google and yahoo! microsoft cisco and yes it was in china. swore them all and in the upper part of the censorship. we know that castro regime has great capability as does lukashenko and belarus to ensure that internet would it be e-mails or anything else would be closely surveilled so that more of the best and the

brightest of cuba are found and apprehended and thrown into prison. there's no open internet there. there aren't any dictators in the world. china has written a book on how a dictatorship can control the internet with the great firewall of china and we have the situation that will replicate itself big-time. finally he would say this testimony from these unbelievably brave women and men who have suffered at the hands of castro helped steer off the veil of secrecy and an open secret if you will. it's been out there but thankfully it's through c-span and maybe that's here and congressmen and women who will see this record you are bearing truth and bearing witness to a very ugly reality that is pervasive. again i do believe the legitimacy that castro craves and i believe just got a helping hand that's not just might be.

the "washington post" and others have aligned on that in their editorials. this was not the time to take that view. they should've been an effort to say human rights first. as you said antunes then economics and another kind of engagement but as we have seen i have seen one statement after the other, but havana that nothing is going to change and if anything with a rearrested five may be more of the 53 and others who have been rounded up in the game that this regime plays and in cuba just shows they are intent on doubling down will make it worse for the dissident so thank you for again bearing witness to the truth and for exposing these crimes against humanity. if you would like to make any final comments mr. thale and

finishing with mr. antunes. >> at the deepest respect for your commitment to human rights and particularly your focus on human trafficking. obviously we differ about the best way to move forward and i'm happy to continue that discussion. the only specific thing i would sand the human trafficking issue is that if you look at the u.n. trafficking reports they are different than -- because cuba has refused to dialogue on this issue. i believe there has been discussion. >> and i just say the problem has been with some u.n. bureaucracies. i remember when he held a hearing this room and reverend walker came and presented testimony and was eloquent about the how the child mortality rate is so low. i had read the reports that came out of a certain u.n. agency that suggested that with so and i asked him because i know that

some of our witnesses have said earlier auras ileana ros-lehtinen has pointed out on his numbers, if you believe that i will say the brooklyn bridge. no independent confirmation, no cross checks or checks and balances whatsoever. without that i also pointed out that dr. rashad and ob/gyn afro-cuban a great man who has suffered horribly for his views on human rights he exposed the eugenics policy in cuba where children who have disabilities are routinely killed through abortion. some of these kids never make it to birth because they have been killed by the state and that is another crime inhumanity. it was called that in the nuremberg trial for what the nazis did to the polish women.

those numbers are very unreliable and child mortality and the like. as ileana ros-lehtinen mentioned there so much showcasing going on but the ability to discern the real facts when others bear witness that is not the case is very large. ms. fonseca. [speaking spanish] >> translator: yes i have something to say. i remember in 1990 i don't have a precise i don't have a precise number. [speaking spanish] >> translator: my youngest son

was born prematurely. [speaking spanish] >> translator: when he was born i saw several children however i know the hospital never reported those death nationally or internationally. [speaking spanish] >> translator: i didn't like to listen to fidel castro speeches but sometimes i have to. [speaking spanish] >> translator: fidel castor is the enemy and fidel castro is the enemy of cuba. [speaking spanish] >> translator: i listened to the dictator's speech that year. [speaking spanish] >> translator: and he said i

don't know if the specifics were pretty referred to the child mortality rate in cuba being very low. [speaking spanish] >> translator: but having my son i had been into hospitals and i can assure you many more children have died. but also -- [speaking spanish] >> translator: i never received adequate medical assistance. in order to help me in childbirth. [speaking spanish] >> translator: in cuba medicine and education are only good for those who sympathize with the regime. [speaking spanish] >> translator: that is my

testimony and with regards to the child mortality rate in cuba. [speaking spanish] >> translator: as to what kind of treatment cubans who dissented from the regime received in schools and hospitals. >> you are recognized. [speaking spanish] >> translator: maybe it hasn't been well understood or maybe it's the regime's ability to give false statistics that sometimes confuse people. [speaking spanish] >> translator: in spite of the fact that there are some who do support the policies and what i refer who are the negotiations i

can tell you it's a minority. [speaking spanish] >> translator: i assure you the majority of dissident leaders in cuba and opposition leaders in cuba oppose and an example of this is the form for rights and freedoms. [speaking spanish] >> translator: as well as the -- [inaudible] both of these are initiatives that have been signed by the most important leaders of the cuban resistance. [speaking spanish] >> translator: there is one last thing which i also want to tell you because it's part of the permanent record. [speaking spanish] >> translator: something that is worried me since i first heard it. [speaking spanish] >> translator: because i know

the victims don't have the possibility of speaking here. [speaking spanish] >> translator: i ask those who are listening to me into her seeing me all those who are well intentioned i ask you to closely follow those in cuba right now. [speaking spanish] >> translator: i want to call attention to how the cuban resistance front which consists of different organizations as being repressed. not yesterday or the day before yesterday but right now are being repressed because they are demanding freedom and democracy. [speaking spanish] >> translator: finally the struggle for freedom has caused

a lot of pain a lot of blood, a lot of dead. a lot of prisoners and that is why we can't allow that a maneuver by raul castro can result in an understanding that may contribute to oxygen being provided to the -- and therefore to the castro regime. i assure you i assure you that permit regime of power i assure you that neal castor is-ism can be worse. i want to thank you for this opportunity and especially chairman smith.

[speaking spanish] >> translator: and the cuban resistance in spite of this agreement which we consider to be immoral. [speaking spanish] >> translator: in spite of the beatings and in spite of the imprisonment the cuban resistance will continue its struggle. [speaking spanish] >> translator: we are not going to surrender our country's destiny to anyone. because we are convinced that the principles of the country should not be decided on a negotiating table. [speaking spanish] >> translator: investing in the free world country should not be decided at the negotiating table for the people have been excluded from.

[speaking spanish] >> translator: i think the u.s. congress and i think those in cuba who are listening to us. i returned to cuba from this experience, i returned from this experience assured of that path we are taking and i reiterate what is my slogan. i will not leave and i will not be quiet. >> thank you so very much for that eloquent speech and thank you all for your testimony and leadership. the hearing is adjourned.

the federal communications commission has proposed regulating telecom companies as public utilities and requiring them to treat all internet traffic equally. we talked about these new fcc net neutrality rules with technology reporter brendan sasso. this is 40 minutes. >> host: joining us this morning is brandon sasso whose covers technology issues for "the national journal" talking about the rules by the fcc to regulate the internet the so-called net neutrality rules in the headline from your piece

unveil sweeping net neutrality rules. what does the fcc proposed to do? >> guest: so this is more or less what a lot of the activists have been calling for for for long time time and with for for longtime and what president obama is called forwards is essentially the strongest rule the fcc could come out with. the basic idea of net neutrality is that internet providers shouldn't be able to control what you can access on line that all traffic should be treated equally. the rules would say that providers like comcast or verizon couldn't block the web sites you access, couldn't slow down traffic or prioritize certain traffic based on which web companies pay for it. a lot of the debate over the past year has been actually sort of technical debate about the fcc's authority so the original rules that the fcc chairman tom

wheeler proposed in may got a lot of backlash because people believe he wasn't using the proper legal authority so now what he would do is to invoke what is called title ii communications act which means he will essentially treat the internet like a utility the same way that the fcc regulates phone companies. so this much broader authority that the fcc is about to claim would give them in view of the net neutrality advocates the proper legal authority to enact these rules but providers like comcast and verizon are republicans on capitol hill say this move is unnecessary and is also about to stifle the entire industry with burdensome regulations. >> host: going to the issue of slowing down traffic in you mentioned in explaining net neutrality give us an example of how a user on the internet or somebody using their broadband at home would see this service providers slowing down traffic. >> guest: is important to note that all the providers have all

said they support an open internet and many of them have said they would have no plans to slow down traffic or block web sites. of course not everyone is going to take them at their word. the idea is that there's a fear that providers say comcast which owns nbc universal might have a business incentive to support nbc content as opposed to cbs or some sort of other content. >> host: there was reaction from michael powell the former fcc chairman and head of the national table communications association. part of the statement he wrote was it will result in a backward looking new predatory regime ill-suited for the dynamic internet with far-reaching and troubling consequences. we believe that such a significant expansion is an unnecessary and will only deliver further uncertainty instead of legally enforceable rules that everyone supports. the term he uses is dynamic internet. what is he talking about there? >> guest: i think a lot of the providers would like more

flexibility. a lot of this debate has been about the authority. i think for a long time a lot of the providers have recognized the fcc is going to come up with -- under the obama administration is going to come up with net neutrality rules. what they did want to see happen was for the fcc to invoke title ii. this is more than 100 pages of rules and regulations originally created in 1934, updated 1996 that they feel this is putting this very heavy regulatory scheme onto the internet. the fcc doesn't plan to impose every single provision of title ii. some of them are going to get waived, things like price controls but i think there is still this fear that the internet has been treated with this light regulatory touch for a long time and this is about to change. >> host: the big news was about internet regulation and what is also in their deals with mobile data.

what does the fcc chairman wheeler wants to do there? >> guest: the fcc originally had net neutrality rules in 2010 and those didn't apply to mobile in the same way. your internet connection on your smartphone. those rules got struck down they had to rewrite them in this time they said so many people now rely on their smartphones in their tablets and some people don't even have a home connection on their home computer. the rules would protect consumers. it would restrict the ability of at&t verizon sprint and t-mobile to speed up content or prevent content from data caps. >> host: people are using their mobile phones and a phonecall on a mobile phone is regulated under this title to that you mentioned? >> guest: this gets a little confusing. title ii is applied to landline telephones and also the voice services on your mobile phone.

what wheeler has been saying as well that hasn't stifled investment or renovation for the cell phone industry. if they can deal with it for voice service they can deal with it for data service. when you browse on your phone that's treated as an different scheme than if you make a phonecall so what he is saying is there's no reason not to expand those regulations to the data piece. >> host: the phone lines are open for your comments on a proposed internet regulations net neutrality rules. the numbers to to call or (202)748-8001 for republicans 01 for republicans 2,027,482,000 democrats and others 2027488002. a front-page article that talks about how they are reporting the white house pressured the fcc to go ahead and make changes. you mentioned the president announcing rules in december. a picture of a couple of key players in the discussion

including ryan roberts the chairman and ceo of comcast tom wheeler the chairman of the fcc but they report the pushback and the support for these regulations coming from people like the ceo of tumbler and also the ceo of fc chad dickerson. why are these businesses in support of these regulations? >> guest: i think that there is if there were no net neutrality rules providers like comcast or verizon could create fast lanes and slow lanes on the internet. some traffic could get prioritize so maybe a company like google could afford to pay for that fast lane by the company that is trying to get off the ground at sea probably doesn't have the resources to pay some huge deal for prioritize service said they feared some companies are going to get prioritize and others are not in a small startups that are

going to get hurt the most. >> host: mobile phone users see the results of government regulation. if you go through your phone bill you will see local charges that their federal taxes so the rules go through on these proposed rules go through on the internet is there a possibility that internet use would be tax? >> guest: that's a possibility down the road although not at this proposal they are about to vote on. in title ii it's technically not a tax although i don't know there is a difference to most consumers. sifi on your phone bill and it goes into an fcc fund to subsidize phone service around the country. right now it's only on phone bills. under title ii could apply to internet service at the fcc goes through with the plan. they said they won't do that although ultimately as more and more people rely in the internet at some point they will have to make a decision if they want to keep the fund they may have to expend the fees to internet bills. right now with this plan that's

not what they're doing. >> host: you mentioned the fcc is voting on this. what is the timeline for these regulations to take place in this congress have a voice in this? >> guest: february 26 they want to vote on it. there could be minor tweaks and alterations before that. has to get three votes from the five fcc commissioners but there are three democrats and three republicans so i think it's a sure thing they will approve these rules. it will go in to effect soon after that but what's going on now is republicans on capitol hill are scrambling to find an alternative solution or compromise. we will see what happens there. they are proposing a lot of the same rules that the net neutrality advocates would want such is no slowing down traffic so they are willing to give them a lot in order to avoid invoking this title ii authority this utility regulation. >> host: let's call from our callers. chatsworth illinois louisville on the independents line.

>> caller: my name is gene nelson. i was asking i have media, and i was wondering and i heard it's a part of comcast. my internet usage keeps on going up $5 each year for the same speed. it's getting out of my price range to use my computer which i bought just two years. this is my first computer and i won't be able to use it because i can afford it. i would like to hear what you have to say about this. thank you. >> host: more broadly are people seeing increases in the fees for access to the internet? >> guest: i think that there has been a lot of complained about lack of competition.

if we don't have enough competition companies will charge what they want so a lot of areas of the country there is at most one provider and in some places there are no providers for high-speed internet to access the on line video that people want. that's a big complaint that a lot of companies have. it's a big motivator for these regulations. if you have a lot of providers people might have more choice in what sort of practices they would want to see. if your only choice is comcast or maybe calm they have more power over what they are able to do. >> host: nebraska city,, nebraska period, good morning. >> caller: yes good morning. i would like to ask the young man with this net neutrality and the fcc taking over in invoking title ii how is this going to affect speeds like major providers like hulu that shows movies? if they are using so much bandwidth or whatever they call

that are they going to have to pay more. i guess they didn't want to pay any more that they were slowing everybody else down and kicking people other awe -- other people off. my question is with the fcc stepping and are these going to make the big guys pay more? >> guest: the rules would ensure these companies don't have to pay at all to access users but it's absolutely true that these high-definition video services like netflix or hulu use a lot of bandwidth and that's why a lot of providers say we have invested billions of dollars in building these networks. it's not that unreasonable and a lot of that a huge portion of internet traffic 30% of internet traffic is just netflix and a huge chunk is just youtube. so they would say it's not unreasonable that these people are profiting off of the networks that we build. we want to charge them for that but the other side says they are

extorting their market power and hurting internet freedom. >> host: but the internet service providers charge netflix or charge hulu a fee for using up bandwidth. there is a cost involved there. >> guest: they are not allowed to charge for any sort of prioritize service or anything like that. the companies do it's not free to create a web site. you do have to pay somehow to deliver that data to the network but that is a different issue than comcast can say we will block you were slow you down to get to those end-users the customers. that is the distinction. you do have to pay in order to get some sort of delivery network to get your data from your server over to comcast or whoever. >> host: back to the mobile data issue, there's a piece in the times yesterday. within tom willers op-ed there's a crucial nugget.

not just the internet that the mobile data services as well. that would be a massive change so wireless carriers like at&t and verizon which have never been subject to net neutrality rules but wheeler's broadband reform plan is to be all meaningful and must apply to mobile internet services as well and they have a chart of how rapidly the growth of mobile and mobile apps have risen in comparison with desktop use which is really just dropped to 40% in the numbers for mobile use up to 60% just over the last couple of years. .. what can we do to stop it? guest:host: a little off-topic, but

in the wake of the data breach reported yesterday by the insurance company, what can we do? is there anything the fcc is proposing to do? guest: the fcc is actually looking into cyber security, although it is not the agency mainly dealing with that. president obama made it a a big issue in his state of the union address. and there are other areas where they would like to do something. there are some questions about breach legislation on capitol hill that would require a federal standard for companies having to notify customers when there is a breach will stop and there is also other legislation -- when there is a breach. and there is also other legislation that would require companies to share information when there are hack attacks. but there also privacy issues about how much information is being shared that might enhance in the hands of the nsa if they are sharing back and forth with

the government -- that might end up in the hands of the nsa if they are sharing back and forth with the government. host: to our collar, may, just to let you the senate commerce committee is meeting today to talk about their data breach legislation. we're covering that, and i believe it begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on www.c-span.org. speaking of capitol hill, a mixed reaction to the fcc's proposed rules yesterday. i want to look at some comments, specifically bernie sanders. [video clip] >> these rules are the declaration of independence for the internet. today is internet and innovation freedom day. both for our economy and the free expression of ideas, depend upon the internet. ensuring an open internet is as important as keeping our air and water clean and our roads and highways safe stop by applying -- and roads and highways safe.

by applying title ii, the fcc is entering the mobile no internet fast and slow lanes created by the internet broadband barrens. access will be available for all americans, including rural residents, seniors, and those were deaf and blind and disabled -- those who are deaf and blind and disabled. it will protect community -- consumer choice and promote darwinian, edition on the web for the rest of this century. today's announcement shows how far we have come to sick medications act has been put on the books. -- how far we have come in communication's since it has been put on the books. consumers cannot operate without this vital connection to each other and with the world around them.

these rules make clear that the core values of our communications laws will apply to all the ways we communicate, regardless of the way we communicate. host: some of the democratic response yesterday to the proposed fcc rules. headline here in "the hill," republicans blast neutrality grab. -- net neutrality paragraph. -- net neutrality power grab. that is from johnson. j --ohn thune. i think you said they are scrambling for some sort of legislation. a we likely to see legislation from this? host: thuen himself has said it

is likely to get beat up by the president. it is her markable how far republicans have come in a year or so. they used to say that net neutrality was totally unnecessary and it was just burdensome to companies. but now that the more extreme title approach has gone on the table and the fcc -- and they've seen with the fcc is about to do, they've come up with legislation that not long ago would have tutored a pretty strong net neutrality bill -- would have been considered a pretty strong net neutrality bill. the key here is that it would keep the fcc from declaring the genetic a telecommunications service. it would also restrict other provisions that the fcc has used for the internet. i think users are worried that this could handcuff the fcc in other ways. they could be given some powers but other issues that might come up, the fcc -- the main regulator for our

communications would not be able to regulate the way need to. they are trying to get democrats on board. i think they're willing to negotiate. some democrats have indicated they are willing to talk about it, but they want to wait until the fcc acts. i would not rule out some possibility of some negotiation or deal. but i think the white house has said a couple of times that they don't think legislation is necessary. a lot of the more liberal members, like you just saw, they see no interest in this. they think they are about to win, so why negotiate? it will be tough to get democrats on board, but there will be a lot of negotiations. host: and i want to remind our viewers, too, on the committee caters on saturday, our guest will be gigi sohn, talking specifically about the proposed rules. let's go to new jersey.

jean, you're welcome -- jean welcome. caller: thank you. i'm an i.t. professional and i look at the internet as something that has largely been developed by the private sector. i think of google and the amount of money they've invested in their server farms, and now they are looking at high speed communications. they are adding value to the internet by considering these new high-speed lines of communication. probably for high-speed cable type communications. when i see the government intervening here, i'm looking at something that i think they're

trying to look at as a source of revenue, rather than adding any real value to the whole process of the internet. if anything, they will interfere with progress. what is your take on that? guest: a lot of the web companies like google and facebook have been supportive of net neutrality rules, because they are on one and they are trying to reach users on the other end. they would like regulation that would ensure they are able to get access to users. in fact, in 2010 when we went through this last battle about net neutrality, google was one of the main leaders of the fight. this time, they have been more quiet. google has gotten bigger, so many they are a little less concerned about these issues. some of the smaller startups have been fighting for it. but the caller is also right that google has been looking into becoming a -- an internet provider and history that in

some areas with google fiber. but there is support of these regulations, where companies like comcast and verizon have been more reluctant. host: our guest is brendan sasso with the national journal. we are looking at some of these proposed net neutrality rules announced yesterday by tom wheeler, the chairman of the sec -- the fcc. the numbers are on the screen. the "new york times" today reported a -- report the other day if he has some of these rules and right how smoothly the next knit the netflix video "house of cards" plays on a subscriber's screen.

there is an element there, a further regulation of those providers that provide these high-speed lanes, correct? guest: right, we were talking a little better about this earlier. it is kind of compensated, but there are two issues here. net neutrality is traditionally applied to how the data is handled once it is on its network. they cannot carve up lanes or block traffic. but comcast or verizon is not the whole internet. that is just the last mile to your home. you have to find a way to get the data to comcast network for

them and when you are delivering huge volumes of network, there can be points of congestion on your network and on comcast network. there have been fights and who is to blame on both sides. now in the fcc rules for the first time, they would examine on a case-by-case basis complaints. if netflix feels it is being this -- extended or that the charges are unreasonable, the fcc could deal with that for the first time. the internet has always been collections of networks connected to each other, and companies have to come up with some kind of arrangement about how those networks connect. but i think they relies that we are talking about fast lanes or slow lanes, for the consumer you don't care whether it is so the scc is going to look at

that and update part of these roles. related but slightly different issue. >> another question, one is typical programs like the new series of house of cards, for example, when it comes out the first day, both the internet service providers and netflix prepare for that by adding broadband space? >> that is a good question. i do not know the internal setups they do. they do try to make sure they have the sort of capacity necessary. you can see hbo might not have the capacity. everyone is trying to watch game of thrown at the same time and the servers are not able to handle it. it is hard, the arrangements and deals are often secret. it is hard to know. often, you blame the provider. it is hard to know whether it is the fault of the website or the

provider or an intermediate between them or your router is not working rapidly. it is really hard to determine exactly what the causes. host: here's frankie new york, independent line. caller: how are you doing today? i feel that the internet has been done free. they are saying to the point of, i'm getting congested with traffic, this that and the other. the government should give them grant money to construct another highway and let them use on their own. just like you make the same highways when you drive on. then the government and trolls that. the private sector was built for us not for government. the government in so many aspects should say, do you guys want this traffic to not be congested? we will grant you the money, and we will tax you on this art. this is your part.

that would probably solve the whole thing there they would go to that one and pay the tax to that. if they did not like it, they would go to the other one. >> -- the pipes are typically laid in by the providers. guest: right. they invest a lot of money building in these networks. the senator was mocked a lot and a lot of this is for his comments a few years ago on a series of tubes. really, there are a lot of wires and cables and fibers that need to be late into the ground and that is a huge investment a lot of these companies have made. what the caller mentioned about the government trying to go faster but -- to build faster, they're now subsidizing it is not the government created internet era there subsidizing from rural areas to the fan access.

now that the government is spending billions of dollars to ensure that people have high-speed internet access, those fees that fund the program have to come from the internet. it is a question down the line. >> those service fees now come from your phone bill. let's hear from louisiana. go ahead. >> good morning to you both. thank you for c-span. my question relates to the internet service at the utility. do you expect the companies such as at&t, verizon comcast, all companies that toward billions of dollars annually into shareholder dividends, do you think they will be at some point force or perhaps coerced into reducing dividends payout to shareholders, and instead moving more of those funds into network and service upgrades, much like

other utilities are forced to today? thank you. i will take my answer off the air. guest: what the fcc is right now proposing, does not have those expensive controls. the whole idea of title ii and why people call it utility regulation is the basic idea of a lot of these rules is 80 years ago, telephone service had become an essential service that people felt the government had to ensure the hombres would provide at a reasonable price for everyone. a lot of the rules are aimed at ensuring fair prices and universal access. a lot of people felt now the internet has become that today that everyone needs to be able to get online and do it at a pharaoh -- a fair price. a lot of people deal with the expansive government and price control. that is not with the he is proposing to do.

that is the ultimate fear, that there could be those kinds of much more controlling regulations. >> are there any current regulations on the internet? fcc regulations. >> that is a hard question. that is the big question, how does the fcc regulate the internet. there is another issue where president obama has urged the fcc to strike down the bans on cities the able to build their own internets. that is something the fcc is looking into. but the fcc regulates the content on broadcast tv. you cannot say certain words on broadcast tv. host: the chairman made an announcement yesterday. he wrote congress gave the fcc broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in

technology and market waste behavior in a way that protects consumers who have used the authority for the public's great benefit. he writes the internet would not have emerged as it did if the fcc had not mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960's. before then, at&t prohibited anyone from attaching non-at&t equipment to the network. the mobile -- the modems that enabled the internet for use only because the fcc required the network to be open. in this editorial, he also recounts he was in competition way back when. he owned a company in competition with aol and lost because of the issue. guest: right. tom wheeler has taken a lot of heat in the past year. he was the head of the wireless industry lobby. when people his initial roles were two-week, a lot of criticism was directed towards him as a shelf or comcast or whatever.

that probably took him back in little bit. he sees himself on the side of the outside -- the upstart. they invest heavily in the startups over the years. he said it failed because it cannot not get access to the tv lines. he has probably been frustrated. john oliver had a bit aching fun of him saying allowing him regulate the internet is like letting a dingo baby sit baby. he was frustrated about that and that is in the out that, he describes is really on the side of the up charge, you like kickstarter who said we really need these neutrality regulations. host: the white house, the obama administration, or tom wheeler? guest: mosys taking place in the fcc. in november, president obama

came out and specifically said the fcc should use title ii. it is ready unusual for the president to cite provisions of the communications act. usually, independents have not got involved in the week like that. of course, he is allowed to tear it at that point, it is really hard to imagine the f is he do anything other than what obama. even at that point there had been a huge backlash. considering some sort of proposal that would rely on title ii. after the president made the statement is when it was clear the fcc would do a full, title ii approach and not some hybrid created middleground. host: mark on the independent line. caller: good morning.

as a vietnam veteran, you know, i don't make a lot of money. i live in california and companies are trying to merge together. a high price on my internet phone and cable tv. the question is, the government created the internet with our tax care dollars. i realize that some of the cables being laid are from the internet companies and some of those taxpayer dollars. but i really think it is important, if you go looking for a job or looking up information it is a valuable source of

information. i find it completely that we would want the cable industry to set their own prices area i pay way too much for the small amount of access that i have. >> ok. we will get a response. i appreciate your call. left that has been the point about how the internet has been in our lives. it is no longer just a luxury. peoples can use it to watch cap videos or whatever. it is also the wave evil find jobs and medicaid with loved ones. the caller also mentioned the mergers. comcast trying to buy time warner cable. pretty soon after the net neutrality debate finishes up,

the fcc and the justice apartment will have to make a decision on that departure. a lot of people think that could have a big impact on the price for broadband, how much competition there is for broadband in the market. maybe it is not getting the sort of attention from the general outlook, but i think it is a big debate and a lot of industry analysts said this would go through. the networks do not overlap, so they say, ok, we will not reduce choices are the initial view was that the merger would go room and in the number of months since then, a lot of industry analyst are saying, we are not so sure. maybe regulators will not actually give the go-ahead. that is another issue giving attention but it is also a big these of how people access the internet. >> next up is illinois. caller: hello.

my comment is capitalism versus socialism. we know this is part of the progressive era of the new deal. let these companies make whatever money they want to. i have no sense the even for myself when i do not have any money or anything area in the case of the internet, i can go to the library, i can get a card, and use the internet for the library if i get destined not have the money to pay for a computer and a comcast line or whatever. i want to keep the government out of things. they do not do anything that helps me. if they charge too much, -- who would've thought you would have uber out there in those companies america began in 1789

because of limited government. guest: we support an open internet and tried to block websites and create fast lanes. it will ultimately be bad for consumers because companies will be able to invest in the networks. maybe a new competitor is less likely to expand the network because of the heavy regulatory approach. that is their view. i think the fcc ultimately decided they did not really by that company. not all the provisions of title

ii are proposed. the fcc is deciding that they did not really by the argument. i think companies will still be profitable for them to deliver service and i think they will still do it and it is worth moving ahead with the kinds of regulations they want to ensure internet. >> look at one more call, cindy on independent line. >> thanks so much for talking about the issue. i really appreciate it. as far as the, just discussed the broadband option brought in much more money than anyone expected. so the argument that it is going to interfere with investment is totally bogus. anyway, i wanted to say i am very grateful to the president and the at tc are listening to millions of citizens that asked the fcc to continue the

principle of net neutrality online, that we don't end up with just a few rich folks determining who can be heard online. >> one issue we did not touch on, the broadband auctions. how does that play on this? guest: it is a critical piece convincing neil or the companies would still invest. recently, the fcc has been auctioning off frequencies that the cellular carriers can use to transmit the data. a lot of analysts predicted this would ran around $13 billion, a lot of money, but the auctions wrought 45 billion dollars. the sec made it clear they were going to apply regulations to mobile providers. companies are still willing to build billions of dollars to

upgrade the network. maybe the fcc thinks you knew you're going to face tough regulations and still decided it was in your interest and the bottom line suspend this money. the argument that it will harm investment, maybe it does not hold up. host: we will

we thank them for their incredible on the issue of the free and open internet that has been crucial to getting us to this important moment.

they heard from 4 million constituents about how best to control the platforms. today i say you are on the right side of history responding to those calls by proposing clear and decisive action to protect the internet as we no it. these rules are the declaration of independence. today is internet innovation and freedom day. for our economy and the free expression of ideas. ensuring an open internet is as important as keeping our air and water clean and roads and highways safe. by applying title ii the fcc is ensuring that they're we will be no internet fast and slow lanes created by the

big broadband barons but access the available for all americans including rural residents, residents, seniors, and those who are deaf and blind. consumer privacy consumer privacy is protected and we expand consumer choice and promote the whinnying competition on the web rest of the century. [laughter] how far we have come since the communication act was put on the books. it is essential for everyday living and working. consumers and consumers and businesses cannot operate without this vital connection making clear the

core values apply to all the ways we communicate regardless of the way we communicate. unfortunately their are some who say these values are no longer relevant, that these are all the rules meant for all technology. that could not be further from the truth. the original purposes to encourage the deployment of communication services to all corners of the the country and prohibit that phone companies from denying service to any american apply just as much today as they did decades ago. after congress passed the original communications constitution in 1934 we recognized over time that we had to change the rules because they had become freedoms for monopoly owned companies.

we sought to break down the monopolies and to introduce competition into t the time had arrived to move from analog to digital them of the time had come to move from rotary dial phones to iphones. in 1996 we added new amendments to our existing communications bill of rights passed a law encouraging competition and promoting consumer choice requiring consumer privacy be protected and insured americans with disabilities can fully participate in society. in 2015 these principles are more important than ever before and more relevant than ever before. americans expect values and deserve every time they pick up the phone or watch there web browser that they are being protected. these protections work.

consider in 20 1362% of all venture of all venture-capital funds invested in the united states of america went to an internet specific and software company. it is a capitalistic dream come true. the job creators of the 21st century in strong net neutrality protections. today prioritization blocking and throttling the fcc is applying the principles of nondiscrimination to the broadband recognizing the next chapter in this history just a fancy word for nondiscrimination. at the same time the fcc is correctly forbearing from the rules that were meant for a different time.

i say to the critics do you want a a return to the days when a few telecommunication companies which today we would call the broadband behemoths control the avenues that we use to communicate or do you want a free and dynamic open market with the best ideas survive and thrive? the choice is clear. their are likely still details that need to be worked out and i look forward to working with the commission to make sure that we get this right before the fcc votes on february 26. today is an historic day internet freedom day a day where consumers and innovators, entrepreneurs, anyone who counts on the internet anyone who counts on the internet to connect to the world is going to be protected by reclassifying

broadband is a major victory for our economy and consumers and free expression of ideas. now i want to recognize 1st are great senator from new jersey. >> i want to thank the senator for his. they have been some of the most serious steadfast soldiers in the fight to preserve net neutrality. today is an extraordinary day for net neutrality and democracy but more than that this is the affirmation by the fcc to preserve net neutrality with global implications. importantly, this decision this decision is critical for our economy to flourish and for unimagined economic opportunity to take place and is also one of the most critical principles for our country this ideal that

everyone's voice matters and we can have equal access, access, whether you are marginalized, a minority, small and economic power you too can participate on a a fair, open playing field where powerful economic forces cannot joke your voice were further marginalize your opinion people who are innovators, folks innovators, folks who want to stand up against conventional wisdom people who want to go against the grain everyone in this incredible space can be treated in a neutral way. this is a a fundamental ideal and democracy worthy of some will they but not the end. their will be forces and the

powerful forces that we will continue to assault the ideal of net neutrality. it will take more fighting with millions of americans who allow they're voices to be heard to influence the fcc decision the fight goes on. there is more work to do. >> senator sanders. >> thank you. today clearly is a major victory for consumers and entrepreneurs but it is also a major victory for democracy. when almost 4 million people demand that the fcc do the right thing, that says that this is an issue of deep concern to the american

people. i'll tell you something personally, a number of months ago we restart the people and said if you are interested in communicating your feelings the fcc we had close to 50,000 americans from vermont and all over this country writing long detailed, thoughtful statements about why they believe there should not be discrimination and support of net neutrality. i applaud the chairman for listening to the american people. this is about senator markey saying to a small business in rural vermont that you we will be able to utilize the internet in the same way as walmart. the guy is working on the

board that you can use the internet the same way that the new york times can use that you that we don't have discrimination on of what is one of the important economic engines of the 21st century. i. i am proud of the work that the american people have done. you have more work in front of us and let's continue to go forward together. >> al franken of minnesota. >> thank you, senator. so many others have fought for this great day. this is preserving net neutrality. we dodged a bullet in terms of the timeframe of what the internet has been from all this innovation that has happened on the internet is because of net neutrality. has been the architecture of

the internet from the very beginning, and this is preserving. thank you, chairman, for outlining what you did today this has been talked about, there was a sample of comments. more than 99 percent were for this, for preserving net neutrality. and this will be attacked and their may be lawsuits but from that the dc circuit court basically pointed the way. so this is a great day. i did a press conference with a number of small

businesses that rely on net neutrality businesses that were tripling they're workforce. about two or 300 employees that they're business is that without net neutrality. this is about our economic future. the internet is about our economy prosperity and democracy and about freedom of expression. the first amendment issue of our time. this is a very, very good day. >> questions.

>> two of the big things that consumers are not going to have. >> well, it further enjoys competition with the introduction of new ideas will continue. the more it happens the more the architecture is threatened when developing services in the same way people are watching television shows and movies on there mobile devices that is changing the architecture in and the same thing will be to here. it changed everything and it we will continue.

thirty years ago when people make a long-distance call the said grandmas on the phone. all of that has been changed >> mentioned the powerful forces. you are away they're aware their are many others who away and on this. can can you describe what you expect from people who oppose this. >> welcome as i said this way of proceeding was pointed to by the dc district court.

i think that what i imagine is you may have deep pockets obviously it we will go to court on this. but this seems to be consistent with what the appellate courts of said. >> even if they go to court it we will get tied up for a number of years. direct legislation why not work with that? >> well these are the rules for the 21st century. we understand their are people who object to that. these are the correct rules. we expect for some to disagree but we're not

thinking about just the next year. >> thank you all so much. >> fcc commissioners will vote on proposed net neutrality rules. we will discuss the legality of the rules and how they affect the industry on this week's communicators. ..

>> >> this is the first time a

senator has chaired the committee since the mid 1980's when my predecessor and good friend senator cohen served as the committee's chair. i am pleased to welcome both new and returning members to this committee and i am delighted my good friend and colleague senator mechanical will serve as the committee's ranking member. the former committee chairman has also chosen to remain a member of this committee and will continue to share his expertise with us. thraw his history the gene committee will take action on issues important to assure americans through our hearings, investigations and

reports. and has done so in a bipartisan manner. i hope to continue the fine tradition working with senator mitt gaskell and all members. this year the committee will focus on three major issues retirement security, a biomedical research investment for diseases like alzheimer's in diabetes that this will affect our seniors and financial schemes and scams targeting older americans. today we will examine exploitation over the nation's most will burble seniors. this committee has brought to light those that have defrauded seniors at of their hard earned retirement savings.

it is deeply troubling when the senior falls victim. but even more egregious when the family member is a caregiver or trusted financial advisor. financial exploitation of older americans is a growing epidemic that cost seniors an estimated 2.$9 billion in 2010 according to the gao. there are 14,000 new reports each year of senior reduce and as many of 90% of financial cases this year is victimized by someone he or she knows well.

unfortunately the full story is worse. many cases are never reported because the victim is too ashamed to report friday and shall exploitation when it involves a family member. as the consequence this type is not known. but to identify victims in my state is particularly difficult because we take a lot of pride in our self-sufficiency and it is difficult for many seniors to ask for help. and then to a mitt they have assets stolen by family members typically do not want the relatives to be criminally prosecuted so the stolen money is rarely recovered. this could undermine the health and financial security of older people.

to combat financial abuse of seniors is the responsibility of state and local agencies particularly protective services agencies it requires coordinated efforts including state and local agencies and law enforcement and metal communities and financial institutions. the federal government also plays a role with leadership to combat this problem. the elder justice coordinating council with up department of hhs to protect older individuals from abuse with financial exploitation.

to acknowledge a the critical role of state regulatory agencies judith serves as the security administrator for the state of maine. i am pleased to say we're on the cutting edge to help combat financial abuse of seniors through programs like the innovative senior program that kind in the nation. financial exploitation knows no socio-economic boundaries. one daughter sold her mother's home and moved her into a camper in her

backyard. if that were not bad enough the daughter and her boyfriend went on to deplete the life savings over a course of two years reading her penniless as well as thomas. if they are vulnerable with financial exploitation. we'll also hear from philip marshall who is the grandson of a well-known philanthropist and socialite. and brooks who summered in maine for decades did was generous to our state, will testify how his father mistreated his mother a mismanaged her assets will suffering from alzheimer's.

there are many instances it is vital for a site newark -- a senior to have the assistance of a trusted adviser to help manage his or her finances particularly if it -- the senior becomes ill or loses cognitive ability. this is another factor that makes it so troubling and complicated. caliph for rude to hear from the witnesses today for what is under way to address financial abuse of the honorable seniors. we will have the vote at 2:45 p.m.. whoever is here will take over the gavel to make the interruption as brief as

possible. >> thank you chairman collins. one year ago i was approached by the people with a microphone and asked if democrats lose control of the senate and you take over as a ranking member of the very first committee you could serve on who would be paid for your chairman? i said without hesitation my friend and mentor and role model susan collins. she has been an example to me from the day that i arrived of courage and independence when called upon and working across the ideal. i watched her with senator lieberman to show determination when she needed to process to listen and cooperate when essentials live very proud to serve under chairman collins and we will have a

terrific imperfective committee looking at a very important issue in our country. the senior financial exploitation is not new to many of us. as a prosecutor in kansas city i saw firsthand car to breaking instances of the elder abuse. physical comedy emotional and financial. roughly the target of exploitation to the tune of billions of dollars each year. of the perpetrator is a family member the numbers you don't tell the story accounts of the terrible instances of this type of abuse.

and to focus on a generation to be less able to sell support. often a family member is legally appointed as a guardian. to feel even more parlous often the victim will struggle with filing criminal charges against the child or family member. the civil action to potentially gain access. we cannot shy away from holding perpetrators accountable. it is absolutely unconscionable. a recent phenomenon to discuss these types of cases in the criminal arena as

discussed with family matters of people here from a seattle prosecutor who specializes in elder abuse control cases. only a handful of officers like the office that she works in in washington. financial exploitation cases they're difficult to prosecute you need competent and trained professionals for every level. forensic accountants and of course, in the past year came to misery to protect seniors in my state we must address the desperate need for cooperation for the

federal, state, and local level. and i'm sure she has her own stories to tell about fights and finger-pointing. ticket to the city prosecutor it is too complex. take it to the u.s. attorney. we must address this cooperation. those who say this is a state issue. is the there is much the federal government can do to assist. gao found that seven different federal agencies that were consistent with their own mission and not necessarily supportive of one another with the overall goal. to highlight the work was

one of them to provide guidance by family members how trees possibly take care of someone else's finances. senator warren is aware of the effort of this the spd in this area. though we don't even have a national data on this problem we don't know how many cases are reported and though sutter criminally prosecuted we hope to examine against the perpetrators in the federal government provide look forward to speaking with our witnesses about aging discrimination too often they are dismissed and it is

too complex especially dealing with the mental capacity of the victim of. with this exploitation of seniors i do everything i can to support that purpose things to the chairman and witnesses and i look forward to hearing your testimony. >> thank you for your generous comments. welcoming to the committee and a new member of the senate will comeback in the interest of time of roger williams university in rhode

island will be speaking today as a family member that i mentioned in my opening statements in had to share with is a painful story. immelt serving as the benefits securities administrator in maine with for the association and international organization devoted to investor protection. watching the executive director and finally the senior deputy prosecuting

attorney in king county washington as senator mc caskill has already explained. they. . . been here. >> chairman collins distinguished committee members, thank you for inviting me to testify today. glaves so grateful for your leadership and action on elder justice. i am philip marshall and a resident of massachusetts and the grandson of new york philanthropist victim of elder abuse by her sudden, my father my grandmother advanced the mission by giving millions of dollars to social and cultural causes. clinton awarded her the presidential medal of freedom. as new york's first lady and

the humanist aristocrats. when she was 100 she disappeared from the limelight. she did not return until july 2006 when my guardianship petition which i filed to protect my grandmother against my father was discovered by the press. front-page headlines display disaster for mrs. astor. she never wanted to be known as the most famous case of elder abuse. within the throes of dementia to be manipulated and robbed with a calculated scheme to defraud as characterized by the manhattan district attorney. this may be the greatest

legacy. with my guardianship petition i stated my father with reference to his mother turned a blind guy to ignore held thursday while enriching himself with millions of dollars. days before the court data settlement was reached with guardianship awarded. we have achieved their goal when grandmothers in her final-- in a country house with care and in comfort and free. to when a possible for jury was referred to as elder abuse. and in 2009 after a six month criminal trial my father was found guilty on

39 of 14 counts against him. the harvest has nourished the cause of elder justice. later awarded tens of millions of dollars that my father tried to direct to himself. but i realized about elder justice to the complicity of elder abuse. since 2010 and launched by a bone journey for older justice i have been border to border and face-to-face and they thank them for doing so much for so many with so little.

i successfully detected abuse many black oversight to remain helpless. for all under federal programs should be screened and trained for a response it needs federal funding to respond adequately to increasing number of cases of elder abuse. with the collective and chordata response to re-read victimized by a fragmented system here much greater financial support of multi disciplinary teams would be so helpful. and who had an elder abuse

unit most people don't others need to have law-enforcement better treated elder abuse to prosecute these cases. when my grandmother stolen assets were claimed here financial transactions enhanced detection and greater reporting suspicious activities financial monitoring must mass physical monitoring and then to reauthorize the elder justice act while elder abuse is a trend is not our destiny. faq.

>> thank you for your compelling testimony. and your advocacy. is she did so much good throughout her life. >> ranking member i am judith shaw end of the administrator i am honored to be here to discuss one of the most serious problems to have financial exploitation it was difficult but critical many is the population due to social isolation with other support networks. the days of america is and

then fading into the past we've no older adults are fodder for a vigil schemes because they have tangible assets and are attractive to ischium artists. and even significant savings to recoup losses. it is a community problem and we must all come together for the elderly to break down barriers to achieve a solution. we must identify those with referrals to appropriate government agencies.

and then to be the banks and credit unions with the department dead aging services for the elderly and main credit unions senior save was created with those expectations for financial institutions. into meet with representatives to identify barriers so institutions are left wondering if there even was a problem in the first place. we also learned they lacked direction. senior save is comprised of training and a quick response of financial

institutions. in with the expectations the participants are advised to contact adult protective services monday know about the capacity. have never there is no reason to believe with those referrals under senior save. and then with the other appropriate agencies. in that referral system is far reaching leading to improved safety for seniors and other customers of the

financial institution to promote goodwill to affirm the commitment to the customers will being a financial independence. this sounds wonderful but the answer is yes. it occurred february 2014 followed one month later 210 they can credit unions have received training to receive up more than 20 referrals resulting from the program but it does not tell the whole story i have described real-life examples including one of my own in the testimony. an elderly woman in a roll era area was driven to withdraw $10,000 to pay the man for repairing her roof. she had no idea who the individual was and had not contacted.

now caring for the victim that loss $14,000 from the known scam artist. to summarize that we were raised are becoming less routine and we must work together to create a new safety net using every the human-resources available to us financial exploitation has identification investigation and prosecution. the key for your attention to provide me with the opportunity to testify today. i am happy to answer any question. >> madam chairman. with the terrible problem of elder abuse and director of

the national productive as services with programs are professionals or older persons with disabilities who are mistreated in more ways than we can imagine. those with the justice coalitions offer in the first and only resource center to create the first national advisory board on financial exploitation. elder abuse is a dead the problem but invisible. and twice the number is treated of chawed abuse and domestic violence. victims is three times more likely to die and cohorts it cost individuals families in financial institutions and

taxpayers billions of dollars annually. over 90 percent of reported abuse is from the victim's own family members especially their adult children and very often is through emotional abuse. holding the first hearings in the 1970's but only recently thanks to the other coalitions the elder justice coordinating council to have any serious attention has begun to be paid. we hope that will continue and grow as federal investment of child abuse has a significant reduction to the incident rate of both problems. >> forgive me for interrupting. there are four minutes left in the vote.

have never missed one in more than 18 years. i will excuse myself. senator have you voted? why don't we take a brief break in the hearing and when senator mechanical gets back we will resume. we will return. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for your patience. would you like to continue?

>> i thought i had to stork -- start over. >> you can. [laughter] >> i will start at the beginning of the paragraph. congress held from the '70s but things to the leadership of the council and to this committee has any serious attention been paid to the issue we hope it will continue and grow as federal investment of domestic violence to work in the incident rate there is no dedicated funding the only national available authorize service system for adults that cannot protect themselves the older justice act had its first had to

restructure but two-thirds of the state's use block grant funds but eliminating it would shut down in some states many community services keep the victims at home. to generate the ever increasing number to investigate it is not only perpetrated with physical effects federal regulatory agencies issued the financial institution not reporting elder abuse to the proper authorities the will not provide the financial records but that is what they must have. there are permitted to have such record to respond to

authorize investigation and revised that it may be shared in a timely manner when it could be stopped much earlier. second that should temper of the pri's accounts when they are defrauded to provide time to contact dps or take other measures. i hope they will look at their own research into elder abuse this is a partial stack from in many hearings to elect its own decades to invest to stop them prevent it so they could be reduced as they have been heavily to protect over the long term the

reduced demands on medicare and medicaid often behalf of workers across the great nation thank you for holding this hearing we hope it is the first of series to address the elder abuse and exploitation we stand ready to work to protect parents and grandparents. thank-you. >> en el senator collins's already introduced to. >> when a prosecutor in seattle washington. to be my first elder abuse prosecutor after a two-year hiatus i have been prosecuting neglect physical and sexual assault and

homicide. a recent case that i handled had an esteemed committee member as a rotarian running for city council his mother was in her 80s with dementia she owns her home free and clear and have plenty of money to kit cover the rest of her life her son handles her finances. in 2008 he began to steal from her by making transfers first and then by a line to take the proceeds of the house. during the next four years he stole $490,000 for his mother for a diamond ring for his fiancee and his business and a lavish lifestyle. in 2011 the daughters figured it out and called police. then filed seven counts of

felony theft. she was moved to a nursing home. what was the impact of this exploitation? she kept opening her purse to look for her money certain shoe had misplaced it and the daughters were robbed of their entire inheritance. and then forced to go on medicaid and died a few months ago heartbroken. that is how it is with all other exploitation. we all pay the price. and the price is huge. to lose their life savings and independence as a result of financial exploitation and forced to rely on medicaid and medicare in housing and other public programs. we still don't know the cost

but the cost alone is astronomical. the government can do three things to address this problem. create infrastructure to handle these cases. we did have some infrastructure in place but not enough we had a detective and a prosecutor but no victim services to help them navigate the obstacles they faced as a result of the exploitation. so most cases are never pursued. to the resource center that professionals can turn into conduct training so did those in in many disciplines that could intervene. doctors and nurses at&t's

at&t's, social workers workers, attorneys accounta nts and those in the financial-services industry. and unnecessary ignorance has a huge hurdle. so to reduce financial exploitation to screen for cognitive impairment that increases risk. the sharp case concluded two weeks ago. to be ordered to pay restitution for the government for helen's care. wish i could say this case was a complete victory but i can call your able to have

some justice that is almost certain neither day -- they like their money back and that damage can never be undone. into cost the government countless dollars but with modest investment training and research congress and federal agencies can dramatically improve how to prevent and respond to this terrible problem. thank you very much. >> thank you for your testimony. and part of the hitherto witnesses and i have read your written testimony.

but in your written testimony talk about what you decide is a guardian angel and manager of a credit union who alerted you to the fact that your own mother might be a victim of abuse. could you tell us a little bit about that? and also are there obstacles to financial institutions coming forward to privacy laws? that would make them hesitate as exploitation? >> a small town in northern maine one of four children like many others i went to

college and moved away but my sister stayed behind. to pursue her education. with a small law firm my father died he was a socialite of our family and my mother's socialite activity was her regular visits to the credit union so she came to know them very well. menacing she was not talking about her grandchildren so much, not caring for her hair or her clothes the way she had before and they became a little concerned so she realized there was a strange automatic withdrawal coming out of my checking account. my sister is on that account

satoshi said we should look into this. in bonn was concerned about living on social security because there was no retirement plans and she had fallen victim to work from home scam. fortunately there able to identify early to stop it and my sister had the good foresight to learn that my mother had early stage dimension and is now getting treated for that that we may not have identified as early in we are very grateful to her. that was before but that is warda of the reasons why i spent two years helping to do develop senior say if. is clear there on the front line. sometimes they're hesitant to report because they don't

have the feedback loop. but whether to hear back vitarelli was a problem more correct to make that referral. . .