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. potential tore hiring ability

in the future, what's predicted there. so these are great information sources for our service members to be able to use. it's also a great resource for human resources officials, the ones i was talking about earlier. they can go look through where they can say ok, i run an engineering firm, what military occupational areas are related to what we do? well, they can search, put in their industry and see what military occupation codes are available and have some linkages there. so it's a great source for both the service members and the civilian population to work -- look for. the navy has started this, the air force force, and the navy has been able to take the next step and that is actually find funding sources to help. over the past six to eight

years they've been in the range of 40,000 soldiers they have been able to help earn a qualification of some sort. this brings a wealth of information to the navy as well through these folks that earn the certifications. so it's a good push, a positive thing for both the military service, the individual member, the industry. we see this all kind of wrapped together. if an industry leader, hrves r. official were to go and look for their particular area in the army cool site there are over 400 occupational listings, duty titles, that's just for the enlisted personnel. the navy has over 420 and the range is amazing. things that people don't really think about associated with the army or the naivey. army alone in those 400 you have some air traffic ontroller equipment player, to

combat engineer, well drilling and dog handlers. that's a pretty wide spectrum, just grabbing a few c.w.'s out of there. the navy has crypto linguists, underwater construction technicians, again you are talking about so many technical skills that can be brought to bear to any industry. linking them and pairing them with the credentials, the certifications in related industries will provide great benefit coming back to the navy or the army as well as so the member. so that's kind of where we see credentialing currently standing. and we're quite optimistic about the future because of the discussion. steve, i'll turn the microphone back over to him but he talked about some of the protections that are going this there and i think he was going to expand a

little bit more in there to make sure we're protecting these credentials and the service members. i think i see very possive momentum moving behind it. a lot of great talk, good work being done bit services are the veterans organizations, that's going to do good things to help a clear pathway to earning employment for our returning service members. i'll turn it back to steve just to talk about some of these other pieces. >> as bill alluded to, all these efforts, throughout all the stakeholders, whether you talk about the states, academia in general, when you talk about all the different stakeholders, which if you ever get a chance, we have representatives here, but they created this interesting flow chart.

within that clart it shows you all the different stakeholders who have a pretty much piece of the action when you are talking about some type of credentialing. when i talk about credentialing it's irrespective of the credentialing. you talk about everything from the certification to a license, diploma, degree, certificate, all considered a form of a credential. and you can see who has some type of involvement, whether it's a small -- small or large piece, who is involved in this whole really complex conversation and issue. now, moving forward of course we want to make sure all these issue -- initiatives and efforts are -- that are involved in helping the veteran, the workforce, the industry, but the other component of the piece, again going back to what bill said is how do you ensure even though

you are expanding, putting more funding, you are in -- ensured that the guatemala of credentialing by service members, it's accredited? -- in some form. it goes back to certifications, degrees, and diplomas, that in are certain core he will rementss of equality. you talk about competency and base process, you talk about credentialing should be based and diverted from the industry needs and should include a structured process to identify the knowledge, the skills, and at tributes for a specific job function. competencies both general and technical are the foundational building blocks in developing a training certification. so you want to make slure that the industry is working with those bodies in ensuring that they're pleeting some

standards. we're not creating something that's created, we're not creating something to fill our bottom line as we've seen in the past where we're seeing individual institutions create something not because it was in the best interests of the work force or the industry but it was in the best interests of their bottom line and that was we -- something we move forward whether through policy making or legislation, look at what is best not just for the veteran service members but for the industry, the work force, the best interests of our economy. that's the overall picture we have to never forget is how do we improve our economy. and i say this very, very honestly, we encountered this in world war ii, in 1944 and 1945, where the g.i. bill was created for a certain reason. it was kated -- created for the readjustment of service members coming back and 13% of our

population was serving at the time. but you encountered, which i think the world war i veterans had the good understanding that we would never make sure that what happened with the world war i veterans would happen with the world war ii veterans but we had a fragile economy and if we dumped 13% of the veterans, the work force into that economy it could have hurt the economy. what we don't want to do later, 70 years later it's the largest time in history that we will be pretty. saying to society, here you go, society, leers a ton of veterans after 14 years of fighting two wars in a fragile economy and that's something that we don't want to do. again it goes back to the whole concept that what happens now will impact the whole department of defense. this economic environment, the department. of defense is pretty ched worried about the readiness of

the defense and this can either help or break that as well. as we move forward we just want to make sure that the quality of those credentials being obtained are meeting the standards netss to allow for those individuals to find employment but finding the right employment and finding the right skill sets for them to be able to get employed and i will let bill close out pretty. and then we can go ats "q.&.a.," mr. gallo. >> really no closing comments other than that say thank you for your interest in the topic. it's something that kind of flies under the radar a little bit. we see unemployment numbers for veterans, it concerns everyone. we hear about offers for work but trying to draw that bridge, that pathway, this is what it's all about. should had -- so just developing spl discussions anleds developing more awareness of this i think is worth the time. so thank you for coming out and

paying attention to it. >> thank you very much, both of you. and with that, we will turn over, turn the program over to you for your questions. questions? could you identify yourself? >> i am joe smart. i'm a freelance jifment -- journalist and i am a member of the press club. you mentioned the term fragile economy. obviously if the economy improved that would help employment for not only veterans but everybody. what steps would you like to see to improve the overall economy? >> to answer that question, even though the economy does get improved, you have to remember to take this into account. service members in general who are transitioning, there's particular jobs in the military that their sole purpose is in

the military. so it doesn't matter how much the economy improves, what they transition out it would still be all. -- dultd for them. for example, if i'm in the air force force and i put bombs on an f-18. i don't know where you're going to find that job. if you are a sniper, and i say that because i was a sniper with the infantry corps, that was not an easy transition for me. so if the economy gets better, if i don't have the right skill set that is employable enough, the job search will still be a difficult one for individuals like me. whether you talk built commrm -- army and the marine corps, the bulk of what makes up those two services are combat arms, are the individuals who have a harder time finding employment and i will say that the report i named earlier, the have -- center for naval analysis which

did a survey mostly about the plarne corps found that those who served in combat arms had a harder time finding employment because of the labbling -- lack or the less portable skills that allowed them to have a more seamless transition into the work force where those who had a certification for credential with the f.a.a., for example, had an easier time finding employment with u.s. airways or delta or any other airlines, the look -- lockheed's and sikorsky's of the world. so again, the economy can improve but for those that don't have the right skill sets, for those individuals how do you find the opportunity to be just as successful as those that already have such skills. i hopefully that answers your question. >> i just want to follow up on

steve's points there. one, i think he undersells himself. because you can see where he's sitting and the job that he managed -- manages for the american legion is significant. education employment programs, comprehending employment impacts, and i don't think it's absent an awareness of spl of the skill sets that steve obtained during his time in the marine corps. those combat arms military occupations that we're talking about are more difficult because there's not a direct linkage. what we talk about in the pool programs i was referring to earlier and a lot of the certification discussions are skills, not just direct job to job linkages, baups sometimes as the f.a.a., earning an f.a.a. license to be able to work on aircraft is a direct translation into a job in the

civilian world and there are certainly a lot of members in uniform that can do that but there are a lot of skills in every different military occupation including those in the combat arms m.o.c.'s that we know many of them, the leadership, the tamework, the dedication to duty, there are certifications actually that come with managerial focuses skills attest to those awareness that can help bridge that gap again for that combat arms troops to be able to say i bring that skill set. the army had this great advertising campaign and still does, the army of one, and if i look at that independent soldier or marine that's out in the field, they have incredible calm skills. i.t. technical skills to do with putting their weaponning

to together and they bring other skill sets to bear that they might be able to earn i certification without too much gap training to help them be readies. to your question about specifically what i would do to change the economy, a lot of people if they had that silver bullet they would love to use it. i don't feel really qualified to answer that one but what i would like to see is this marriage between industries and hiring authorities and the skill sets of the members finding ways to bridge that gap because we know industry has gaps. we're hearing from some groups in the energy trade, for instance, where they can't find enough people and we know those skill cesc are there within the militaries organizations and these separate military folks that if we could just get these gaps out of the way, this little bridge brain -- training, they could be able to fill those pretty easily so

that's something we're targeting our work on. i thought there was oats question back there. >> carrying along the same line of the remarks you guys made more combat arms, specifically the infantry -- infantry, those skills aren't very translateable. in fact they're virtually untranslateable. you can't do that in iraq or afghanistan and do that in transition back to civilian society. and i'm just wondering what is the light at the end of the tunnel for that 10% of the marine comps or even more for the army, folks in the enlisted infantry, folks that are more likely to have injuries, to have mental health and service-rated disabilities that are higher than the non-combat

arms related peers? what is the light at the end of the tunnel? what are you all looking speckly altd with regard to that population as opposed to an e.m.t. or a medic or weldling -- welding or things like that? >> i will say from the american legion working in collaboration with all the stakeholders, the national governors association, d.o.d., department of transportation, we take that all into consideration so when we do the mapping, and as you say, i'm pretty sure bill can talk to you more about that because he's an expert at the whole mapping aspect. but whether you do the mapping, in many cases a lot of the collaborations, so like whether you talk about the department of transportation issues, the initiate tisks you try to have a public-private partnership where for those individuals that need to be retrained or giving an additional skill set

then those programs are in place to help those who maybe ight want to go into manufacturing, even though you might not have all the skill sets, how can we train you? and of course we'll help you train to acquire those skill sets. so we look at them both and again looking at it from trying to be very proactive. so prior to tranceioning out can we help you in the military? e strutioned -- introduced gislation to give assistance is -- with how with dub -- how can you apply? the services have to get something out of it. what they get is job performance and enhanced readiness for the service but the service member gets access

to make right now i'm not ready for college but what i am ready for is the credential. i am trod get my license, to get that certificate. whether again it's i.t. or something in the stem field where i am able to get something now because i don't think right now i'm ready. and in combat arms, you know as well as i do, you are at a higher tempo of employment. i don't really have time to go to college, to go to school. that's not part've my daily agenda where someone who is not in such a high tempo deployment, you might have time to go to college, to go to community college and go to the university on that military installation. camp lejeune is a perfect example. they have campuses. but guess what? i was not able to go because whether you are not deployment, you are in the field two to three weeks ourvetd the month,

or you are in caps or somewhere doing something other than the opportunity to go get that additional skill set but this allows you to have some skill sell the at a quicker pace until you do transition and you have the g.i. bill, which was created to hopefully help you readjust into society. so we're looking at all this again, those who maybe don't have the skill sets but have the aptitude to maybe learn those, that those can help transition into the new credential they choose. >> i would just add that it's certainly the bigger question mark compared to the other multitude of occupational areas, the bigger question mark is how do you map? how do you draw those skills? he was saying those other things he was doing in preparation for deployment, as you probably did, certainly did, there's other things you are doing in preparation to

develop the skill sets that eventually allow you to -- you have to find your own path. it's a less-defined path for the infancyman. the bern who scums out of combat arms, they have to do a little bit more searching of what am i aligned with? what am i independent interest -- interested in doing? last year the department of dave lewis did a report for congress on the feeblet of -- feasibility -- department of defense did a report for feasible itds of saying let's see where these jobs alignment if the d.o. deprvings budgets gets cut those er the type of thing that are hards to pay for. they have to cloose operational training over this? it's a tough call. but they're trying to find ways and they have circled thatting,

combat arms, saying let's dig in and find out what these men and women -- men right now but soon to be women too -- many can bring? helmets to hard hats. construction focused jobs. there are a lot of state-focused initiatives and industry-focused initiatives saying we see the valuable at tributes that these former combat arms members are bringing. so they're lepping create a draw, their own bridge training programs so they're more able to quickly and more rapidly bring someone into the fold. it's certainly not a hopeless thing. it's a question mark and we realize that that is a particular group and everybody from the department of defense, labor, is saying we're going to look at those folks. what can we create? but it's a work in progress, for slure.

question?you have a >> you had mentioned community colleges and i wondered what role they can think -- play in the bridge training and gaps? >> you have a lot of community colleges, and i think lansing community college in michigan where they're doing a lot on pretty much the medical. they're doing it on medical and actually they're a part of i want to say many different initiatives, many different efforts. how do they from a community college standpoint, how to -- do they get involved, help bridge the gap? how do they look at the job task analysis. i know the medic was a question but doning -- being in it the marine corps you have two different version of a corpsman. one works in a hospital which their job within a naval

medical installation is different than the corpsman who s attached to an infant rey -- infantry unit who actually goes on patrols and who actually has to, god forbid, our brothers in arms have fallen. should we get hurt on the battlefield it's the corpsman who comes and says i'm leer to take care of you, whatever that may be, whether triage on the field or giving you a tourniquet. so their role is totally different than someone who is working in a medical hospital. those two individuals have acquired two different skill sets but whether you look at them, they're still corpsmen so their job and job description is still the same but when you look outside that job description, they're different. so what the community college has been doing is looking at those two things, how do you look at that from a prior

experience and competency base? how do you incorporate that, saying you might be qualified to be an l.p.n., you might be qualified to do something else in the medical field. it's not just let me stamp you e.m.t. and send you on your way. this is how institutions of higher learning have become involved in lepping with the whole mapping process from an academic or institution of higher learning and again this goes back to how institutions of higher learning, not just community colleges overall, how they also have a role and why they're considered a stakeholder because they do play a role in many cases where you have to have a degree before you can sit your -- for your nursing license and that's one of of the prerequisites. i'm uming in many states if not all states. they do play a role in helping us or the d.o.d. or all the

other stakeholders with how do ou plan that snndstsh do you map that? how do you interpret what you have learned? >> just to follow up with steve's comments there are, i was mentioning that cool database. in that database they've collected over 4,000 certifications, licenses that are out there. about 1,600 i think are mapped to navy or army occupations. what's great is when you go in and look at these it will play -- lay out what the certification requirements are, what are the eligibility factors, what are the exams to cover the certification going to be tested on? so a soldier or sailor can look at that, look at their own program of instruction and technical training and assess where there say delta, where there is a gap that they need to do. a lot of times community

colleges are filling the role of providing that gap in training, and there are a lot where they can earn an associate's degree. we're working with the air force now and the air force has the community college of the air force, which is a degree-granting community college and it actually is an accredited degree-granting institution that every airman when they finish their tech training juffletd about all of them earn an associate's degree so they have that to help apply toward if there is an associate's level education requirement, they'll have that attained, in their pocket. the other services are looking to do the sime -- same types of things to make sure working with the community colleges, they compare with them and get education. one example among many that comes to blind right away, the

u.s. army military police school in fort leavenworth, kansas, they've will not -- been working a pilot study. every state has its own licensing requirements for peace officers. there's a natural transition there that you would see. military members that go into being police officers. aim lot of community and state, local, and federal agencies would like to have military members. what they're finding is that of course every single date has its own jurisdictional issues. you have a range from some states requiring 300 hours of training to others requiring 1,20 off. the army's been doing a pilot study, saying ok, loots -- let's salute for the key requirements to earn. how can we get our soldiers in this schoolhouse licensed to be resip okal licensed by the state -- resip okal licensed by

the state of missouri? and some of them found they're developing a curriculum that's very force specific. that's where each state can help the bridge program so that the service member doesn't have to complete the whole thing. they have 80% of the work already studied through thur technical training but that limited scope of additional training can be down -- done through the community colleges. so they can not a gap filler in many ways. > i have a question. between your very good presentation, do we have any barometer or actual statistical data? i doubt that we do but do we have anything to show the effectiveness of these programs and how many personnel have we actually been able to place?

>> i'm looking out in the audience because we have a subject spertd, a couple on that. i don't think we have any real hard data. lisa, did you know of anything? >> doing exactly that for the navy credentialing program. >> you mentioned 40,000. >> right. it's different from the study that steve was talking about but it's going to track sailors who have gone through and gotten credentials and see what it's done for them both in the military and after they've left the service. that will be the first of its kind and very interesting. >> it will be a first aggregate study kind of look at there. we have many anecdotal, but this will be the first con keet -- concrete study. there's not a lot of evidence right now that's established other than anecdotal but there

is a lot of confidence it works. now we're going to see. >> with that, do we have any other questions? if not, we very much want top thank you for coming. i think we've learned a lot today and good luck, gentlemen. right on the thank you. >> thank you. >> [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] >> we've been temming you about today's decision about personality petzel to resign immediately after yesterday's testimony. the white house has released a statement.

as the president has said america has a sacred trust with the men and women who have served our country in uniform and we are complitted to doing all we can to make sure veterans have access to quality health care. secretary has complitted to taking appropriate actions based on the findings of the ndependent investigator. again, that part of the statement from the white house today. we will continue to follow the v.a. story here on c-span. >> several plebs of congress acting in good faith have put forward plans that address our long-term funding issue and i applaud them for their efforts and i know there is going to be more discuss in town this week on those attempts.

others where suggesting that the political reality is we're going to have to sell the for an infugse of cash into the highway trust fund as a stop gap measure. where are you going to get the cash? used to be there were caze to do it. i think it's a little titler now. it may be true we can get an infugse but it's hardly the long-term solution we fleed if we want to maintain a world-class infrastructure system. this is like the movie "groundhog day," every few years we wake up and have the same conversations about funding, the same fights over the gas tax and the same scramble for money. the only problem, in recent years we haven't been doing very well. up do know it's in round numbers 20 years since we increased the gas tax. now don't get me wrong. money is important. you can't make the dash if you don't have the cash. but don't for a minute think that's all they have -- we have

to do to get the infrastructure issues working and 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 who agree to is we have a comprehensive, forward-looking program that meets the needs of competitive 21st century that embraces and approaches -- >> this weekend on c-span, a look at america's aging infrastructure and possible effects on the economy. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. d at book tv, we're at the gaithersburg book festival. then, former justice john paul stevens on suggestions to

improve the constitution. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> today white house press secretary jay carney briefed reporters on a wide range of issues such as the abduction of nigerian school girls and elections in india. carney said prime minister plmplet odi will be welcomed to the united states and the president hopes to reach out to him soon. in 20035 the u.s. denied modi a visa because of his involvedment in anti-muslim violence earlier. this briefing runs just under an hour. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

happy friday. some of you saw on thursday, may 29, president obama will host a summit at the white house on youth sports safety and concussions. he will be joined by parents, the s, experts and president will announce new commitments by both the public and private sectors to raise awareness about thousand identify, treat, and prevent concussions and conduct additional research in the field of sports-related concussions that will help us better address these problems. being a parent and an avid sports fan, the president appreciates the role that sports play in the lives of young people and his administration is committed to ensuring that children can continue to be active and play sports safe lir. now your questions.

jim? >> on immigration, valerie jarrett is quoted as saying there is a window between now and august to get immigration overhaul done. she said we have a commitment from speaker boehner but i was was rustrated that there a tweet today saying it was lost in tranceation -- translation and there say commitment to trying. a commitment to trying what, when? >> speaker boehner, other house republican leaders and leading republicans outside 9 house of representatives -- the house of representatives of have all expressed deep interest in moving forward on immigration reform and we have found those comments and that interest to be encouraging and indicative of some movement among republicans in the house toward support for comprehensive immigration reform. what the president has said and

others have said is that the opportunity before us is something very rare and we ought to seize it here in washington, all of us. the house ought to follow the senate's lead and pass comprehensive immigration reform. in the snatd, a comprehensive bill passed with democratic and republican support. republicans across the country, business leaders across the country, faith leaders and law incidence forcement leaders across the country are behind this effort. they recognize that passing comprehensive immigration reform will provide a huge boost to our economy, to our security, to principles of fairness, and for those reasons we ought to move forward and what we hope is that the house will move and that's a message that valerie was carrying and that we have all been carrying for some time.

>> is the suggestion here that if it doesn't happen by august or at the end of august, august recess, that the president will take matters into his own hands? he has some authority to do some things. will he do something beyond just tweaking the margins? >> well, i'm not going to speculate about the future. what we have always said will remain true, which is that comprehensive immigration reform requires action by congress. the president is always interested in moving the ball forward on his agenda where he can, even if congress refuses to act but there are some things that require congressional action and this is one of them. so the senate acted and this congress and has put a bill forward that enjoys broad bipartisan support across the country in communities and among interest groups that

don't often get together behind the same priority and we hope that speaker boehner, majority leader kantor, chairman ryan and others hear all the voices of support, including traditional republican voices, traditional conservative voices for comprehensive immigration reform and move forward with it. that's what valerie was talking about. that's what the president's talkeds about and i have talked about and others. we should get this done for our economy. we should get this done for our security. we should get this done because it will allow us to in -- innovate more here in this country in ways that will build or economy and create high-paying jobs in this cray. -- country. sob the opportunity's there for the taking and we hope that the speaker and other republican leaders in the house avail themselves of the opportunity. >> the question on ukraine.

reports today of pro-russian insurgents pulling out of buildings in one si -- sfi. this is because steel workers employed by one of the wealthiest men in ukraine are patrolling the streets with police officers. is that a welcome development at the white house? or is there concern that the government in kiev is relying on ole i garks to essentially run the government in these regions? >> i'm not sure that's how i would interpret the story that you're referring to. we certainly welcome any allegation that separate everts who have seized buildings, who have set up road blocks, stockpiled weapons, are vacating buildings and ceasing kinds of activities that have only destabilized the situation in ukraine and led to

confrontations and violence. so that would certainly be a good development much the fact that significant portions of the population in ukraine, including eastern ukraine, do not support the agenda of russian-bactd separatists -- russian-backed separatists but support a united ukraine and a process by which decisions acrowned -- around constitutional reform and devilusion of power from the -- devolution of power from the center are made in appropriate ways, that's a good ing this. these are issues in -- that the government in can iav -- kiev has promised will be discussed in dialogue in all parts of the country at roundtables that are facilitated by the o.s.c.e. that's a good thing and all this comes as we move closer now to presidential election on may 25 and our focus and the

focus of the o.s.c.e. and the ukrainian government and all our partners in this effort is on ensuring that those elections are able to go ford and the e.s.c.e. has reported that the prip -- preparations, the technical preparations for the elections are proceeding well. eparatists in some ice lated -- isolated areas of do ttests have disrupted -- did donitsk have disrupted but there is certainly more calm. that's a welcome development. >> a $35 million fine was issued today. does the ptd believe that fine is enough? >> i would refer you to the agency involved here, the department of transportation safety and highway

you say nhtsa, however that acronym, stands for. but they're the body you should address questions to. >> have you beenle informing that? >> certainly it's an issue that's received a lot of attention understandably but in terms of that process that's not something i would have a lot to say about. >> you talked a lot about the issue with china and vietnam and wanting that to be resolved n a way that will be without provocation. do you want carolina to move the oil tanker? >> i appreciate the question. first of all we're closely following out of our mission to vietnam the protests around -- around this issue but regarding the broader issue of carolina's union i lateral -- unilateral

decision to introduce and oil rig in waters dispruted by vietnam, there is a provocative act and raises tensions in it the region and by raising tensions makes it more difficult to resolve claims of disroute -- disputed territory in a man eaver -- manner that underplines, or that supports peace and stability in the region. we consider that act provocative and one than underplines the goal we share, which is peaceful resolution of these disputes and general stability in the region. we're very concerned about dangerous conduct and intimidation by government-controlled assets operating in this area and we call on all parties to conduct themselves in a safe and professional manner to preserve freedom of navigation and overflited, to exercise restraint, to take steps to lower tensioned and to resolve

sovereignty claims in accordance with international law. as you know, sovereignty overt islands is disrouted -- disputed, claims by both china and vietnam and thee -- this highlights the need for the parties to resolve their claims in accordance with international law. as i said before, the united states does not take a position on the competing sovereignty claims, but we do take a position on the conduct of the claimants who must resolve their disputes peacefully, without coercion and in accordance with nam law enforcement >> do you have a reaction to the election in india? >> i do. first of all we congratulate india and the people of india on a historic national election which saw more voters cast their ballots freely and fairly than in any election in human

history. e congratulate modhi and the party on winning a imagine orts of seats in this election. once the government is formed we look forward to working closely with the prime minister d the cabinet to advance our mutual interests. we into also like to thank prime minister singh for the role he played in transforming our historic partnership during thinks years in office. this step ink that could not have been taken, was not a step in the direction? >> the question -- i understand -- but what's the question? >> do you think that was a wrong step by the administration or -- can tell you that the prime minister of india will be

welcomed to the united states and i would also note that u.s. officials, including ambassador powell, has -- have met with him, so he is certainly not unknown to us. >> did the president call him? >> the president does plan to reach out to him and i'm sure we'll let you know when that's happened. if the president is appearing to invite the prime minister to the white house, second, can you confirm that this president had a letter from the outgoing prime minister? >> i don't have anything on any correspondence the president may have received and i think it's a little early to talk about a visit. the president will be reaching out to him and and i noted we congratulate him and the d.j.p. on winning a imagine osht of

seats in these historic elections. again, there is an important relationship of strong bilateral partner sloip and the esident looks -- partnership and the president looks forward to building on the relationship with the next prime minister. whether he was band coming to the united states united states, there were several occasions where he was going to attend functions in the u.s. do you think there is a bitderness there between the two countries because of this? and the outgoing government? what is the future of the u.s.-india relations? >> i think the future is bright. we have long said that we look forward to working with whomever the indian people choose in these elections and the you us-india partnership

enjoys broad support across party lines in our country and i'm confident we will continue our successful, productive partnership with the new independent jan -- india government. let me move on. i think we've had -- >> but to follow up -- >> let me get to you. >> i'm just wondering where the white house sfands now on the issue of what is acceptable and what is not on the immigration issue? is it acceptable that whamp finally emerges from congress should include a path to citizenship? >> that's the president's position. it is reflected in the bi partisan bill that passed the senate and the president strongly believes it needs to be a part of comprehensive immigration reform. we have long said that the house would necessarily pursue its own path in the construction of an immigration

reform package but comprehensive immigration reform is essential because the whole works together in a way that achieves all of the important benefits to the economy and to the country that we are looking for with the passage of this legislation. so i'm not going to get into a lat -- lot of parsing of what ifs because we haven't seen a thing out of the house yet. and we're looking forward to the house acting on the urges we have heard expressed and the interests and desire we've heard expressed by republicans, including republican leaders on this matter and we want to see comprehensive immigration reform that meets the test set by the president when he laid out his principles a number of years ago ands those -- those principles are refered in the senate bill. as i've said many times, that bill is not exactly, does not

exactly mirror what the president would have written if he were to write a bill and see it pass through congress and he doesn't expect that what emerges from the house, if the house has the courage to act on this, to match word for word what he would prefer, but what he does insist is that comprehensive immigration reform adhere to the principles he laid out in the beginning the >> so the final bill he would sign into law must include a path to citizen sloip? >> he said all along comprehensive immigration reform needs to include a path to citizenship. >> he would not sign a law -- >> well, "not sign a law," there are so many different -- >> he would not sign a bill that does not include a path to citizenship. that's my question. >> there are a lot of bills that don't include a path to citizenship. >> you know what i mean. >> i know what you mean, too.

>> so he will not sign a bill that falls short of the path to citizenship? >> his position has been absolutely consistent from beginning to the end, or to this point. unfortunately we're not at the end yet and i don't expect it to change. >> ok. nd on the e.a. -- v.a., i have heard you and others talk about the v.a. having a good record on dealing with the backlog of claims and praising the v.a. on this issue. in light of the way we've learned more about problems not just in the arizona office but in other parts of the country, are you still saying that you think the veterans administration has done a good job in dealing with the backlog of claims? are you still going to say fla? >> i appreciate the question and i think it's important to note, you are conflating two separate things. the backlog in disability claims is a specific problem

and challenge that the v.a. and the white house and others in the administration have been aggressively attacking. that's where you have seen a 50% reduction in the size of the backlog year over year from this point to a year ago and that has been important progress. the size of that backlog increased significantly whether this administration because our veterans deserves -- deserve it, made the decision that there would be a presumption of acceptance of a claim if you were a veteran claiming problems associated with exposure to agent orange, that's the first time this has been done. if you were a veteran of the first gulf war and you felt that you were a victim of problems associated with exposure to that, in that war, and if you were a veteran of iraq or afghanistan and you experienced post-traumatic

stress disorder, again, your claim would clear a hurdle automatically under this process that we established in this administration because we believe our erin andrews -- our veterans deserve it. we've increased 9 claims added to the backlog and that backlog has been the focus of intense work by the v.a. and the administration in general. on matter of the absolute requirement that our veterans get the health care and services that they deserve and they get that in a timely fashion, the revelations or the allegations that have emerged from the situation in phoenix i think have been greeted in terms of reaction in the manner that the secretary suggested yesterday with a great deal of anger and frustration. and if they prove to be true, people will be held accountable. but these are matters and other issues that have been discussed

in the wake of those allegations that are properly under review at the order of the secretary, under investigation at the recommendation of the secretary by the independent inspectedor general, and as you know, the president and cleef of staff here have responded to the secretary's recommendation by sending one of the president's most trusted aides over to help with that review, on that review so i think that reflects the seriousness with which we approach this matter and our concern about some of the allegations that have been played. i just wanted to make slure it's understood that the disability claims iraq is not the same issue that is being discussed whether we talk about the allegations in phoenix. >> part of the confusion is whether you and others have been asked about the problems of veterans in terms of getting the health care they need and

deserve, you have answered with talking points on the disability claims back log. are you really, i mean are you suggesting that this is a problem that is limited to the phoenix office? >> i think that there are, there is an active review and as well as an investigation bit i.g. that will determine both what happened in phoenix and i'm sure what happened elsewhere if some of the other allegations that we've seen merit investigation. what i've been saying is that under the secretary's leadership there has been a firm dedication to providing the kind of services that our veterans deserve. it's reflected in some of the decisions that were made to increase access to disability claims and to health care. we have under his leader sloip redewsed veterans homelessness 24%. we've provided post-9/11 g.i. benefits to more than one million students and decreased

disability claims. my point is when i talk about the progress that has been made, i have been referring to questions about the secretary and his leadership of the veterans affairs department and p that progress has come on his watch and he certainly deserves credit for it. >> doesn't it seam -- seem strange whether you have seen the reports coming out that veterans have actually died waiting -- >> i think it's essential that these matters are under investigation -- >> but praising the v.a. under the secretary's leadership -- >> let me just explain this. there say suggestion that something terrible happened in phoenix, only a suggestion -- >> you don't think there is a real problem with the quality of health care our veterans have been getting? you need to sud stud -- study this further?

>> we are acting on the alleges and the suggestions that you pointed out and i would point fow what the i.g. said yesterday about his ongoing investigation. >> you think it needs to be investigated plor? >> are you saying we slntd? let's just sem allegations atrue without investigation -- investigating them? i don't think that would be a normal procedure. meanwhile, we are moving aggressively in a host of areas to ensure that or veterans are getting the services and the care that they deserve. and that's reflected not least in the fact that the president has requested increases in the budget for the v.a. every year he's been in office in a time of very tight budgets and he has insisted when it came to the serious matter of the disability backlog that we attack that problem with reargs -- aggression and substantial resources and that's resulted in a redeux in

the -- reduction in the backlog. it's been reduced but it needs to be eliminate. let me plove around a little bit. john? >> to follow up, if the general is mad as hell about what went on, why is it the white house position that it's just allegations and suggestions? seems to me he's played a conclusion in his mind that something bad happened. >> i think i would refer you to his history. the fact is, if testimony. if that is true, that would be an outrage. the president was asked about the allegations and answered forthrightly and expressed his concern about it. the actions we have taken reflect the concern we have about it, and the fact that he sent one of his most trusted and top aides from the white house over to the ba to assist the secretary and his review reflects the seriousness with

which we take this matter. again, i would simply say that it stands to reason that when allegations are made, it is important that they are investigated to find out the truth behind the matter before we just assume that what happened or what is said to have happened is true. i am not in anyway prejudging because i do not think we ought to prejudge. matterink that it is a of enough concern the actions that secretary shin seki has taken and the actions that the white house has taken our merited, and we will continue to aggressively tackle this problem -- the actions that secretary i and the actions that the white house is taken are merited. >> why should the public look at the actions and say that's the right thing to do instead of bringing someone in from the outside? >> the president has confidence in secretary shinseki. with an incredibly

admirable record in the military and in service to our veterans. again, undersecretary -- under there hasshinseki been made a lot of progress. there remains work to do in terms of getting our veterans ise, but secretary shinseki aggressively tackling the challenges we face on this matter. when we see revelations like or accusations like what we have seen with regards to the office in phoenix, it was certainly our view when secretary shinseki suggested it to our chief of staff that week -- that it was the right thing to do to add capacity, if you will, in order intensethe effort more and more rapid to secretary over to theeam v.a.. >> for the second time this week

alone, he talked about transportation funding, infrastructure funding because it is a priority for him. if fixing this problem was a priority for him, why have we not heard from him since april 28? a lot has happened since he spoke out at that news conference. >> right. a lot has happened. have been allegations. the veterans affairs administration has responded to those allegations by launching a review and suggesting and soliciting that the independent ig investigate. the president has asked his independent chief of staff of policy, one of his most trusted advisers, to temporarily take an assignment over at the v.a. to assist secretary shinseki in that effort, and secretary shinseki testified just yesterday on capitol hill about this. this is something again that the president cares deeply about, when it comes to our veterans and ensuring that we provide for in a way that honors the

service they have provided us. >> why not be directly to the veterans on this and saying "this is how much it matters to us and we will fix it?" funding, heation gets out there and says congress has to move on this. why is he not out there directing veterans? >> he is taking action. he has responded to this. he has spoken about it. i'm sure there will be an opportunity for him to speak about it again. speaking alone does not get the job done. acting gets the job done. when it comes to transportation funding, that requires action by congress to ensure hundreds of thousands of americans are not thrown off the job come august, when it comes to taking the actions we had taken as an administration, in response to allegations, that is something we can do. >> the house majority leader put out a statement yesterday saying he believes there's a pattern at

the white house were cabinet secretaries take all the heat and the president ultimately is just not held accountable. that -- i would say >> a briefing is not -- differentnt is allegations emerge in the press. i think he has had the opportunity to address this and has been asked about it. i think there will be other opportunities for him to address this. what he has also done is acted on it, and so has secretary shin seki. >> you talked about immigration earlier and that the clock is ticking. has been pushing transportation funding as well. is there any fear at all with theress having hearings, response the fbi may get involved, there may be criminal charges in the v.a. scandal if in fact people did die because of this -- my question being -- is there any fear that this is a big -- i strongly -- i do not

want to use the word distraction because it is important veterans get their health care, but is it something that overshadows the attention of congress right now so you cannot get other stuff done? >> i would say it is important matter and the resources necessary to tackle it so that we are providing those services and benefits that veterans deserve. they are merited. the attention that is paid to it by those who are concerned about the problem as opposed to politics, it is absolutely appropriate. that is how the president views it. does the government have any confidence that the nigerians can ever regain the young women, given the news today that president jonathan was supposed to go to the village where the young girls were kidnapped and decided not to go? >> i want to say, first of all, a couple of things. there's no question that the

nigerian people, nigerians face a real threat in boko haram. boko haram has demonstrated it has no regard for human life and has demonstrated an increased ability to conduct attacks, and those attacks have increased in , so this organization poses a serious threat in that country. the effortss to undertaken by the nigerian government to find these girls, we've made clear that in our view, time is of the essence, , you know, we can and are assisting the nigerian government in the search, but the nigerian government has the lead and needs to act accordingly. are you making any progress? >> you mean, the girls have not been found? >> the news of nigeria is not encouraging. it is important to

understand that despite the expertise we have, the capacities we have, and the kind of assets that we can bring to bear in this, this is a tremendous challenge. we are talking about fewer than who are being searched for in an area at least the size of west virginia. portions of which are very densely forest it, as i understand it. this is a difficult challenge. again, this is a population of kidnapped girls that we hope remains intact and together, but obviously, if they had been separated, that makes the challenge even greater, which does not mean that we will not provide all the assistance and assets that we can in that in conducting the search, but it is certainly a challenge. >> is it a security situation that the president of the country canceled a visit to the

?ountry today >> the that is one that is real and self-evident, which i discussed moments ago, but that does not mean that we can't and they can't conduct a search, and that is certainly what is happening. we have already, as i discussed earlier this week, watch both manned and unmanned aircraft as part of the reconnaissance effort, and we have a team of personnel assisting the nigerian government and -- in a variety of ways. other nations have lent their weport to the effort, and hope that it will bear fruit and lead to the girls. >> did he have a reaction to the canceling of the visit? >> i have not spoken to him about it. >> nigerian officials, u.s. officials from britain and discussing the effort. what is the position of the white house about the tangibles

that might come out of that meeting? >> i think that we are focused and developing a concrete land or approach to finding out where the girls are and recovering them so that they can be returned to their families. that requires coordination, and it requires strategy, and i assume that these conversations will be focused on that effort. >> the director for african affairs talked about some of her frustrations with the part of which theystates, called slow to adapt to new .trategies can you tell us how the government is working with the

government of nigeria? >> the challenge that nigeria faces from this group is a .erious one there are all sorts of issues that she and others have identified that make the and that even greater we try to address as a friend of nigeria in the assistance that we provide. that's why we provide security assistance, to increase nigeria's capacity to meet the threat. including by helping professionalize its military and helping him carry out -- responsiblem counterterrorism operations. it's why we provide law enforcement assistance, to help nigeria bring those responsible for attacks on civilians to justice. it's why we support programs and initiatives that are aimed at combating violent extremist ideology, including by creating economic alternatives for those vulnerable to being recruited by terrorist organizations. we have a coordinated effort

that is designed to help strengthen nigeria's ability to respond responsibly and effectively to these challenges in a way that injures civilians are protected and human rights are respected. responding responsibly and effectively is important because that is in effect how you provide support for and reassurance to the population that is also having to deal with the threat posed by an organization like boko haram. >> is there a timeline for the review that he is conducting? >> for questions like that, i would refer you to the v.a. they are obviously conducting a review. i do not have a timeline for rob's they except to say that it is temporary. he will be coming back and returning to his responsibilities as deputy chief of staff here when that assignment is finished. >> the white house has

repeatedly expressed confidence in shinseki and his leadership, but the way this all came out, even if you are going to keep calling them all allegations, and they seem to be more white bread -- widespread than possible, doesn't that in itself a problem with the leadership of the administration? his think i have addressed question. what we have seen in response to the allegations that have been instigated a review by the secretary, one that we are now providing senior white house official to assist -- >> but the way that it all came out, all of these problems that have been built-up and widespread -- it all came out through a reporting by the press that some of this was not even known about. does that not in and of itself indicate a major shortfall their? >> i set a couple of things about that. there are active

reviews and investigations into what happened. pass, i'm not going to judgment on what happened until we see the conclusion of an investigation, and that is generally a wise approach to take. should some of these allegations proved to be true, secretary shin seki has made clear that he would be outraged by that and angry by that. the president certainly would be, and he would expect people to be held accountable. that is why there is an investigation. that is why there is a review. on the role of the press, i think the press in general -- again, i'm not going to pass judgment and whether or not the allegations are true because we do not know, but the role of the press is important in general on manyrs like this and in so other areas. i would not sell the press short when it comes to the important role they play. on iran, the reports have

come out this week that iran is actively pursuing ballistic missiles. what is the view of the white house on that and the possibility of eventually a nuclear point? >> on the question of ballistic missiles, we have made clear all issues of concern are on the table during the negotiations aimed at reaching a comprehensive agreement, and we are not going to get into details of specific items of negotiation because negotiating in public would not serve the goal here, but i would point you to the fact that the joint plan of action lays out very clearly the elements for comprehensive agreement. and it talks about all concerns needing to be addressed, and it needing to know in fact that this is an entirely peaceful program. it also talks about security

council resolutions needing to be addressed, including related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. ballistic missiles fall into the topics under discussion that would need to be part of a comprehensive resolution of this dispute and this challenge. withoutthe view we take teasing out any individual item and talking about how that concern would have to be addressed in a final product. will do is point you to those un security council resolutions, the fact that the joint plan of action explicitly calls for those concerns to be resolved and made clear that jpa is on the the p table and has to be resolved for a copper heads of agreement to be reached. >> on the ukraine elections, a

statement that the vice president put out this week used the word delegitimize and a statement that russia will face additional costs. that ties into a question earlier, which is who is responsible for the results of the election, whether they are disrupted or delegitimize? who decides that? >> first of all, there will be international observers willized by the osce who be able to make judgments about andconduct of the election any efforts to undermine the election or delegitimize it. the united states and the rest of our partners in the international community who have taken one side on this matter and russia, which has taken , i think, will make

judgments about how the .lections proceed president putin, back when he also said or suggested that the so-called referenda should not be held on may 11 also said that the may 25 election might be a good step, and we certainly agree with that. not just might be but a necessary and important that for because itan people was a successful implementation of that election. it would allow the ukrainian people to freely express their will when it comes to choosing their leader, their president. we are very focused on assuring with our partners that the election takes place. >> this is a small matter, but i cannot find any public record that the president has had his full medical workup as usual

since before the election. maybe i missed it. >> i have not looked into that. toyesterday, the fcc voted create a thing called internet fast lanes. the president has said he would oppose such efforts. is the resident disappointed by the decision, or did he go back ?n his campaign promise >> the president said he strongly supports net neutrality and open internet. as he has said, the internet prosecutable in quality of data, content, and access to the consumer is what has powered extraordinary economic growth and made it possible for one tiny site like ebay and amazon to compete with brick-and-mortar operations. the fcc is an independent agency, as you know, and we will

carefully review their proposal. the fcc's efforts were dealt a real challenge by the court of in january, but chairman wheeler has said his goal was to preserve an open internet, and we are pleased to see that he is keeping all options on the table. we will be watching closely as the process moves forward and hope that the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality. the president is looking at every way to protect a free and open internet, and he will consider any options that might make sense. passed the rule yesterday made the president's standards for net neutrality? >> the rule -- what was passed yesterday was something that kept options on the table, and -- well, if you have all options on the table, then, the president will be looking very closely to see that the outcome of this results in a final rule that space true to his -- to the spirit of net neutrality, which he supports.

>> yesterday, secretary johnson said the president might be looking at changes to the secure communities program as part of reforming the deportation policy. has the white house said anything on that? >> i did not see that comment. what i think you know is that the president asked secretary johnson to address -- to review procedures when it comes to enforcement, and that review is under way. i would refer you to the department for any status update they might have. this week, there were that ituments released did appear that the washington office had more to do with

targeting some of the tea party groups. does that -- >> i did not see the report. >> our position hasn't changed, and i certainly have not seen .ny fact to suggest otherwise that's all i will say about it for now. what is the president hoping to get out of it? will there be a list of recommendations? >> we expect to see some public comments made towards the study of and education about this problem. i think the president, as a his staff also has on others who are parents -- know

that this is a topic that a lot of families are discussing right now. as more and more information is problemsabout the associated with concussions in sports, especially for our young , and we have the ability here, because it is the white house and because he is the president, to help elevate this issue and help draw attention to it and makert for efforts to progress on it so we can ensure that our kids are being able to get all the benefits that come from participating in sports but are able to do so in essays a way as possible. i do not have a list of attendees at this time. is we are tell you not prepared to announce participants or commitments at this time, but the president recognizes that raising awareness of and better protecting children and student

athletes from concussions and better identifying and treating them when they do occur requires , andm approach professional sports leagues including the nfl are certainly vital members of that team. this is an effort that a lot of people can and should be .nvolved in this is something often talked about within the context of football. i have a son who has expressed an interest in playing tackle football, so it is something that i am particularly interested in, but it does not limit itself just a football. we have seen a lot of reports about concussions in other sports including soccer. i think amething that lot of families spend a lot of time worrying about and want to know as much as they can about and want to be sure they are taking all the precautions they can on behalf of their children so that children can get all the great experiences that come from participating in sports. >> last question on this is how does he prepare for an event like this? is he reading books?

there have been some good ones. frontline has had some documentaries. >> i know that it is something he has addressed when asked a couple of times in interviews where he has noted that if he had a son, he would have to sayingwice about yes to having him play football. a report came out last fall that helped spark this conversation. there's a lot of research that has been done within the government, including within the military on some of these issues , so i don't have specific reading lists, but i know it is a topic of conversation here just like it is around the country.

>> who is going to be the top diplomat? >> i don't have an answer to that. when the president has announcements to make, he will make it. >> are you sending somebody from here? just a statement may not bring him here. will the u.s. go beyond? >> i will have to speak to him about his views on the matter. first of all, we've made clear that we congratulate the indian and mr. modine and his party on their victory. we await the formation of a government and look forward to continuing all the progress that we have made in our bilateral relationship and fully expect to be able to do so.

the prime minister of india will receive a visa to travel to the -- united states. we look forward to working with the governor and the new prime minister and we congratulate him on his victory. i do not anticipate any problem in that regard. what we do anticipate is moving a new government and strengthening a relationship that has already been strengthened significantly over the past years with prime minister singh at the helm in india. >> [inaudible]

>> i do not have any idea. when we do, we will get it to you. >> earlier this week, secretary cagle [inaudible] or not he has had any conversations with the press secretary about that issue. >> he meets with him weekly. i would certainly point you to what secretary hagel said, and we support his efforts in this area. >> the president i don't think has ever spoken out on this issue before. does he think that bands should eventually be lifted? >> at this point, i leave it to secretary hagel's comments. i have not spoken to him directly about this issue, but i would note what secretary hagel said and that we support him. >> does the white house agree with the chinese pla general saying yesterday that [inaudible] >> no. i would simply say what i said

earlier about the need for parties in these disputes to address them in a peaceful and diplomatic way and keeping with -- in keeping with international norms and international law. our calling on all sides to refrain from taking actions with inflamed tensions as opposed to actions that calm the situation peaceful dialogue about it and resolution about the dispute. >> several members of congress have put into place plans to address long-term running stop i know there will be more discussion on those attempts. others are suggesting that the political realities will have to

settle for an infusion of cash into the highway trust fund will stop it would be a stopgap measure. where will you get the cash? there used to be ways to do it. i think it is tighter now than it was. it may be true that we can get an infusion, but it is hardly the long-term illusion that we need to maintain a world-class infrastructure. this is like the movie, groundhog day stop we wake up every have the same conversation about ending the same five over the gas tax and the same scramble for money. the only problem is that in recent years, we have not been doing well also you do know that it is 20 years since we increase the gas tax. don't get me wrong, money is a worth. if younot make the dash do not have the cash stop do not

think that is all we have to do to get infrastructure issues working. if you look at everything being discussed in recent days and weeks around environmental issues, many of those are somewhat in conflict. not because they are wrong, but because what we are trying to do. when everybody would agree to is that we need a comprehensive, forward-looking program that meets the needs of a competitive 21st-century. it embraces innovative approaches and in those confidence and earns the support of a jaded citizenry. america,pan, a look at aging infrastructure. saturday morning at 10:00 a.m. on book tv, we are at the petersburg book festival. saturday morning at 10:30 a.m. former justice john paul stevens on ways to improve the constitution.

national review editor rich lowry on the 14th president's work ethic and ambition. that is on c-span3. the congressional internet caucus advisory committee hosted a discussion on recent fcc actions. vote int concerns a favor of a new proposal aimed at prohibiting internet service writers from blocking or discriminating against legal content. that is an issue known as net neutrality. tom wheeler and the two democrats voted to move the proposal for and begin formally collecting outlook,. -- public comments. this portion runs one hour.

yesterday the sec issued two plants on dealing with net neutrality. there is a plan to roll out more spectrum so we have other broadband on our mobile devices. .hey are massively significant they are important to the growth and vibrancy of internet. we wanted to increase consumers and members of congress' awareness. hashtaguse the

#netneutrality. our next briefing will be next friday. it will be on the efficacy of the surveillance land. that will be next friday. i will send out a notice. what we are going to do is we will bifurcate those into talking about the open internet half-hour andirst then we will have it -- could it to a couple of speakers. we will try to do some queue and a at the end of the session. feel free to ask any questions you like. if you need more chairs, there is a stack of them will stop quickly, let me introduce our speakers. it will be the open internet order.

we have matthew breaux. he is formerly from the fcc. we have sarah morris. she is with the new america she is the head of head ofional -- the congressional relations is also named sarah morris. she is a different person. we also have a partner at steptoe and johnson. we also have an assistant professor at the university of nebraska. we have a diverse set of speakers. we will get going quickly. if anybody has not heard about net neutrality, i do not think we need to go into too much detail on what it means. it is the idea that on the shouldt, consumers access content and everyone should have their applications and services treated equally. how that happens and legal

authority for that has been a tortured conversation since 2005. me quickly say that the sec had a vote on this. i will ask matt to tell us how we got here. we were here in january and it was after the d c circuit court struck down the previous plan for open internet. this is another crack at it. they are taking cues from the circuit court decision will stop the fcc chairman had a vote. two were in favor and one was concurring. out whatsk gus to lay happens now. we will go into some discussion

stop if you could tell us how we got here, but very quickly. >> just so everyone knows, i've been involved in these issues for a long time. i have been with the sec for a long time. i worked on early proceedings that give rise to these discussions. i have been working in private practice and representing network owners to have a strong interest in this issue. i will try to get through the background quickly. it is helpful to understand where we got to today. 2002 the sec confronted how to classify broadband services provided over cable networks. cable modem services. the big debate at the time was whether the services under the communications act, whether they should be considered

telecommunications services or instead information services. they are generally regulated and referred to as title i services. the distinction between those labels is important. they are mutually exclusive. telecommunication services consists of transmission. dance services can be telecom services when they are moving information. that is without any change in the content. in contrast, information services consist of transmissions. when you are retrieving stored information and acting on that information, that is considered an information service. the sec said that broadband internet access when provided over the cable networks was an information service and only on information service.

transmission was involved in providing this, transmission of information between remote servers and isps. the fcc determines that the service when you viewed as a whole should be regulated as an information service. it should not be subject to title ii. traditional common carrier obligations to provide just and reasonable service and regulation of quality, none of that apply to broadband internet access. ruling, andof that it went to the supreme court and they upheld the decision, the fcc started to think about what sort of protections might accompany information service. the initial debate was not about rules for protecting consumers. they were known as open access debate. providers like earthlink wanted to make sure they had access to serve customers.

the right one of debate over whether the fcc should compel providers to open up those networks so that third parties would be able to step in and serve the customer. those mandates were never adopted. they were debated for years. was thelly emerged foundations of net neutrality. we had principles of first that consumer should have access to content. they should not be blocked by their isps. they should have access to services. the s cc codified some principles that were not binding, but were a statement of the expectations of the agency will stop it was an understanding that they would monitor developments in the industry stop there were allegations several years later that comcast had throttled traffic using bit torrent protocol.

they brought action against comcast. that resulted in the first court case in the district circuit court of appeals. struck down that order saying that the fcc did not have binding rules in place. they had not justified there in force in action to stop that case is pending and the fcc had proposed rules that resulted in the 2010 open internet order to stop that case went up to the d c circuit again i'll stop it was reversed in part in the verizon decision. in itsupheld transparency requirement for broadband providers to disclose important information. is regulation that prevented blocking of internet traffic. it was remanded to the agency. that has brought us to yesterday's proposal. i will hand it off. gus, thisi get to

allows me to say some face. i forgot to talk about our process. the congressional caucus in conjunction with the copies -- we have various congresspeople here. they cochaired the copies. the organization does not take any position. issue toeally great illustrate that will stop all we do is host balance discussions on these issues. pros and cons. the internet is important and needs to be preserved. thank the caucus and its cochairs. they have been supporting this program. that is our particular process. as far as it goes for the fcc --

>> in a similar vein, a little bit of an introduction. i am the assistant professor of law at the university of nebraska. i teach telecommunications and regulation. there is a great program with a lot of graduates is. it is a quick plug. there is one of our graduates. i will talk about the process moving forward. i want to quickly start typing a pin in the comcast case. it is an interesting question of how the comcast case might have come out if the fcc had previously interpreted this section is applying to the internet stop they previously said it did not apply. we may want to come back to that question. the process moving forward. what happened on thursday?

adopt assion voted to notice of rulemaking. the real beginning of the process. it is a bit peculiar with the discussion we have been having. it was leaked prior to the commission meeting. all of the public import that has been happening and public discussion has been premature until today. commissions when the dumps this? i hope most of you in this room are familiar with the administrative procedure. this is governed by ordinary agency procedure will stop it applies to all agencies for the most part. adopted proposed rules and there is a public comment keyword that is open to

stop the rulemaking process is referred to. the agency has given the public notice. they are waiting for comment. over the next 60 days, between now and then, the agency will be accepting public,. following that, we will have another 60 days of the 120 day keyword -- period to respond to comment. the public can response to whatever has been submitted. it is too early to suffer from fcc fatigue. >> is never appropriate to suffer from that will stop >> there will be members who will be signing letters during the process and submitting comments. they will hold hearings. onre will be a hearing tuesday. >> one of the interesting things that the fcc has done given the

public interest in the subject, they have been adopting some nonstandard mechanisms for the public to submit comments. there is an e-mail address that will continue to be used throughout the public comment keyword -- period. they can e-mail comments. that is an interesting whatdural innovation stop happens after all of these comments are received? september 10, the comments will close. the commission will do one of three things. it will throw its hands up in the air and say, forget about it stop that is unlikely. the next alternative is the commission well take a look at all the comments that have been received and it will go back and delivery and start drafting a final rule. that will be issued sometime by the end of the year.

the chairman wants to have this done by the end of the year. issuedal rule that is fromneed to be foreseeable the proposed rules that were announced yesterday. ,hey either have to be the same notice, or a logical outgrowth of what is in the report. they cannot make up new rules will stop -- new rules. authorityalk about that was granted in 1996 and title to, which is a telephone service, there are openings for both of those. precise, itit more is currently -- they are proposing to use the weapons of

comment on title 2 or other possible sources of authority. it is for wireless and hybrid approaches such as those that were submitted to the agency. the fcc refers to them. their insert efforts from columbia university. most people know which professors those are. resulted in,, it would clearly be a logical outgrowth. >> they have both options? >> right. >> the third option they could do after the september 10 deadline is they could say, we need to think about this more will stop we will issue a further notice of rulemaking. that is another npr and. it will go through another comment cycle.

machen happened many times. it probably will not happen in this days will stop the nprm that was issued was very good. there are interesting things being done there. summarize, it looks like the nprm is a consumer choice of services. is like a bill of rights for consumers. what they can get an access. there is a no blocking rule, which is consistent with the last attempt. there are limits on privatization. that is a big question. there will be no internet fast lanes. speaking, iou stop sigh headline in the washington post that said internet fast lanes. we want to discuss that. then there is transparency.

i think we laid out with the element was before. there will be some kind of business,- a start up a consumer ombudsman. we can dispute these things and ask for permission to do certain things. >> usefully liked it much better than me. let me ask, how you feel this enhances or preserves nutty trolley? -- net neutrality? >> i'm sarah morris. i am the senior policy counsel for the open technology institute. we have been long-time advocates for open internet protection will stop i think those words will get misinterpreted and tossed around stop we, this with

a strong concern that the internet is not just a platform for innovative business models. is a platform for innovation itself. and for unfettered communication access among users. at the commissioners pointed out, this is not just about companies. this is about consumers and users and their ability to participate. to answer your question about what this means for the future of the open internet and our general reaction, this rulemaking is quite comprehensive. forredicates the framework the new net neutrality rules on a legally shaky ground.

the framework itself is difficult to apply in real life. it will not afford the same types of protections that we saw before. thinking pretty critically about what this means. there is a long way to go. >> thank you. as a communications lawyer, this nprm is a phenomenal document. it has everything you would ever want to tackle all stop it has raised intriguing questions. everyone believes in open internet. that was clear in the meeting.

this is complicated and worth unpacking. what is in controversy and what is not? i thought i would start with what is generally not in controversy. based on prior court cases we have seen, and with has been submitted. what is not controversy is two things. there is a certain -- a theory. contributes to broadband adoption. innovation by internet companies . the fcc goes through some examples of what has happened since 2010 that further shore up that theory. they were very clear on that point that the fcc had adequately lanes the reasoning. the second issue that is not

controversy is that broadband havenet access providers the ability to limit openness. supported andy explained their reasoning. then we get into what is really a controversy. is two in controversy things. whether and how to prevent privatization. the fcc wants to know whether there should be prioritization on the internet. how do they adopt that? >> is that the fast lane we've been hearing about? >> i hesitate to characterize it as a fast lane full i'm not sure how you would describe that.

what they are proposing is a base level of service. it encourages individual organizations. the second piece that is that controversy is what parts of the internet ecosystem that such broadband access should be subject to the rules? there is internet access that you pay for through cable or dsl. there is mobile internet access through your cell phone. folks that are interested in addressing where the cable companies and phone companies service attaches to the internet. those three categories will be the commission has said they will not change the scope in that regard. the rules will apply to wireless access with regard to mobile access. mobilee will prevent a

provider from blocking website and applications that compete with mobile services. we will not get into discrimination issues, which are not in play. -- the firstsue issue is the scope. the legal issue is framework for adoption of both worlds. that is whether the commission bases its authority on a provision in the statute that direct them to take necessary steps for broadband adoption. i would characterize it differently and say that the commission has strong legal ground to or. the question is, how far can they go? is, whether they anchor their roles in telephony

that kids that impose, carrier obligations. the commission raises some questions about that post do they anchor some of this in roles? lastly, there could be other theories of jurisdiction and whether it is based on cable statutes or some other statute that they could use to justify some part of the roles. there's a law in in the rules. onis important to refocus the controversy of the scope of the roles. that is why they propose rules -- there is a lot of controversy will stop that has beenwar said. i will not cite you how to respond to stop privatization, walking.

feel free to comment. >> i agree with a lot of what markham has said. in terms of the things that are not in controversy, i would not fully agree that everyone would say broadband providers have an incentive to cause harm. they are operating in a competitive environment. they want the best possible service for their customers. if they did something harmful, there will be a price to waive. -- pay. old examples that were trotted out as babies is for net neutrality would never happen. the old example is that with a provider denied access to amazon.com and shifted traffic to barnes & noble? they shifted your attempt to reach certain websites. there will would be a massive consumer backlash.

-- such conduct would be condemned. it would not occur in the marketplace. all agree thatd there is enough competition that providers would never engage in that behavior. there are fair debates about whether some of the priority arrangements that can be called or innovative business arrangements, whether those are good or bad and whether there are incentives to engage. a wad of the action in these proceedings will be about prioritization. the is that it is important to understand that there can be good prioritization or bad. it is easy to think of examples of both all stop charming wheeler says that he has priority access to the telephone network stop we should all retain that on the internet. serviceagine a remote

where there is a heart surgeon and a city is consulting with a patient in a remote area of stop let's imagine that application. it would seem logical to prioritize that traffic over other forms of traffic that are less sensitive. at the other end of the spectrum, we all agree that if a broadband provider had exclusive arrangements to prioritize traffic, that would be anti-competitive. the point and the takeaway is that prioritization itself is not inherently good or bad. it depends on the context. ii orr we are under title section 706, the commission has appropriately proposed to judge these things on a case-by-case basis.