our herbal wireless broadband network for public safety. more than a dozen years as the horror of 9/11. too much time has passed. too many lives were lost that tol short of our promise provide inoperable communications to our first responders. i believe our efforts on it the responsibility. screen.e our spec term we acknowledge the carriers now use more spectrums than ever before to provide wireless broadband service. also acknowledge that transactions involving low-frequency spec from -- merit enhanced

scrutiny. we adopt policies to guide the thing in our -- bidding in our upcoming auction. our new roles make sure everyone is bidding and everyone will have -- have a fair shot. we meeto ensures that our special responsibilities to our nation's first responders. has myently, this report support. i want to thank the chairman for his work to reach this result and for his commitment to public safety. >> thank you. you.ank >> thank you very much. >> i am very moved by the statement. spectrum does it to me. it really does. we had get the game face on. on the floor of the u.s. house of representatives, members

often ask for unanimous consent to revise and extend their remarks. i will likely be taking advantage of that same privilege. lastnutes to midnight night my office was presented with a substantially rewritten order. contained 3002 hundred 68 revisions to the previous version. key elements have been changed. for imposing bidding restrictions have been substantially altered. even in the witching hours early this morning you're still discovering changes that they requested an news impact was uncertain. with that caveat i will turn from the process. the commission launched this. i held up the hope that we would to launch defects spectrum holdings.

was thatcal flaw the understated competition and the wireless marketplace by failing to account for all spectrum suitable and available for mobile broadband. i welcome our decision to include in that screen the broadband radio service and educational broadband service spectrum that is in use today to provide 4g service across the country. i appreciate the determination that there is no basis for imposing bidding restriction in the upcoming auction. these newer acknowledgment of marketplace realities are exceptions rather than the ru le. the primary objection seems to be be reengineering of the marketplace to change the vision of how it should be structure. we were restricted. rather than embracing the free innovation.king

they placed the faith and centralized economic planning. what -- rather than relying on private carriers to see which ones are most suited to their needs, the commission decides for them. today's order misses an opportunity. with the promise of providing transparency and predictability to secondary market transactions. a black rocks. make it worse than before. this begs the question. trends --0 voluntary , how manyof spectrums would have survived an enhanced review? been thereuld have if this had been looking.

no one knows. that is a problem for all players in the market, they can small. congressfrom coast to knows that we all benefit from a vibrant secondary market. this takes the unprecedented wordingspecifically against any major transaction carriers.top or if any such transactions are even proposed, and we all know what the item has here, the commission will declare none for you and retract any and all that are being handed out today. that is not letting consumer preferences drive the marketplace. leveraging then power of raised eyebrows. that is the public to her, primitively deciding who should be able to compete, on what

terms no matter what the realities of the marketplace might be. all, it is the intent of auction. the sec should not limit competitors ability to compete. the government should not pick winners and losers. of anevitable effects policy that restricts participation is less spectrum repurposed for mobile broadband. less funding for national priorities. a higher budget deficit and an increased chance of a failed incentive auction. that last point is a further explanation. restricting participation needlessly jeopardizes the success. it sets out the twin goals of congress and repurposing it for raising forse and

critical priorities, mainly public safety and deficit reduction. those goalsieving is to maximize participation in the auction. tos would incentivize them relinquish this voluntarily and with drive them toward funding priorities. this puts all of us at risk here -- for ourcoming upcoming auctions we need to persuade them to bring billions of dollars to the table. engage anafford to ideologically motivated experiments. this is not a partisan view. 78 democrats in the house of representatives wrote to the fcc and made these exact same points. theto be a success, commission should maximize participation by both broadcasters and send it to relinquish the rights and bidders seeking to buy them. inviting as many as possible to

commute to dust compete in an open and fair auction on equal terms will allow for the full market rice to be realized. it would lead to higher compensation to greater broadcaster participation, resulting in more spectrum for the auction. republican counterparts wrote that restrictions operate to the detriment of auction preservation and revenue and distort the outcome. side of capitol hill, senator's john cornyn, charles schumer and sherrod brown urged us to reconsider any roles but will limit participation. they wrote that bidding restrictions will have the effect of distance in devising this is a concerned about reduced returns. it could result in less spectrum being put back into the market and to use efficiently but also less revenue generated by the

auction. others have reached the same conclusion. the medications workers of america have argued that an open competition is the best way to serve the public interest and maximize auction proceeds. the rainbow push coalition urges them to adopt rules that allow for full, under shifted resolution by all interested companies willing to bid for spectrum needed to provide mobile broadband to consumers. the national urban league advocates for roles that maximize patient. the commission today rejects of this council. thee is little doubt that restrictions will substantially reduce the revenues raised by the auction. congress itself recognize when a first authorized it to conduct this createsiting a significant possibility that

the licenses will be issued that fall short of the true market value of the license. basiconfirms the intuition. led significant delays the spectrum being put to use by consumers and perhaps worst of all, impose these cost without producing any long-term benefits are wireless competition for american wireless consumers. according to the congressional budget office, previous bidding restrictions delayed the employment of up to 20% of the auction spectrum up to one decade. data also shows that our previous restrictions reduce and therevenues at 261% losses and consumer welfare work are slated to be $70 billion. the international experience reveals a similar story. restrictionsdding

imposed by foreign governments show that those efforts not only help to achieve the all of creating a wireless marketplace, they also imposed severe cost along the way. including delayed employment. for example, analyses of bidding restrictions imposed in the u.k., germany, canada, and india resulted in the spectrum selling for 27 to 75% less than expected. --ing recently did it visited india and spoken to many people across the industry about this very issue, i can tell you one of the few things people agree on is that the conduct of previous spectrum auctions was wanted. at least those licenses in india and elsewhere sold. the restrictions and also resulted in up to 58% of available spectrum going unsold with numerous legislators launching the increase -- lankan -- launching inquiries. we now trot down the same path

and we do so with arbitrary restrictions that are sure to produce anomalous results. here are a few examples -- first, it permits a number of camp -- companies to require every 600 megahertz license in every market even though the order also claims the restrictions are needed to prevent any one firm from running the table. second, the order set us -- set-asides and ignores high broadband spectrum altogether. that means a company that holds 44 megahertz of low band spectrum and high band spectrum in the same market could acquire as much additional low band spectrum as it wants. a competitor that has just 45 megahertz of low band spectrum would be restricted to bidding for circuit block -- certain blocks of spectrum. would anyone seriously maintain the latter companies positioned poses a greater competitive

threat than the former? third, the order leans heavily on the needs to spur deployment and rol -- in rural areas. the roles we adopt our not tailored to that goal. it will take affect in a number of urban markets where capacity, not coverage, is needed. it would not apply in large parts of america. broady, the order's prohibition of the transcript -- transfer of spectrum only compounds these errors. they prohibit anyone from transferring a 600 megahertz license to someone with more than a certain amount of low band spectrum holdings for six years. six years ago, we were still getting used to smartphones. in so doing, the item depresses the item of all 600 megahertz licenses. it forces the bidder to factor in the risk that their preferences might change. it restricts the chance that spectrum will flow to its highest and best use.

the arbitraryness of this results dovetails with the caprice evidence of keeping those rules together. it contains a lengthy discussion of how the 45 megahertz threshold as a primary basis for determining whether a provider qualified to did unreserved spectrum and is effective line of -- that such ao pauses threshold is necessary to ensure that multiple providers are able to access a sufficient amount of low band spectrum. all of that and analysis simply talk the side window but -- what them might apply to any carrier other than at&t or verizon. apparently, non-nationwide providers offer the unique ability to offer consumers additional choices and provide some constraint on the ability of nationwide providers to act in any competitive ways. assertions that lack evidentiary support and our uppercut -- undercut that quote the record in this proceeding does not

support a finding of market power for any. . carrier. what compels the commission to adopt these rules? it is certainly not the spectrum act with -- which left the fcc's authority to leave rules of general applicability when it comes to spectrum aggregation limits intact but also warns us not to prevent a person from participating in an auction. in fact, i've serious doubt that today's order complies with this provision. we target to specific companies and made the affirmation lay changes to our rules to ensure they do not a play to a single company other than those two. court would have much problem: does anything other than an image -- individual action masquerading as a general rule. nor does the communication act required to adopt such limits. the act requires us to prevent the efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum which the commission repeatedly

has interpreted to mean that congress intended to ensure that scarce spectrum is put to its highest and best use. nor does the fcc's own presidents blind this direction. our cases restrict that we have cases and her auction wally when open eligibility would owes a significant likelihood of substantial harm to competition. ineligibility research would be ineffective. how does this order that we adopt today satisfy the standards? it does not. it doesn't even try for good reason. the evidence show that no providers have been for closer match to -- from access. the two national providers to benefit the most chose to sit out the fcc's last low band auction altogether. while more than 100 bidders actively participated and acquired substantial holdings. two providers have chosen to participate, their

program they are large, well-funded corporations and competitors that could dominate the bidding. for the commissions to -- to so aggressively tilt the playing field in the absence of market failure is caprice classic. indeed. rather than face this fact, the order asserts that restricting participation is the same thing as open eligibility. that cannot be right. just last year, the fcc said that under open eligibility the commission does not exclude any potential applicants because of the amount of spectrum they already control. the order tries to brush it aside by saying that our words may not have been as that may not have been precise. there is nothing imprecise about such precedents. they're not consistent. both lawa an and policy requireo justify our change of heart. nor does sound economic theory compel today's result.

the order contains no finding in many competitive practices or market failure. it does not even attempt to show the competitors would be unable to obtain a low band spectrum and an open auction. the only basis the order offers from imposing restrictions is the commissions predictive judgment. this raises the judgment. when it comes the spectrum policy, how predictive has our judgment been? a letter in this regard includes the pcs bankruptcies in the 1990's, the belief that we could lure a new pad -- new national provider into the market if we tailor the 700 market hurts -- megahertz, and numerous other auctions where we were wrong about such basic facts. who would show up, how much participants would've it, or both. comfort ine much this kind of predictive judgment and neither has the court. isthe end, i hope our air

today would be harmless and they will not undermine the success of the intent of options- - - auctions. and shouldays we can promote competition in the wireless market, including removing barriers to infrastructure employment and freeing up additional spectrum for commercial use. i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on those important issues. on this particular item, i dissent. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today's order of effectively replaces our century-old or belief in the american market system as embodied in the commission's auction process with one that seeks to produce a specific outcome to benefit a select few. i am sure some will assert that this market manipulation is all in the public interest that i cannot agree with such an argument. at the heart of this item is an enormous thumb the agency places on the scale of future secondary market transactions involving

low band spectrum and most concerning, the upcoming broadcast antenna box and. -- auction. it's up to two bit with the subjective judgment which goes against the spirit and more apparently -- more importantly the little -- the letter of the law. they could readily lead to the failed incentive auction. i strongly dissent. the spectrum act directs the commission to set up a market mechanism to determine the highest use of the 600 megahertz band. a free and unfettered market is an -- is critical to the intended auction. it will determine whether wireless broadband is the best economic use of this spectrum. it will allocate new licenses among wireless providers. the revenues raised should also fund the first responder network authority. , the next generation 911 program and deficit reduction among other correctional authorities. with revenue, so intrinsic to

success, the statute allows they commission to exclude certain parties from participating in the auction, it allows rules of general applicability for spectrum aggregation to guard against such an -- spectrum. it was a hard-fought compromise. it was intended to -- specifically targeting the largest nationwide providers. the item blatantly disregards the statute and sadly adopts the concept that the ends justify the means. throughout this rulemaking process, some companies have insisted that the commission tipped us to gail -- tip the scale and the -- in the oncoming incentive auction. some providers claim they need more low band spectrum and the order false from this argument by effectively creating a set-aside within the incentive auction for these parties.

specifically, the item states rule ise the final met, any bidder that is a nationwide service provider and has 45 megahertz or more of spectrum will be precluded from bidding on a certain amount of reserves spectrum. in contrast, the nonrestricted bidders are free to bid on all available spectrum, reserved and non-reserves were dirt -- regardless of the total holdings. call correcting historical accident, i called corporate welfare for certain multinational companies with large market capitalization and axis the global markets. the companies also have strong backing by foreign governments. why? with so much riding on the theess of this auction and commission acted the complexity and risk lowering auction revenues to allow favored few combine the spectrum a below-market rates. tosets aside so critical

wireless competition, wise only triggered when the commission hits a certain revenue target? over the years, wireless providers have been deliberate and strategic decisions regarding when they should and should not participate in various auctions am including low band spectrum auctions. when and where to invest, whether to focus on urban or rural and what secondary market transactions to enter into. where the various companies are today is a direct result of such decisions, not by accident. some companies now want a spectrum subsidy to require the same kind of low band spectrum that they passed on previously in favor of high band frequencies. free-market spectrum auctions award licenses to those who value the spectrum the most and will put it to its greatest use. attempting to equalize outcomes between competitors, unintended consequences may result and consumers may not receive the benefits of the best the marketplace has to offer.

even if these set-asides do not tank the incentive option, we would never know the full opportunity cost of these decisionsm. how much money the commission could've raised without such intervention. what non-favored companies would be allowed to bid freely? we will not know the extent, but these losses are real. -- today's action also penalizes american consumers who subscribe to the wireless providers confined to unreserved spectrum. wise to those consumers into her slower internet speeds due to network congestion to satisfy arbitrary policy goals? there could be no justification to going down this path of picking winners and losers in the auction process. is spectrumrn concentration in the market, the spectrum screen addresses that issue. if rural markets are the top concerned, why distort the

highly competitive urban markets? if the concern is warehousing, that could be addressed by our buildout wools that require licensees to invest in a network and serve customers. if the claim is competitive foreclosure, show me the evidence, not abstract three radical possibilities -- not i've distract theoretical possibilities. i hope we will hold a free and open auction were all parties can compete for spectrum licensees legally. reservesto obtain spectrum should not look to me for any type of special relief, including any extension of buildup or sign off when they seek permission to flip their licenses. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you to all the commissioners. i, again, have a formal statement for the record. let me summarize a couple of points. this agency has two statutory mandates at play in the 600

megahertz auction. the first you ever heard a lot about today and that is every bidy has a right to and should be able to bid in every market. that is what this role accomplishes. the second spec -- statutory mandated that we have is to promote competition and public safety. discussed, therd characteristics of 600 megahertz are different from higher band spectrum. signalat means that the travels farther and penetrate buildings through their walls better. thus, if there is to be effective competition in rural then wireless carriers must have access to 600

megahertz. the alternative is to have to spend sometimes up to four times as much as much as necessary -- as otherwise would be necessary to build out hide and -- high band. that explains why when you look at coverage maps there are so many white spaces for those people in rural areas, for those people who do not have low band spectrum. i want to make sure there is competition, we fulfill the mandate of congress that there is competition in rural areas. se, public safety in urban able demands that you be to make a 911 call from inside a building. you don't want to be the person who is stuck with or who on the notes to them has -- unbeknownst

to them has a subscription that doesn't have spectrum to penetrate those walls as well. thus, what this rule does is to prevent those with current low band spectrum from monopolizing by market in the auction assuring that some spectrum will those withe for insufficient amounts of spectrum to serve rural areas and to penetrate buildings. it has been a very complex issue. i want to thank my colleagues for their efforts in this regard and coming to a resolution on that. in particular, i want to thank the terrific team of the wireless bureau that is brought

us to this point and has labored so hard on this difficult and contentious issue. i will call for the vote. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> bthe ayes have it. would any of my colleagues like to make any announcements at this point in time? >> thank you. this is not a prepare -- i did not want to let this opportunity pass. you might be in a position to say something about this. years, according to although the posters i saw throughout the building, bob sa ys he is going to retire. just in case he is serious, i want to let him know how appreciative i am of him for being in advisor to me. for saying yes to me -- i think

it was the fourth time he was going to retire. he didn't let me beg long. of themy acting chief enforcement bureau during the transition. he has always been in incredible resource of historical data. i don't know what we will do without you, but if indeed you are serious this time, you deserved it. you deserve it. we will miss you. i, for one, thank you. >> hear, hear. >> i want to thank a minute -- daniellenute to -- join our office this past monday and his first assignment -- i was surprised he decided to stick it out for the rest of the summer. his secondntering year of lost what the university of virginia and is pursuing a

joint degree. he earned his bachelors degree in economics and business. he is originally from new york and that probably explains why he is a yankees fan. i'm hoping he comes back to the fold. brettnvinced george was -- he is getting married last month. we are debating whether or not to give them that day off. that will depend on his job performance. we are very lucky to have daniel as part of the team and we welcome them to the commission. >> welcome, daniel. michael. >> i want to associate myself with the comments about bob r adcliff and the terrific contribution he has made. i also want to thank paul waters. paul, are you there? paul was my first intern in the

chairman's office. today is his last day. i don't know why you want to stick around through today, but today is his last day. it will be our significant loss. he is about to graduate from george washington law school. he is going to retreat to pennsylvania and take the bar. we hope it is not a longer tr ait, we hope to see him again. thanks for everything. [applause] if there is nothing else, we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> this wraps up this portion of this week's fcc open meeting. commissioners have been speaking about broadband spectrum allocation. earlier, they voted on open internet rules. we get an update on that this morning on washington journal. lynn stanton, what did the fcc vote on yesterday? for howroposed rules should they address with the appeals court date in january. the appeals court and sec had some authority on broadband access providers under the section of federal law that says that the fcc should try to encourage and advance advance communication capability. but they have to do it in a way that is proper. create common carrier

toulations, by forcing them offer service to anyone who wanted it under the exact same terms and conditions. the court was saying that they have to allow them to be more flexible than that. did uphold one of the three rules of the commission in 2010 which is a transparency requirements that they have to tell their customers what they are doing by a network of management. overturned the other two rules. the proposal that they adopted yesterday, they are not rules yet, they are saying if anyone opinion wants to weigh in, we read the exact same language, but would do with a

different justification. relying on some language in the court order that said that if the fcc had done this with the idea that the access providers had to provide some kind of minimum level, that it wasn't actually saying no blocking. that would be ok, and they are trying to pursue that route. for the. discrimination rule, they wanted becausee a new standard it is perceived as being far too weak and liable to allow companiesto charge like that licks -- like netflix for storage. providersthe access to charge what is called a

prioritization among these providers. host: a couple of months ago the chair throughout the idea that thatrew out the idea on the have this internet. here is the headline in the washington post this morning. guest: i think that is a simplification of what they did. --is certainly how i lot of a lot of the neutrality andcates are describing it, a lot of the press coverage has picked that up. the gentleman was very adamant that that was not with a rubber

pose a -- what they were proposing. there was a lot of language in the proposal that they adopted under thishat says standard, the provider could offer different kinds of access arrangements to different content providers, but the differentiation between what they offer the companies would have to be commercially reasonable. passwould also have to this no blocking standard with the minimum level of access. on noaid yesterday, uncertain terms, that what he as proposing would not allow provider to degrade the service that you are paying for. 5f you are paying for mak they cannot say that

they do not want to send it to you. host: a clip from yesterday. >> i have had hands-on experience with the importance of network openness. i will not allow the national to beof an open internet compromised. i understand this issue in my bones. from when my companies were denied access in the pre-internet days. the consideration that we are beginning today is not about whether the internet must the open -- be open, but about how,

and when, we will have rules in place to assure an open internet. i think he sounds pretty emphatic. purposing a slow lane and a fast lane. i suppose one could not take him at his word and read things into the proposals, but it does seem to me that a lot of the coverage the interpretation and the presentation that has been and some of the more strongly worded criticisms from the parties that advocate for a stronger approach. which would be too reclassified internet providers as common carriers. we cannot treat them as common fcc sayswhen the

they are not. in 2005 they classified the asious technologies information services, which means that what they are doing is delivering information content, and it is so intrinsically tied with the information that it cannot be separated out. proponents of strong net neutrality what is for the fcc to unbundle and say we can separate them out and that accessssion piece, the fees, is actually a telecommunication service which would then allow the fcc to impose these regulations that it has that were drawn up by the court because then they would be common carriers and there's nothing wrong with reposing those regulations -- imposing those regulations.

>> coming out of washington today, veterans affairs undersecretary for health zel testified before congress yesterday on the state of veterans health care. today, he resigned. veteran secretary says he is excepted -- accepted the resignation. it comes the day after both men were grilled by the senate committee on veterans affairs. whistleblowers say there were efforts to cover-up of the deaths of up to 40 veterans while they were awaiting appointments at the departments of giant medical center in phoenix. zel announced in september he planned to retire in 2014. congress is out for the weekend. a live look at the capital late on a friday afternoon following some torrential rains overnight last night. the weather improving for the weekend.

congress will be back next week. here is a look at what is ahead for the house and senate. >> a jewel bettelheim is senior editor for roll call. the house returns monday and one of the key items on the agenda is defense authorization legislation. the maing into some of items and how immigration could factor into the floor debate? >> this does -- defense policy bill is one of the biggest most sprawling measures to hit either tamer -- chamber. it takes of a plethora of issues from military suicides to this year, russian rocket motors that the u.s. space program depends on. immigration is going to factor into it. there is an effort in the house by the ranking democrat on the armed services committee to include language in this bill that would give permanent legal status to undocumented anger -- immigrants in the military.

we have seen this kind of language pop up before and senate debates over defense policy. thes going to be up to republican-controlled house rules committee to decide whether to declare this amendment in order. they may very well decide to do that and have a nice big floor fight over immigration. but, even if it does make it into the bill, the house is likely to defeat this language. that doesn't mean it will not pop up when the senate takes up its defense authorization bill which is also being marked up. it is interesting intersection of national security and immigration debate coming back. >> members are scheduled to debate the third appropriations bill. can you tell us about that build and whether the gun issue might come up? >> this is a bill that provides a little bit over $51 billion in discretionary funding. texas republican john carter

included some language in this programt would bar it -- a program that would require gun dealers along the southern border to report to the justice department when they sell shotguns and rifles to a single purchaser. it appears designed to stamp out an obama administration effort that the white house says would reduce violence along the southern border and might eliminate straw purchasers at these types of weapons. others, who were critics of the policy, say it is a backdoor attempt to federal gun registration -- regulation. this will be a part of the huge bill that covers multiple agencies. we will see the trigger some floor debate. house is also set to consider two bills in response to two items that have become centerstage in the news ca--

kidnapping of the nigerian schoolgirls and the death of v.a. >> the kidnapping is becoming a major concern on the hill. there was a senate foreign relations hearing on thursday that took up whether the nigerian military is in a position to respond and whether the several dozen u.s. officials on the ground can do very much. there is also this question of whether a u.s. prohibition on military assistance to foreign militaries where that there was a human rights problem helps or hinders this effort. you are hearing now lawmakers on both sides increasingly calling for perhaps military involvement. john mccain saying they should be special ops forces that go and help the girls. we are expecting to hear more of that. watch congress sort of follow the developments. -- what arecle

both parties in the senate doing to move the bill closer to final passage? >> over the weekend, there were some informal discussions about the amendment deal. this bill deals with tax expenditures, some 55 a temporary disjunctions -- deductions and provisions that expire at the end of 2013. it will be another short-term extension. senateblem is the democratic leadership is putting very tight control on the amendment process. eid fears if he allows republican amendments, there will be a realistic effort to strip out the medical device tax from the health care overhaul with a fair number of democrats and republicans favor repealing. not allowing republicans enough input, the republicans -- you seen the republicans to advance the bill and they are holding out.

if he watching ron wyden can work out of them and deal. if they can do one before a cloture vote and whether this think false but -- falls victim to more procedural writing. cqrollcall.site is com. you can tweet. thank you for your time. >> nice to be with you. >> a spokesman for house majority leader eric cantor confirmed to reporters late today that immigration related amendments to the defense bill would not be permitted. today, the american legion announced a military workforce partnership that will help returning servicemembers find private sector jobs by turning their military training into professional certifications and licenses. at the national press club, steve gonzalez of the american

legion explained how difficult it is for some service members to transition to civilian jobs because of translation issues when it comes to describing skill sets from the military to private sector employers. this is one hour. usually we speak on subjects on which there is great divisiveness. finding employment for anyone, especially returning veterans is certainly one we agree on. we have two gentlemen, two macmillan -- retired military men who will discuss this particular issue. both men are very well credentialed.

we have steven gonzales with the american legion. he's a deputy director for the legions veterans employment and education division. he has worked with members of congress. he has worked with the executive branch. he has worked on some very positive legislation such as veterans opportunity to work to hire act. the veteran bills to skills to jobs act. the military commercial drivers license act an executive order 13607 establishing principles of education for educational institutions servicing -- serving service members, veterans, spouses, and other family members. is a former marine. was formally with

the air force, a retired air force colonel. he has spent message -- match of his life on the subject he is discussing today. solid llc. with gentlemen, with this i turn the program over to you. thank you. steven? >> good morning. mr. galo thank you for this opportunity to actually speak to such an issue that has been in the works since 1996. it is something the american legion has actually been working on for quite some time and trying to assess individuals experiences, expertise, skill sets, education, and how do you transition those particular

skill sets to allow for individuals to find employment. let me give you some quick numbers on fy12 and unemployment benefits that i think some people believe does not impact multiple, a broader spectrum of what is going on. i know a lot of people talk about the military's readiness and talks about the military -- how do we improve the readiness. one of the things i want to highlight was from fy2001 to fy12, a total of $6.5 billion in unemployment assurance bella -- benefits were paid based on the former military records. this was done through the states submitting the amount of unemployment compensation to ask service members paid by the state to the federal government. the employee military service

pays this particular amount of money through their operating cts thewhich affe readiness of their service branch. according to a recent report from the center of naval analysis titled veterans unemployment transitioning marines in fy11 and to give you a small ekstrom -- spectrum in what is being paid, 102 applicants and out of these applicants that armynemployed, it cost the $515 million in unemployment benefits. the navy had 31,000 plus applicants at a cost of 740 million. the marine corps had fewer applicants and it was a cost of $185 million.

the air force did not release the numbers prior to this report being released to the public so the numbers for that were not available at that moment in time. let me also give you a couple of initiatives where some people believe it is underlining, it is not there. i will say stakeholders have come together because this noticular importance of just having the impact of how do you help decrease unemployment, fine veterans employment, but how do you increase the workforce. allow for companies, industries to access a lot of these skilled workers who can help with our economy and help our economy and not take away from it which none of us want to do. working with the -- let me take a step back. was an initiative taking apart the american legion

in collaboration with the u.s. chamber of commerce with solid. as well as the national standards institute. in that particular summit in 2012, we took the initiative of bringing stakeholders together. we had about 250 people in attendance. adding this in a particular allowed for individuals to no ngnger have their -- havi individuals come together figuring out what the initiatives were, what were some of the barriers and solutions and what were the best practices -- whether you are private or public partnership, coming together and figuring out how we moved together forward. i will take a step forward on some of the initiatives that have been undertaken post our summit. working with the department of transportation, they have a build that called moving ahead

for progress in the 21st century. it improves the federal railroad administration, the federal highway administration, the federal aviation administration -- they come come together to tok with the od and require report to congress the differences between military and civilian licensing. it recommends ways to fill gaps but also the point was to ensure the department of transportation who has a big jurisdiction over transportation logistics to work with the department of defense in figuring out what the gaps were and how you bridge those gaps and work together to find employment and strengthen our workforce. you have also initiatives with the department of energy and the national institute of building and sciences. subject matter experts to come together to develop voluntary guidelines on

how to create energy efficiency and workforce certification programs. i will let bill describe it more because he is more involved in the department of energy. you have other programs -- the teamsters military assistance program. that particular program is meant -- meant to help identify gaps, fill those gaps with the training meeting to obtain the proper credentials. senator also the -- introduced and many other members of congress. -- hes is that that as it sees it as a bipartisan issue. working together to improve the mprovementsiu which would allow servicemembers transitioning into the civilian work or us by allowing those members to obtain civilian credentials while on active duty. this is expanding tuition assistance.

allowing them to use tuition assistance for those who were looking for credentials, and also that would allow for the military as a force in answer and strengthen the readiness within the actual military workforce. as we know, we can buy weapons, all the fancy new toys for the military, but if you don't have an educated workforce demand those systems, they are just a piece of metal sitting on some tarmac or some dock off the east coast. this particular piece of legislation improves -- of course, the other component is making sure the quality of that credential is not compromised. ensuring the quality of that credential is meeting some kind of standards. it is meeting standards that pretty much the industry needs but also those particular skill sets -- there was a demand for

but also industries recognize them. it is ensuring that the industry has some say in it and saying they accepted. it. it wasn't just some credential that was developed out of the blue. would just touch on before i pass it on to bill, andn, us working with solid the national governors association. the center for best practices who in november 2013 convened state officials from six states -- illinois, iowa, minnesota, nevada, virginia, and wisconsin. who were selected as part of a pilot program and to produce a in what they consider the veteran licensing academy and to assess and look at the actual industries within their respective states and figure out what those gaps are. who are alsotes

stakeholders, how do you actually help with that? se, by doing so, that would allow servicemembers to transition. as a pilot program in six different states with six different needs, and allows us to look at what are the best practices are. what are the components that dod may be missing? that allows to actually take that particular program and make them sustainable and put them on a greater scale. all 50 states can actually run and operate some of their particular programs in general. i will pass it on to bill? i will let bill discuss some of the key talking points. >> thanks, steve. for inviting us to talk about this topic. it is something that the legion has been very engaged in and we appreciate them taking a leadership role and including us

in the discussion. in talking about credentialing, earning certifications or licenses from military members, it is kind of a new topic. the general discussion that happens throughout the years going back to world war ii and post-world war ii is always more education focused. certainly a great target. military members to g.i. bill or tuition assistance which has been and tested programs for military members. i took advantage of it. to help her in formal education through the higher education institutions. credentialing fills another role and what we're trying to do right now is open other pathways. great and other direction for those. we know less than 30% of our population currently has a college degree.

everyone is not going to choose that path. what we do have is a lot of soldiers, sailors, marines that have incredible technical expertise from the training during their time in the service . is really state-of-the-art. if you look at some of the multitude of job items that are contained and obtained by military members, you see it is an expertise that fits into every city, every community around the country. there are things that they do that we see other people doing. a lot of time the images per trade by the military member are those that are certainly most captivating. and thosers up front army of one type of folks we talked about have incredible skill sets beyond just their operational nature. what we're trying to do is create a pathway for the service members to earn.

when i say we, i am talking about this whole collaboration. from veteran support organizations, the department of defense and labor, other entities. industry has been heavily involved. we are seeing for the first time a lot of inertia gained from all of these coming together and we are seeing it through some of the legislative initiatives that steve is talking about. these are all great. it is pushing the department of defense, the department of labor to try to look at opportunities for these folks to have these pathways. it serves a couple of important roles. one, it is difficult for service members, particular are junior service members -- over the past few years and are difficult economy, people who do their first tour -- how many toues did you do? >> seven years. >> we are talking about the

people that do the four to seven year group. they do their technical training and do fantastic work within the military. the 25 and younger crowd that, -- thater some really comes out suffer some really high unemployment numbers. 18% to 24% by some estimates. those are high figures. how can we create a pathway for them to have quicker employment? the department of defense has a vested interest in this. steve was talking about some of those numbers. the 2011 numbers, it is approaching an aggregate of $1 billion. that is big money because they are reimbursing unemployment. with that being the case, if we can create a pathway through all these efforts from state, local, federal governments as well as industry, creating these quick theies via recognizing training through a credential, through a certification, a licensed for this military

member to jump in, we may be able to make their burden a little less. a lot of these folks have families by the time they get their first two are -- tour. sitting on unemployment for a good amount of time, it is a drain on their morale and a missed use of our federal workforce, are general american population. happily get the more engaged when they want to go home and find a job? whatervice translator's -- we have found is that certifications and licenses are speaks.ge that everyone they understand what that certification or license means. what often happens for these young sailors, even more senior folks -- i was very indoctrinated to our military culture and speaking to speak that we have within the uniformed immunity. -- community.

translating that the industry has become difficult. one of the reasons is as steve and i were talking about -- we don't have a high number of veterans in the country anymore. right now, fewer than one percent of our population, much less than our population, is actually wearing a uniform. that is guard, reserve, combined. wet is a big shift from what saw on the vietnam generation and certainly back to the world war ii generation. if we take in aggregate, we have fewer than seven percent of americans that are veterans. that is a very small number. where we used to have people very familiar, user they serve oruniform or their brother father, aunt, uncle, they were familiar. we don't have that exact and direct link. when the going talk about what they have done and have a hard

time after that first term of understanding with the business model might be for the experience and training they have, been not able to may be articulated as well. everybody wants to hire veterans. there was a lot of goodwill towards veterans right now. it is often covered in the media were companies want to hire. what we see is a communication gap. now, by helping these service members earn a certification and the very thing they have been trained on and gone through some incredible technical training, they carry with them experience that the hiring authorities are grateful for. i certification that validates the capability. they go i don't understand what you did but i know what that certification means. that license means and that means you are bringing to the table something that will help our company. it serves as a translator. dod is interested in doing that

to save that unemployment part as well is doing the right thing for all of us service members. i see folks in here that i know served previously. at some point, we change our uniform from lou or green -- blue or green and move into a coat and tie or a hardhat. that translation helps. helping earn these, helps the dod more than just a transition point. in steve's talking points about the fact that we have -- we see this enhancing and professionalizing of the military workforce. taking these best practices and ideas about what is going on in industry couldn't -- could do nothing except enhance the workforce while the servicemember is still in uniform. bringing these new ideas to link with the very things they are learning as a technical expert

for their military operations. there are things the military does that is military unique endeavor sings -- and there are things in the industry that are unique. to middle portion to link together through certification and we do bring both sets of experience to the military and into the civilian world. congress has taken notice of these things as steve made reference to. that included language inspires the services to take a look at credentialing. implement these programs. is it attainable for service members? they have been investing in these. we are taking steps into the credentialing business to see if it is something we can rollout and to the services. the good news is there has already been a lot of talk. the army and the navy for a decade have been discussing been

chilling. -- credentialing. so has the air force not in a broadway. the army and navy established programs that can be found and i will give you some web links to see. cool. navy cool and army it stands for credentialing opportunities online. www.coo cool, l.navy.com. sites are public, open sites that are first and foremost informational sites for the service members to be able to go in. contained in the credentialing opportunities online that the army and navy has stood up for his away for a service member, wherever they may be, deployed overseas, shipboard, back at home station,

to be able to log on to an open internet connectivity, get to that site. search the military occupational area. they can look for the specialties. find it in there and then link to this database and look for the skills that are directly it d to and even bigger defines the eligibility, the entry [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] to get in there. criteria.