them to continue to make progress. [inaudible conversations] >> despite protests the fcc proposed new rules that could let internet service providers charge companies for faster delivery of content to users. that's next on c-span2. then president obama tapeds a dedication ceremony for the 9/11 memorial and museum in new york, and later, pentagon and state department officials testify about nigeria and give an update on the abduction of nigerian school girls, kidnapped last month by boca haram. secretary of state john kerry was in london for a meeting on syria. he spoke to reporters afterwards

culling the upcoming elections in syria a farce. while stopping short of offering u.s. military aid. kerry said he and partners remain committed to, quote, changing the dynamics on the ground in syria. neither kerry or william hague offered many specifics. here's more with what sect kerr -- secretary kerry said at the news conference with william hague. >> ask yourself, how do you have a legitimate election when half the people in your country are displaced and not able to vote? how do you have a legitimate election when another several million people are in refugee camps, unable to vote? how do you have it when hundreds of thousands of people-literally, almost a million perhaps, are scattered

in various countries in the region, seeking safety from assad. it's just impossible to believe that under those circumstances, where people are hunkered down in homes, intimidated and afraid to be able to come out, afraid of being forced to do one vote or another, just have no climate, no framework within which you can talk about legitimacy. >> you can watch that entire news conference at c-span.org. house overnight committee chairman derryl issa issued a new subpoena for secretary of state kerry to testify on the panel on benghazi. chairman issa accused the state department of backtracking on commitments reached with his economy. >> the fcc voted to move ahead with a plan to allow internet

providers to allow their services -- fcc chair tom wheeler and the commission's two democrats voted to move the proposal forward and begin a formal public comment period. this portion of the fcc meeting is an hour. >> the process has been going on in the fcc -- lack legitimacy of our democracy, and we want to make sure that the people understand the context of this is that we have a ill legitimate democracy. it brings us -- [inaudible] >> without any kind of discrimination. you want to see the fcc regulate for the people, not to regulate it for the corporations. comcast and -- [applause]

>> my name is margaret flowers. i'm at resistance.org. in 21st century the internet is free speech but in this country we're losing our right to free speech. the internet was created with public dollars and was never to -- this is our -- [applause] >> keep the internet free. >> four or five years ago. constitution, including the first amendment. destroying the right to free speech and free press. i'm totally against it. >> that's okay.

>> of the people. 58,000 of my soldiers died for -- >> may 2014 meeting of the federal communications commission. let me begin with a couple of housekeeping items. first of all, we have a particularly full agenda today, and so for the benefit of my colleagues, we will be taking a biobreak between the third and fourth items for about ten minutes, and we'll be coming back -- we need to come back quickly for that. i just want to see at the outset insofar as before the meeting began, there was some activity here. the purpose of what we're doing here today on the open internet is to make sure that we hear

from everyone, and that we start a process that fully opens the doors for comment by the american people. we want to good over the process today, and disruption doesn't help getting to the point where the american people can provide input into the process. so, we look forward to a full and complete discussion of all of these issues, and that's the important thing that we're beginning today. so, madam secretary, will you please introduce our agenda for the morning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to you and good morning, commissioner. today's agent includes four

items for your consideration, first, note to its of proposed rulemaking addressing the d.c. court of appeals remands of the commission's open internet order and proposing enforceable rules to protect and promote the open internet. second, you will consider a report and order that provides a limited expansion to the class of wireless microphone users eligible for a license. third, you will consider a report and order that adopts key policies and rules for the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction, laying the groundwork for an unprecedented market-driven process for repurposing spectrum for mobile brand use, -- mobile broadband use. last, you will consider a report and order that modifies the commission's policies and adopts rules regarding the aggregation of spectrum for mobile, wireless

services, through initial licensing and secondary market transactions to preserve and promote competition. this is your agenda for today. the first item will be printed be the wireline competition bureau. julie beach will give the introduction. >> thank you, madam secretary. >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. we present for your consideration an item seeking broad public comment on the best way to protect and promote the open internet. the commission has emphasized for almost a decade the importance of open internet protections, but following the court of appeals decision earlier this year, there are no legally enforceable rules ensuring internet openness. so remedy this absence the item before you proposed rules to promote the internet as an open platform for innovation,

competition, economic growth, and free expression. as well as being a driver of broadband investment and deployment. i'd like to thank our colleagues in the consumer and governmental affairs bureau, the enforment bury -- enforcement bury roy, wire left side bureau, and the office of engineering and technology, strategic planning for this significant contributions. with me at the table of roger sherman and of the wireless bureau. i'd also like to acknowledge care simpson of the wireline bureau for her tireless efforts on this item. christine will now present the item for your consideration. >> good morning, christine. >> good morning.

>> let me try again. good morning, commissioner. the notice of proposed rulemaking we present today seeks comment on a framework of open internet rules at that time will protect consumers against the harms identified in the open internet order and foster innovation, both within networks and at their edges. the goal of this notice is to find the best approach to protecting and promoting internet openness. there are six key elements to this notice. first, in order to facilitate objectives of the 2010 open internet order the notice proposed to retain the definitions and scope of the 2010 rules. it seems comment, however, on whether to revisit the scope of the 2010 rules, including, with respect to the differential treatment accorded to mobile and fixed forms of broadband internet access.

second, the notice tentatively concludes the commission should enhance the transparency rule that was upheld by the d.c. circuit to ensure that consumers and edge providers and the internet community at large have the information they need to understand the services they're receiving, and offer to monitor practices that could undermine the open internet. third, the notice proposes to -- proposes adopting the text of the 2010 no blocking rule with the clarification that the rule prohibits broadband providers from depriving edge providers of a minimum level of access to the broadband proceeder's subscribers. this revived no blocking rule would provide an important foundation in the commission's efforts to protect and preserve internet openness. fourth, for conduct not prohibited by the no-blocking rule, the notice propose of rule

would required broadband provide towards adhere to an enforceable legal standard of commercially reasonable practices. the notice asks how harms to internet openness can best by identified and prohibited under the standard. and whether certain practices, like paid prioritization, should be barred altogether. for any practices that are not prohibited outright, the notice proposes a number of factors that the commission can consider when determining whether the conduct in question would harm internet openness. fifth, the notice proposes a multifaceted dispute resolution process to enforce the open internet rules. this enforcement mechanism is intended to provide legal certainty, fast decisionmaking and access for end users, edge providers, and broadband providers. the notice proposes to establish

the role of an ombudsman to -- consumers, startups and other small entities. the notice proposes the enforcement mechanism include self-initiated investigationsed and formal complaint options. six, the notice proposes to rely on sex 706 of the telecommunications act of 1996, as the source of authority for adopting the rules that will protect the open internet. it seeks comment, however, on the best source of authority for protection of internet openness, whether section 706, title 2, or another source of legal authority, such as title 3, for wireless services. with respect to the possibility of proceeding under title 2, the notice seeks comment on whether and how the commission should exercise its authority under

section 10 of the act, or sect 3 32. c .1 for wireless purposes, to forebay obligations that would flow from the classification of a service as a telecommunication service. the bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges. thank you. >> let's get comments from the bench. commissioner clyburn. >> mr. chairman, when my mother calls with public policy concerns, i know there is a problem. in my 16 years as a public servant, emily clyburn has never called me about a substantive issue under consideration, not during my time serving on the says public service commission, not during my tenure as a commissioner, nor at acting chairwoman, never. but all of that changed for me and us on monday, april 28th.

please indulge me for a moment. my mother is a very organized, intuitive and intelligence woman, a medical librarian who earned a masters degree while working full time and raising three very interesting girls. she is smart, thoughtful, and engaged. she is a natural researcher, so when she picked up the phone to call me about this issue, i knew for sure something was just not right. she gave voice to three basic questions which, as of today's date, her message remains on my telephone and in my personal memory banks: what is this net neutrality issue? can providers do what they want to do? and did it already pass. so like any good daughter with an independent streak, i will directly answer my mothers questions in my own time and in my own way. but her inquire truly he can

questions the calls -- echos the calls, e-mails, letters, i've received from thousands of consumerrers, investors, startups, healthcare providers and others who are equally concerned and confused. all of this demonstrates no pun intended, the foundmental the internet has back to saul of us. so why are -- has become for all of us. what is net neutrality? let me start from a place most of us can agree that a free and open exchange of ideas is critical to to democratic society. consumers with the able to visit whatever web site and access any lawful content of their choice, interability with their government, apply for a job or monitor the household devices, educators having the capacity to leverage the best digital learning tools for their students and themselves. healthcare providers treating their patients with the latest technologies, all of this occurring without those services

or content being discriminated against or blocked. all content, all being treated equally. small startups on a shoestring budget with novel ideas. having the ability to reach millions of people and come peteing on equal footing with those pairs and their considerable budgets, innovation abounds with technologies and services. at its core, an open internet means consumers, not a company, not the government, determine winners and losers. it is a free market at its best. all of this, however, does not, nor will it ever, occur organically. without rules governing a free and open internet, it is possible that companies, fixed and wireless broadband providers, could independently determine whether they want to discriminate or block content,

play favorites, charge higher fees or distort the market. i have been listening to concerns knock just from my mother but thousands of consumers and interested parties. startups fear they won't even get a chance to succeed if access is controlled by corporations rather than a competitive level playing field. and investors who say they will be reticent to commit money to new companies because they are concerned that their new service won't be able to reach consumers in the marketplace because of high costs or differential treatment. educators, even where there is high capacity connection at that school, feel they're students may not be able to take advantage of the best in digital learning if the quality of the content is poor. healthcare professionals worrying that the images they need to view will load too slowly and that patients will be unable to benefit from the latest technologies in specialized care, made possible

through remote monitoring. and i am hearing from everyday people, who say that we need to maintain the openness of the internet. and that this openness enables today's discourse to be viewed by thousands, and offers them the able to interact directly with public policymakers and engage in robust changes like we are experiencing today. and in fact, let me say how impressed i was when i spoke to some of you on main street. you came from new york, pennsylvania, virginia, on your own dime to affirm just how important this issue is to you. you made it clear the internet is a great equalizer and average consumer should have the same access to the internet as those with deep pockets. there are dozens of examples across the globe where we have seen first hand the dangers to

society when people are not allowed to choose. government blocking access to content and stifling free speech and public discourse. countries like, including, some in europe, where providers have congested or degraded content and apps are being blocked from several mobile devices. problems occurred even here at home, darkly with regard to apps or mobile devices even though being subject to net neutrality rules, so, to mom and all of you, this is an issue about promoting our democratic values of free speech, competition, economic growth, and civic engagement. the second question she posed, was: can providers just do what they want? the short answer is, yes. as of january, we have no rules to prevent discrimination or blocking.

this is actually a significant change because the fcc has had policies in place dating back to 2004 when the commission, under former chairman and my good friend, michael powell, adapted the open internet. the prims became the rules of the road with the potential for enforcement. then in 2010 the commission formally adopted rules to promote an open internet by preventing blocking and unreasonable discrimination. when the commission approved the rule is explained why i would have done some things differently. for instance, i would have applied the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband, prohibited pay priority agreements, limited any exceptions to the rule, and i am on record as preferring a different legal structure. the 2010 rules reflect a compromise. yes, mom, do compromise at

times-but in january of 2014, the d.c. circuit disagreed with our legal framework and here we are again. so, i say again, that the court decision means that today we have no unreasonable discrimination or no blocking rules on the books so nothing prevents providers from acting in small ways that go largely undetected. and nothing prevents them from acting in larger ways to discriminate against or even block certain content. to be fair, providers have stated that they intend for the time being not to do so and have publicly committed to retain their current policies of openness. but for me, the issue comes down to weather broadband providers should have the ability to determine on their own whether their internet is free and open or whether we should have basic clear rules of the road in place

to ensure that this occurs as we have had for the last decade. and this may be surprising to some. but i have chosen to view the court decision in a positive light for it has given us a unique opportunity to take a fresh look and evaluate our policy in light of the developments that have occurred in the market over the past four years, including the increased use of wi-fi, deployment of lte, faster speeds and connections to homes, schools, libraries, and the increased use of broadband on mobile devices to name a few. the demand enables us to issue this contractorran cal to the possible to help is answer the question of how to protect and maintain a free and open internet. that ability officially begins for everyone today. the third question, and subjecting by the headlines and

subsequent reactions, my mother is in good company here -- was, has it passed? no, it has not. but let me explain. some press accounts have reported the chairman's initial proposal is what we are voting on and have conflated proposed rules with final rules. neither is accurate. for those of you who practice in this space, i ask that you bear with me for a few moments. when the chairman circulates an item, it is indeed a reflection of his vision. my office then evaluates the proposals, listens to any concerns voiced by interested parties, including consumers, then considers whether we have concerns, and if so, what changes we want to request so that we can move to a position of support. this item was no different. it is true, i, too, had significant concerns about the initial proposal, but after

interactions among staff, my office, and the chairman's office, and the chairman, this item has changed considerably over the last few weeks and i appreciate the the chairman for incorporating my many requests to do so. though i still may have preferred to make portions of the draft more neutral, what wore voting on today asks about a number on alternatives which will allow for well-around record to develop on how best to protect the public interest. second, today, we are voting on -- only on proposed rules, not final rules. again, this item is an official call, inviting interested parties to comment to discuss pros and cons of various approach and to have a robust dialogue about the best path forward. when the chairman hits the gavel after the vote is cast this

morning it will signal a start of 120 unique days of opportunity you have in shaping and influencing the direction of one of the world's most incredible platforms. the feedback up to now has been nothing short of astounding, but the real call to action begins after this vote is taken. comments are due on july 15th, and there is amp time to evaluate any of the proposals and provide meaningful feedback. you have spoken and i'm listen, and i hope your passion continues. as i said to those i met outside of the fcc headquarters, this is your opportunity to formally make your point on the record. you have the ear of the entire fcc, the eyes of the world are on all of us. use your voice and this platform to continue to be heard and i will do all that i can

independently and with the chairman, to identify ways to encourage more interactive dialogue with all stakeholders whether through town halls, work shops, webinars or social media, because i know with the robust record, this commission will be able to move quickly and get to the finish line with the adoption of permanent rules that provide certainty which are clear and enforceable. so, mom, i hope that answers most of your questions. and i sincerely hope that you won't feel compelled to ask me anymore significant policy questions for another 16 years. and in all seriousness, i want to thank the dedicated staff of the office of general coup, including jonathan and stephanie, as well as the wireline competition and wireless telecommunications bureau for their hard work on this significant item.

and i especially want to thank my legal advisor for her expert work on this item and, rebecca, yes, you may take tomorrow off. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, commissioner, both for you significant contributions to this item as well as to explaining to your mother and everyone how this process works. commissioner. >> i support an open internet but would have done this different hi. before proceeding i would have taken time to understand the future. because the future of the internet is the future of everything. there's nothing in our commercial and civic lives that will be untouched by its influence or unmoved by its power. i would have taken time for more input, because i think as public servants we have a duty to

acknowledge and respond to the great tide of public commentary that followed in the wake of the chairman's proposal. even now the phone calls continue, the e-mails pure in, and the web -- pour in and the web itself is ablaze with comment -- commentary how this commission should proceed. it's no wonder. our internet economy is the envy of the world. we invented it. the broadband beneath is and the air waves all around us deliver its collective mite to our homes and businesses and communities across the country. the applications economy began here on our shores. what produced this dynamic engine of entrepreneurship and experimentation is a foundation of openness. sustaining what has made us innovative, fierce, and creative, should not be a

choice. it should be an only gigs. -- obligation. was a proceed we're also obligated to protest what has made the internet the most dynamic platform for free speech ever invented. it is our modern town square. our printing press, our shared platform for opportunity. online we are sovereign. we can choose, create, and consumer content unimpeded by the previous reps of our broadband providers. sustaining this freedom is essential. so as we proceed we also must keep front of mind the principles of fairness and protection from discrimination that have informed every proceeding involving the internet before this agency. these are the essential values in our communications laws. they are the ones we have honored in the past, they must

guide us in the future. so, going forward, we must honor transparency, ban blocking, and prevent unreasonable discrimination. we cannot have a two-tiered internet with fast lanes they speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. so i support network neutrality. but i believe the process that got us to this rulemaking today is flawed. i would have preferred a delay. i think we moved too fast to be fair. so i concur. but i want to acknowledge that the chairman has made significant adjustments to the texts of the rulemaking we adopt here today. he has expanded its scope and put all options on the table. our effort now covers law and policy, section 706, and title 2.

so, if past is prologue, the future of this proceeding, the future of network neutrality, and the future of the internet, is still being written. i'm hopeful we can write it together and i am mindful we must get it right. thank you, commissioner. commissioner pai. >> thank you. a few years ago, google's ceo abler smidt was quoted as something i the internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand. if this is so, then every american who cares about the future of the internet should be wary about five unelected officials deciding its fate. after the u.s. court of appeals here in washington struck down the agency's latest attempts to regulate broadband providers' network management practices i recommended the fcc seek guidance from congress instead of plowing ahead yet again on

its own. in my view, recent events have only confirm the wisdom of that approach. let's start by acknowledging the obvious. the chairman's proposal has sparked a vigorous public debate. but we should not let the that debate obscure important common ground. namely, a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet. indeed, this consensus reaches back at least a decade. in 2004, then fcc chairman michael powell outlined four principles of internet freedom. the free docket to access lawful content, the freedom to use applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the freedom to obtain service plan information. one year later, the fcc unanimously -- endorsed these

principles. this is propelled the internets tremendous growth and has shielded online competitors from anticompetitive practices. it's fostered long-term investment in broadband infrastructure. it has made the internet an unprecedented platform enter entertainment, commerce, and more, and has made the united states the epicenter of online innovation. i support the four internet freedoms freedoms and am committed to protecting them going forward. it's not news that people of good faith disagree when it comes to the best way to maintain a free and open internet, or, as i think of it, how best to preserve the four internet freedoms for consumers. some would like to regulate broadband providers as utilities under title 2 of the communications act. this turns the common carrier

regulation would scrap the clinton era decision to let the internet grow and thrive free from price regulation and other obligations applicable to telephone carriers. there are others, and i'm one of them, who believe that president clinton and congress got it right in the telecommunications act of 1996, when they declared the policy of the united states to be, preserving the vibrant and competitive flea market that presently exists for the internet from state or federal regulation. they think we should recognize the benefits made possible by he regulatory regime in place for the most part over the last decades. after all, nobody thinks of plain old telephone service or utilities as cutting edge. but everyone recognizes the internet has boundless potential, and that is because governments didn't set the bounds early on.

today's item strikes yet a third approach. it's a lawyerly one that proposes a minimal level of access rule and not too much discrimination rule. it also allows for paid prioritizeddation under unspecified circumstances. to date, no one outside this building has asked me to support this proposal. it brings to mind a texas politician's observation that there's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos. nothing less than the future of the internet dependings on how we resolve this disagreement. what we do in this proceeding will imperil or preserve internet freedom, premotor deter broadband infrastructure and investment throughout our nation. brighten or hamper the future of innovation both within the networks and at the illinois. it will determine whether control of the internet will reside with u.s. government or with the private sector.

it will impact whether consumers are connected by smart networks or dumb pipes. and it will advance or undermine american advocacy on the international stage, for an internet free from government control. my view, a dispute this fundamental is not for us, five unelected individuals, to decide. instead it should be resolved by the people's elected representatives. those who choose the direction of government, and those whom the american people can hold directly accountable for that choice. i'm therefore disappointed that today, rather than turning to congress, you have chosen to take matters into our own hands. all the more disappointing because we havedown this road before. our two prior attempts to go it alone ended in court defeats. and even with the new fangled tools the fcc will conjure up

out of the legal grab bag, i'm skeptical the third time will be the charm. for these ropes i -- reasons i respectly dissent. nevertheless if we are going to plunge the commission intoing this morass we need to use a better process going forward. i agree with my colleagues, commission rosenworcel, we have roushed into the rulemaking by holding this vote today, and when there's any bipartisan agreement on nut knee centrality, that's -- net neutrality, that's something. we have seen over the past months what happens when the american people feel excluded from the fcr's deliberations 'on several recent issues many say the commission has spent too much time speak at the american people and not enough time listening to them. going forward, we need to give the public a full and fair opportunity to participate in this process, and we must ensure

that our decisions are built and based on a robust record. so, what is the way forward? here's one suggestion. just as we commissioned a series of economic studies in past media ownership proceedings, we should ask ten distinguished economists from across the country to study the impact of proposed regulations and alternative proo'sals on the internet. let each commissioner pick two authors to ensure accuracy, each study should be peer reviewed, and to ensure public oversight, we should host a series of hearings where commissioners could question the authors of the studies and the authors of the studies could discuss their differences. surely the future of the internet is no less important than media ownership. but we should not limit ourselves to economic study. we should also engage computer

scientists,ing at the nothingists and other technical experts to tell us how they see the internet's infrastructure and consumers' online experience evolving. their studies should be subject to peer review public hearings. ultimately any decision wes make on internet regulation must be based on sound economics and engineering, and an accurate understanding of how networks actually function. they should be informed by the judicious and successful regulatory approach embraced by boast democrats and republicans in recent years, and they should avoid embroiling everyone, from the fcc to industry to the average american consumer, in yet another years long legal waiting game. in short, getting the future of the internet right is more important than getting this done right now. going forward, i hope we will not rush head long into enacting bad rules.

we are not confronted with an immediate crisis that requires immediate action. and if we are going to usurp congress' role and make fundamental choices for the american people, we must do better than the process that led us here today. i respectfully dissent. >> commissioner riley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it should come as no surprise i cannot support today's notice. is a said before, the premise for imposing neat knew trail idea results i flawed and rests on faulty foundation of make believe, statutory authority. i have serious concerns that the ill advised item will create damaging uncertainty and head the commission down a sleepry slope of regulation. as anticipated the notice proposes to ground the net neutrality rules in section 706 of the telecommunications act of 1996. i already suppressed my view that congress never expended the section to be an affirmative grant of authority to the commission to regulate the

internet. at most it could be used to trigger deregulation. but the notice seeks comments on ways to construe additional language in section 706 and even suggests using section 23b to broaden the scope of the commission's usurped authority. this is absurd. now the commission is trying to cast an even wider net of authority. i fear that other services and providers could become ensnarled the future. and just in case section 706 proves to be inadequate for this regular laker to boondoggle, the notice would -- reclassifying broadband internet axis as a tight 28 service, that is applying rules to modern broadband services to propose defective net neutrality regulations. what courts can recognize an agency may legally reverse course as long as it cad quitly explains the reasons for changing its position. i am concerned about real world

impact that such a decision could have on the communications industry and the economy as a whole. the current framework has provided a climate of certainty, and stability for broadband investment and internet interknow vacation. i also worry about the credibility of an agency that consistently failed to immediate statutory deadlines to review and eliminate old rules but is supposedly open to re-applying obsolete provisions. the notice suggests that reclassification could be accompanied by substantial forebearance from the title two requirement but the neater forebear from a significant number of provisions entitled to provides the point that tight 28 is an inappropriate framework for today's dynamic technologies. indeed, title 2 includes a host of arcane provisions. the idea that the commission can magically impose or sprinkle just the right amount of title 2 on broadband providers is giving the commission more credit than it ever deserves. additionally, before taking any

action on any issue, the commission should have a specific verify enable evidence there is a market failure to. the notice does not identify any failures. a true and accurate review of the u.s. broadband market, which must include wireless broadband, would show how dynamic it is. moreover, the notice failed to make the case that theirs an actual problem resulting in real harm to consumers. the notice identifies at most two additional examples of alleged harm, and in one instance the commission conceded it decide notice find a violation in last ditch attempt to find problems the notice points to supposed bad conduct occurring outside the united states without explaining how it's relevant to a very different u.s. broadband market and regulatory structure. having coming up empty-hand the notice proceeds to explore hype the:concerns. at the top of the list is pry

portization, but even supporters of net new central recognize some amount of traffic prioritization must be allowed. voice must be prioritized over e-mail. video over plain data. prioritization is a economies come opponent of reasonable network management. the notice of paid prioritization and contemplating banning some or all of these arrangements outright. the companies that do business of the internet, including some of the strongest supporters of net neutrality, routinely pay for a variety of services to ensure the best possible experience for their consumers. they've been doing it for years. in short, fears that paid prioritization will automatically degrade service for other users, revel gait thing tome so-called slow lanes, have been disproven by years of history. because there's no evidence of actual harm that could help inform the proposed rules they nor na e tailored but vague and

unclear. they suggest seeking -- but that is trouble egg when legitimate companies are put in the position of having to ask the government for its very blessing every time they need to make a business decision in order to avoid costly enforcement or litigation. and even more telling the commission is suggesting new layers of enforcement option for which it has no experience. for instance, where are ombudsmen mentioned in the statute, and what do they do exactly? finally to say that cost benefit analysis is woefully inadequate is an understatement. the notice to vote several pages to wish lists, disclosures, reporting requirements and certifications that impose new burdens and impose real coasts but may not ever wind up having meaningful end to consumers. what would the average consumer

do -- the submission0s show are shrift cannot continue and i intend to spend time improving function in sum, the proposele rules will stifle innovation, provide no help to consumers and thrust the commission into a place it shouldn't be. i respectfully dissent. >> of the internet generation, i propose an open internet. >> please, please, we're trying of mid-half. >> title 2 common carriers, common carrier -- >> we're trying to move ahead -- >> provides service in general terms and indiscriminately. [applause] >> the free and open internet. [applause] >> i strongly support an open internet.

this agency supports an open internet. although you've seen today that the ability to assure an open internet is a matter of dispute. there is one internet. not a fast internet, not a slow internet, one internet. the attention being paid to this topic through the country, here in this room, is proof positive as to why the open and free exchange of information must be protected. thank you to all of those thousands who have written me personally about this. thank you to those who feel so strongly about this that they've

been living in tents outside of the building, and i enjoyed our meetings. one can only conclude that the founding fathers must be looking down and smiling at how the republic they created is carrying out the ideals they established. by releasing this item today, those who have been expressing themselves will now be able to see what we are actually proposing. they have been heard. we look forward to further input. and i say thank you for your passionate caring about this very important issue. but today we take another step in what has been a decade-long

effort to preserve and protect the open internet. unfortunately, those previous efforts were blocked twice by court challenges by those who sell internet connections to consumers. today this agency moves to surmount that opposition and to stand up for consumers and an open internet. there's been talk up here about freedoms. about whether or not there's been market failures. the d.c. circuit in itself opinion on the 2010 decision of this commission made an interesting observation i'd just like to quote. quote: there is little dispute that broadband providers have the technological able to

distinguish between and discriminate against certain types of internet traffic. unquote. the court found. there have been examples of abuses from individual cases, to mobile carriers denying access to apps for banking or voice or video, so this notice of proposed rulemaking starts an important process. where it ends we'll learn during the process. that is why i'm grateful for all the attention this has received. we start with a simple, obvious premise. protecting the open internet is important for both consumers and

economic growth. we are dedicated to protecting and preserving an open internet. as commissioner clyburn much more eloquently pointed out, what we're dealing with today is a proposal, not a final rule. with this notice we're asking for specific comment on different approaches to accomplish the same goal, an open internet. nothing in this proposal, by the way, authorizes paid prioritization, despite what has been incorrectly stated today. the potential for there to be some kind of a fast lane available to only a few has many

people concerned. personally i don't like the idea that the internet could be divided into haves and have-nots, and i will work to see that that does not happen. in this item we specifically ask whether and how to prevent the kind of paid prioritization that could result in fast lanes. two weeks ago i told the convention of america's cable broadband providers something that is worth repeating here, quote: if someone acts to divide the internet between haves and have-nots, we will use every power to stop it. i will take no back seat to anyone that privileging some network users in a mapper --

manner that squeezes out smaller voices, is unacceptable. today we have proposed how to stop that from happening. including consideration of the applicability of title 2. as i said, there is one internet. it must be fast, it must be robust and it must be open. the speed and squall of the connection the consumer purchases must be unaffected by what content he or she is using, and there has to be a level playing field of opportunity for new ideas. small companies and startups must be able to effectively reach consumers with innovative products and services and the must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers.

the prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the internet, is unacceptable. let's stop for a minute and look at how the internet works at the retail level. the consumer accesses the internet using connectivity they have purchased from an internet service provider. that connectivity should be open and inviolate. it is the simple purchase of a pgaway. i believe it would be commercially unreasonable and, therefore, not permitted under this proposal, for the isp not to deliver the contracted-for pathway. but let's consider specifically what that means. i want to get rules that work like this. if the network operator slowed the speed below that which the

con bought, it would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited. if the network operator blocked access to lawful content, it would violate our no-blocking rule and become commercially unreasonable and therefore doubly prohibited. when content provided by a firm such as netflix, reaches the consumer's network provider, it would be commercially unreasonable to charge the content provider to use that bandwidth for which the consumer already paid and, therefore, prohibited. when a consumer buys specified capacity from a network provider, he or she ising into open capacity, -- is buying open capacity, not capacity the network provider can prioritize for their own profit purposes.

prioritization that deprives the consumer of what the consumer has paid for would be commercially unreasonable and, therefore, prohibitive. simply put, when a consumer buys a specified bandwidth, it is commercially unreasonable and thus a violation of this proposal, to deny them the full connectivity and the full benefit that connection enables. also included in this proposal are two new powers for those who use the internet and for the commission. expanded transparency will require networks to inform on themselves. i call it the rat-out rule. the proposal expands the existing transparency rules to

require that networks disclose any practices that could change a consumer's or content provider's relationship with the network. i thus anticipate that if a network ever planned to take action that would affect content providers' access there would be time for the fcc to consider petitions to review that action. this proposals also creates a voice for the average american, recognizing that internet entrepreneurs and consumers shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to call the commission's to a grievance. an only buddingsman would be created within the fcc to rev raigs complaints and, when warranted to investigate and represent their case. separate and and apart is the question of interconnection between the consumers' network

provider and the various networks that deliver to that isp. that's a different matter better addressed separately. today's proposal is all about what happen on the broadband provider's network and how the consumer's connection to the internet may not be interfered with or otherwise compromised. now, the situation in which this commission finds itself is inherited from the actions of previous commissions over the last decade. the dc circuit's ruling in january upheld our determination that we need rules to protect internet openness and upheld our authority under section 706 to adopt such rules. ...

i like to make a personal point. i know the importance of openness firsthand. as an entrepreneur, i have had products and services shut out of closed cable networks. as of the csi invested in companies that would not have been able to innovate if the network were not open. i have had hands-on experience with the important -- importance of network openness, and i will not allow the national assets of an open internet to be

compromised. i understand this issue in my bones. i have scars from when my companies were denied access in the pre internet based. the consideration that we are beginning today is not about whether the internet must be open but about how and when we will have rules in place to assure an open internet. my preference has been to follow the road map laid out by the d.c. circuit in the belief that it was the fastest and best way to get protection is in place. i have also indicated repeatedly that i am open to using title to .

this rule making begins the process by putting forth the proposal, asking the important and specific questions and opening the discussion to all americans. we look forward to the feedback on all these approaches. and now we will proceed to a vote. all those in favor say aye. the request for editorial privileges is granted. now, before we move on to our next item i would like to note that the order will be slightly different for the next two items we will first here presentations from the sec -- sec staff for the next two items followed by statements from the bench on both items.

after that we will proceed to individual votes on each of the two items. please announce our next item. the bureau and office of general council staff. are hearty and heartfelt thank you. >> the congressional internet, is a advisory committee will post a discussion on open internet rules tomorrow following today's 3-2 vote by the fcc. that is live at noon eastern here on c-span2. >> several members of congress acting in good faith to put forward plans to address our long term funding issue, and we applaud them for their efforts. i no there will be more discussion in town this week on those attempts. others are suggesting that the political reality is that we will have to sell for an infusion of cash into the highway trust fund as a stopgap

measure. where are you going to get the cash? used to be there were ways to do it. i think it is a little tighter now than it was. it may be true that we can get an infusion, but it is hardly the long-term solution that we need if we want to maintain all world-class infrastructure system. this is like the movie, groundhog day. every few years we wake up and have the same conversation about funding, the same fights over the gas tax, and the same scramble for money. the only problem in recent years as we have not been doing well. you do know, i guess round numbers, 20 years since we increased the gas tax. don't get me wrong, money is important. you cannot make the-if you don't have the cash, but don't for a man think that is all we have to do to get the infrastructure issues working. if you would get everything that is being discussed in recent

days and weeks the around the environmental issues, many of those are somewhat in conflict, not because they are wrong, but in what we are trying to do and where we're trying to spend our money. in fact, what everybody would agree to is we need a comprehensive forward-looking program that meets the needs of a competitive 21st century. that embraces innovative approaches and instills confidence and turns the support of a jaded citizenry. >> this weekend on c-span a look at america's aging infrastructure and possible effect on the economy saturday morning at 10:00 eastern and non book tv with live coverage throughout the day starting saturday morning at 1030 and at 10:00 p.m. former justice john paul stevens of suggestions to improve the constitution. in american history tv national review editor on the 14th president's work ethic and

political ambition in lincoln and bound sun then added it:00 on c-span three. >> the president and first lady michele obama toward the national september 11th memorial and governor and new jersey governor chris christie spoke at this one hour event. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ home. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> we are here today to help dedicate a great museum, one that arises out of the bedrock of our city, our history, our hearts. in the years to come the 9/11 memorial museum will take its place alongside the fields of gettysburg, the waters of pearl

harbor, and the vietnam veterans memorial as a sacred marker of our past and as a solemn gathering place, a place we come to remember those who died and to honor acts of courage and compassion that save lives and lifted spirits. the outstretched hands that rushed for that day and then the hard weeks and months that followed. in the streets of new york on the grounds of the pentagon in the fields near shanks will, pennsylvania, from all across america and the world kindness' poured forth on a colossal scale for on that day when terrorists refused to see our common humanity we saw only their humanity in one another. this museum built on the site of rubble and ruins is now filled with the faces, the stories, and the memories of our coming grief and our common hope.

it is a witness to tragedy, and the affirmation of human life, a reminder to us and all future generations that freedom carries heavy responsibilities, and it is a reflection of our belief that the true love of humanity resides in our compassion and kindness for one another. walking through this museum can be difficult at times, but it is impossible to leave without feeling inspired. each story here beach with the human heart, which if we allow it touches our own. the stories are the proof of what we do and the choices we make affect each other's lives and the course of human history. this morning we would like to share just a few of these stories that the museum tells. ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to introduce the president of the united states of america, barack obama.

[applause] >> mayor bloomberg, governor cuomo, honored guests, families of the fallen, and those awful moments after the south tower was said -- was hit some of the injured huddled in the wreckage of the 78 floor. the fires were spreading, the air was filled with smoke. it was dark. they could barely see.

it seemed as if there was no way out. then there came a voice. clear, called, saying he had found the stairs. i am man in his 20's, strong a emerged from the smoke and over his nose and his mouth he wore a red handkerchief. he called for fire extinguishers to fight back the flames. he tended to the wounded. he led those survivors down the stairs to safety and carried a woman on his shoulders down 17 flights. then he went back up all those lights and then back down again bringing more wounded the safety

until that moment when the tower fell. they did not know is named. it did not know where he came from, but they knew their lives have been saved by the man in a red bandanna. again there blumberg, distinguished guests, governors christie and cuomo, the families that i survivors of that date amount all of those two responded with such courage, on behalf of michele, myself, and the american people, it is an honor for us to join in your memories, to recall and reflect

but above all to reaffirm the true spirit of 9/11. love, compassion, sacrifice, and to enshrine it forever in the heart of our nation. michele and i just had the opportunity to join with others on a visit with some of the survivors and families, men and women who inspire gasol, and we had a chance to visit some of the exhibits. i think all who come here will find it to be a profound and moving experience. i want to express our deep gratitude to everybody who was involved in this great undertaking, bringing us to this day, giving us this sacred place of healing and hope.

here at this memorial, this museum, we come together, we stand in the footprints of two mighty towers graced by the rush of the eternal waters. we look into the faces of nearly 3,000 innocent souls, men and women, children of every race, every creed, from every corner of the world. we can touch their names and here their voices and a glimpse the small items that speak to the beauty of their lives, of wedding ring, dusty, shining badge, here we tell their story

so that generations yet unborn will never forget. co-workers to lead others to safety of passengers to storm the cockpit, men and women in uniform who rushed into an inferno of first responders to charge up the stairs, a generation of service members, our 9/11 generation who served with honor and more than a decade of war. a nation that stands tall and united and unafraid because no act of terror can match the strength or the character of our comfort -- country. the great wall and bedrock that embraces us today, nothing can ever break us.

nothing can change to we are as americans. on that september morning allison it rather lost her son. months later she was reading the newspaper, an article about those final minutes in the towers. survivors recounted italian man wearing a red handkerchief and led them to safety, and in that moment allison knew. ever since he was a boy her son had always carried a red handkerchief. her son was the man in a red bandanna. it. ♪ wells was just 24 years old with

a broad smile and a bright future. he worked in the south tower on the 104th floor. he had a big laugh, joy of life, dreams of seeing the world. he worked in finance, but he had also been a volunteer firefighter. after the plane said he put on that bandana and spent his final moments saving others. three years ago this month after our seals made sure that justice was done i came to ground zero. among the families here that day was allison cravath. she told me about her son and his fearless. she showed me a handkerchief

like the one he wore that morning. today as we saw on our tour one of his red handkerchiefs is on display in this museum. from this day forward all those who come here will have a chance to know the sacrifice of a young man who, like so many, gave his life so that others might live. those we lost live on in us. in the families who love them still, and the friends who remember them always, and in the nation that will honor them now one for about. today it is my honor introduce to women forever bound by that date, united in their determination to keep alive the true spirit of 9/11, the mother

alice and one of those he saved. [applause] [applause] >> i am here today because a man i did not get the chance to think. very hard for me to come here today, but i wanted to do so so that i could say thank you to is parents and my new friend jeff and allison.

>> thank you. >> i am alyson grandmother. my husband, jefferson and i, could not be more proud of our son. for us see lives on in the people he helped and in the memory of what he chose to do that tuesday in september. believe that we are all connected as one human family, that we are here to look out for and take care for one another. this is life's most precious meaning. it is our greatest hope that when people come here and see the red bandanna they will remember how people helped each other that day. we hope that they will be inspired to do the same in ways both big and small.

this is that true legacy of september 11th. [applause] >> i did not realize what had happened until that afternoon. had no idea that our son, todd, was on an airplane. i thought he was in italy. i was off by a day. you know, we kind of define our history now, don't we, as pre 9/11 and post 9/11. here are some bits of wristwatch its function is supposed to be to tell time. was a good watch and to this job very well, but it does not tell what time it is a more. what it does tell is what time

was. it says it is the 11th. and so this marks the time that the successful counterattack on flight 93 ended. >> we are all grateful today in to the memorial board, the staff, the families for creating this really magnificent memorial why don't we give them a round of applause. [applause] we will launch was recovered at

the site of the crash of flight 93 near shanks will, pennsylvania. it was given to this museum by his loving family. we are honored to have his father, david, with us here today. todd was one of 40 men and women aboard that plane. strangers all bound for san princess go. they would decide to take fate into their own hands at the probable if not certain rest of their own lives. when the hijackers took control of their planned people began calling family and friends who told them about the other hijacked planes. none of the passengers had been trained for this kind of scenario, let alone even considered such a nightmare. yet after talking over what they have learned they joined with members of the crew to storm the

cockpit. in doing so they changed the course of history. it was later shown that there actions prevented the plane from reaching the hijackers intended target, washington d.c., a mere 20 minutes away. in giving airlines how many lives have they saved. while the first calls from the plan had been from mark bingham later helped form the plan they followed. he had called his mother, and alice later left in this message . >> this is your mom. is terrorists, and they are hell bent on crash in the aircraft. there is one flight that they say is headed toward san francisco. might be yours. if you can, group the people and

do everything you can to overpower them. tried to call me back, if you can. i love you. good luck. bye-bye. ♪ >> good morning. when you walk through this museum was strikes you is how your emotions can feel sad that one moment and of the very next moment you feel utterly

astonished and grateful at how people from all over the world responded. it was as if the entire world can knocking on our door, cried with us, and asked what they could do. people from over 90 countries died on september 11th. so the world understood that while this happened on our soil, it happens all of us. letters arrive from australia and jordan, gifts from india, ireland, kenya. people from all walks of life and speaking every language came to help us develop from under and bandage our warmest. the world was like a tightly knit community, a smaller more caring place. this is how good will begins. in the understanding that we are, underneath all are many differences, fellow men and

women with the love and the sanctity for human life, here in this museum we are reminded to pause and remember how many came to help us and that the true gift of and can be born out of the night for which we all remain eternally grateful. >> i dedicate this song to my late husband. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] [applause] >> my name is lawrence jones. i went to work on september september 11th. did not plan on working -- walking down 77 flights of stairs. was not dressed word i was one of the of lasts 25 people to come out of the south tower. my number is 18.

i had taken my shoes off on the 60th floor and walked in my stockings the rest of the way. after that castillo walked in my stockings 50 more blocks to get to a friend's office barely in one piece. when i heard that the museum was looking for artifacts, i thought about my shoes. i had with them in a plastic container, and when i took them out they still have the smile on them from that awful day. i knew i would never wear them again. i decided to donate them here. unwanted monday shoes -- nieces and -- i've wanted my nieces and nephews to see them and maybe understand a little bit better what it felt like to be us on that deck. [applause]

>> a simple pair of shoes. what could they possibly tell us about 9/11, about the choices and close calls, about the quarter mile climb down a staircase filled with falling ceilings, crowded with colleagues and confusion, about making an out on not. ordinary everyday objects that we find here in the museum, wallet, our rain, and id card, a telephone, an unlikely but powerful keepsakes which help us to understand the events of that day in human terms. each piece carries with it another story, one that might have been our own. don't we all own a pair of shoes we wear to work that could have

been the ones we wore that day. for some the last 38 steps they walk to freedom and the life or down a narrow outdoor staircase that led to the street. the stairs were also the last above ground when found at the world trade center site. they became both a symbol of that terrible day and the months of painstaking recovery. workers remove the 56 tons staircase from its concrete base and as carefully as one would as sacred object from an archaeological site so that it could be placed in its new home inside museum. today when you walk down the museum's last set of stairs that

lead to bedrocks, whether you walk slowly down the wide, elegance staircase or stand comfortably on the moving escalator you who will travel right beside the staircase, and as you do, i imagine, for a moment, that these hard concrete stairs were once for hundreds of people last and long-sought path to survival. >> my name is kayla bergeron. i worked in the north tower for four years. that day everyone on our floor, people knew each other and did not started walking down 68 flights of stairs together. it was orderly and called.

for every step we took down the firefighters and police were climbing up. when we got to the sixth floor it felt as if the zero world started to shake. turned out that the south tower had collapsed. suddenly there was confusion. we were climbing over wires and desks. port authority policeman helped us find a way through. but my friend patti and i guess separate from everyone. we were thinking, there is no way out. when we heard a bull horn is said that if we could hear the sound follow the light. we went this way and that way. after what seemed like forever we got to the outdoor staircase.

i had walked those stairs 100 times toward the train, stopped at the post office, never giving them a second thought. but now they were all that separated us from the devastation behind us and life in front of us. today when i think about those stairs, what they represent to me is resiliency of the people there that day trying to help these other and later the resiliency of our country. those 38 steps mean everything. [applause] >> we will never understand why

one person escaped and another did not, how random at all seems and how powerless it makes us all feel. but what this museum does is allow us to see that we absolutely can affect each other's lives by what we do at that time of crisis, how we have strengthened by what was on that day. september 11th brought out the largest emergency response and new york city history. 1,000 firefighters, 2,000 police officers, and 100 city and volunteer ambulances rushed and action. when both towers foul logic says no one could have survived and lived to tell the tell. the south tower fell, and no one survived. in the meantime the men from the

new york city fire department and port authority police were still inside the north tower attempting to rescue the remaining civilians, but when they reached the third floor, 107 floors of the north tower fell on top of them. lt. mickey krauss remembered that he heard a huge war, and then everything went dark and totally silent. barry and debris he tried to protect himself by making himself so small that he might be a will to climb and is somewhat. when he heard faint voices calling out he realized he was not alone. he sent mayday signals hoping someone might hear them. hours passed. outside there was nothing but piles of fiery wreckage.

not only could rescuers not locate the north tower, they did not even know where to begin. yet they kept digging and digging and digging. it is my honor to introduce you to make the cross and 11 members of the new york city fire department and port authority police department, all of them had been trapped together. god bless them and god bless america. [applause]

[applause] >> thank you. we were trapped right down inside a dark hole, and after a while we saw the small beam of light about 30 feet above us. it was some light that had broken through the smoke. even though it only lasted for little while, it was enough to let us know. we -- it turned out the rescue workers could see it. they could not believe.

they continued to look for other survivors. fourteen of those trapped in a stairwell trying to stay alive and searching for ways out. miraculously we survived. once we got out we saw complete devastation. the old trade center was gone. all you could see were huge pieces of twisted steel everywhere. workers never giving up on finding people. after our rescue many of us joined the rescue and recovery teams at ground zero to do for others what had been done for us we had to. we had come together at ground zero to help each other out. there was a real sense of caring for one another. this is something we should never forget and never stop doing. thank you. [applause]

>> manny rodriquez, and i am a member of teamsters local 282. i worked a ground zero in heavy construction for nine months. >> my name is peter hoffman, i am a crane operator and i worked a ground zero for eight months. >> my name is tony for rorer, a detective in the new york city police department emergency service unit. i worked at ground zero for nine months. >> my name is steve butler, a lieutenant with the port authority police emergency service unit. i worked john at ground zero for

nine months before rescue and recovery. after learning my brother, firefighter was what company number one, i was the first person to put his picture on this piece of steel which recall the last column. after that many others followed with pictures and signature. >> the last column, part of the area that was searched. >> it tells the stories. >> as the site was cleared and the beam came to a stand alone people were working at the site, family members began a face in the photos. >> everybody. it was the icon on the site.

the sheer size of it, the number of signatures not only to lost loved ones, but also said this new fan led develops on ground zero. >> we all began this family that worked together to try to make other families feel better. we were never found its the fill in all. cremated those smaller that was all we could do. we completed their job and did a job well done. >> this symbolizes the best of what humanity can do. >> of all the heartbreaking things that we have to learn how to do after 9/11, the most

necessary was -- and the most difficult was finding a way to honor every single person who was on those four planes, and the pentagon of the world trade center towers and those who died trying to save. to give their families and thus a place to come and remember them. now near where we are now there is such a place filled with the photos, keepsakes, stories of those lost. these are our book of memories. end the area called memorial hall they're stands a three story highwall connecting the footprints of the once money nor as out towers. on it are written ten simple words by the great poet virgil

that this press what this museum is all about. no day show the race you from the memory of time. from there you walk through to the wall faces line from florida ceiling with smiling fathers, daughters, brothers, nieces, family and loved ones. and the same way we have photos and our own homes these pictures are alive with the memories of the birthdays and weddings, barbecues and baseball games of those lost. what you will be looking at are the pages of the chapter in our history we call september 11th .

>> this is a couple of weeks before 9/11 actually happened. this is our last -- >> i love this one. >> yeah. that's him. that mustang. right mannerisms and everything. this just like your father. you look like him. you act like him and sound like them.

>> i know all these names now. >> taking care of yourself. [inaudible] >> yap. >> she was 50. i now with them. told us she had gone to the bar the night before. now we're doing the same stuff. >> when he heard the call on the radio he told his partner, we have to go.

and he just ran up the stairs, and he just held and went straight to the building. he did what he had to do. he had to go help people. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> and i am his knees and namesake. >> yes.

>> this is a place where thousands of stories converge, we can touch the fate of history, our is three. yet while we come here to remember the past it is the future to the stands with us in this all. to truly on that day we must promise both to keep our memories of a live and the search for ways to build something positive for the names of those with lost. the part of the families and the pride of their countries, the stories, the spirit, and they're examples can live on as our guys and our beacons by making their names and airlines stand for something meaningful in our world. what greater legacy can there be

for the lives cut short and to live in the good works created in their names. >> my name is a their rosario. my sister, wendy, worked in tower one of the world trade center. i worked two blocks away as the principle of bicycle that encourage and public service. that morning it was my job to protect our 600 plus students, but i could not protect my sister. my whole life has been about educating children. i was with friends is said went to afghanistan and build a school there. what a kick in the head.

kathy and countless others joined forces. four years after 9/11 as school was opened in my sister's memory in the province of have not. [applause] about 200 boys and girls came to study, and since then many, many more, all of them entrusted with education and their country's future. there can be behalf of the ashes it is hard work, but it can be done. >> my name is jim. my younger brother was at his desk in the pentagon on 9/11. he was a civilian working for the department of the army. many wondered how we will remember those we lost. as family members are needed to find a way to honor and remember

them and in the process find a way heal ourselves. working together with friends to my colleagues, families, supporters from world is a place we remember 184 men, women, and children, a place to provide solace in dealing surrounded by the beauty of life. my brother and i had been young together and expected to grow old together, play a lot of golf and argue about who had the better looking grandchildren. some of them might even think that people it happened to were not real. we are here to help them know that there were. my hope now is to create an educational center at the pentagon memorial where schoolchildren can come and spend some time getting to other countries story and very real people lived it.

.. >>x >> and a special thanks to a the president and