The plan involves collecting and analyzing the genetic data from more than 1 million American volunteers in order to deepen the breadth of genetic data that could be used to better understand how diseases affect people, and how medicines could better target and treat those illnesses.

President Obama initially previewed the Precision Medicine Initiative in his State of the Union address last week, saying that he wants “the country that eliminated polio and mapped the human genome to lead a new era of medicine -- one that delivers the right treatment at the right time.”

Obama earmarked $215 million in his 2016 budget proposal to kickstart the effort, including $130 million for the National Institutes of Health to create a national research database to collect a wide range of health data, including volunteers’ genomes.

The goal is to create a data-rich, searchable database that would allow researchers to better pinpoint the sources of diseases and create individually-tailored treatment plans. The new effort will “bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and diabetes -- and give all of us access to the personalized information we need to keep ourselves and our families healthier,” Obama said.

Researchers have worked for several decades to understand the underlying basis of diseases and develop medicines targeted to the genetic profile of individual patients. This movement is known as “personalized,” or “individualized” medicine.

It requires reams of data to compare how specific diseases are expressed across different patients, or even how healthy patients avoid certain diseases. For instance, certain research labs are studying DNA from healthy volunteers and looking for rare genetic outliers that actually protect against disease rather than lead to illness. Those good genetic outliers could point to treatments for the rest of us.

In one case, researchers found that people naturally missing working copies of a gene known as PCSK9 had almost no bad cholesterol in their blood. Scientists used that insight to develop drugs that block the PCSK9 gene in order to lower cholesterol. It worked. Two such drugs are nearing the Food and Drug Administration’s approval, and studies have found that they help lower cholesterol levels, sometimes by as much as 75%.

Large-scale genomic studies are possible today because of the lower cost and time needed to sequence a genome. It costs about $1,000 to analyze one person’s DNA -- a fraction of the nearly $3 billion it cost to decode the first human genome 15 years ago.

The White House’s initiative calls on the National Cancer Institute, the FDA and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to all play a role in the effort to create and maintain this new database. President Obama is also hoping that the private sector, including universities and foundations, will get involved to “lay the foundation” for the initiative.

The NCI will use the genomic data to create a new cancer knowledge network that will specifically focus on advances in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of various cancers.

--Reuters contributed to this report.

By Zeke J. Miller, TIME

Just one week after proposing the idea in his State of the Union Address, President Obama was forced to withdraw a proposal to change the way tax-preferred college savings plans work after criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.

A White House official confirmed Tuesday that Obama is no longer calling to tax income from so-called 529 plans in his budget to be released next week, but will maintain the other elements of his plan to make college more affordable. The administration had argued that the plans benefited those higher on the income scale and planned to use the savings to pay for the president's free community college proposal and expanded tax breaks that would help those at lower incomes.

"We proposed it because we thought it was a sensible approach, part of consolidating six programs to two and expanding and better targeting education tax relief for the middle class," a White House official said. "Given it has become such a distraction, we're not going to ask Congress to pass the 529 provision so that they can instead focus on delivering a larger package of education tax relief that has bipartisan support, as well as the President's broader package of tax relief for childcare and working families, paid for by eliminating the trust fund loophole and making sure the wealthy pay their fair share."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pressed Obama to drop the proposal with administration officials Tuesday aboard Air Force One as she joined Obama on his trip from India to Saudi Arabia. The White House said that Obama's other proposals to close the so-called trust-fund loophole on inherited wealth and a new fee on the liabilities of the nation's largest financial institutions would more than cover the cost of his education proposals.

On Tuesday, Speaker of the House John Boehner called on Obama to withdraw the proposal. "529 plans help middle-class families save for college, but now the president wants to tax those plans," he said. "It's another example of his outdated, top-down approach- when our focus ought to be on providing opportunity for all Americans. And so, for the sake of middle-class families, the president ought to withdraw this tax increase from his budget when he submits it soon."

But that hasn't gotten in the way of a budding bromance between these two world leaders. It was on full display Sunday as Modi broke protocol to hug Obama while the U.S. president disembarked from Air Force One in New Delhi.

"The two leaders have surprised everyone with the speed and scale with which they've decided to take this relationship," says Tanvi Madan, director of the Brookings Institution's India Project.

For a president who has been sharply criticized for a failure to build personal friendships with world leaders, Obama's special place in Modi-world is striking. During his trip to New Delhi on Monday, Obama serves as chief guest at the country's Republic Day parade--one of India's highest honors and one never before offered to an American president. Protective of its neutrality and wary of disrupting economic ties to countries like Russia, Indian leaders tend to downplay the U.S. friendship in public.

Obama's role as chief guest signals that "India has gotten over its psychological barrier of having the U.S. be this public partner--and acknowledging its role in helping India to rise," Madan notes. The Delhi-born Madan is my guest this week on the Apple iTunes podcast Smart Women, Smart Power, sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in partnership with Fortune.

Madan credits the Modi-Obama friendship with a common interest in retail politics. "Modi is a showman who believes in communicating directly, including through social media [where] he tweets," she notes.

Sound familiar? There's more: The Indian prime minister's campaign last year borrowed from Obama's campaign, right down to "yes we can!" calls at rallies and the iconic Shepard Fairey "Hope," "Change" and "Progress posters. (Modi's themes were "Change," "Action," and "Unity.")

Since his election last spring, Modi has hung an "open for business" sign on his country and encouraged foreign investors to overlook the country's checkered history toward outside firms. On Sunday, the two leaders announced a breakthrough plan to enable U.S. investment in India's nuclear energy industry.

In the U.S., which is India's 6^th largest investor, wary CEOs have shown renewed interest in India, hopeful that this might be similar to the opportunity that China offered to pioneering firms two decades ago--but with an already established rule of law.

In our podcast conversation, Madan details the reforms Modi has pursued, sometimes using executive actions to bypass legislative opposition. Nothing so far adds up to the big-bang change that business was hoping for, and Madan cites slow progress and an uncertain business climate as valid reasons for concern.

Still, here is Madan’s advice to prospective investors: "If you're willing to be in it for the long haul, you are going get returns. But expecting immediate returns--that's not going to happen. The American businesses that have done well there--Ford, Boeing, GE--have really made an investment in the country, to stay there for the long term. And they've actually done well by it. Ford has opened its largest manufacturing plant any place outside the U.S."

The delegation of business chiefs so far includes Ajay Banga of Mastercard MA , Dave Cote of Honeywell HON , Bob Iger of Disney DIS , Indra Nooyi of Pepsi PEP , Arne Sorenson of Marriott MAR , and Vivek Ranadive of Tibco TIBX , Fortune has learned.

Officially, Obama is traveling to attend India's Republic Day celebrations as the guest of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (the President even scrambled scheduling of his State of the Union address to accommodate his attendance). But the presence of the corporate captains the White House hustled to recruit for the mission indicates the economic stakes. Warming diplomatic ties between the world's oldest democracy and its largest are encouraging American companies seeking expanded access to India's $2 trillion economy.

Modi is pushing to make his country friendlier to foreign investment with new incentives and regulatory reforms. He unveiled a "Make in India" campaign in September aimed at promoting the country as a manufacturing haven. And the US and India are chasing a five-fold increase in bilateral trade, to $500 billion, by 2020.

Yet policy hurdles remain -- on immigration, trade, intellectual property, and climate change, among others.

Those will be grist for a pair of meetings the American CEOs are slated to hold with leading Indian executives on their visit. The US-India CEO Forum, a government-appointed group co-chaired by Cote and Tata Sons chairman Cyrus Mistry, will host the first huddle. (That group was organized around Obama's first visit to India, in 2010, but one source familiar with it described it as "dormant" in recent years.) Then Obama and Modi will join the chiefs for another organized by the US-India Business Council, a lobby promoting economic cooperation.

The countries are also looking to strengthen defense ties, though it's not yet clear whether they will announce any procurement deals on this visit.

By Lily Rothman, TIME

It was six years ago, on Jan. 22, 2009, two days after he became President, that Barack Obama issued an executive order designed to "promptly close detention facilities at Guantanamo." The closing of that prison at the U.S. naval base at Cuba's Guantanamo Bay would, he said, take place no less than a year from that date.

Five years after the 2010 deadline passed -- and even as relations between the U.S. and Cuba begin to thaw -- the detention facilities remain in use. More than 100 prisoners remain there, even though that number is declining and officials have said that Obama would still like to achieve the closure before he leaves office.

But how did the U.S. end up with such a facility in Cuba in the first place?

The story of Guantanamo goes back more than a century, to the time of the Spanish-American War. And, during that time, it's been, as it is now, a source of controversy.

Until 1898, Cuba had belonged to Spain; as the Spanish empire diminished, Cubans fought for their independence. The U.S. joined in to help its neighbor and, though the Spanish-American War ended up focused mainly on the Spanish presence in the Philippines, Cuba was the site of the sinking of the USS Maine, the event that precipitated American military involvement. (Remember "Remember theMaine"? That's this.) When the war ended, Spain gave the U.S. control of Cuba -- among other territories, like Puerto Rico -- and, about three years later, Cuba became an independent nation.

However, that independence was not without a catch: as part of the Platt Amendment, the document that governed the end of the occupation, the new Cuban government was required to lease or sell certain territory to the United States. Here's how TIME later summarized (with numbers accurate for 1960) what happened next:

The U.S. rights in Guantanamoare clear and indisputable. By a treaty signed in 1903 and reaffirmed in 1934, the U.S. recognized Cuba's "ultimate sovereignty" over the 45-sq.-mi. enclave in Oriente province near the island's southeast end. In return, Cuba yielded the U.S. "complete jurisdiction and control" through a perpetual lease that can be voided only by mutual agreement.

For a low rental ($3,386.25 annually), the U.S. Navy gets its best natural harbor south of Charleston, S.C., plus 19,621 acres of land, enough for a complex of 1,400 buildings and two airfields, one of them capable of handling entire squadrons of the Navy's hottest jets, e.g., 1,000-m.p.h. F8U Crusaders, 700-m.p.h. A4D Skyhawks. In terms of global strategy, Guantanamo has only marginal value. It served as an antisubmarine center in World War II, and could be one again. But its greatest worth is as an isolated, warm-water training base for the fleet. With an anchorage capable of handling 50 warships at once, it is the Navy's top base for shakedown cruises and refresher training for both sailors and airmen. What Cuba gets out of the deal is 3,700 jobs for the technicians and laborers who help maintain the base, a payroll of $7,000,000 annually for hard-pressed Oriente.

When Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba the 1950s, there was briefly a period during which the fate of Guantanamo seemed in question. As TIME reported in the Sept. 12, 1960, issue, Castro threatened to kick the Navy out if the U.S. continued to interfere with the Cuban economy; however, he also said that he knew that, if he did so, the U.S. could take it as a pretext to attack and get rid of him. Castro would continue to bring up his displeasure at the U.S. presence in Cuba -- in 1964, he cut off the water supply, to which the Navy responded by building its own water and power plants -- but the lease stayed, as did the military families based there.

Guantanamo returned to the news in the 1990s when it got a new set of residents. In 1991, in the wake of a coup d'?tat in Haiti, thousands of Haitians fled by sea for the United States. In December of that year, Guantanamo Bay became the site of a refugee camp built to house those who sought asylum while the Bush administration figured out what to do with them. Throughout the years that followed, the camp became home to thousands of native Cubans, too, who had also attempted to flee to the U.S. for political asylum. In the summer of 1994 alone, TIME wrote the following May, "more than 20,000 Haitians and 30,000 Cubans were intercepted at sea and delivered to hastily erected camps in Guantanamo." In 1999, during conflict in the Balkans (and after the Haitian and Cuban refugees had been sent home or on to the States), the U.S. agreed to put up 20,000 new refugees at Guantanamo, but that plan ended up scrapped for being too far from their European homelands.

The decision to house al-Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo was reached shortly after 9/11 -- and, nearly as immediately, the world began to wonder just what their status would be.

A former Pentagon official told TIME's Mark Thompson last month that some would like the Guantanamo Bay facility to be closed entirely, although that's very unlikely to happen. If the long history of Guantanamo Bay proves anything, it's that, though regimes and requirements may change, the U.S. Navy is likely to stay.

Welcome back from the long weekend. Wall Street futures are up this morning, and European shares are doing well. Asian indexes were also up, closing the day with big gains.

Earnings season kicks into high gear today, with reports from Morgan Stanley, Dow stocks Johnson & Johnson and IBM, and also Netflix. Also, burger chain Shake Shack has unveiled a pricing range for its planned IPO. (If you love reading about food, check out this story by Fortune's Beth Kowitt, on New York City restaurant chain Dig Inn, which has just raised $15 million.)

Here’s what else you need to know about today.

1. The State of the Union.

President Obama will address the nation tonight and reveal a slate of reforms that will target “unfair” tax loopholes and reduce the financial burden facing middle class families. He will call on Congress to raise taxes and fees on the wealthiest to finance tax breaks for low- and middle-income households. The speech follows a spat of announcements from the president as he toured across the U.S., including a new initiative to provide free community college and endorsing paid sick leave.

2. Earnings flood in.

As earnings season kicks into high gear, a host of companies are set to report today. Morgan Stanley MS led the way this morning, with earnings that were up significantly compared to a year earlier as the bank’s legal costs dropped. Revenues rose to $920 million, or 47 cents a share, from $36 million, or 2 cents a share, a year earlier.

Johnson & Johnson JNJ , Delta DAL and Coach COH all report quarterly earnings this morning, as well.

Netflix NFLX will report after the market close, and investors will be watching to see how the company is doing with its overseas progress. IBM IBM is also set to report after the closing bell.

3. Google may be readying a big investment in SpaceX.

Google GOOG is on the verge of investing $1 billion in Elon Musk’s space company, which would help the search giant build its efforts to deliver Internet access via satellites, according to The Wall Street Journal. The investment would value SpaceX at more than $10 billion. Google is hoping to expand Internet access to even the most remote areas of the world, thus providing even more users for its services.

4. China growth slows.

China’s economy grew at 7.4% last year, falling short of the government’s projected 7.5% growth rate. That’s the slowest growth China has seen in 24 years. The sluggish economy is partially due to shrinking exports and a struggling property market. Notably, Chinese policy makers reported numbers that were below projections, which hasn’t happened since 1998. Officials have been widely criticized for tweaking numbers to align with target estimates.

5. Senate debates Keystone XL.

On Capital Hill, the debate over approval of the $8 billion Keystone XL pipeline continues in the Senate and is expected to be a weeks-long battle. Senate Republicans are pushing for its passage, and voting on amendments could begin as soon as this afternoon. There are currently three amendments in line for voting: Sen. Ed Markey’s export ban on oil shipped through the Keystone; Sen. Rob Portman’s energy efficiency package and Sen. Al Franken’s requirement that the pipeline be made using U.S. steel.

Following last month’s announcement of normalization of relations with the island nation -- located less than 100 miles from the coast of Florida -- the Obama administration announced Thursday that it is easing restrictions on travel to the country.

For the past 60 years, Americans have had few legal ways to secure travel to Cuba as a result of an embargo enacted in the 1960s. The embargo was a response to the communist government of Fidel Castro, an ally of the Soviet Union. The policy has been hotly debated in the years since, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s.

Starting Friday, Americans will be able to go to Cuba without a specific license if the reason for the trip falls under any of 12 relatively broad categories, including family visits, journalistic activity, professional research or meetings, humanitarian projects and official business of the U.S. or foreign governments. Once you get there, things will be easier too, as American credit and debit cards can be used on the island and the per diem spending rate has been eliminated.

The previously announced change in imports, which allows visitors to bring in up to $400 worth of goods including up to $100 in tobacco products, will also go into effect. Furthermore, non-Cuban Americans living in the United States can now send up to $2,000 per quarter to people living in Cuba, up from $500. This won’t apply to certain members of the Cuban government and the Cuban Communist Party.

Thursday’s announcement “takes us one step closer to replacing out of date policies that were not working and puts in place a policy that helps promote political and economic freedom for the Cuban people,” said Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew in a statement. “These revised regulations, together with those issued by the Commerce Department, will implement the policies on easing sanctions related to travel, remittances, trade, and banking announced by the President on December 17.”

Since President Obama’s announcement in December, the status of the US policy has been hotly debated. A number of Republicans, especially Florida Senator Marco Rubio, have come out strongly against Obama’s decision.

Editor's note: An earlier version of this story mistakenly characterized the history of the Cuban travel embargo. Though it has been possible to travel to Cuba in the past, restrictions will be eased on Friday. The earlier version also said the new rules about sending money to citizens of Cuba only applied to Cuban Americans. In fact, the new rules apply to non-Cuban Americans. The story has been updated to reflect these issues.

Wall Street futures have erased early morning gains and are now trending down after a move by the Swiss National bank took markets by surprise. The bank unexpectedly scrapped its cap on the franc, sending the currency soaring against the euro. Meanwhile, European shares retreated, and Asian indexes closed out the day mostly positive.

Here’s what else you need to know to start your day.

1. Swiss National Bank shocks the markets.

The Swiss shocked global markets this morning when the nation’s central bank unexpectedly changed course, abandoning its minimum exchange rate of 1.20 francs per euro and slashing its benchmark interest rate. The nation ended its three-year-old policy designed to protect its economy from the Eurozone debt troubles. The move sent the Swiss franc soaring to a record against the euro and roiled equity markets.

2. Earnings reports: Bank of America, Citigroup and Intel.

Earnings season is ramping up. This week it’s all about big banks. This morning, Bank of America BAC , the second-largest U.S. lender by assets, reported four-quarter profits that were down 11% due to declines in fixed-income trading. Earnings-per-share were 32 cents, just beating the average analyst estimate of 31 cents a share, according to Bloomberg data. It was the bank’s second profitable quarter last year as spending on mortgage disputes and investigations into foreign exchange manipulation cut into its bottom line.

Citigroup C , in the midst of a pullback from consumer banking in several international markets, reported a slim fourth-quarter profit after taking charges of $3.5 billion to settle legal claims and overhaul its operations.

Intel INTC reports after the close of trading and is anticipated to report earnings-per-share of 66 cents on sales of $14.72 billion.

3. BP readying North Sea job cuts.

The energy giant will shed 200 staff jobs and 100 contractors in its North Sea operations today. BP employs nearly 3,000 people in Aberdeen, Scotland, the central hub for the offshore oil industry in the area. The move comes as oil prices continue to flounder below $50 a barrel, having fallen more than 50% in six months. BP BP said in December it plans to cut thousands of jobs across its global oil and gas business.

4. Samsung and Blackberry throw cold water on takeover.

Samsung and Blackberry have denied reports that Samsung is looking to buy the Canadian smartphone maker. Samsung called the news “groundless,” and Blackberry BBRY said it had “not engaged” in talks with the Korean-based electronics maker. Reuters had originally reported through anonymous sources that Samsung approached Blackberry with an initial offer price of $13.35 to $15.49 a share. That would value Blackberry at as much as $7.5 billion.

5. President Obama to address paid leave and sick time.

President Obama is expected to announce a handful of initiatives today that would boost paid leave and sick time. He will ask Congress to pass the Healthy Family Acts, allowing U.S. workers to earn up to seven days a year of paid sick time. The White House will also outline a plan to help states implement their own paid leave programs, and President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum to grant federal workers the ability to take six weeks of paid sick time after having a child.

--Reuters contributed to this report.

“President Obama will call on Congress to pass the Healthy Families Act, which would allow millions of working Americans to earn up to seven days a year of paid sick time – and call on states and cities to pass similar laws,” she wrote in a post on LinkedIn.

“The president will outline a new plan to help states create paid leave programs, and provide new funding through the Department of Labor for feasibility studies that will help other states and municipalities figure out the best way to implement programs of their own.”

Obama will also sign a presidential memorandum to ensure federal government workers have the ability to take six weeks of paid sick time upon the birth of a child, she wrote.

Wall Street is having a good Monday morning. Stocks look set to move higher at the open after last week's very volatile week -- the Dow posted a triple-digit move in each of last week's trading sessions. European indexes are higher, and Asian shares were mixed at the end of trading.

Here’s what you need to know to start your day.

1. Detroit auto show in high gear.

The annual Detroit auto show is in full swing today with presentations from the CEOs of top car companies, including Fiat Chrysler, GM GM , Ford F , Nissan and Tesla TSLA . About 40 vehicle introductions are expected today, including some entirely new designs as well as variants of existing models. GM will reportedly reveal a new electric vehicle with a style and price-point that can compete with the forthcoming Tesla Model 3.

2. Big pharma buyouts.

Two pharmaceutical companies announced big acquisitions Sunday evening. Switzerland’s Roche will pay $1.03 billion for Foundation Medicine FMI , a biotech company that matches cancer patients with the best treatments. Meanwhile, Ireland-based Shire doled out $5.2 billion to buy NPS NPSP , a New Jersey-based drug maker that specializes in gastrointestinal diseases. It’s Shire’s first deal following its failed attempt to sell itself to AbbVie ABBV last year.

3. Goldman sees oil going even lower.

Goldman Sachs GS has released a report that predicts U.S. crude oil will fall to $39 a barrel and the global standard will drop as low as $43 in six months before prices bounce back toward the end of the year. Much of the decline in oil prices is due to increasing inventories over the first half of this year. The price of oil futures declined even further below $50 this morning.

4. Obama digs in on cybersecurity.

President Obama will discuss three new proposed laws today that seek to help protect consumer data and privacy in the digital age. The proposals include a regulation that would require companies to tell consumers within 30 days if their data have been compromised. Obama will present his proposal at the Federal Trade Commission at 11:55 a.m. ET today, though Congress would still need to approve any legislation.

5. Another earnings season kicks off.

Another earnings season kicks off later this afternoon when aluminum giant Alcoa AA issues is results for the fourth quarter of 2014. The company’s 2015 aluminum demand forecast is a must-watch and will provide a sneak peak into what businesses are expecting for this year’s economy. Analysts expect Alcoa’s earnings-per-share to reach 25 cents on sales of $6.05 billion. Earnings season will start to perk up later this week, on Wednesday morning, when JPMorgan JPM and Wells Fargo WFC report their fourth-quarter results.

The sports league announced plans Thursday to offset the carbon output of its 30 teams during the current season, and lower energy use moving forward, in a deal with Baltimore-based Constellation Energy, a power and renewable energy supplier.

Constellation will provide carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates that match the 550,000 metric tons of carbon that the league uses in a season. Some of the offsets will come from sources such as wind farms, landfill gas projects and solar panel installation at its venues. The plan is the first of its kind in pro sports, according to the league.

On a conference call from the NHL headquarters in New York City, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said that the partnership “advances our commitment to promoting responsible energy use by the NHL, including our teams, our venues and our fans.”

The NHL declined to discuss the cost of partnering with Constellation and stated on the call that the league did not put out an RFP to find other businesses to work with on the initiative. “We decided that we wanted to be with Constellation and that they wanted to be with us,” said Bettman. “In terms of cost, we're not going to go into the details.”

In a statement Bettman added: “Our sport was born on frozen ponds and relies on winter weather. Everyone who loves our game will benefit by taking an active role in preserving the environment and the roots of the game."

Joe Nigro, CEO of Constellation, said in a statement that by promoting responsible energy use, the NHL is "setting an example for the sports industry, fans and communities."

Allen Hershkowitz, the president of the Green Sports Alliance, an organization that works with sports leagues in the U.S. to become more environmentally aware, praised the move on the call.

“Frankly, nothing like this has ever happened in pro sports,” he said, but added that the NHL’s footprint of 550,000 tons of carbon is small. It represents just 1/30th of the emissions produced by a single coal plant, for example.

“So why is this so important?” Hershkowitz continued. “The NHL is using its market and cultural influence to educate millions of people around the world.”

The NHL’s partnership with Constellation comes months after the league released a sustainability report in July, the first of its kind for a pro sports league in North America.

By Elizabeth Dias and Zeke J. Miller, TIME

President Obama thanked Pope Francis for his role in negotiating a more open policy on Cuba and the release of U.S. citizen Alan Gross from Cuban custody.

In a 15-minute speech announcing that the U.S. would normalize relations with Cuba, Obama said that the pope helped spur the change and personally thanked him.

A senior administration official said that the appeal from the Pope was "very rare" and unprecedented.

"Pope Francis personally issued an appeal in a letter that he sent to President Obama and to President Raul Castro calling on them to resolve the case of Alan Gross and the cases of the three Cubans who have been imprisoned here in the United States and also encouraging the United States and Cuba to pursue a closer relationship," said the official. "The Vatican then hosted the US and Cuban delegations where we were able to review the commitments that we are making today."

American officials have also noted Francis' deep familiarity with the Americas, being the first pope from the continent. The letter from Pope Francis "gave us greater impetus and momentum for us to move forward," a white House official said. "Cuba was a topic of discussion that got as much attention as anything else the two of them discuss."

The move is perhaps Pope Francis' boldest foreign policy move yet, but it is not his first.

o He showed letter-writing prowess in September 2013, when he wrote to Russian President Vladimir Putin, host of the G-20 Summit which Obama was attending, urging world leaders and the United States to oppose a military intervention in Syria.

o After visiting Bethlehem and Jerusalem in May, Pope Francis hosted both Israeli president Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas at the Vatican for a joint prayer service for Middle East Peace.

o When he visited South Korea in August, he sent a telegram to Chinese President Xi Jinping when the papal plane crossed into Chinese airspace--a historic step toward improved relations since the last time a pope visited East Asia, Chinese officials did not allow the plane to fly over Chinese territory.

When it comes to Cuba, Pope Francis is continuing the work of his predecessors. Just over half the Cuban population is Catholic, according to the Pew Research Center, and the Vatican stepped up its relations with the country over the past two decades. In 1998, Pope John Paul II became the first pope to visit Cuba. Pope Benedict XVI visited Cuba in 2012. At an outdoor mass, he urged Cuba to "build a renewed and open society, a better society, one more worthy of humanity and which better reflects the goodness of God."

The announcement of the Vatican's role in the U.S.-Cuba negotiations is particularly noteworthy as Pope Francis plans his first trip to the United States in September 2015. The Vatican has not said whether or not Pope Francis will travel to Cuba or other US cities on that trip.

Read more: Fortune takes you inside the Roman Catholic Church’s vast financial network.

By Massimo Calabresi, TIME

Thirteen years after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. by the terrorist group al Qaeda, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a 500-page assessment of the program of harsh interrogation and detention used by the Central Intelligence Agency from 2002 to 2007 on more than a hundred members of the terrorist organization after their capture.

Based on 6.2 million pages of documents, photos and other CIA files, the report presents evidence that the agency's interrogation methods were brutal and possibly illegal, that they were poorly managed, and that agency misrepresented it to the White House, the Justice Department, Congress and the American people. Ultimately, the Senate Democrats conclude the methods used were not effective, and were not worth the costs to reputation and national security that resulted from the program.

Aspects of the detention and interrogation of al Qaeda suspects, according to the report, included: a detainee becoming unconscious during the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, requiring medical attention as he regurgitated air and water; a detainee dying from exposure to extreme cold shackled to the floor in what government observers later described as a dungeon; detainees' injuries being allowed to deteriorate as part of interrogation; and psychological effects from interrogation including hallucinations, paranoia, self-harm and self-mutilation. The report also finds the CIA at times lost detainees and discovered them only after days of neglect.

President Barack Obama said the report detailed a "troubling" program and showed that "some of the actions that were taken were contrary to our values."

"That is why I unequivocally banned torture when I took office, because one of our most effective tools in fighting terrorism and keeping Americans safe is staying true to our ideals at home and abroad," Obama said in a statement.

"These techniques did significant damage to America's standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners," Obama added. "That is why I will continue to use my authority as President to make sure we never resort to those methods again."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chair of the intelligence committee who has spent years fighting CIA and Republican resistance to producing and releasing the report previously said, "If the Senate can declassify this report, we will be able to ensure that an un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted."

Current and former intelligence officials, and Republican members of Congress strongly dispute the characterization of the program and the CIA's actions, arguing that it produced much of the information that led to the successful efforts by the Bush and Obama administrations to roll back the central leadership of al Qaeda. Republican members of the intelligence committee released at the same time a 100-plus page minority report dissenting with some of the findings and conclusions of the Democrat's document.

The CIA also released a summary of its response to the SSCI report rebutting many of the findings. Of the 20 cases the SSCI report cites to show the CIA program was ineffective, the agency disagrees with all but two. "We acknowledge that the detention and interrogation program had shortcomings and that the Agency made mistakes," said CIA Director John Brennan. Brennan said the interrogation of detainees "did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives." The agency argues that it is impossible to say whether the harsh techniques produced intelligence that would otherwise have been obtained through less harsh methods. Brennan said the SSCI report provides an "incomplete and selective picture of what occurred."

The report is likely to produce extended political battles over what information was known about the CIA program, by whom and at what time. The report finds evidence that both the CIA and some at the White House took steps to limit questions about the legality of the program and the number of senior Bush administration officials who were aware of it. It finds that President Bush first learned of the details of the interrogation techniques in 2006 and appeared uncomfortable with some of them, including the image of a prisoner shackled and having to go to the bathroom on himself.

The underlying question that authors and opponents of the report both would like to see settled in the debate is whether the techniques described in the report should ever be used again. Vice President Dick Cheney, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and many others argue that it was legal, effective and crucial in the fight against terrorism. Feinstein, President Obama, and many outside human rights groups say the techniques were wrong and crossed the line into torture, violating core American values.

By Zeke J. Miller, TIME

President Barack Obama took his immigration actions on the road Friday, trumpeting in a speech in Las Vegas his announcement that his administration would defer deportations for roughly five million illegal immigrants.

Addressing a raucous audience at a local high school a day after laying out his announcement in a primetime address to the nation, Obama rejected the complaints of congressional Republicans that his actions were unlawful or an overreach, saying he had given Congress plenty of time to take action and "we can't afford" to wait any longer.

"I told [Speaker of the House] John Boehner I would--yeah, I'll wash your car, I'll walk your dog--whatever you need to do, just call the bill," Obama said, complaining that House Republicans refused to take up the Senate-passed bipartisan immigration reform bill. "That's how democracy is supposed to work. And if the votes hadn't been there, then we would have had to start over, but at least give it a shot. And he didn't do it. And the fact that a year-and-a-half has gone by means that time has been wasted--and during that time families have been separated, and during that time businesses have been harmed."

Before deplaning Air Force One, Obama signed two memoranda to develop policies to better help integrate immigrants into the United States and improve the immigration visa system. Separately, the Department of Homeland Security released memoranda on efforts to improve border security, end the controversial "Secure Communities" program and employ prosecutorial discretion to allowing many illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. "Under this revised policy, those who entered illegally prior to January 1, 2014, who never disobeyed a prior order of removal, and were never convicted of a serious offense, will not be priorities for removal," the department said of a policy that will take effect on Jan. 5, 2015. DHS also announced that it would begin accepting applications within the next 180 day for the expanded deferred action program, which would allow millions of immigrants to remain in the U.S. legally for three years on a renewable basis.

Obama said he understood the worries of those concerned about the impact of immigration on their jobs and the "fabric of our country," but said he also heard the concerns of the so-called Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children and of the American citizens with family members who immigrated illegally to be near them.

"We're not a nation that kicks out strivers and dreamers who want to earn their piece of the American dream," Obama said. "We're a nation that finds a way to welcome them. We make them earn it, but we welcome them in as fellow human beings, fellow children of God, and we harness their talents to make the future brighter for everybody."

The executive actions put pressure on Republicans who have strenuously objected to Obama's process, while the substance of his announcements places the GOP in a bind with an ever-more-diverse presidential electorate.

It's an awkward fact of life for corporate America's leading representatives in Washington: They prefer Republican control on Capitol Hill, invested dearly to achieve it, and pulled off a decisive victory earlier this month. And yet, on immigration reform -- a top priority -- they line up with Democrats who favor looser visa restrictions and a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally.

Witness the biggest kahuna of them all, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The group spent more than $35 million in the elections, directing 94 percent of it to helping Republicans, figures from the Center for Responsive Politics show. More than $15 million of that total boosted five GOP Senate candidates on the opposite side of the immigration debate from the Chamber itself. The business lobby isn't a single-issue organization; instead it relies on a system that factors lawmakers' votes on a range of issues into a score, which in turn determines their support. But in this case, the timing of the immigration action is proving inconvenient.

To be sure, Chamber president Tom Donohue's response to Obama's speech wasn't a ringing endorsement: "Meaningful and lasting immigration reform can only be achieved through the enactment of bipartisan legislation," he said in a statement posted online as soon as the President wrapped his speech. "We call upon the president and lawmakers of both parties to enact common sense measures to provide the American economy with the workers it needs at all skill levels, while better securing our borders and dealing with undocumented immigrants." National Association of Manufacturers president Jay Timmons similarly two-stepped past the executive order, saying only that it "further underscores that congressional action is critically needed on immigration reform" after an election in which voters signaled they want leaders to "end the gridlock and address the tough issues facing this country."

Motorola CEO Greg Brown, speaking on behalf of the Business Roundtable, at least nodded to the news. "We appreciate President Obama's commitment to improve our immigration system," he said, "but America's needs can be met only through reform of our entire immigration system; executive action does not fix our broken immigration system."

Caught somewhere in between are Republican leaders, who now face the challenge of channeling the animus in their ranks into a solution without alienating the booming Hispanic voting bloc in the process (a trick they're aiming to achieve by focusing their criticism more on the President's means than his ends). In the immediate run, the Republican conundrum would appear to be a happy corollary for the White House. Obama's move sticks a finger in the wound that GOP establishment poobahs tried to stitch up over the course of the election cycle. Partnering with big business interests, those leaders worked to steer more reasonable candidates through the party's nominating process in hopes that groundwork would leave them with what they called a "governing majority" -- that is, a sufficient margin of cooperative types to allow Republicans to show they can actually get things done. To prove it wasn't for naught, they now need to put a lid on the anger on the right before it boils over into self-destructive protest measures, like another government shutdown.

But Obama's own success in the remainder of his time in power is arguably tied up in the same bundle. Following the two previous elections during his presidency, he chose conciliation. After losing badly in the 2010 midterms, Obama accepted the Republican argument that a grand bargain on the deficit should take precedence and went hunting in vain for one. Strengthened after his 2012 reelection, he cut a deal with Republicans that made 82 percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent without securing the infrastructure spending that had been a cornerstone of his jobs plan.

The immigration move reveals a president finally steeled for a confrontation. Yet one of the odd things about the final election of Obama's presidency is that to the extent his Congressional agenda still includes chasing big wins, it's strikingly similar to the corporate wish-list. Beyond a legally-enshrined immigration overhaul that frees up more visas for foreign workers, it centers on passing new free-trade agreements and reworking the tax code to lower rates by clearing out loopholes -- goals shared broadly by Republican leaders. Whether those measures advance will turn on how his politically explosive immigration order sets the stage.

Happy Friday -- the last one before the Thanksgiving weekend. Earnings season is slowing down, but the political season is heating up after the failed Keystone XL vote this week in the Senate, and President Obama’s new immigration push. Stock futures are rallying after ECB President Mario Draghi's comments on fighting inflation and China's central bank announced a surprise rate cut.

Here’s what else you need to know for your day ahead.

1. Obama heads to Las Vegas for an immigration push

Obama heads to Nevada today -- a state has the nation’s highest proportion of undocumented immigrants -- to present more information on his immigration plan. He unveiled a sweeping immigration reform plan yesterday evening, which relies on his executive powers and bypasses congressional approvals. It would allow nearly 4.4 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents stay in the country without the threat of deportation. That’s shy of half the total 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today.

2. China cuts interest rates to help spur growth

For the first time in over two years, China cut interest rates in a surprise move. The country is stepping up its efforts to prop up growth in the world’s second largest economy. China’s economy has faced its slowest growth in nearly 25 years as both factory expansion and real estate have remained weak. The People’s Bank of China said it is cutting one-year benchmark lending rates by 40 basis points to 5.6%, which will take effect Saturday.

3. The Fed is reviewing how it supervises big banks

The Federal Reserve will take a good look at crucial aspects of its bank supervision following criticism that the regulator isn’t effective in its policing and stifles internal dissent. The move comes ahead of today’s Senate hearing by a panel on bank regulation. The Fed’s inspector general and a team of staff in Washington, D.C., will look at whether senior investigators are given sufficient information when making decisions that affect the top financial firms. This includes making sure there are ways for divergent opinions to be heard in the process.

4. Sotheby’s CEO is out

William Ruprecht, Sotheby’s CEO since 2000, will step down from the auction house following months of activist investor pressure that resulted in a board shakeup. Hedge-fund activist Dan Loeb and others joined the board of directors in May after Loeb’s firm’s seven-month campaign to overhaul Sotheby’s. Sotheby’s BID said the decision was by mutual agreement, and the board has yet to agree on a replacement.

5. Nintendo continues its turnaround push

The video game maker’s Super Smash Bros. game for its Wii U console goes on sale today, following record advance orders. Pre-sales for the fighting game surpassed Nintendo’s other hit games including Mario Kart 8. The hit title helped boost the company’s profits to about $224 million last quarter -- a major turnaround from a loss of about $74.2 million in the same quarter a year earlier. The game could also help drive sales during the all-important holiday shopping season ahead.

Through two government and two independent investigations since the disaster, Blankenship has denied all charges and scoffed at the notion that he might be held criminally responsible, even though two of his former subordinates have pled guilty and been sentenced to prison. Blankenship "conspired to commit and cause routine, willful violations of mandatory federal mine safety and health standards" at the mine, the indictment charges, "in order to produce more coal, avoid the costs of following safety laws, and make more money." He is also charged with lying to the SEC and to Massey investors in the months after the accident.

Blankenship resigned from Massey in late 2010, weeks before the company was sold to Alpha Resources. His trial promises to provide more evidence of the unsafe practices of the coal industry in Appalachia, and, perhaps, to bring a measure of consolation to the families of the mend who died at Upper Big Branch. More than that, it represents the first time the chief executive of a major coal company has faced criminal charges for safety violations committed at his mine.

Less than a century ago, in the so called "Coal Wars," federal troops were called out to quell unrest among miners protesting, often violently, against unsafe and unhealthy conditions in the coal mines. Now a coal CEO faces more than 30 years in prison for allegedly perpetuating, and attempting to conceal, those conditions.

*****

The mansion that Blankenship used to entertain his corporate friends sits on a ridge overlooking Williamson, W.Va. You can see its turrets and porticoes from the mostly vacant downtown of Williamson, which, like many coal towns in the region, has been devastated by the steep decline of the Appalachian coal industry. When I visited Williamson in September 2013, while reporting for my forthcoming book on the future of the coal industry, a local activist and organizer named Eric Mathis showed me the community garden that he and others have created to try and revive the town's moribund economy.

A graduate of Appalachian State, Mathis began working in economic development after being recruited to assist in a class action lawsuit against Blankenship and his company, Massey Energy. The suit was over water disposal practices at Massey's mines--practices that also come up in the federal indictment.

"They started dumping slurry into underground mines, pulling out the particulates and putting them in there,” says Mathis. “It was just a toxic soup that they dumped into the drinking water in Mingo County. They'd warned Blankenship it was happening and he didn't give a shit. At the same time he built a pipeline to his house, knowing all his neighbors were drinking poison, to ensure that he had clean water. That's who he is."

That lawsuit was filed in 2006, just as the regional coal industry was arriving at the edge of the precipice off which it has since plunged. Attitudes toward Massey and its combative CEO were mixed--and feelings about the industry remain that way. On the one hand, many people across Appalachia deplore the way the companies have despoiled the land through drastic mining techniques--particularly mountaintop removal--and resent the callous attitudes of company officials toward miners' health and safety. On the other, a lot of families depend on paychecks from the coal mines, and resent any policies that might limit the industry's prospects.

The recent re-election campaign of Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, was essentially a contest to see who could support coal more fervently: McConnell or his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes. After five terms in Washington, McConnell can hardly boast of passionate support back home in Kentucky. But Grimes could never quite convince the voters she was truly a Friend of Coal. This past Friday, McConnell said in an interview that President Obama’s treatment of the coal industry was an “outrage,” and vowed to fight back. “So he had a war on coal and, honestly, I’m going to go to war with him over coal,” said McConnell.

Blankenship himself is an Appalachian by birth and by outlook. Born in Stopover, Ky., he grew up in Delorme, a village on the Tug River, West Virginia's southwest border with Kentucky. A graduate of Marshall University, he got his start as an office manager for Rawl Sales & Processing, a Massey subsidiary, and rose through the ranks, becoming CEO in 2000. In a state where coal tycoons are accorded near-royal status, Blankenship managed to alienate many through his fierce anti-union stands and his arrogant dismissals of safety regulations. And he has been accused over the years of buying influence with officials, particularly state Supreme Court justices, with possible oversight of the coal industry.

In testimony during a lawsuit over fatalities at Massey's Aracoma mine, in 2008, Blankenship responded when accused on the stand of being indifferent to the safety of his miners: "It is just the opposite," Blankenship said, as quoted on Bloomberg News. "As an accountant, I know that safety is an important cost control. So even if I were so calloused, which I am not, as to believe that safety should be sacrificed for production, I would understand that it doesn't make any sense because the accidents and so forth cause you to have more costs."

The current indictment contains many such instances of plain speaking. Officials at mine entrances had code words to warn miners underground of the arrival of mine inspectors, and routinely covered up safety violations, per orders from Blankenship. Blankenship often berated his managers, in writing, pushing them to avoid spending on safety measures and keep up production. "Please be reminded that your core job is to make money. To do this, you have to run coal at a low cost, ship your orders, and control your quality," reads one such missive. In another message he told managers to ignore proper ventilation requirements for underground shafts where miners were working: "We'll worry about ventilation or other issues at another time. Now is not the time."

"You have a kid to feed," Blankenship told one employee, referred to in the indictment as "the Known UBB [Upper Big Branch] Executive," in a blistering handwritten memo on March 10, 2009 - a year before the disaster. "Do your job."

Three days later came another handwritten note: "Pitiful. You need to get focused. ... I could Krushchev you. Do you understand?"

*****

In retirement, Blankenship spends his time trumpeting his free market, anti-environmental, climate-change-denial views on his web site, titled "American Competitionist," and in emails to his followers. I'm on his mailing list. He uses the website and email blasts to rant against the forces he believes are destroying America: the EPA, the Mine Safety & Health Administration, and climate-change scientists. He cordially turned down my request for an interview for the book. After the indictment was handed down on Nov. 13, he was characteristically defiant: "Don Blankenship has been a tireless advocate for mine safety," the lawyer, William W. Taylor III, said in a statement. "His outspoken criticism of powerful bureaucrats has earned this indictment. He will not yield to their effort to silence him."

This time, however, it's not powerful bureaucrats who have accused Blankenship: it's a federal grand jury of ordinary citizens in Charleston, W.Va., in the heart of coal country. Reactions from the families of the miners killed at Upper Big Branch, from politicians, and from executives at Alpha Resources has been swift and sharp. In the justice system, said Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, in a statement, Blankenship “will be treated far fairer and with more dignity than he ever treated the miners he employed. And frankly,” Rockefeller added, “it’s far more than he deserves.”

Blankenship is an outlier within the coal industry, which has brought modern technology and enhanced safety practices to the mines over the last 10 years. Even underground mining is an anachronism today, when strip mines and "mountaintop removal" are more common and more profitable. But for an industry in decline, the sight of a former powerful executive being hauled into court over his company's mining operations is chilling. Lawyers for coal mining companies across the country are at this moment combing old memos and emails for incriminating evidence.

Blankenship's first day in court will be a hearing in Beckley, W.Va., on Nov. 20.

In the House, the measure passed 252-161, including 31 Democrats voting for its approval.

If the pipeline is built, it would close a gap between South Dakota and Nebraska, totaling 1,179 miles. Around 800,000 barrels of crude could flow daily to the Gulf Coast.

President Obama has opposed previous versions of the bill and has signaled that he may veto the current version if it is passed, saying that the State Department should have the ultimate say over cross-border pipelines. But on Friday, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio expressed optimism for the bill and attacked the President for his opposition.

“Thousands more Americans would be working today if President Obama had put their priorities ahead of his political interests and approved the Keystone pipeline,” he said in a statement. “Instead, he continues to block the project, and the new jobs, lower costs, and increased energy security it would provide.”

While energy industry advocates argue the project would create jobs, environmentalists are wary of potential oil spills. The controversial plan has been at the center of a fight between environmentalists and big business advocates for the past six years.

For more, read Nina Easton’s October article in Fortune about the pipeline.

The statement from AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson is the first move by an Internet service provider in response to President Barack Obama’s unexpected call on the Federal Communications Commission on Monday to regulate these companies more like public utilities.

AT&T has been spending heavily on acquisitions and the statement came only days after it cut its capital spending estimate for 2015.

The industry and Republican lawmakers have protested Obama’s proposal, saying stricter Internet traffic regulations would stifle growth and investment.

“We can’t go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed,” Stephenson said at an analyst conference.

In April, AT&T said it would deploy its high-speed fiber network in 100 cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles and Miami.

Ensuring access to quality Internet for all Americans has been the FCC’s major focus. The White House detailed Obama’s plan in a blog post on Monday, saying that, if implemented, it “shouldn’t create any new burden for Internet providers.”

Telecom companies plan to fight Obama’s call for utility-style regulations in Congress and the courts.

More than three dozen congressional Republicans wrote to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on Wednesday that Obama’s proposed changes were “beyond the scope of the FCC’s authority.”

Comcast Corp, now closing a merger deal with Time Warner Cable Inc that would create the nation’s top cable Internet service provider, said on Wednesday the net-neutrality uncertainty would chill investment in Web infrastructure.

“The (regulatory) insecurity creates investment insecurity,” Comcast CEO Brian Roberts told reporters in San Francisco. “We will spend $20 billion in capital spending if you include Time Warner Cable. We want to have open internet rules, but don’t want to discourage investment.”

AT&T, whose $48.5 billion bid for DirecTV is under government review, said on Friday it would also pay $1.7 billion to acquire Mexican wireless operator Iusacell. It trimmed its 2015 capital spending outlook to $18 billion from $21 billion.

At the same conference on Wednesday, Verizon Communications Inc CFO Fran Shammo struck a more restrained tone. She said the FCC could restrict “paid prioritization” deals, where content companies pay for faster downloads of some websites or applications, without pursuing utility-style regulations.

“I think the independent agency of the FCC will make the right decision,” Shammo added.

By Alex Fitzpatrick, TIME

President Barack Obama on Monday leapt from the sidelines to the scrum of a fierce ongoing battle over the future of the Internet. Here's what you should know about the President's plans:

1. Before you start, why should I even care about this wonky "Net Neutrality" debate?

Because you're using the Internet right now. It's hard to overstate how big an impact whatever comes of this debate will have on the future of how we connect with one another, do business and so on.

2. What is net neutrality, anyway?

At its simplest, it's the idea that your Internet Service Provider (ISP) should treat all Internet content as equal in terms of speed. It's become a major issue because some of our biggest ISPs are also media companies, like Comcast, which now owns NBCUniversal. Advocates warn that opens up a scenario where an ISP like Comcast could slow down, say, Netflix, in an attempt to get users to view Comcast's own video offerings instead, or the ISPs could ask Netflix for money to get its content to users faster than that of upstart rivals that have less cash on hand, stifling competition.

Others, however, say enforcing net neutrality puts an undue burden on businesses, arguing that the free market will keep things fair without the government getting involved -- though broadband competition in the U.S. is severely lacking.

3. Why would Obama get involved now?

On the surface, it looks like the man who Obama appointed to run the Federal Communications Commission, Tom Wheeler, isn't as dedicated to net neutrality as Obama might like.

A little history: the FCC enacted net neutrality rules for broadband Internet back in 2010, leading Verizon to quickly sue the agency. An appeals court struck down those rules in January, essentially saying that the FCC couldn't enforce them without reclassifying broadband Internet as a common carrier under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, a move that would open those services to increased federal regulation. The FCC had the chance to get broadband under Title II's umbrella back in 2002, but decided instead to call it an "information service," a decision that made it much harder for the agency to regulate it.

All that history leaves Wheeler, a former telecoms lobbyist, with few options. He's tried to craft a middle-of-the-road approach, but advocates say his idea would still let ISPs create so-called "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" for Internet content, thereby violating net neutrality. Another recently leaked proposal had the FCC planning a sort of hybrid approach, but pretty much everybody on both sides of the debate hated the idea.

Obama is getting closely involved as the FCC has struggled to come up with a solution and, notably, after Democrats lost control of the Senate in this year's midterm elections. Net neutrality was a major Obama campaign promise, and he's likely thinking about what his legacy will be when his time as President is up about two years from now.

4. What's Obama's plan exactly?

Obama's plan is four-fold: stop ISPs from blocking access to legal content, prevent them from "throttling" some types of Internet traffic, apply net neutrality rules between ISPs and the rest of the Internet, and ban paid prioritization of content, which involves a content provider paying an ISP to get its offerings to your home faster than other content is delivered.

However, the courts have made it pretty clear the FCC can't do any of this without first triggering the so-called "nuclear-option" of reclassifying broadband as a common carrier utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. That's why Obama is also calling for the agency to make that move.

4. Why is Title II the "nuclear option?"

It would set off a legal and legislative fight on a scale that hasn't been seen in the tech policy world in decades. It's pretty much a law of nature that big businesses will fight tooth and nail against any increased government regulation, and Title II is exactly that: a move that would allow the FCC more control over corporate behemoths like Comcast and Verizon. The lobbyist and advocate group emails were flying just as Obama's statement went live, foreshadowing a major fight in Congress and probably the courts as well.

Notably, however, Obama is also calling on the FCC to practice "forbearance," or the idea that the government shouldn't enact regulations beyond what it sees necessary to enforce his four-point plan. Title II, however, would allow the FCC to enact regulations beyond Obama's plans. Expect that point to be a major talking point as the debate develops -- opponents of Title II reclassification will argue the federal government will, by its nature, enact as many regulations as it possibly can, adding undue burden to businesses. They'll also say that federal regulation can't possibly move fast enough to adequately govern something as ever-changing as the Internet.

5. Does the President have any real power here?

The FCC is an independent agency, and although Wheeler was appointed by the President, what the FCC does is up to Wheeler and the agency's four bipartisan commissioners. It's hard to say how much of an impact the Oval Office will have on the decision-making process.

6. Where do we go from here?

Even though Obama can't force the FCC to do anything, his getting involved in such a major way brings a wonky tech policy debate right to the fore. Some four million Americans have already contacted the FCC to offer their opinions about net neutrality, setting an agency record. It's easy to see more Americans will take the time to learn about -- and form an opinion on -- the debate now that the President's made headlines about it.

One possible scenario is that Wheeler and Obama have this whole time been playing a little Good Cop/Bad Cop. Wheeler could've made his proposals knowing full well they would drum up serious public opposition, leaving Obama free to swoop in and ride that public sentiment to come out in favor of Title II. Wheeler, then, could follow the President's lead knowing he has the Oval Office's support in triggering the nuclear option -- a move he might've wanted to make all along.

Wheeler, meanwhile, responded to Obama's statement Monday with one of his own that essentially boils down to this: The FCC needs more time.

"I am grateful for the input of the President and look forward to continuing to receive input from all stakeholders, including the public, members of Congress of both parties, including the leadership of the Senate and House committees, and my fellow commissioners," Wheeler said. "Ten years have passed since the Commission started down the road towards enforceable Open Internet rules. We must take the time to get the job done correctly, once and for all, in order to successfully protect consumers and innovators online."