internet experts. 90 minutes. --e will call the leaguer leagu hearing to order. i want to thank all the witnesses for being here today a number of ave colleagues coming and going this morning. other a number of hearings and mark-ups, et cetera, going on with action on floor. some of our colleagues will be coming and going. good morning to everyone. we are here to discuss the and network reliability of the ongoing evolution of our nation's communications networks. today the nation's voice networks are in the midst of multiple transitions that change how we communicate. first the transmission that carries voice communication is moving to from reliance on copper

fiberoptics. next circuit switch protocols underpinned g raditional service are transitioning to other systems and many americans are choosing service tute wireless for traditional wired voice communication. may be challenges that consumers, carriers and as ic safety officials face the networks increasingly rely on i.p. technology. for example, in my state, rkansas recently suffered a severe tornado and lost 18 people in that and significant damage. i have heard nothing but very from the hings arkansas department of emergency management and governor's office the local telephone companies reacted during and storm.ately after the i would expect them around the country to continue their to public safety no

matter the technology used. to trust thee come resiliency of the old copper telephone network. they could not wait for a to find out there are gaps in our system. we are exploring the public afety implications of these .rance cysts technology bring potential of new services and possibilities to make our networks more efficient and down costs for consumers. rather than being an impediment is my intention to explore this transition in a thorough challenges, ntify discuss implications and work to rd solutions in advance

to explore thegative implications of the transition trials. it is my hope to these trials that all stakeholders can work together to address any issues revealed in the trials, protect consumers, and preserve public safety. i expect commerce to maintain oversight of the process and the transition of this magnitude deserves nothing less. i wanted thank you for being here. i want to hear your perspective on this discussion. i look forward to your d testimony. >> thank you. concerns preserving reliability. fors hitting home not only

those from arkansas, but those from mississippi new experience devastating storms this year also. in april tornadoes ravaged immunities in the states, causing extensive damage. despite the devastation, we can be thankful for the technology that provided critical information ahead of time. alerting people to take shelter in saving hundreds of fellow citizens. this with action of our weather forecasters and firsters ponders validated the importance of technology and communication when disaster strikes. the modernization of our communications network from to high-speed fiber and wireless broadband is expected to maximize the benefits of networks all americans. these networks will provide more capable and efficient voice services, allow faster and more

transfers and enhance public safety communications like next-generation 911. there will be a host of issues raised when we discuss the transition, but nothing is more him and then ensuring a seamless transition for our first responders. the fcc has moved forward in trials.tive ways in these trials will test, analyze, the impact of moving away from legacy communication networks, particularly regarding public safety. the commission held a workshop in april that focused on the transition possible effects on safety and emergency response

and national security functions. i would like to welcome the fcc chief technology officer and provide -- who provided important expertise to the workshop and is here today to do the same. i welcome the rest of our witnesses who represent a cross-section of stakeholders who -- including consumers who have invested capital and resources to do deployed modern infrastructure. the hearing will be brief. it must be an all hands on deck effort. working together just routinized the transition -- to scrutinize the transition to communications in this country. thank you again for holding this important hearing. >> thank you. i want to thank you and your staff for being flexible,

because we have moved the time here from 10:00 until 9:15 to accommodate schedules, so thank you for doing that. we are going to make a slight change when it comes to the opening statements. there is a presentation which five minutes. we are asking everyone else to limit their remarks to three minutes. let me introduce the whole panel. schulzrinne will be our first witness, and then we will banks, then jodie griffin, and then colette honorable, who is the chairman of the state of arkansas's state public service commission. and introduce -- and ms. gigi

smith. let me recognize you for your presentation. thank you. >> thank you. members of the subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to invite some technical contexts are guarding the transitions you are referring to. i am the chief technology officer for the federal communication commission. i am pleased to discuss the technical foundation for today's topic, but will decline comment on policy. the transition to communication networks based on internet protocols offers opportunity to improve emergency communications unprecedented since the conversion from analog to digital systems in the 1970's and 1980's. these very same changes also

pose new challenges to performance, reliability, and sustainability of emergency communications systems. allou hinted, about 70% of 911 calls originate on a mobile phone today. millionhe 79 residential landline connections in the united states, dirty 4 million are now interconnected million are now interconnected. we can also know longer take for granted that all households have a tv, landline phone with a central office battery backup, or even a battery-powered transistor radio, or say a college student will be watching tv when the emergency alert tone sounds to seek shelter. is transition to i.p. multifaceted and encompasses three layers. at the application layer, voice, video, and text services are enabled by new internet

application protocols instead of number cynical system seven. at the transport layer, ip offers an application neutral mechanism that replaces the old time division multiplex and foundation. the physical layer dominated by copper is integrating fiber, wireless, co-ax, and satellite into a unified whole. however, even as the transition is taking place we should not forget that large parts of the voice network are still using the same technology and hardware evolved and deployed in some cases 30 or 40 years ago. in particular, for public safety, so-called -- trunks, urgently developed operator services. these trunks have played a role in two bank outages in the last few years. spear parts, investment, and expertise is maintained these

legacy networks are becoming scarce. has stated,hairman public safety is one of the core values that must be sustained during the transition to all i see networks. bankank check it -- two technical challenges are backup power and emergency location. no longer will we have access to centralour by the fiber office as has been the case for many years, but there are new technical opportunities to leverage system powers to user exchanger batteries, batteries the look similar to what you might have as backup on your cell phone, or energy efficient network termination devices that will make it possible to sustain uninterrupted medication for both voice and increasingly important for internet services even if commercial power should eat disrupted. the second topic am location

technology, such as gps, has been very successful along with network-based triangulation to locate callers for outdoor 911 calls. unfortunately, both technologies have limitations that make them less than suited when will cut the cord and use wireless calls to call 911. accurate enough, or they do not function at all for example, gps does not work well indoors. however fortunately, the andsition to i.p. network-based technologies is spurring new investments in technologies while not originally designed for location determination, such as medication infrastructure that allows us to greatly improve the reliability and availability of location information.

distributed antenna systems could be used to locate callers inside buildings. in meeting the challenges and leverage the opportunities, all stake heard her -- all stakeholders must work to ensure every 911 call receives the appropriate response, that every american is alerted when danger is imminent, whether using old technology or new technology. thank you. >> good morning, members of the subcommittee. i am the senior vice president for law and policy on u.s. telecom. broadbandom represent companies ranging from some of the largest companies in the u.s. to some of the smallest cooperatives and family-owned providers in rural america.

they serve some of the most rural areas of the country as well as the most urban and use a broad range of technologies, including broadband and internet protocol. to begin i would like to note the recent tragedy caused by a strong tornado that touched down in little rock in april. it caused substantial loss -- loss of life and damage. polls were blown down, facilities damaged, and cell towers struck. one local carrier was somehow able to keep a switch up and running any building that lost its walls to the tornado's wins and suffered brain damage. this storm illustrates that the network is or can be 100% coordinatedt a well response in arkansas networks up and running relatively quickly. careful preparation for emergencies can make a huge difference in the effect on networks and

the customers they serve. our industry has long participated in emergency readiness planning with government partners, and we will continue to do so. the transition to modern rock band networks promises enormous benefits to our country. saysational broadband plan building these networks is the right challenge of our time. the communications industry is stepping up to the plate, 685 dollarsout billion in the last decade in interchurch or, with about $70 billion being invested last year. navigatethat as we through this transition there are key values that cannot be left behind. describes these as making up a network compact between communications providers networkpublic. reliability and public safety are essential elements to this compact, and our key values of our industry. our industry has a long history of working with governments, attila the emissions, -- utility

commissions, and industry standards bodies on these issues. we have been working with partners to understand the transition to broadband and ip services for well over a decade. i will provide a brief summary of some of these efforts in the testimony. i would like to reiterate our commitment to working with this committee and our full range of partners to ensure that the promise of barn band connectivity and the power of robustrvices deliver capabilities that will empower them for the 21st century. thank you. >> thank you. members of the subcommittee. take you for inviting me to testify today. i am a senior staff attorney at public knowledge and organization that advocates for the public access to knowledge. the phone network transition present tremendous potential

advantages, but we need to make sure these transitions result in -- in a meaningful step forward. americans trust the phone network. we conduct our business and indications assuming the phone network will just work because it always has. airing emergencies, we can call for help from police, firefighters, and hospitals. in the rare instance any part of the system breaks down, local state and federal authorities intervened as a -- as if our lives depend on it. they do. vote, the a unanimous fcc recognized our phone network aussies must serve certain basic entering values, and public safety and national security, you never saw access, and consumer protection. our policies in the network transition must serve these values. this focus on reliability, but the visitation will always

involve the rest of the compact. when you need to make an emergency, what you need is a reliable network make that call. sherson cannot call 911 if does not have phone service in the first place, and if she lives in a rural area she may waste resource time trying to get to -- connected. you technologies do not always need critical needs. we all have already seen reports of wireless carriers providing insufficient locate the data or in the event of a power outage, services will require battery backup unlike self-powered copper lines and wireless services will be useless if cell towers lose power. reliability is so firmly ingrained in the network now many consumers may assume new technologies will give them the same guarantees they have in the existing network. if the customer does not really are is -- realize that it may need power backup, he cannot prepare for a long outage.

it is could a goal to ensure the fcc has the authority to serve fundamental values. in light of their recent ruling from the ac circuit, policymakers must make sure rules are made to provide basic service even after a network has moved to i.p. hase clear, no one suggested we should hold back on technology. the question is how to make the technology work for all of the 300 million people who rely on the network everyday. the underlying technology a be changing, but he essential services and consumers' expectations remain the same, and policies must reflect that. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. members of the, subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the i.p. transition and its impact on

public safety and network resiliency. have the honor of serving as chairman of the arkansas public service commission, and i'm especially honored to appear here before my senior senator, whom i think is an outstanding public server. i'm justifying in my role as president of the national association of regulatory utility commissioners. i applaud the subcommittee for only this hearing, which is focused on the proper question, which is, which public policy values should be preserved? what consumers care about is their telecommunications work and are reliable, regardless of the technology used to provide them. as we transition from traditional circuit switched technologies to and i.p. and wireless basis, federal and state policy makers must work together to ensure emergency 911 services and network resilience do not suffer. the book safety is indeed a core value that should not and cannot be compromised. as senator pryor and ranking

member wicker know that the tornadoes were a reminder how important these efforts are to ensure the resilience of our critical infrastructure and the safety of our citizenry. onlypril tornadoes not took the lives of many, but damaged hundreds of homes in one county alone. i'm pleased with the covering and restoration efforts included the immediate response our governor, the arkansas department of emergency responders,first and emergency personnel, and utility and telecommunications sectors. two large towers were destroyed throughout the affected area. quickly,ers responded bringing in mobile towers that help to return some level of service. while the situation is devastating, it could have been worse. superstorm sandy demonstrated the frailty of our inner structure, knocking out power

days and we, adding off telecommunications networks. while new i.p. systems can be more efficient and traditional landline services, a do not have the same backup power capabilities as the older networks. circuit-switched technologies are supported by a robust and dependent power sources, and continue to function during prolonged outages. many of the new ip systems rely on a backup power. the spec of units are indeed the responsibility of the consumer and therefore it is important that consumers are educated and are aware about these issues and of they can prolong the life their infrastructure at home. as more consumers switch to i.p. based systems, we must ensure that the technologies provide the same kind of support, or that consumers are where they may not. in conclusion, what is important are the values we apply to the communications network, not the technology used to deliver it.

the fcc chairman has found four universal values. while technology may change, the expectations of consumers do not. consumers expect the same quality of service, reliability, and access to emergency service to which they have grown accustomed. of when hurricanes, tornadoes, or unleashedsasters distractive forces, they do not discriminate between a copper, fiber, or wireless network. it is for this reason we policy makers should not discriminate in applying our values. these values must be applied insistently and in a technology-neutral manner, especially when it relates to public safety. thank you for this opportunity, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> good morning, members of this company best of the

subcommittee. -of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me back to testify on another important public safety matter. our members field 911 calls and manage the indications networks used by first responders. i have been tagged it in public safety for over 28 years, now serving as the operations manager for the salt lake valley communications center in utah. i bring a perspective of an association focused on how technology shifts, including i.p. transition. the i.p. will bring a number of benefits. we are embracing efforts to bring i.p. technologies by supporting the first net network driving next-generation 911 deployment and ensuring the moment the most effective apps.

i would like to basically mention a few considerations regarding the impact of the i.p. transition on public safety. first, i.p. based networks must be reliable. supporting access between dispatchers and first responders and communications in centers and first responder agencies. second, i.p. networks present new former abilities. service providers should incorporate security procedures and mitigation strategies to best protect the safety communications. copper networks are self-powered, whereas i.p. networks rely on power from the consumer electric grid. considergns needed battery backup and other plants. i.p. networks must paint a quality publication -- must maintain a quality location

capability. i.p. transitions in the safety community will be more gradual than for non-public safety networks. additional funding at the national level would support more rapid adoption of next generation technology and help public safety keep peace with the industry's transition. some service providers are for or may require wireless replacements to land lines. we need to preserve existing levels of 911 service in these cases. we believe the i.p. transition holds great promise. apco looks forward to work with stakeholders to guide the best path forward. they could, and i look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you. let me start with you, if i may come and pick up where wms. smith left off. as we move forward, does it make sense that 911 service is more

of a federal function or a state , i think specifically we all recognize how important 911 service is, what a great success it has been, but as we have transitioned to a i.p. ba sed, how do we make sure our 911 service preserves integrity? >> the community believes it is a proper state function. i believe the success we have enjoyed so far has been because of the ability of the states to work very nimbly and with lex ability within their borders to not only coordinate and have oversight, but also to respond emergent situations. when i think back over the severe weather events we've had over the past few years, and we've had many, as many of the ofbers have, the ability

first responders of our state department of emergency management of our governor's offices, local and county officials, as well as the state public utility commissioners to participate very aggressively with coordination efforts, even at high levels than ever before, it is imperative that we have the ability to respond quickly, that we have the ability to oversee 911 efforts locally, because the goal is safety. the ultimate goal is public safety, and insurance that we use every tool to respond as promptly as possible in the best way. way is to ensure that occurs at the state level. >> are there states that would have laws that prohibit the to do 911 requirements on in i.p. system? are you aware of any? >> i'm not. there are other state prohibitions with regard to

telecommunications services, more broadly. many states have undergone deregulation. certainly, the 911 core functions are carried out at the state and local levels. banks, i have a concern about going to i.p. there's great innovation with this and a lot of good things with it. i do not want to say it is all bad. experience in our that when a lots of people are on the internet, sometimes it runs slower, and we talked about that power, the need for electricity, and electricity goes out, you lose your power. that in awe resolve 911 world or when there is an emergency or some crisis that too many people get on the system? how do we make sure as to go forward and we do not have that problem? there is always an issue

around disasters when networks can be overloaded, and that can be a wireless network, traditional copper, or another network. i think the first thing that puts us in a better position for all this than we were a decade or two ago is there are multiple networks throughout the country, people can use their traditional wireline network, a neighbor might be on a cable network, there are four more wireless networks, and 90% of americans have at least one mobile phone in the home. there are these multiple networks people can turn to. if any one network is overloaded, that does not mean no one can get through to 911. but fundamentally, you're asking a good question about designing robustness into these systems, and that is a challenge for our industry, the wireless cable industries, and the public safety community to work together to make sure that there

number oft trunks, backups, and overflow systems. this is one of these challenges we are working through at this transition and working through in a publicapco safety commission, with the fcc, we are focused on them. >> senator wicker? >> thank you. let me ask about the transition between the copper line networks and the i.p., fiber. it obviously all does not happen at once. there is a lag there. let me start with mr. banks. areas,tial geographic and, therefore, substantial numbers of individuals will be living in areas that will continue to be served by copper, which we call tdm, and others will be in the transition to i.p. areas.

how will providers and/or members ensure that these communities will maintain the withty to communicate areas served by all i.p. networks? >> thank you. i think customers you're talking about, the tdm, or the old-fashioned copper customers, are all customers of the members of u.s. telecom. there are customers -- they are our customers. our company has every intention to make sure those people can call whoever you want and when people call them that those calls go through. commitment is there. i think there are occasional unfortunate rural call completion issues that your question probably touches on. but our members who serve these people every day are going to make sure that those calls can go through for the next -- for however long it takes to get through the i.p. transition. >> do you need help from

congress in that regard? >> there is a substantial effort at the fcc to understand some of these rural call completion efforts going on, and the fcc is getting get across the industry. so i think we are very involved in that and the provision of data. we need to see the outcome of that fcc investigation. >> we tossed this topic to you, to stir shulzlzrinne. are there connected challenges in this incremental area by area phase out? >> yes, i believe there are. the challenges are always when you have an old technology and a new technology. the danger is investment in the old technology lags and that there are complexities incurred because you need to interconnect the old technology to the new technology. i briefly mentioned the trunk problem, where even in areas now served by i.p., for example,

cable customers are on voiceless i.p. systems, they still reached these legacy trunks which are capacity limited, that are brittle, poorly maintained, in terms of their vendor support, and very few people still understand how they operate. the transition i believe in many cases, it happens faster across the network, can prevent these types of interactions. for the call completion issues, aselieve the opportunities, we transition to i.p. based condition, as opposed to tdm, that the number of places where things can go wrong decreases. similarly, the commission has started an effort as part of its investigation of telephone numbering to improve the data bases which at least in some

cases are implicated in making it difficult to route calls to destinations and lead to call failures. >> to our friends at the state regulatory level have any insights to offer in this regard? >> yes, sir, senator wicker. yes, we do, thank you. event engaged with the fcc, even at the highest levels. i personally met with chairman wheeler about the i.p. transition issue, and i want to applaud fcc for engaging the states. they recognize we have significant roles to play in aiding in a smooth transition, and we have been particularly interested and concern about our part about ensuring a smooth transition. and we hope to watch with great trials, and wep. have been following and working with the fcc and its staff to ensure that state regulars are involved, offering feedback.

again, the ultimate goal we share is the same, and it is ensure public safety, but also from a regulatory perspective, ensuring the same tenets we have come to know, the same quality of service, the same ability for consumers cap option now the, and for them to have consumer protection as well. >> thank you, all. >> thank you. klobuchar? cobur >> if there's anything anyone does concerned about, it is public safety, and we need to make sure that these new technologies are functional. there are many opportunities, firefighters walking into a building that will maybe be able to seek immediate blueprints or video of what is in there, and they getminnesotans stranded on snowmobiles when they break down, and their only hope is to have some kind of a gps system if they are lost.

we have seen some good rescues actually because of technology, but we know there are are also channel edges. -- challenges. i continue to be an advocate for the point our community technology and this modern technology in our efforts. other members, we've been concerned about call completion. it will not help if people are making 91 calls of they cannot complete them, and this is especially a problem in the rural areas. what i wanted to know from the perspective, if you have been supporting actions of the fcc. they just issued a new consent decree announced yesterday with matrix telecom, and can you expand on how this issue is of a concern to public safety if we cannot complete the calls? >> thank you for the question.

thank you for your concern also. on both points that you have mentioned, one, regarding public safety. issuehurricane sandy, an -- particularly among the utility and telecommunications anfor some time with operating within our own silos, but the lessons we learned from that there is a strong symbiotic relationship between both utility sectors and telecommunications. they need one another. the telecom sector cannot do an effective job without the electric infrastructure and electric infrastructure cannot communicate and get the aspect on without a strong elegant occasions effort to restore service once there has been a interruption. we have been very active there, particularly on call completion, the second issue you raise. we also issued resolutions on call completion. we commend the fcc's efforts,

even on yesterday, with regard to that decree. this is such an important issue. the calls have to go through. lives are on the line, and we recognize that, and we are very committed to continuing to raise these issues and aiding where we can as state regulators making sure that we see this through, because lives depend on it. >> thank you. i appreciate your help on this as well. text totarting to see 911 service being launched in sunday we maybe able to see video to 911 services. you view thew do potential for these innovations, and how well they i.p. help or hinder these efforts? what is the balancing act we need to see to ensure that the new networks have what they need to provide the service? >> there is a doubting act, and this is an exciting transition.

for me personally, being a manager you of a 911 center, it is exciting to see what the future lies ahead, to be able to have these resources for my responders and be able to offer them the information that is needed. with the balancing act, there are pros and concerns. the concerns and challenges as we mentioned earlier come with we need to have reliability and we need to have security. we need to ensure that those citizens canp so call in and reach 911 and get the help they need. we also need to be aware of security issues. there's cyber security to be aware of. so that our systems are not taken down, but we know they are reliable, they are they are when they are going to be needed. spectrume passed the act, i included an amendment that would allow revenue from the incentive option that was

not allocated to paying down the toicit to go next-generation 911 upgrades including applications. we expect the option to take place next year. i know we hope the action raises these revenue to provide resources to grade our 911 systems. what other federal resources are available to help peace out as they work to get this evolution to ip going? >> funding is an important question. i do not have the answer specifically as what other findings are available. i can look into that and we can respond back. i would like to say that funding is important, inasmuch as i know my own center, we just went through where we are now able to connect with ip. i know how much we spent, just under $400,000. that is just for the equipment

only. that does not include training, personnel, any other equipment going to come with it. approximately 6000 pieces out there come across the nation, there will be a necessary cost that we understand, we are appreciative that those funding sources may come and will be coming later, but at the same time we need to have something immediate in order to ensure the public safety does not lag behind and we can keep up with the industry. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator johnson? >> thank you. i apologize for not being here for all the testimony. it looks like your testimony has more of the numbers. i want to try and define the problem here. we're talking about transition from copper to i.p. how much has already been transitioned? how much do we have left to go? >> i would say that if you look

across america's households, about 25% still have regular copper-typed pots, phone service. i would say the vast majority of americans, businesses have switched to i.p. bae systems. access toy have easy upgrade, to make the transition? or is that 25% just a problem? >> no,l n no. much of that 25% has a cable system below or could switch to wireless. the upgrade paths are those homes to go to i.p. depends very much on where they are, in some of the more rural areas. it is a longer-term issue. >> what percentage of people that have not transition is the real problem, where we have to be concerned about? you have made significant investments, $71 billion into

the infrastructure, but what percent is really the problem? >> that is a difficult number to the fcc, but having follow through on the right universal service form to ensure to makeservice reform sure that the people who have the older networks and rural -- in rural areas, there is a business reason to change. >> technology perspective, somewhat different circumstances. is is where only tdm available. that is a relatively small number of places, but they exist where no robust i.p. networks exist. and particularly, where not all world telecom offer i.p. services. >> are we talking about 1%? 10%? of magnitude, i

would say it is probably in the 5%-ish range. >> we are talking about a 5% problem. where problem is also one a number of consumers have chosen to retain a landline because the value of the futures of the landline three one carrier has recently offered a 911 service on its traditional landline for a relatively modest fee to address consumers that want to retain those or do not want to subscribe to cable service. >> there has been some discussion. action as to how we are going to regulate broadband. anybody on the table really want to regulate rock band -- broadband in the telecom roles? i assume nobody wants to do that? >> i would say that i think that values that underline the phone

network apply just as much as we move to the next generation of documentation services in broadband. at think that how those rules work may be a little different than how we have done in the phone network because it is a different technology and operates differently. but at the end of the day, we want everybody to have access to what the basic service is, and as that moves to broadband we need to make sure we still have roles that are ensuring everybody has access to that too. >> in your testimony, it sounds not necessarily believing the broadband companies have an incentive to make sure that the majority of the calls go through and that you think government -- is that your position? do you need government to force broadband providers to make sure that their service is excellent? >> i think we have seen some reports where there have been failures, like cases in the world all completion, and the

lesson is that even in situations where there may not be any bad actors, new technologies can create situations where nobody really has an incentive to absolutely guarantee that call goes through. >> you think government can guarantee every call goes through? if it does not work often, don't you think customers will switch to a different company? don't you think competition will do a better job than having the government guarantee that, which i do not think it would do? >> into many areas competition does not exist or is not robust enough to guarantee that people are going to have a meaningful choice, particularly if they are using a hot monitor and they need to switch to a wireless service, but it would not support the heart monitor. so i think that the central

promise of the phone network is when you make a call it goes through. and that should be the goal of the government, to make sure that we are fulfilling that promise. >> i'm running out of time, but would you like to respond? the vast majority of americans have multiple choices for how they communicate, and that interconnection is part of how the whole industry works. so completing calls is essential to any company being able to sell voice service. this on the wireline side. on the wireless hide, the government does not get involved, and interconnection happens in the free market there. there's no reason to think it would not happen throughout the rest of the industry. >> thank you. >> senator ayotte? >> thank you. i want to thank you for being here. i want to follow up on some of the points that senator johnson was making.

so as i understand it, the purpose of the universal service fund is really to build out capacity. it used to be hard lines. now we are looking at rock band because of what we are talking about today in terms of technology. that getst a state really shortchanged under this fund. $.37 on the dollar. i would love to have any of you drive around new hampshire with the in the rural areas and you could see that we really do have very much needs that are not being addressed. i've introduced legislation to make it more equitable, to reform this fund. i want the fcc to act further chore for what happens when universal service. mr. banks, when we are thinking about this percentage that mr. about, reallyyou what we are talking about perhaps is areas where rural

areas, where you are not going incentivee business to build out capacity, and that as i understand it was why we have the universal service fund. what is your thought in terms of of. transition as a way really i think hopefully more effectively using the universal service fund, and what opportunities do you see for rural america with universal service fund and this ip transition? correct me if i'm wrong in terms of what i think the purpose of this fund is, in terms of what we're trying to, here. >> you're absolutely right. of the fund is to connect americans. the fcc is engaged in a major reform of a big art of that fund, the part of the fund for larger companies, and increasing the funding available to larger companies to serve people who would not be served otherwise. is so working to

implement that, to operationalize it. hopefully that will be in place by 2015. and for the larger companies, once will flow in a much more targeted way, more funds, to connecting people in census walks where they have no other options for service. >> as we think about the transition, how will it impact competition? also as we look at reform of the usf fund. i've heard concerns from the rural areas. >> part two is reforming the rural company fund. the fcc, chairman wheeler, he has taken some off the table and will issue a notice of

rulemaking to modernize the fund for rural carriers. that is a big deal and very important to get that right. in terms of rural carriers and many ruralansition, carriers have invested heavily in broadband and fiber and i.p. in many rural areas i.p. services are available. the fund should help a lot with that. >> would you like to comment on this? i'm sure you have some thoughts on it. >> let me comment on the technical aspect. they can for your question. transition, unlike in the older days where he extendly rural -- had to copper lines to remote areas, now offers several choices that will make it hopefully possible to cost effectively reach all americans, whether that is through fiber, the long-term preferred option in terms of

capability, extending the capability of copper, fixed wireless, and in a really remote areas, satellite. it is important to provide robust broadband to all americans that allows modern applications of voice as well as video and other applications to function well. indeed, to explore these technologies in new ways of providing broadband robust services as part of the reform effort, as mr. banks mentioned, we are looking at an experiment to provide funding to both traditional and nontraditional providers to extend broadband into rural areas. we received over 1000 interest from a wide variety of revisions, ike utilities, additional carriers, activities working with these organizations to explore writing robust, mostly fiber, but also robust wireless services into

areas that are not currently being served. i believe that is getting an additional opportunity to do that cost effectively and on a schedule which may be more aggressive than what we have been able to do in the past where we had to rely on one technology only. >> that would be good news for many rural areas, because as you know, having the ability to connect can determine the economic viability of rural areas as well. this is a very important jobs issue. thank you. >> senator nelson? hurricane approaches, knocks out the power, somebody is in dire straits in their home, and they need to make a 911 call. thathe copper wire, power source is there.

fiber optic, there's generally got to be a power source in the house or a battery backup. what do we do? ms. smith? >> yes, that is very important. thank you for the question. there's going to be a paradigm, a change. are consumers are used to that, used to picking up the phone and it works for them. i think a lot is going to have to come back on education, and that is going to have to be from the industry and both on the -- ourselves to educate the consumers, how important that backup power is going to become whether that be as we in public safety call our plan b, meaning we have those sources available to us, whether that be supplied with equipment or whether i'm no -- whether i know mike ullman well, i know if it takes an extra battery and how i'm going to the charge that area, that

that is so important to bring to their attention so that they know what the expectation is, and they note that there could have those challenges at of them so they can reach out when they need it. . >> you have a lot of educating to do. if it is anything like the smoke detectors and the batteries in smoke detectors -- >> think about how stressed you are now when you have your smartphone, your cell phone, and you see that the battery is getting low and you have no where to plug it in. imagine it in an emergency you need to make that phone, you need help, and you do not have the power necessary. so to be able to educate and put information out there, but to ensure that the industry is creating what is necessary, whether it be in this battery packs they are putting is a homes or making this available to the customer so they can have those in the time of need. >> anybody else? >> let me comment on that from a technology perspective reflate.

-- briefly. the opportunities that industries are learning, based on consumer he experience, partially, it could help to make for less onerous and it is a smoke detectors, for examples. unlike for smoke detectors from devices use rechargeable batteries, so in those cases they should be charged. often the duration they provide may be sufficient to bridge short disruptions, but not longer disruption. i believe and this is reflected in some of the comments that our technological advisory council has been offering is that there are opportunities for example with user exchangeable battery so you can go to write direct store and pick up cells, and some carriers are starting to do that. where standardized connectors that can be used as a cap asked that some people have on their cell phone to power their own importantly, and

to reduce the power consumption of network units, that has two that is. it reduces energy in normal times, but allows households is disdain operations, -- to sustain operations for much longer duration than we are able to do. a good suggestion from a technological standpoint. for example, with an elderly population, the easier that you can make it to recharge those batteries, for example, what you just digested, -- suggested, thing wekind w of do with cell phones, that interconnect ability so that a senior citizen knows what to do, that is a good suggestion.

thank you. >> thank you. >> senator markey? to you,urn it over senator nelson. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when the years ago congress passed the telecommunications act of 1996. and note house author, one home in america have 1996.and in february of so today a 12-year-old believes that broadband and a 50-inch h.d. screen is a constitutional right. that is the way it moves. know out ofly, we my committee we moved the sixth cellr the phone license. it was bottled up so that a couple of companies controlled

everything, and you could not have a facebook or ebay. you cannot have those issues because they were bottled up i by companies that did not want to see that competition and what we had to do is see that competition and consumer growth and a trillion dollars of private sector investment went into the marketplace because of those laws, because there was more opportunity for people to get out there with their new ideas, their new products, their new ways of doing business but they needed the government to set the rules so the private and theould act principal definition of the act that everything was going to be technology neutral. we weren't going to decide, the marketplace was going to decide. so we need to make sure that the is reliable, we have to make sure that public safety remains at the core and we have the phonere that

network works every single time. we learned that again at the bombing in boston. we each learn it in each one of our communities over and over again. ms. griffin, what implications the d.c. safety does circuit's net neutrality decision have for the transition to i.p. >> thank you. that court decision has tremendous implications for the phone network and the i.p. transition. lesson that we can take from it is that if the f.c.c. has put into the information service box in terms of its classifications, the one thing it can't do is make it act like the phone network and that becomes a huge problem when service we're talking about is the phone network. can't -- if the f.c.c. can't require carriers to complete every call and make that we have complete reliability in the phone network reclassifying these

iivices as title telecommunications services, that's what it needs to do to authority.f of its >> ms. griffin, the chairman is wem florida but how should evaluate the results of at&t's i.p. trials in florida and alabama? success look like? >> i think successful trials have be trials that rigorously and objectively collected data that, on a of parameters, that's designed to inform us about these new technologies so we example, what is the impact on voice quality, what is on reliability, and trials that do so transparently protectinue to consumers throughout the trials so that even though this is an experiment and we're learning, safeguards to know that people won't be left behind during the trial. >> thank you. are concerns that the impactansition will

vulnerable populations, including seniors, minorities, disproportionately, who rely upon traditional telephone service. have to be taken to the broadband services and other services are provided to the public age or economic circumstances? does anyone want to take that? they can give us an answer as that. we should do >> senator markey, thank you for the question. thelieve and certainly national association of regulatory utility commissioners has been very engaged with the on this issue and i believe that a very broad processder involvement is critical, it's critical to make sure that we leave no consumers on the side of the road, particularly where so many have substantial rural areas, significant senior

significant minority populations. all-hands-on-deck is part ofd naruc the process going forward. >> some people say that because we're moving towards mobile, we of't have to keep a lot protections on the books from act for the land based wire line services. what are the potential unintended consequences of removing protections that were 1996 act? the >> well, i think first of all, call or a's a mobile land line call, when someone places a phone call, they expect and a lot of times they're expecting the exact same theantees they had on traditional copper network even if they're making the call via wireless network. networks rely on wire-line networks for their backbone service so we can't wire line just because more people have cell phones and differential, 100 million people have traditional copper

based service and 85 million of those people have it in addition to another type of voice service, usually wireless. because wenk that's like playing two bills, i think that's because we get linections from land services we don't get elsewhere. >> do you all agree we should protections from the books?t on the >> yes, from our perspective, the network exact idea that articulatedeler has is something we believe in and defining those and figuring out apply them to everyone is a challenge. >> thank you all so much. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much. i have a few more questions and then i think we're going to be joined by senator booker. our public alert systems are crucial to making sure that the of anyis notified oncoming danger. in my state, it is very because of tornadoes. we actually have a lot of minnesota.chdowns in

mr. schulzrinne -- how do you again? >> schulzrinne. >> it's almost as good as my name. will public alert systems operate in an i.p. enabled world? so, public alert systems, currently we have essentially a system between a traditional system and emergency that uses radio and television largely, the wireless limited to short messages and a backbone system that is behind the scenes that distributes messages both. i believe, as we move to a mostly i.p. environment, that components will continue to be fulfilling a vital role but we can supplement those. in particular, the limitations that we have for the wireless emergency alert system, short

messages, may no longer be necessary in all i.p. environments and importantly we can now leverage new ideas on to distribute alerts. for example, since many people watch tv or listen to continuously, we have the opportunity to inject alerts internet content, be it video streaming or maybe through that might networks be placing -- people might be viewing so we have to see that integrated system that is available regardless of maintains the legacy protections and capabilities, as robust inose are large-scale disaster in particular but also provides a more precise targeting and much more detailed information. to not, it's important just think about first minute or important, as as

they are, but also to think about the whole life cycle of a disaster. example, during sandy, it was important to inform theymers as to where could get gasoline, where could they find grocery stores that were passable. roads were all of those were much more conveyed by maps and i.p. based information so we need to integrate the longer recovery functions with the very important short-term seek typeer immediate response of capabilities. >> thank you. about how wehere can see failure with i.p. over duringparticularly natural disasters, and that depending on the situation, copper technology can be more effective. mr. banks, what can be done to ensure that people are able to communicate effectively via i.p. technology? do you do you think the

to copper is the answer? >> there is a life cycle to this. preparedness is important and there are sites that our industry contributes to that can help people think through what they first. do alerting is very important, reliability and restoration. we've talked a lot about copper the advantage it has in powering which is significant advantage but we shouldn't overlook that fiber has some advantages. fiber is generally a more reliable technology and less prone to going out and in general, fiber is quicker to than copper so when a tree falls over on a power line line, if the phone line's fiber, it's quicker to restore than copper so it is a balancing act here and i think recognize that the copper

network and the switches that run it are deteriorating. there aren't people making those switches. there is not a real market for spare parts. people are retiring -- copperyou aware of the theft issue? >> there's the copper theft issue, yes, very driven by copper.rice of so the movement to -- know that senator graham and i have a bill to try to do something about it? we've worked with your staff and senator graham's staff and are active with state groups. know your copper's gone until you pick up the phone and it doesn't work. illustrating that disasters, there's a large range of disasters and it's hard to all of this but the movement to fiber is important and i think it's really consumer education. the f.c.c. has a group devoted studying backup power best practices, how best to inform consumers of things. like we need it's

to work together on doing the education and understanding the benefits of the transition. the copper to fiber? >> yeah. copper theft. >> we really want to get that bill passed because it's not just about telephone lines. it's also about buildings and infrastructure and they've broken into a lot of electric companies. we have substantial support from group and we're working with the veterans seennity because we've thefts from veterans, graves, medals on the graves. some just this past week because of the value of copper and the scrap metal dealer's lobby is stopping the bill on the floor has put a hold on it. do to help, wen appreciate it. it requires a check be written, it's over $100, the purchase, so police can track who it is that's bringing

the copper in. many states have those rules in place but a number of states don't and so what people are copper fromaling whatever source, electric companies, telephone lines, veterans' graves, and bringing it to other states that don't have the rules in place and it's the an outrage and that bill won't go through given the widespread support we have from the business community and others so i'm talking about it every day until people start to the kind of bill that's hoevansan with senator and schumer and others. i see senator booker is here and i'm going to turn it over to him. you. >> thank you so much, senator. i want to thank you all for being here. forgive me for running in late but i think this is a critically important issue that we're -- discussing and senator i think your issue is an

incredibly important one. i could tell you stories about from my days as a mayor. super storm sandy came into my folks in the new jersey and new york area are very familiar with it and the communication networks and witnessed firsthand were particularly severe during experiencedd we power outages and wireless and wereline services unavailable due to flooding and other storm conditions. as this technology transitions move forward, i think it's paramount that we have reliable, consistent access to these critical safety resources like and others which i'm sure are very familiar with all of this. crystal clear in the experiences we saw in my region in places like fire york, isnew -- island, new

how technology transitions can impact consumers in ways that's not always evident at the outset and there have been a lot of very strong feelings about this. the first question would be, simply, do you agree that there are many instances in which a copper network must be maintained because i.p. services needs aret all of the consumers? and that's a really open question to the panel. >> thank you. toould say that we need maintain the protections of the network that is we have now as newe figuring out what the technologist tech -- technologies are and what opportunities we have to make they're serving the same values as the existing network did. mentioned, after fire island,dy, in verizon decided to replace its with fixedork wireless service and there was an outcry from everybody because they realizednd

the service wasn't as good as what they had with the copper service. had heart monitors, security systems, internet access that they lost because fixed wireless service didn't offer it and luckily the f.c.c. and the state commission least were able to step in and protect consumers and verizon is now pulling in fiber instead but we need to make sure consumers know the differences between the technologies are and are prepared for outages. public safety view is that it's so important to maintain ms. griffin, on exactly what they get now. it needs to be seamless moving to the transition. safety ispublic concerned, we are excited about the future and look to see the improvements, anything, the capabilities to improve communications is so important but currently, absolutely, we need to maintain what the ourctations are from

consumer. >> and maintaining that means maintaining the copper, correct? or no? if that means maintaining -- >> you can push your button, please? i'm sorry. if that means maintaining it at this point, yes, but knowing as future approaches that we need to look at the capabilities on what we can do to improve. thoughts?er >> senator, thank you for the naruc would concur. our core objective is safety and people wehe safety of serve and to respond to some of -- tenets you mentioned in your remarks, coordination is important. we've learned so much from hurricane sandy. our national utility commissioners issued a callingon after sandy for better coordination, not only with regard to mutual utilities and how the have traditionally worked, what do we do in response to a storm magnitude as hurricane

sandy, what are we doing to educate the people and we believe that we are technology platformo whatever the might be, the consumer comes to expect a certain level of ofvice, a certain level quality of service, certain consumer protections and we support continuing that. we also support preparedness therts, coordinating among electric sector, the telecom sector, the departments of response throughout the country, county and local officials. we also, too, want to ensure reliability. that's our core mission as regulators, ensuring affordableble and service. >> we all have the same ambitions and goal, my concern into hurricane season again, which means the gulf coast and the east coast could weather event,or stressdo we -- are we

testing, how are we sure as we go through this transition, that vulnerableve more communities that can find themselves, again, as a guy who of withhe trenches sort my first responders trying to deal with this crisis, it really a difference between life and death. and so my worry is not that we -- that we're not all affirmatively desirous of the same thing, but what are we doing during this time of transition to ensure that we get the result that we all want? >> senator, i believe the work we're doing is the work we doin advance, the work we proactively in arkansas, as i'm sure it is in new jersey, we work proactively around table top exercises. participate in one this month in which we are very focused on continuity of operations efforts and ramping range of potentials so it is a hurricane in your part of the country, for us, tornadoes.orms and

and any other severe weather event that might occur as well the grid oracks on disruptions to the grid but we believe that the core effort has be proactive. >> i agree. sorry to interrupt, and had the privilege and pleasure of being in your state this weekend and damage inhe tornado mayflower. i guess, to be more specific, question, anybody on the panel can pick this up, is that us to be doing conversions that are creating we could beat anticipating and that we, or frankly, could, be helping us to avoid and so in mannalockin and fire island, we made a switch that proved far less reliable, particularly crisis.mer understand,ing is i

my team's gone through our table exercises ad nauseam as you should do when you're in the field and dealing from an position, at local government, but i guess my concern is on this technology transfer, a transition, how do we make sure that we're avoiding seeing we'rere creating a situation that's ripe area crisis to emerge, how we not deciding not to do that do thating not to transition from copper, for example. >> thank you for the interesting question. let me address it from two technical perspectives. inothers have alluded to principle, rain and fiber are much better combination than water and copper. long term, i believe, particularly in gladding prone goal should be that we have a fiber dominated network simply because it will function even when flooded. the other aspect is that as their utilityan

infrastructure, considering utilities, particularly as they transition probably maked infrastructure much more reliable. so coordinating -- and this is long-term perspective, as we do road repairs and road work, particularlyties, fiber based utilities, are one's type ofig policies, coordination between communication providers and the department of public works so that conduits are buried when up, that,opened besides opening up new opportunity for higher bandwidth also, i believe, will facilitate the deployment of much more robust that is notre susceptible to wind damage and is much more resilient when in.r comes flooding >> ok. allow me to push forward, if i can, with one more question with the permission of the chair. one of the things i'm concerned penetration, then,

of those changes, and i agree technology shifts, ultimately, i think i'm in concurrence with what you're that's the ultimate goal. during the time of transition, i'm worried about holes or gaps, that way of go down this idea of the penetration equallyeing, sort of applied, you know, access to to me, a great democratizing force in our society. is powerful in terms of being a ladder for social and economic mobility. but right now there are significant discrepancies in the and availability of a lot of these technologies such lower income in communities so i'm concerned that these communities are often vulnerable populations and they're often adversely affected by technology transitions so the is what can we do -- what should we be doing to voice andt reliable

broadband services are delivered ofthe public regardless economic background or geography in a i can just jump little bit. i think it's really two questions. is the rural question, how can you get these facilities that are very very ruraluilt in areas. and that, the f.c.c. and a number of states have universal service funds to help get that infrastructure built. the other question, the adoption really a question that there has been a lot of ntia,of, whether it's at the next, states, pugh, many seems to be aere real consensus that there are a couple of barriers to adoption. or as having a computer smartphone. does a family have those? important.s there are, for whatever reason, a chunk of americans who believe the internet does not offer value to them and, you know, an with them isort

important. there are a lot of programs for adoption. is considering helping to fund or create an erate program for broadbands so there is a lot going on that illustrates the adoption issue in america. >> so you're saying that the research is showing that the issue, some of it has to do to lack ofruser's appreciation or access to some or to smartptops phones but some of your answer indicates it is on us, as well, we're not getting to the end user in the way that we could be? areas itnly in rural is a challenge to build networks where there are very, very few that's where the availability gap would be. shortfall -- i'm looking for action steps to address this -- there's a lot of withrsations i'm having folks trying to make cheap studentsvailable for

and really exciting things going on but on getting the technology end user, give me your sort of unbiased appreciation of the universal service funds. the resources necessary to take on that end of is assue and if not, what more realistic approach? theell, the f.c.c. is in middle of reforming the usf fund it more efficient and more focused so i think if they andget that operationalized in the field, we'll really be able to see if there's enough money in that fund. there's about $4.5 billion in that'sh cost fund devoted to expanding availability. >> could you just, for a senator of new, can you tell me what some of the issues that you're working on to make that efficient? >> how best to target funding, how best to identify areas that the funding, versus

areas that can get by without it. fund is an old fund that alicates money in unusual ways. a much more targeted fund with a cost model. ways sounds like a euphemism. >> the old fund was built on a of implicit subsidies that were not well quantified and the fund itself, particularly for the larger statewidewas based on averages so that you could have a state with dense areas that on itrage would seem like didn't need funding although there were parts of the state that could be very rural that did need funding so we're trying to target the funding much more accurately now. >> i'm grateful. thank you very much. >> very good. i want to thank our witnesses senator pryor for holding this hearing and senator we will keep the

record open for two weeks for questions. it was really interesting workssion with a lot more to do and the hearing is adjourned. thank you to our witnesses. [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national 2014]satellite corp. and british obama prime minister david cameron held a joint news conference g7 meeting ine brussels. the president discussed the prisoner change with the release army sergeant bowe bergdahl. that. a little of >> that's par for the course. but i'll repeat what i said two days ago. principle.asic we do not leave anybody wearing uniform behind.

war whoserisoner of and wehad deteriorated were deeply concerned about and we saw an opportunity and we seized it and i make no that.ies for we had discussed with congress possibility that something like this might occur, but the nature of the folks that we were dealing with fragile nature of these negotiations, we felt it was and dont to go ahead what we did, and we're now explaining to congress the details of how we moved forward. this basically principle that we don't leave anybody behind and this basic recognition that that often means prisoner exchanges with enemies, is not unique to my administration. it dates back to the beginning republic.

and with respect to how we announced it, i think it was important for people to is not somehat this abstraction, this is not a political football. of parentscouple whose kid volunteered to fight distant land, who they five years, and weren't sure whether they'd ever see again. and as commander-in-chief of the forces, i am armed responsible for those kids and i letters from parents who say, if you are in fact sending child into war, make sure that child is being taken care of and i write too many letters folks who unfortunately don't see their children again after war.ing a i make absolutely no apologies get backg sure that we

a young man to his parents and that the american people understand that this is somebody's child. and that we don't condition effort to not we make try to get them back. we don't condition whether or not we make the effort to try to get them back. >> that was part of today's joint news conference in brussels. you can see the entire briefing tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span or any time at www.c-span.org. we will have more but president with frenchow leaders in normandy. it is the 70th anniversary of invasion of normandy. on washington journal tomorrow, looks at president

obama's european trip this past week and the possibility of new sanctions against russia. and your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets on the d-day anniversary. washington journal begins at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. on the lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of but 40 the air is soft years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the more of canon. at dawn on the morning of the 1944, 225 rangers jumped off the british landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion. to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. the allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here and they would be

trained on the beaches to stop the allied advance. the rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers at the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades, and the american rangers began to climb. >> this weekend, american history tv will mark the 70th anniversary of the d-day invasion of normandy and starting saturday morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern, watch this year's commemoration from the world war ii memorial in washington. that is followed at 11:30 with a discussion of the book, neptune, the allied invasion of europe and the d-day landings. at 12:30 he will take your questions and comments live. then a look back at presidential speeches commemorating the day. >> senators bernie sanders and john mccain reached an agreement today that was announced on the senate floor about legislation to change the veterans administration health care

system. >> congressional reporter for military times, how does this agreement between bernie sanders and john mccain, how would this deal with the delays in the v.a. health care system? >> there are a couple of different aspects to it. the most immediate would be to give veterans who are waiting or in rural areas who would have difficulty access thing -- accessing v.a. care, the ability to go to private doctors and that would get them out of the v.a. system completely, at least until these issues are resolved. bill to hire more doctors and nurses to address that weight time issue. there is also an accountability aspect. there are a few commissions to look at what the larger problem is and provisions to make it easier for the v.a. secretary to fire administrators who are found falsifying records. they're hopinger

will address the core problem of veterans not being able to get into see their doctors. pixies talks between bernie sanders and john mccain seem to accelerate in the headline in your piece on the agreement. senators announce deal to address be a problem. what was it that brought them together to get it done so quickly? >> we have seen this moving pretty quickly through congress. senator sanders has been working on pieces of this legislation for as far back as january and february. he had a massive omnibus that failed in february, so a lot of the aspects of this bill are included in there as well. senator mccain has been all over the v.a. topic, obviously ground zero for the scandals was phoenix, so he has been involved. in the last weeks have seen some legislation coming out of the --se, some accountability accountability measures from there, and a real push from the public to get something done.

that lit a fire under both sides to come together and reach a compromise, which was a bit unusual right now in congress. >> what about the house, have you heard anything from jeff miller in the house and the senate more broadly? are they lining up behind the bill? >> it is still too early for folks to really jump on it but there are a lot of provisions that have supported in the past, especially the accountability measure. the house is looked at a few different versions of this but there has been a real push from over on the house side to get some sort of measure that will let the secretary fire top executives a little bit easier. ed is where the house has been focused on the problem emanating idea that there are senior executives that just aren't good managers and are not overseeing their departments right or are actively gaming members so they can get better bonuses. there is a lot of support for that provision. we will have to see if the actual revisions -- there are

some costs associated with it. sanders and mccain said it will take a special one-time appropriation to pay for this. we will have to see if the house goes along with whatever the price tag is. >> he tweeted about what may be , saying the v.a. accountability portion of the senate deal would have dismissed -- would give dismissed employees in one week to appeal and three more recs for a final decision. is that provision, the idea that there was some sort of appeal process. senator sanders has said all along that he believes for perform manager should be fired, but the housebuilding have any of those protections in their. the onesanders inserted week to follow the peel and three weeks to get an answer on the appeal. he feels that is enough of a check and balance to make sure

these are political firings, that there isn't something nefarious going on. several house members said they would have preferred a little bit more of a check in there, some sort of appeals process. i imagine that shouldn't be too controversial over in the house. is it too much reading into the proximity here to the 70th anniversary of d-day? >> it might be. this is been an issue that has been going on for months now in the house and senate. there's obviously a lot of folks who are focusing on veteran and especially elderly veterans and world war ii veterans. it seems like each of these anniversaries is just a reminder, another bit of urgency. not exactly a memorial day issue, but this sort of topic or

reminder of just some of the difficulties facing veterans and the challenges that have been there. it's something that lawmakers have been really sensitive to and as they go back to their district, they are hearing a lot about it. no one wants to be seen as a lawmaker who is leading veterans down. >> when do you sense that we will see a vote on the senate floor? were both pretty optimistic we could see something as early as next week. has plenty on his plate already but senator reed has been talking about the accountability measure, as the cynically waiting for senator sanders to come up with a package. we could see this move fairly quickly in the senate. shane, read more at military times.com. thank you for joining us. x now a discussion on the release of sergeant bowe bergdahl in exchange for five

guantanamo bay detainees. this is 50 minutes. >> joining us is jonathan turley, a law professor at george washington university. host: we will talk about the release of bowe bergdahl in exchange for 5 taliban members at guantánamo bay. if the white house wants to transfer prisoners out of that facility, what do they have to do legally? guest: there is a law in which congress sets some standards. some of them are rather obvious. there is a provision saying that if you released someone from guantánamo bay, you need to have the secretary of defense make certain determinations, like this is not going to come back on the united states in terms of risk, that you have taken steps to determine what is going to happen to them. these are the types of determinations that any administration would do anyway. the provision relevant in this

controversy is the one that says before you make these releases 30 days in advance you need to tell congress. the administration has consulted with congress in the past, but they didn't here. when they decided to pull the trigger, congress was left in the dark. many members said, look, this is a violation of federal law. there is no question, i think, that this is a violation of that statute. there was no notice given. the provision doesn't have any loopholes or exceptions. the administration has said various things as to why or whether it violated federal law. number one is that it really didn't violate federal law, that it simply interpreted it to mean that it didn't have to notify congress. that one has left a lot of people scratching their heads, that we complied with a law of notification by not giving notification. but what they are really saying is that they never really viewed

this provision as constitutional, and when it was passed, president obama put a signing statement, something he said he would never do as a candidate, that said "i have real serious reservations about this provision." host: let's talk about this provision a little bit more, part of the national defense authorization act. mcclatchy reports that white house press secretary jay carney was asked if the president felt he was above the law. carney said absolutely not. guest: [laughs] host: you obviously have a reaction to that one. guest: that is one where the answer is obvious. if he had said that the president felt he was above the law, a lot of us would be surprised. the controversy goes beyond the ndaa provision we're talking about. i testified before congress about a long litany of laws that the president has said he will not enforce, or laws that through executive order he has

changed in significant ways unilaterally. many of these changes occurred after the president failed to get those changes in congress. we've had a series of hearings about the implications of that. the president in his state of the union said he was going to go it alone, that he was going to circumvent congress. as surprised as many of us who teach the constitution, the response was applause by any members, which is seemed to border on self-loathing, where the president said i am going to circumvent you. but he has and that raises separation of powers questions. the issue that went to carney goes more broadly to that, that the president has repeatedly circumvented federal law or cindy said he will not enforce federal law. that is creating a crisis in this country. it did not start with obama. this whole process of expanding presidential power certainly

didn't start with him, but it has reached a level today that is unprecedented. host: our guest is jonathan turley of george washington university law school. host: jonathan turley, you mentioned signing statements. i want to talk about those a little bit. we will put on the screen for those watching a list of signing statements by the president and i want to get your take. as of june 2, 2014, obama has issued 28 sending stamens, compared to george w. bush, 228, was in bill clinton, 381, and ronald reagan, 250. what is different about the way president obama has used signing statements in contrast to his

predecessors? guest: i have been a big critic of signing statements and that as a constitutional scholar, they make no sense to me. they are presidents attempting to rewrite laws, even though they are signing the law. president obama signed the law and said, by the way, i don't think i have to comply with this law. as you may recall, i was a big critic of president bush's signing statements, which were in my view an effort to circumvent congress. the difference is that president obama ran on this issue, how he believed signing statements were a circumvention of congress, that they were wrong to do. even though he has had fewer, many people elected him leaving he wouldn't engage in this type of thing. if you think that the ndaa provision is unconstitutional, you don't sign it into law. what the president did is what

president bush did in the past, which is to sign it and then say, by the way, i don't think i will comply with the federal law. host: as our guest jonathan turley noted, it is something that senator obama talked about during his campaign. i want to read a quotation from him from may 2008. host: obviously, you can't get into the president's thinking, but why do you think there's been such a shift from what he said in '08 and what he does in 2014? guest: look, i voted for president obama. i am from chicago and i was happy to vote for him. but he's not the first to change when in office. the president has done a number of things effort from what he promised in the campaign. for civil libertarians like myself, he has been a nightmare in terms of what has happened with the civil liberties area.

he is not only contained the policies but expanded them -- things like the kill list policy, surveillance issues. this is something that happens in the oval office, quite frankly. this is not the world's most principled forum, quite quickly. presidents in their second term tend to focus on the legacy and they view these issues as niceties, technicalities. even as someone who taught the constitution, there is this corrosive effect. and as someone who is familiar with obama as a senator and president, even though i voted for him, i am a columnist for "usa today" and i wrote a column after his first election and said you know, people have the wrong idea about this man. even though i voted for him, principles of this type are not motivating barack obama as much as programs. that is a positive aspect of his

personality, but he has never been as motivated by what often seemed abstract principles like separation of powers. he is much more interested in getting things done. i think the american people like that about him. the problem is when you depart somewhat from those principles that you are creating a fundamental change in our system. that is what is dangerous. i told congress that we are now at a constitutional tipping point. our system is changing. it did not start with president obama, but it is changing, in my view, in a dangerous way and we are not having a debate about it. host: our guest is jonathan turley of george washington university law school. first caller is kathleen on the line for democrats. caller: hi, mr. turley. i've followed would you say and write for years now, especially during the bush administration and the signing statements and then and some of the actions.

in regard to this bergdahl situation, i am listening to chris matthews and joe scarborough and these guys who have never served in the military and don't have children serving in the military screaming about president obama's decision. what is fascinating to me about all these programs -- i have to say, a little bit "washington journal" as well -- they don't have a lot of vets on who have been in these situations. a lot of us who have never served have no idea what it is like to be in the situation that bergdahl was in. i am not condoning whatsoever what he allegedly did. but if president obama were to leave him there, wouldn't that be exactly what we are complaining or people are complaining about bergdahl doing, abandoning his comrades or whatever? i just think they had to do what they could do to get him released, because that is just

an example of we don't leave people behind, even though, ok, bergdahl, whatever they find out through the hearings. the other thing i've become aware of this what our soldiers have really gone through by listening to the winter soldier congressional hearings. i just want to encourage joe scarborough, chris matthews, "washington journal" to have actual vets on and not let these situations with our vets get so extreme -- for instance, with the v.a. situation -- and then scream about everything. guest: well, it's an interesting comment. first of all, i didn't make it to boy scouts so i am hardly a person to hold forth on what happens to vets, although i want to encourage one thing for you to think about. i don't think it is fair to tell folks that they can't comment on subjects related to military unless they have served. that was long a criticism,

including of many democrats, from people that were arguing against cuts in the military budget, saying, well, you can't really talk to because you haven't been in uniform. these are important public policy issues and i think that some of the aspects of this are worthy of public debate. i think that you are right when it comes to boots on the ground, that is a perspective that we need to hear from veterans. as to the release itself, i happen to agree, even though i disagree with many of the actions that president obama has taken -- circumvention of the separation of powers -- i happen to agree with many of his policies, so i am divided. i happen to agree with him on things like the environmental area and other areas like doma, where he has taken these steps. but as a constitutional scholar, he concerns me a great deal. how he ended up in the hands of the taliban is irrelevant. we did need to get him back.

we can deal with that issue now as to whether he did desert. that is really, i don't think, appropriate for folks to say we should have left him over there. but the policy debate is a legitimate one. when you look at these 5 individuals, there are obviously going to be some deals that all of us would agree would be too high. the deal was everyone should be released from guantánamo bay and we should leave the country, there would be a question as to whether that is a price too high. that is a legitimate issue of public debate. host: burlington, north carolina. debbie is on the line for republicans. caller: thank you so much. thank you, c-span, for allowing me to talk to this gentleman. i wish i could have an hour with him. guest: [laughs] caller: mr. turley, our forefathers gave us our constitutional form of government with the balance of power between three branches of government so that we the people

would be no longer under the rule of the king. with this in mind, do you feel like our president has acted in an imperialistic manner by bypassing a law himself signed into being, and if so, warning, do you feel that his action is treasonous in nature worthy of impeachment? thank you, and god bless. guest: well, first of all the term "imperial presidency" i have used in testimony before congress and certainly my writings. it is a little different than people think of. when we talk about the emergence of an imperial presidency, we are not really saying that president obama wants to be a tyrant or a king. i don't think he does, i don't think it is in him. i don't think he wants to be tyrannical in any sense. but imperial presidency means something that should concern many americans, which is this almost nixonian concept of a president who can act

unilaterally, who becomes a government unto himself. what is fascinating is that president obama has accomplished many of those aspects -- i spoke on the anniversary of the watergate controversy at the national press club, and in the audience were many survivors of the watergate scandal. i changed my speech at the last minute and said, how did nixon win? 50 years later or so, looking out on that audience, just that morning the papers showed president obama doing many of the things that were in nixon's articles of impeachment, the unilateral action that nixon claimed. those powers are being used openly. the thing i asked the audience is what has changed? i think we have changed to some degree. the american people have become more passive. there is a danger to this.

i think the reason why president obama has succeeded is he is very likable, that many people do like him. any people don't, but he has a power of personality and even his staunchest critics don't view him as wanting tyrannical power. having said all that, i think it is dangerous, the trend we are going. we are seeing our system change. we have a system designed for 3 equal branches and people understand the separation of powers. it is not to protect the interests of these institutions. separation of powers is not there to protect congress or the white house or the court. it is designed to protect individual liberty. the framers believed that the concentration of power would bring tyranny, would bring abuse. it created a system that it believes would stop that aggregation or concentration of power. we have lost it. the president is increasingly acting like a government unto himself, and while you can agree with this president -- one thing

i have told democrats in congress is this is not going to be our last position, and he does not have a lot of time left in office, but these powers will last, and what you say when the next president comes in and says "i will suspend environmental laws, or discrimination laws." what will you have to object at that point? host: we were talking about the evolution of members of congress with regard to the release of sergeant bergdahl. i want to read a couple of tweets from members and get your reaction overall.

host: your thoughts? guest: there has been an evolution you have seen on the hill. a lot of democrats seem to be walking away from the deal a bit. there is certainly a coalescing of views in congress that it could have been consulted, and i think that -- or notified, and i think that is manifestly true. the white house decided not to tell congress i think for political reasons, to be honest. they did in fact raise this issue years ago but whether they could swap taliban people for bergdahl, and they got pushed back from members of both parties. i think what you see in the backlash following the deal is the most likely reason they didn't notify congress, that there is a sticker shock that comes from these 5 guys.

some were viewed as having connections with al qaeda. one is particularly bad in terms of his connection to the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands of people, but certainly the dislocation of thousands. the irony is the law was passed precisely for this type of the case. the law was passed to allow congress to come in. one of the things i've emphasized in testimony to congress is that the framers were right. we end up with a better government when things are filtered through the separation of powers, through these new three branches. sometimes a president needs to hear these things. the separation of powers forces presidents to engage congress, and this would have been a really good idea. the irony is he could have done it anyway. all you have to do is notify them and he could have worked out these issues and he would be in a better political place if he had done that. host: saint augustine, florida. owen is on the line for

independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do think that the guy thinks he is a king and above the law, and all these scandals -- irs, benghazi, he didn't know nothing about anything. it is like the guy is inept or something. he is the president of the united states. if i was the ceo of a company, i would fire people below me if things like the irs, spying, spying on the news media, and when it all comes out, you don't know anything. and then he pulls this stuff with not notifying congress with the bergdahl thing. the guy does think he is above the law. he holds nobody accountable, he doesn't hold himself accountable. it is like the guy is a tyrant or something. guest: well, first of all, if by above the law you mean he thinks he can sadly disregard federal law, i'm afraid that is manifestly true, because he has done that.

in the health care area, the gambling act, immigration, these are areas where the administration went to congress, asked for changes, was not successful, and he then went and ordered those changes unilaterally. that is a direct attack, in my view, on the separation of powers many of things are clearly legislative. the question i think you raise is a good one. what i'm saying is that, i don't think it's in his nature, i don't think he is viewing it as a self-aggrandizing move. like many past presidents, he rationalizes this. but we are all at fault here. a president went to congress in the state of the union and said i'm going to go it alone. you had half a congress applaud wildly that they were about to be mated to a functional nonentity.

i think the framers would have been horrified. they assume that regardless of your party, that people in congress would fight mightily to protect their institution. that is what has changed. the used to be people like harry byrd in the senate who often did fight with democratic presidents for the separation of powers. you just don't have that anymore. the members in the senate today tend to be much more lockstep with the party. even when they see their own authority being drained away. in my view it's a very foolish thing. this president has only a couple of years left, and these credits will rue the day that they remain silent as their authority was drained away. there is no guarantee who our next president is, what this is not going to be our last one and these powers will remain. presidents do not tend to give back power.