not during my tenure. and i disagree that's the case today. you know, as an old anti-trust lawyer we know you don't count noses. you look at the effects in the market. has capacity expanded? capacity has expanded 1500% in a decade. has the market continued to invest? it's invested over $1 trillion in a decade. have prices gone up to monopoly rent levels? prices have stayed flat and declined on a per mega basis. i don't think any anti-trust scholar or justice department could conclude that it is an unhealthy, uncompetitive market based on the actual characteristics of the market they used to measure that question. >> if it's not a natural monopoly and there's no participant in the provider sector of the market that has monopoly market power, then it stands to reason the committee draft is correct that we should

explicitly say you shall not regulate or oversee the internet under title 2. do you agree with that? >> as i've testified consistently, i think the cost and damage to americans' ambitions of bradband in title 2 far outweigh the benefits. i think if the narrow task before us is to create solid bullet proof net neutrality, which we accept, we believe that can be done without resorting to that hammer. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank the former chairman for those comments. i do believe that it's wise to put this out as a draft. i think there are some very valid questions and my friends on the minority are asking some of those questions about how to perfect the language. i have some concerns myself about certain parts of the draft. but the base principle, the fact

we should not regulate the internet under title 2, i think is beyond question. if we start from that premise i think the discussion draft is an excellent document and we can iron out the details through these hearings. if you take it to subcommittee with the markup itself. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we'll turn to the gentleman from kentucky mr. yarmuth. welcome aboard. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the panel. it's been a very enlightening conversation. i'm new to this entire area, so i'm learning a lot as we go. one of the things that intrigues me about this entire field is that we have a field that is changing as rapidly as anything probably in history has changed. and we -- some of members have talked about the difference between 1996 and now and how the world has changed.

it's not just the technology that's changed the industry has changed in the fact this is an emorphis corporation going on. all companies getting into various parts of the business. at one point they're acting as a common carrier, another point they're acting as content provider, so on. mr. powell, you mentioned the difference between information services and telecommunication services in the law. is that a meaningful distinction today? >> i think over time it shouldn't be. meaning, this is the case for this institution which i think it's already committed to taking on responsibilities to write a new act. we're entering into a world where a bit is a bit. data networks follow radically different characteristics than the ones that informed those judgments when these laws were written in the' 30s or the '90s.

and i think net neutrality is one of the first highly contentious issues related to ambiguity and it won't be the last. what concerns me is title 2 is more inapplicable to modern networks and i think we'll be ironing out if that's the governing body how it's properly applied to networks that don't behave in the way that existed when those judgments were made. >> ms. baker you say in your testimony similar conversation, mobile brondadband is different. the draft bill we're discussing today would restrict the fcc's ability to interpret the net neutrality rules once they're enacted. how can the fcc give wireless carriers the flexibility they need without the authority to modify or clarify the network

neutrality rules? >> i think the draft is a great start. i think we -- as we evolve, we need to work on the definitions and make sure we have the proper definition for reasonable network management. currently, it acknowledges the technological differences. that's important. we'll have to watch all the definitions but we've got a great start and look forward to working with all you have on it. >> thank you. the '96 act created a partnership between the states and the federal government. each had important telecommunications oversight responsibilities. our partners in state government and public utility commissions are often closer to the ground and can respond quickly to consumer complaints. as we're concerning this legislation, i want to direct this to ms. gonzalez should we be thinking about the consumer protection role of the states as well? >> absolutely. in fact, there's been a lot of talk recently about the fcc acting to protect local choice in broadband.

in particular, there's an effort to ensure that states do not restrict local communities from building their own broadband networks. i have concern that the draft legislation as it stands today would disempower the commission from addressing that very serious issue for local consumers. >> we've been talking about the competitive situation with broadband. in my community there's basically one system, so there's really no incentive for them to provide great quality service or consumer service. are you concerned about the ramifications for consumer protection f we go down this route literally that's in the draft bill? >> yes, absolutely. i think it calls into question the fcc's role in protecting consumers and there may be some competition that might not be an actual monopoly, but if you ask people around the kitchen table

do they feel like they have choice particularly their home broadband connections, i think the vast majority of consumers feel kind of strapped. >> i agree. it is certainly my preference for congress to act in all of these areas but i have very serious concerns. again, the way the world is moving. congress at its optimum efficiency moves at about 5 miles an hour and the world is moving at 100. in this field and many others it's becoming very difficult for us to make long-term policy decisions because the future is so uncertain. we talk about providing certainty, there's not a lot of certainty out in the world just because the world's changing so fast. anyway, editorial comment. thank you very much. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. we now go to the gentleman from texas, mr. olsen for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, as you know today is my first hearing as a member of the subcommittee. and i think i'm thrilled to be

here. all kidding aside, ms. baker it's always refreshing to have someone who went to school in houston, texas as a panelist. as you know, ma'am, the last major update to the communications act occurred 19 years ago. give given the importance of the internet to our economy, our social fabric, does it make sense for congress to take tai a fresh look for congress to take tackle internet operation openness instead of try to invoke statutory provisions that are decades old? >> absolutely. we're very committed to working with you on that. >> thank you. one question for all the panelists, we all agree these proposed changes by the fcc to title 2 will bring about legislation. i think we can all agree with that. my question is, that will make for a lot of uncertainty. how long will it last?

when it's decided by the courts any idea? two years five years, a decade? mr. powell? >> it's always hard to say without looking back historically, but when my commission first adopted the definition of information services, it was three to four years before there was complete resolution in a litigation case because of the ruling in the supreme court. the commission now is proposing to do fundamentally the same thing. a brand new untested, definitional change coupled, by the way w new and untested applications of forbearance and other things. we're talking a potential litigation process that would typically run three to five years, depending on its complexity, depending on the parties and depending on the court system. >> decisions come out three to five years, or that's the whole window? >> the problem s if any part of the order is overturned by a court, there are remands to the commission, that could be a whole new commission. this commission will only be in power for the next two years. it could be remanded to the next

administration commission. this thing could start all over again. it's not a complete exaggeration to say ten years from now, we could still be sitting here talking. >> mr. dickerson your comments. how long? >> yes, sir. first of all, we don't see the fcc action and congressional action as mutually exclusive. i think obviously, mr. powell has a lot of experience in these areas so i don't want to contradict his legal expertise and the process expertise. i think congress -- i'm very encouraged by many of the principles in the bill. i've stated the issues i'm concerned about. i think congressional action can -- if the bill is amended in the ways we've described, could provide much more certainty and work along with fcc regulations. i wanted to really quickly have the floor. amend an earlier comment. i wanted to clarify that i will not see the draft fcc order before they vote.

and i apologize for that mistake. thank you. >> duly noted. mr. misener the courts, how long? >> well, all litigation is optional so it might be up to the litigants whether they pursue it. if we get a great fc order that everyone loves, maybe no one will sue. some parties have suggested they're going to sue regardless. it's not we it's they. it's a choice of theirs. >> ms. gonzalez, how long? >> i think the risk of litigation comes with an fcc order as well as with the proposed legislation. i think no matter what, there will be legal action to clarify definitional issues in the legislation draft. and so while all of us especially those of us who are lawyers who don't make a lot of money on these issues would like to see as little litigation

as possible. i think it's unavoidable regardless of the path. >> how about three to five years like chairman powell said, do you think that's in the window of this uncertainty? >> i think the draft legislation opens up the opportunity for case-by-case adjudications, various issues the fcc would have to resolve. could even be longer depending on how things come up. >> please be quick, ma'am because ms. baker is waiting. >> i would say the draft legislation is would reduce the amount of time we will experience litigation if we go towards that. i also think the draft legislation would give the congress as well as the fcc some room to look at some of the areas of the bill. because out of the 11 principles, there's probably one it sounds like needs to be debated and that's the section 706 authority piece. but i think congress would act much quicker than the type of litigation we actually have. we would avoid the consequences of title 2. >> ms. baker? >> so, the 2010 rules were not

published for a while. there are procedural ways the fcc can extend the time before they publish them. once they published them, they were returned last year. we're at the fcc revisiting those. certainly, the best way to act for certainty is for congress to act. so, it depends on how you count it. that's 2010. it's 2015. they'll promote some more rules that will also -- depending if they really go title 2, they will be litigated. that will be another window of several years of litigation and uncertainty. >> thank you. my time's expired. >> thank the gentleman for participation. we ask for consent we enter into the record a statement on the verizon policy blog from the fran charmois verizon cfo which deals with this issue of investment in which fran says experience in other country shows overregulation ends up with decreased investment.

same thing will happen to the u.s., investment in broadband networks will go down. it's a clarifying statement from december 11th. >> somebody scolded him. >> i don't have any knowledge of that since this was december 11th. but would enter that into the record without opposition. we'll now go to mr. loebsack. >> i'm happy to jump in. despite the admonition of mr. powell about the difficulty of this subject. i want to thank the ranking member as well for this wonderful hearing today. i've learned a lot. this is the first hearing i've had on this subcommittee and on the larger committee as well. if i might, mr. chairman, i would like at the outset to request submission for the record an offer their analyses -- >> without objection. >> thank you.

>> i come from iowa. i 4 counties in my congressional district. it's a much more diverse district than most folks on either side of the coasts might imagine. no offense to folks from coasts. but we have a lot of issues in a district like mine. it's a very big area. i would like to start off with you, ms. baker those statistics you cited about eight out of ten of folks have four choices -- can you cite those statistics again? >> eight out of ten americans have a choice of more mobile -- more mobile broadband providers. and 94% have a choice of three. >> do you know where the 0%20% and 6% reside? >> i'm certain we can get you a map. >> that would be wonderful. i would suspect, although i don't know for sure that it's probably in rural areas where those folks reside.

this is my ninth year in congress, my first year on this committee but i've been getting around my desk for the last eight years and this is a huge issue that's come up the access on the part of rural areas to broadband, to cellular service to all the thins we're talking with here. that's why i'm so excited to be on the subcommittee. it was my first choice so i can do what i can for the folks in my district. i want to thank all of you. mr. dixon, i knew nothing about etsy until my daughter requested something from a birthday present and i went online and found out what a wonderful service you offer. thank you for being here as well. >> thank you. >> i support net neutrality obviously. i'm interested in working with both sides of the asooilisle so we can draft some legislation to where we ought to number 2015. fully recognizing that we really never as legislators will understand all the issues down

the road because things will be changing all the time. we'll dot best we can. i appreciate the majority bringing the bill to the floor -- or bringing a draft to us at this point so we can spend a lot of time working on this. but as i said, the rural areas are probably my major concern as a congressman. and i'd like to ask ms. gonzalez, and perhaps dr. turner lee and the rest of us, as time permits, what effects might this proposed legislation have on our rural consumers, he specialespecially universal service programs, which were already mentioned briefly? >> thank you, congressman for the question. this is one of my deep concerns with the draft legislation as it stands. stripping the fcc of title 2 and 706 authority calls into question the ability of the commission to continue ongoing processes that help subsidize

broadband in rural areas as well as programs that could make it more affordable. for those rural folks that do have a connection but can't afford to connect. we're really concerned about you know people in rural areas going -- you know driving down the road to wherever they can get a wireless signal to do their homework. we really -- we need to ensure that this bill does no harm to efforts to increase digital inclusion. it's an important imperative for education as well. >> dr. turner lee. >> thank you, congressman. i think the bill, if you flip it on the other side has the promise f we were to look at 706 authority to title 2 to further increase adoption in rural communities. part of the reason the fcc has the authority of 7 on 6 is to get at the very issue you're talking about. and i think by looking at the bill in a way where that is a point of debate, because this is a discretion draft, will actually allow us to be careful

in the legislative path we do take. if we take title 2, we've already heard from the association leaders about the high capital investment in communities overall. but the communities like rural and the communities we're concerned with at mmtc, will be the last on the list if capital is depressed among our communities. i think we need to be careful about that. in a study i did of 2010 of the national broadband map, there was very little coverage of census tracks with the lowest in they're areas and states and communities. and it has been since 2010 under the environment we've seen a lot of growth particularly with wireless as an on-ramp for some of these communities as well. i would caution against throwing the baby out with the bathwater with the legislative proposal and to come to the table to really think about what ways can section 706 perhaps and we've offered some solutions we're willing to work and sit down with congressional members -- the staff to talk about, but how can you actually leverage that point in there so that to the earlier point. congressman, we don't spend a lot of time wasted where we can't get to the debate of

universal reform and other things you care about and we do, too. >> i see my time's expired, mr. chair, but i would like a response from the others, if that's possible for the record, moving forward. >> sure. >> thank you very much. >> if they can give it to you quickly. >> i can give it quickly. in my opening remarks i said etsy is a democrat tiesing force for entrepreneurship. providing rural broadband so people are not disadvantaged where they live on whether or not they request take advantage of this great platform we have. we're concerned the legislation by revoking the fcc's authority could really undermine efforts to promote adoption in rural areas, broadband adoption. >> thank you. >> i think the thing i would emphasize quickly is the biggest problem of reaching rural america, which should be a sacred obligation of all telecom policy is because the costs are highly economical for entry. so you have to balance fcc

power ensuring we're not raising the costs and disincentivizing those coming into the community. that's the other worry about moving to a regime that could raise those costs. >> any others real quickly? >> mr. misener, go ahead. >> thank you. it's hard for me to believe investment requires blocking, throttling not disclosing, engaging in paid prioritization. >> thank you. >> all of which would be banned under our draft. >> yeah. >> correct? >> the question is whether it's enforceably banned and question whether network operators can get out of it by offering specialized services or claiming regional network management. there are a lot of questions. clearly those good things, which i call excellent principle, should be protected. >> remember, you still have the ftc in the background. unless it gets title 2. ms. gonzalez? >> to respond directly to dr. lee, currently it's located

in title 2, section 254. 706 isn't enough for us to get there. we want assurances the commission continue ongoing and upcoming processes to expand access. >> thank you. >> dr. turner-lee. >> in response to ms. gonzalez. we're going town the line. mean, i think that in terms of title 2, clearly, you're correct in terms of the assurances that are there. it comes with everything else. and i think that everything else is what we're actually concerned about in our communities if you do go back to the conversation about regulation et cetera. for the communities that we represent, they're not even at the beginning of the finish line of this. we have a lot more work to do. i think we need to be really cautious about the regulatory action that is taken given the fact there are 30 million people that still do not have broadband access. congressman, many of them in your area. and i think the fact that we've been in this conversation and we keep going into this whirlwind continues to disadvantage the people we represent that need to get about the business of other issues.

and so respectfully, ms. gonzalez i think you're right, i think by the same token, i think title 2 is too excessive to get the things we want. >> schools and libraries and rural programs exist as broadband is classified under title 1. it's a good discussion. i think it's important. and we all realize it's important and we can continue the conversation. >> thank you mr. chair. >> you're welcome. i thought it would be helpful for the whole committee to hear everybody get a shot at it. mr. loebsack, if you would like to meet with me and mr. kramer after, we can show you what a real rural district looks like. we'll go to the gentleman from florida who joined our subcommittee. >> thank you mr. charnl. honor to serve on the subcommittee. this has been a terrific hearing. i have a couple questions. first for mr. powell, after speaking with a medium sized broadbrand provider in my district, they were concerned that during this push for

reclassification the fcc has not conducted a single study on the impact that reclassification were would on small and medium sized operators. what are your thoughts on the ability of small and medium sized isps to handle the increased burden of internet regulation? >> i think it's fair to say they're deeply concerned. i would emphasize that the fcc has a legal obligation on the regulatory flexibility act to take special consideration of small businesses and the cost benefit analysis of their decisions. our members have filed with the commission raising grave concerns, that they have not complied with the rfa as part of that analysis. that's an ongoing conversation with the commission. but yet another potential vulnerability in the rules that will come out from the commission. >> thank you, sir. ms. turner lee, i know you touched upon this, but maybe you want to elaborate a little. i have a couple areas in my

district, where even today internet adoption is significantly behind the rest of the country and they're struggling to get reliable broadband up and running. can you explain why title 2 reclassification could disproportionately impact and further harm communities with lower broadband adoption already? >>. >> thank you congressman. in my record and my testimony i put in more statistics to say relevance leads to the reason people do not get online. the cost of broadband as well as the type of device actually come after, why do i need to use this tool? i think for all of us in this room, we want to equalize the democracy as it was said earlier, we need to get people online so they can realize the full value. the challenge with title 2, to your question, is -- as i said we have to get everybody to the starting point before we get to the finish line. trying to manage around some of the hypothetical harms of what the internet can do does a

disservice. under monopoly telephone service we can only talk and hear. under broadband we can talk, discuss, engage discuss. for communities of color we want to solve social problems that are chronic like chronic disease or the lack of educational resources, et cetera. the possibilities and aspirations of the internet are so great. why would we try to restrict and regulate something that's in its infancy? relevance our issue. we have to move people of color the poor and disabled and seniors and the folks who don't speak english as first language to the internet for the power of government resources so they can move from an inline economy to an online economy. we have to move them into places we can solve those problems much like in florida where people are not taking advantage of the new technology. and having a restricted title 2 stance, i think has its impacts outside of chilling investment and deployment. >> thank you very much. mr. powell, will title 2

regulation do anything to encourage incumbents or new companies to enter the market? >> i think this is a serious overlooked aspect of title 2. it's a major disensintive for a competitor to enter the market. all you need to do to look for evidence is sterling new entry like google fiber. google fiber entered the market. by the way it only entered the market in a handful of selected cities. it elected to provide broadband service and elected to provide video service but refused to offer telephone service. it refused in its own public statements in saying it chose not to provide telephone service because of the regulatory compliance costs associated with being a telephone company. in fact, the president of the united states was in iowa recently, in cedar falls talking about the municipal broadband company that provides a very fast broadband service. that company provides broadband and video service.

to date provides no telephone or telecommunication service, in part, because of the regulatory costs and incentives. title 2 fundamentally assumes an incumbent state-sanctioned monopoly. it tends to provide a regime that's very hostile to providing and entering a new competitive alternative. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. we go to the gentlelady from california, ms. matsui. >> thank you for holding this hearing today. the internet is dynamic and this hearing has always been dynamic and lively and much appreciated by the members here. you know a year ago, no one was talking about paid prioritization. now people are talking a lot about it. it's also called internet fast lanes. now, it is central now to net neutrality debate. and that's why i had introduced a bill with senator leahy to ban

paid prioritization or so-called internet fast lanes. now, the reason why i bring this up is because this is where the consumer gets involved. the consumer understands this. and when i had my hearing and at home when i talk with people they understand, they don't like the idea of having to pay extra to access the content of programs. they want to see view online. this is pretty clear. i talked to some of the anchor institutions, schools and libraries. and they also feel that they can't afford to cut deals. neither can the start-ups cut deals with each isp to compete. so, this is very central to what we're talking about today. so our policy has to be very clear about how it impacts the consumer. ms. baker and mr. powell do your associations support a ban

on paid prioritizations? and i'd like a yes or no. >> yes. >> yes. >> thank you. ms. gonzalez and i would like mr. misener to comment on this, too, from a consumer point of view does the bill truly ban all forms of paid prioritization? and if not why? we've been talking around this but can you please expand on this? and also mr. misener. >> sure. i think as many have raised, there's a question around the definition or lack thereafter, of -- or the vague definition of specialized services and whether or not that creates a giant loophole that could severely diminish the rule that was intended to ban paid prioritization. it's also worth while to consider issues of discrimination on the internet that fall outside paid prioritization, and there are

quite a few. >> mr. misener? >> thank you. i think in addition to the concern about specialized services which by the way, isn't just possibly a loophole for, quote paid prioritization by third-parties, but, rather, by affiliated companies engaging more or less in the same behavior. can you imagine an internet broadband access provider also having an affiliated content business which gets special treatment. it wouldn't be paid prioritization in the sense they're getting paid by a third party, but it would be prioritizing traffic based on the ownership rather than a payment. the other two areas of concern are ones we have discussed previously. one is the -- keeping the reasonable network management card out. if it does seem to favor some content over others. lastly this business about where in the network these things could occur. it needs to be clear in the bill that it's throughout the broadband internet access provider's network. >> do you feel this intil a good

starting point? how do you feel about this? >> are you asking me ma'am? >> yes. >> yes, i do. i do. i think it's a novel approach which a set of principles, which i've called excellent principles, are clearly defined and capped with the ceiling. if that actually works, it's a great start. but our concerns are how that ceiling would actually work. if it work, it's a great start. >> ms. gonzalez, you feel the same way? >> i'm certainly pleased members on both sides of the aisle that net neutrality is a serious problem and we need to address it. i have serious reservations about the draft legislation as it stands. mostly given the level of authority that it would strip of the commission right now and the lack of inclusion of a ban on unreasonable discrimination on the internet. >> well, i strongly believe that

we have to get it right. either the fcc or congress. it is far too important. you think about the internet affects everything we do in our lives. and this is -- and i think this is -- the first thing i think as a starting point is 100% ban on paid prioritization. we have to figure out how to do that. and there can't be any loopholes. you're talking about some loopholes already. we have to start addressing that. if we can't get that right, we're moving backwards. our consumers will know we're moving backwards. and we're really stifling competition when you think about that, too. i've heard from many start-ups who really feel they were able to start their businesses, but in fact, if we don't play this right and ban paid prioritization, we will go backwards. we cannot -- if we don't ban it institute strong net neutrality

protections for consumers. and innovation. so, i truly believe this is our opportunity. this is a wonderful hearing to begin the discussion. so i yield back. thank you. >> thank you the gentlelady for her comment. we look forward to working with mr. misener. we appreciate your comments as well. that's obviously not our intent to ban it and then come back and create a loophole. so, i appreciate your willingness to work on that. we'll go to the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson, a new member of our subcommittee and delighted to have you part of the team. >> and winner of the national chaip. >> and the gentleman's time has expired. >> in all seriousness, mr. chairman, it's an honor to be on the subcommittee. under your leadership -- >> no amount of sucking up will get you out of it. >> all right. i'll buy you a new red tie later. to the panelists, thank you

folks for being here. i have about 30-plus years of private sector and d.o.d. experience and information technology. and so i'm very familiar with the issues that we're dealing with and the criticality of those issues. you know, i remember back in the '70s when i first got started in information technology and telecommunications, we went through generations of technological upgrades about every ten years. there was a generation from the '70s to '80s and '80s to '90s. about mid-'90s leading to the 2000s it gak to accelerate to where we are today. i mean, many of the devices we all use on a daily basis, many of them weren't even here even five years ago. today we see technological turnover about every quarter almost. as soon as one model comes out, the next one comes in. so technological innovation

requires the right conditions. and more government means less flexibility and fewer opportunities to grow. i think it was president ronald reagan that said the answer to our problems is never more government. if you look at what the telecom industry needs in order to be successful, it needs to be nimble in order to innovate which it can't do if the heavy hand of government prevents it from doing so. windows of opportunity in our industry, and the industry of telecommunications, they only open for a very very short period of time. and innovators must have the certainty that if they jump into the fray and if they put big investments on the next great big thing, that they're going to be able to take advantage and get a return on their investments. so these issues we're talking about today are extremely important. i know i represent a very rural district.

we talked about how important this is to some of those areas. and i appreciate those comments. mr. powell, in ncta's comments to the fcc in the open internet dockett, it stated that title 2 reclassification, and i quote, would dampen the very infrastructure investment the commission seeks to foster. these comments go on to indicate that the reclassification again quote, would require providers to divert substantial time and resources to design and implement numerous systems and processes necessary to comply with the various requirements and obligations of title 2. can you quantify in any way the time and resources that you are describing in those comments? >> i think it would be difficult to put a number on it without ayeeg to what the scope is we would have to comply with. as we've all recognized it depends on what you're going to be subject to and what you're not. i mean there are 1,000 title 2

regulations. how many of them will apply to what depths that he reply and what your obligations on them is a huge, open question. >> is it safe to say though that this type of diversion of time and resources will have the effect of chilling innovation? >> if people want a better understanding of, this they would go read the history of what the biggest regulatory problems were in the '60s '70s and '80s with telephone companies. there was an enormous dissatisfaction that they were not investing, they were not innovating. what was the last innovation you recall? was it the pink princess phone or the blue one? there was a real disincentive. it's been the government's policy, both at the fcc and congress, to be retreating from those regulatory tools for decades in order to spur more investment and innovation into those industries. it really was that retreat that

helped foster and explode the wireless industry cable and a whole host of industry with the revision of those policies. i think there's plenty of examples the way title 2 or that regulatory model -- if you need a last example. look at the experience in europe, we defined it as an information service, they pursued the equivalent of title 2 regulation. their ministers today are calling for an end to that regulatory environment and an adoption of the u.s. model because of the depressing effect on innovation investment and -- >> like i said, mr. government is never the answer to the problem. ms. baker, do you have a thought on that as well? >> sure. i'd follow up on his example with europe. as we talk about investment if we want to put some hard numbers to it, we in the wireless industry don't have it because we've never been under title 2 but a real world example is europe. from 2011 to 2013 we put 73% more cap ex in investment than europe. our networks are 30 times faster. and we have three times more

lte, which is the 4g platform, than the rest of -- than europe. so we don't know how much this would chill. certainly we're going to continue to innovate. we're going to continue to invest. the question is, how much. maybe not as much. and i would say that when we look forwards the future, we look towards specialized services such as the connected car and what mobile health services are going to offer. we're going to need to have smarter, faster, stronger networks to perform our connected life activities. it's going to be really exciting but we want to make sure we continue the framework that has shown such great investment and such great opportunity that we are leading the world. >> mr. chairman, the case has just been made why it is so critically important we do this right. innovation particularly in this industry, gives us the tools that we need to get our economy thriving once again.

we need to make sure we do this the right way. yield back. >> appreciate that. appreciate the gentleman's experience. we're glad to have on you the subcommittee. we'll turn to the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. >> i'm thrilled to be back on this subcommittee. iment to thank you for holding this hearing and trying to get ahead of this issue. you heard our deep concern about the reduction of the enforcement authority, but from the democrats on the panel and many of our panelists. mr. chairman, i'd love to be able to vote for the final package and i hope we can find something together that will work. mr. powell i certainly sympathize with your concerns about overregulation, raising costs to the providers. however, i also have concern about the enforcement authority raising the costs of reducing enforcement authority raising the costs for end users. my first question has to do with the forbearance of the title 2 requirements. mr. powell -- mr. wheeler has

indicated that he's willing to forebear, and even if he does this, the current concern is that the legislation may inhibit the fcc's ability to react and adjust to technical -- technological advances. do you share that concern that the legislation would inhibit the fcc's ability to react? >> well, i think the fcc has weigh more to react and interpret than is being suggested. the fcc with any congressional act has the first instance and responsibility to interpret those provisions and enforce them across a wide range of activity. even in the consent of specialized service, if the effect of something someone was doing was to block or ban or throttle, i'm absolutely confident the commission could reach that behavior, even under this statute. the complexities of forbearance are substantial.

everybody, including the chairman, have professed an interest in doing so. if one were to pull out the record, many of the advocates arguing this is easy to do and will be a light touch, are all on reported with laundry lists of other provisions that should not be foreborn from. groups like public knowledge and others have long lists of additional requirements that should be maintained. there are also series question -- >> do you believe the fcc is more agile than the congress in addressing these complex issues? >> not always, to be perfectly honest. the commission in title 2 have been no bastion of efficiency over time, regulatory proceedings ratherly take less than a year. they often are quite exhaustive and take a lot of time. sometimes that's because they struggle to find clear direction from congress as to how to act. the clearer that direction and the more direct it is the more expeditious the process works, even with fcc implementation.

>> well, we have a chance to pass legislation here i believe, but it may be a 2015 piece of legislation that is in effect for ten years. so, we have to get this right and give the fcc the flexibility it needs to carry out those intents. at least that's my opinion. ms. gonzalez would you briefly summarize for us the types of litigation risks the fcc will likely face under the approach provided by the draft legislation? >> so, i think there's quite a few factual determinations. one of -- i mean f we're talking about procedural risks that the legislation poses, i think it puts the burden on consumers to, first of all, assess whether or not they've had their net neutrality rights violated. and then to figure out how to bring that before the commission. in a somewhat complicated

adjudication process that requires lawyers, that even many of the start-ups that do have some resource, more resources than consumers, at least, have said they'd be unlikely to engage in because they have limited legal counsel. but beyond that, after those decisions are issued, there could be follow-up litigation because this creates a situation where we'd have to get to the details on a case-by-case basis, which could not just be one lawsuit that will likely come from the fcc order, but a series of lawsuits. >> would the gentleman yield? i just -- >> don't waste too much time here. >> i'll give you a little extra with unanimous consent. how is what we're proposing here directing the fcc to put in place an appeals mechanism so consumers can appeal differ how it works across any other agency in the government? i'm confused. don't we want citizens to have that ability to file a complaint and appeal?

>> we want them to have the ability, we also want the enter snet service providers to show the burden they're not discriminating. so it's really about how we're shifting the burden. and it's really difficult for -- there's actually not a lot of us consumer activists doing this work, and so it's really difficult for consumers to carry the burden alone. >> well we'll continue this conversation. >> sure, i'd be happy to continue the conversation. >> and i'll go back to the gentleman. >> thank you. mr. dickerson, do you think that the fcc has a role to play to ensure robust broadband competition? >> absolutely. and one of our concerns with the draft legislation is the revocation of authority of the fcc. to do that. >> ms. gonzalez, do you think the broadband market is sufficiently competitive to protect consumers on its own?

>> not at this time. >> okay. thank you. i'll yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back the remainder of his time. i'll go to the gentleman from month moshgs mr. long. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. powell, a minute ago you were talking about tech knowledge -- technology and old land lines and our choices were pink princess phone or blue princess phone. and i had to think, my 20-year-old daughters, 20-something, they're in their 20s, what they would do if i handed them a rotary dial phone today and said you need to make a telephone call. i question if they could do that. i saw a cartoon of a young man in 1983. he probably weighed 120 pounds and he had a desktop computer like we all had, about that size. and it showed 2015 and his computer was now this size and

he weighed about the same thing i do today. so while his computer got smaller and he got larger that's kind of what with this, i'm given a reminder -- reminded of the story that stu forbes used to tell, if the cell phone development was left to the united states government, what we would have, because in that same year 1983 first phone i had was a brick phone. and made by motorola that weighed two pounds. and in 1983 it costs $3995. steve forbes told the story, something to the effect of if it was left to the government to develop cell phone technology today, that same two-pound phone would weigh four pounds and cost $7995. so, i think that innovation is a pretty good thing. and the government, the more it stays out of it the better we would be. we've had a long hearing here today. had a full table of witnesses. a lot of my colleagues have

spoken before me as they're prone to do in these things. by the time it gets around to me, i'm the wrap-up guy a lot of the questions have already been asked. normally i like to kind of cut to the chase at this point and just get to the meat of the issue. mr. powell sticking with you here, the con sense is that the internet should be open and vibrant. everybody agrees to that. but isn't the controversy really about the extent of the fcc's authority to ensure that it remains open and vibrant? whether the authority should be derived from title 2 or section 706? doesn't it make sense for congress to make that call? >> well, yes sir. i think -- i think we have to recognize that it's not for the fcc or any regulatory agency to create its own jurisdiction. it's for it to act on the jurisdiction provided to it by this institution. there is no question that the reason this has been a tortorous

and long debate is ambiguity around the substantive rules we are attempting to achieve. the only thing that's being argued about is what authoritative basis that's executed on, and every time the commission attempts to do that on its own it's going to face, necessarily, litigation complexity and challenge around that. that is within the power of this institution to determine, end and settle once and for all. that's why we're so supportive with your efforts to find bipartisan conclusion. >> title 2 proponents tell us not to worry about the onerous provisions of title 2 because the fcc can simply forbear from applying them. is there anything simple about forbearance and couldn't numerous legal battles occur regarding what the commission has and hasn't decided to forbear upon the net neutrality once the order is released?

>> asking me, sir? >> yeah. >> not a lot of understanding of how forbearance works by a lot of people. first there is an institutional risk here. it is pretty hostile thing to say that a regulatory agency should sweep away broadly an act of congress without congress directing it to do so. if you get sweeping forbearance -- which we're desperately relying that we will get -- it is the commission doing something in an untested, untried way that essentially eliminates statutory passed, presidentially signed legislation. and that poses significant legal risk. the other challenge with forbearance is the commission must make very specific findings for every rule that it forbears from and it will attempt to do that in a global way, we hope. but there is a real risk that the courts will say, you're not permitted to do that. you're not permitted to just brush away a whole title. you have to explain with microdetail why each of these

rules doesn't meet the standards congress set out for you. if that ends up being the law, we're talking about a real morass of a process to go through rule by rule and make a separate and independent forbearance finding. for example the commission in the past in forbearance proceedings has often said it has to do it by market. so the forbearance definition says is the market competitive. well, what's the market? the market in missouri is arguably different than the market in new york city. there are then times the commission has said it can only assess that question on a specific market basis. if that turns out to be required, now we're talking about voluminous set of calculations about whether a rule can no longer be implemented or not. it is easy to believe the commission is just some plenary authority free to make these judgments as it sees fit but it is bound very strictly by the tools that this institution sets out. while certainly it can try -- i understand its sincerity, and we're committed to trying to get

the best resolution -- it is fraught with complexity that can easily be cut through by this institution. >> okay. thank you. i was going to save a little time to yield back to the chairman and let him tell us everything good about the oregon ducks, how good they'll be next year, but i think i'm out of time. >> yeah, but i could yield you more for that purpose. we'll turn now to the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush. >> want to thank you, mr. chairman for this first-class hearing. and i want to thank the panelists for being an all-star panel of witnesses. mr. chairman, i want to ask the panel if they would answer this question in the legalese fashion, this first question, with a yes or no answer. do you think that the fcc is on

a collision course with the d.c. circuit again if it exercises its section 706 authority to reclassify broadband internet access as a common carrier service under its rules. yes or no with, beginning with chairman powell. >> yes, sir, i do. >> yes. >> if the network operators choose to make it so, yes. >> is the question whether they will go to the d.c. circuit? >> no. >> or whether the d.c. circuit will uphold their decision or not. >> will they be on a collision course. >> i think it is certain to go to litigation. i do believe that the d.c. circuit will uphold the title 2 if it's done well.

yes to a collision course. >> yes. >> all right chairman powell. you have hit on this but i want to ask you again in more of a for theright forthright manner. do you have any concerns that under the republican draft congress will be restating its intent to say that section 706 is not a direct grant of statutory authority? >> let me say that i think that that's a question for congress. but representing my industry, we do not have problems with the commission retaining some 706 authority and breathing room to address changing circumstances as the d.c. circuit found. i found the d.c. circuit interpretation of 706 questionable, highly in conflict with past rulings of the commission and congressional intent.

but the d.c. circuit ruled that that's what it meant, and i think we would rather live with the fcc administering that provision than title 2. >> thank you. i want to move on to dr. lee. are you concerned that if fcc will not be able to deploy broadband services and invest in network facilities that provide service to low-income, rural and minority communities under this proposed bill? >> under the current bill i think as it's been said, if there were some additional discussion around the provision of section 706 authority as we've all talked about i actually think congressman, to your question, that it would be a win-win for what we're looking for in terms of broadband employment for low-income consume consumers, as well as rural communities as well. as i also said earlier, it would be a great way to look at a

proclamation against digital redlining that has potential to backstop and limit progress with what we're trying to do whether it becomes to ubiquitous deployment among communities. i want to keep reiterating adoption is still at the top of in debate and it gets to swept under the rug when we talk about these issues. we are looking for some type of parody in the legislative proposal. i think that should stay top of mind as well as legitimate consumer concerns that need to be dealt with even in the case of specialized services. consumer demand is driving everything so i think it is important to keep that as the bill is discussed and debated top of mind, congressman. but i think we have to avoid that collision course that you just mentioned and we are on that pathway if we don't put in the right effects to actually make sure that we don't do that. >> miss rodriguez i want to ask you this question. i only have 37 seconds. chairman might be graceful in giving me a couple more seconds. the republican draft would authorize the fcc to hear and

adjudicate complaints brought by individuals against their internet broadband providing on a case by case basis. should these complaints and outcomes be germane to fcc consideration or whether certain merger transactions will remote the public interest? >> i'm sorry mr. congressman. is the question whether or not this would serve the public interest to allow the commission to adjudicate on a case by case basis? >> no. if in fact the commission, should they consider that the certain merger transaction in association with these complaints brought by individuals, would they -- would the fcc take -- should the fcc

consider these complaints germane to its decisions? >> on mergers? >> yes. >> well, i think when it considers complaints it has to look at the ecosystem in general to determine whether or not there's competition. i think merger determinations are in separate dockets, and rightly so. but certainly when considering what kind of protections we need, we need to look at the marketplace and whether or not there is competition and the mergers and acquisitions and the level of competition certainly is relevant. >> thank you. mr. chairman i just have -- if i can ask for additional 45 seconds? had. >> if you go fast. >> okay. as you all know, the cash cow of competition around the passage of the '96 telecommunications act was really a long distance voice. that's where the profits and

traffic were. fcc was given authority to enter the local markets through resale interconnection. that was the regulatory and we saw billions and billions of dollars in investments following internet sector. but times have changed. congress knew about the internet then but only a few people around the world knew what a game changer the internet would become. by the turn of decade it had become baltimore apparent than the cash cows in communications were not long distance voice but instead wireless voice and later broadband data. mr. powell stated that over the course of a number of proceedings the fcc found that broadband internet access services are more like information services than telecommunication services. and perhaps congress should step back in and reconsider these definitions but we did not.

and mr. chairman i think that we are on our way with this hearing and with additional hearings trying to settle the question of new broadband internet service now fit the criteria for telecommunications services more than information service. with that i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. i will now go to the gentleman from new york, new member of our subchit, subcommittee, mr. collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a new member, we are playing catch-up a bit and your testimony has been very valuable. miss baker, i no he wire line and wireless are two different worlds. you represent the wireless world. in the language in our bill does talk about reasonable network management. i would think that's the attempt to give you in the wireless some flexibility because you are in different worlds. i also seem to understand your industry's adamantly opposed to title 2, which -- so we're here and we're talking and we

understand there's difference. could you expand a little bit on the reasonable network management language which all of us embrace but may be difficult to interpret and let me know how you see it impact being the wireless world. >> thanks for the question. yes, i see -- the wireless industry is different for a number of different reasons. number one i think we all have our arms around -- the technical parameters. we operate on spectrum which is limited capacity which is shared and it's moving. so we need dynamic management millisecond to millisecond. so and it changes all the time dependsing on who's sharing the spectrum. it is going to change from today to 45 days from now because someone's going to come up with a more efficient way and we're upgrate our networks. but they're not just technically different. they're also competitively different. so our guys need to be able to differentiate different services so that they can compete more effectively against each other.

we're worried what happens in title 2 is that we might become one size fits all and that's not what we want the wireless industry. we want the wireless industry to remain dynamic and competitive and continue to innovate and difficult reng differentialte themselves. we're worried with a title 2 world we would not be introduce some of the exciting things coming from the wireless platform when i talk about connected life meaning mobile health connected cars, some of the innovations in education. so we want to make sure that our future in wireless -- we are the world's leader in 4g and we want to make sure we are the world's leader in 5g. we think this bill is a great start. the definition of reasonable network management includes technology. we'll work with the committee on other definitions. but we're encouraged from the action here because we think that fcc is headed down the wrong path.

>> that's very helpful because i'm glad to hear you're embracing what we're doing, especially that language and that you feel your industry can live with that language and certainly i think the committee would be very open as this moves forward. and i just know that there's been that discussion because they are two different worlds. very happy, again, to hear your support of this critical legislation. with time running late, mr. chairman, i'll yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back the balance of his time. looks like we go to our final member, mr. kramer, north dakota. thanks for sticking with us and thanks for being on subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman for the opportunity. and as you know i spent nearly ten years in north dakota regulating various industries and the more telecom cases that came before us, the less i was enthused about it, because it just seemed like every case that came before us was about a new

technology that required less regulation not more. nonetheless, was laephappy to carry out really several cases, some landmark. i think we did one of the early etcs for a wireless country. we did an early voip interconnection case. we did a very contentious cable company seeking facilities based in the balkan. i don't know that any of them were unanimous i'm proud to say i was on the prevailing side and all of them were held up in court. both federal and state court. that said i don't feel as smart as i used to today for some reason. so i appreciate everybody. i also have to say that i was amused by the admonition of catholic confession mr. shimkus. but i notice he said he came kicking and screaming which is far short of repentance, i will

tell you. i appreciate, clarmhairman powell, your reference to the omission of the rfa by the commission. because this is far too common omission by several regulatory agencies in recent years. it was one that hadn't come to my attention yet but you're right, i think a lot of issues could be solved much better, much more to the liking of investment opportunity if we were applying the rfa appropriately. i am also interested in this issue of specialized services. maybe this will demonstrate my ignorance a little bit. but if we are on the one hand arguing that we should give and we trust the fcc's use of flexibility in determining forbearance, why wouldn't we trust their flexibility in determining a specialized services under this draft, and is there some way we can tighten

that up if it concerns people if somebody wanted to take that one on. >> yeah, thank you for the question, congressman. i do believe the fcc as a specialized agency ought to be empowered to help flesh out rules, provide through notice of rule -- notice of common rule making, the detail and certainty that both businesses and consumers need under again that ceiling set by congress. if the bill goes forward the ceiling is fine but the commission ought to have authority beneath it. >> did you want to try to take a stab at that mr. powell? >> i just wanted to quickly say that, there's been this den grags denegration of specialized. this committee has repeatedly held there is room for specialized services even in its 2010 rules because they really believed there were serious consumer benefiting characteristic to that. the reason that is an issue is because we use the same network for the provision of proprietary services that we built and

privately financed and owned a network to deliver. a huge amount of that capacity is reserved and used for the services is we're in the business of selling. there is an effort, subtle or otherwise, to confiscate the entire platform for public internet use. what the fcc recognized is some portion of that infrastructure will always rightfully be available to the incumbent who built the network, deliver the services and innovate for their consumers in the provision of the services they're in business to provide. you have to provide for an allowance for specialized services. lest you're creating a taking of property in its totality. now can we talk about how you define it or what the fcc's flexibility in interpreting it? i have absolutely for had problem with that. >> dr. turner lee. >> congressman, if i playmay, i think there is a conversation that can be had about specialized services particularly if you go back to much of my testimony about adoption and relevance if we look at the case of zero rating

programs, for example, for low-income minority communities that are not engaged. there is some space to actually so some discussion on how those can be used for a public interest. i think it comes back to a legitimate consumer concern and questions related to who's to say today that tomorrow we won't be looking at telemedicine delivery and our ability to get our health records in real time not being important to us. i think there is some room for conversation and with the fcc as the expert agency to help us guide that discussion as to what's important to consumers. >> well that brings me to another point. again, plab immaybe i'm not understanding clearly. we've heard a lot of beblowning that the 706 authority and title 2 authority being stripped away and that somehow that leaves the fcc powerless. we haven't talked about the ancillary authority that is there to deal with a lot of these issues. and those that aren't we're here. there is a new congress every couple of years. i feel like for too many congress has has just let the

agencies become congress. i think that's the balance we're trying to strike. i don't know if anybody has a few seconds to add to that. >> i can respond to that mr. congressman. >> sure. >> i think the reason we're concerned about stripping of the 706 and the title 2 is because of court cases in the past four decades that have really stripped the fcc of much of its ancillary authority and have whittled away over the years. so that to us feels like a less certain solution. >> general powell, i mean has commission's ancillary authority been stripped away? >> one, the commission has authorities that come from a range of statutes. it is not exclusively governed by the telecommunication act. the commission's been very aggressive in the protection of disability access for communities because this body passed the ccva which authorizes them to apply disability protections to internet services and is aggressively doing so. the commission has authority under kolea to protect surveillance and other kinds of

issues. there is a whole host of authorities. some yes, are answercillary. the commission has lost ancillary when it's abused that power, it's also frequently used ancillary effectively as to any number of social positive regulation. >> i thank you all. this has been fascinating. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. kramer. i think that brings to a close the participation by our members. i have a series of letters that i'd ask unanimous consent to be added in letters and op-eds and things. one from executive director, health i.t. now coalition opposing title 2. bradley merrill thompson general counsel, m health regulatory coalition, and robert b. mccray, president, ceo wireless life services alliance. without objection, we'll. you the that one in. an opinion piece by our former colleague rick baucher on net neutrality be low-langing fruit inglow-hanging fruit for congress and urging action. without objection, we'll put that in the record.

from the telecommunications industry association opposing title 2 and supporting legislative abc news from scott belcher, chief executive officer, telecommunications industry association letter from the application developers alliance. mr. john potter president application developers alliance. agreeing regarding legislation. applied in the debate. and then there is a coalition of economic groups from tech freedom to americans for tax reform, and a whole bunch of others, and individuals representing educational institutions and elsewhere in support of our legislative initiatives in whole or part. so without objection, we'll. you the that in the order asrecord as well. again, we thank all of our witnesses, especially grant some forbearance to the two that have to go now on to the senate and repeat this. we thank you for your endurance and your participation to all

the witnesses. we're very signncere or following up with you sooner rather than later on language to deal with these issues. the principles we've outlined in the legislation we feel strongly about. we're not in the business of creating loopholes to go around something we feel strongly about so we look forward to cloop collaborating with you on that, on the appeals process and these various things. so thank you all and we stand adjourned. we continue to cover the u.s. conference of mayors winter meeting under way in washington. president obama addresses the group this afternoon. that's coming up at 4:45 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. this saturday live coverage of the iowa freedom summit from des moines begins at 10:00 a.m.

eastern. speakers include potential 2016 presidential candidates. governors rick perry, scott walker, and chris christie. former governor mike huckabee. businessman donald trump. and dr. ben carson. as well as 2008 vice presidential nominee sarah palin. the iowa freedom summit this saturday on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. then on weekends c-span3 is the home to american history tv. with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary. visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf with the best known american history writers. the presidency looking at the

policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history. with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series reel america, featuring archival government and educational film from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3. created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. after a two-year study the justice department released a report in december about the cleveland police department's use of force policies recommending sweeping reforms. that report was part of a recent discussion at the city club of cleveland which focused on racism and its impact on local communities. panelists include a police chief, a law professor, a radio show host and an american civil liberties union manager speaking to an audience of ploeftmostly high school students from northern ohio. this is about an hour.

>> good afternoon and welcome to the city club of cleveland. my name is phillip i'm a junior at hawkins school in gates mills and i am a proud member of the city club's youth forum council. thank you very much for coming to see our panelists today. now our goal at the youth forum counsel council is really identical to that of the city club, it is to host conversations, debates and discussions that empower us to engage in further understanding of the world around us and the people who comprise it. and it is for that reason that it is my pleasure to introduce our forum today entitled "a conversation on race." poet langston hughes wrote in his piece "democracy" that

freedom is a strong seed planted in a great need. i live here too. i want freedom just as you. it may be safe to say that in the age we live in today in many ways freedom has been granted to races of people who have been sucked tobjected to oppression throughout our nation's history. but there is a difference between freedom and liberty, freedom being a state of being, that being able to make decisions without external control, perhaps guaranteed by a government. while liberty can be something totally different all together. yet regards to the freedom granted by society and the world around us. in light of the recent deaths of plivgle brown, eric garner and tamir rice many questions have emerged. even as we've come far, how far have we actuallily come? even as many blatantly racist laws have been erased from the books, what is being afforded to racial minorities within our

community and our country? this today's discussion we seek to answer those questions as well as many more and develop a clear picture of race in america. joining us for our conversation today is shahkira diaz from the american civil liberties union. as policy manager she's worked on policy campaigns regarding political activism pretough health care access for latinas and initiatives. andre gonzalez is chief of police for the housing authority. he previously joined us here at the city club as a panel member at our forum turning tide on sexual assault in october. we're very glad to have him back. jonathan c. gordon is a professor of lawyering skills at case western reserve university teaching legal analysis and writing to j.d. students and international lawsuits in the case's lom program. he was an inaugural mentor in the case scholars program working with youth from east cleveland and before joining case he was a trial attorney for the u.s. equal employment opportunity commission where he handled many cases including

involving racial discrimination. bashir jones is a political and community activist radio host spoken word poet writer and public speaker who hosts a variety of radio shows on radio in the cleveland area and during the 2012 presidential campaign he was also the regional field director for organizing for america. now without further ado be with i'll acede to the stage, anthony price. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i'm anthony price. i'm a youth forum council member here at the city club. i just want to thank you all for coming out to this very special forum for teachers and administrators that are here today, we also have a second forum on 29th which you'll hear which is called the cleveland renaissance. that should be good as well. which will be moderated by nick rutherford.

so i just want to thank all of our panelists. i was i just want to thank you guys for taking all of the time to come and talk about this topic. so thank you. [ applause ] >> so when you hear the word "race," what comes to mind? and how has that impacted you personally throughout your life? anyone can start. >> well, first, i'm thankful to be here to see so many wonderful faces and for you all to put this event on. you're moderating. can i be truthful? >> yes. >> you sure. >> yes. >> okay. now if i lie, it may feel good at first. but in the long run it is going to be hurt. is it okay? for everybody is that all right with you? all right. when we have a conversation about race, and i look in the room and i see majority african-american. that's a problem.

because we have to bring to the table black, white latino asian, all groups of people to have this discussion. but whether we have the discussion with those who are receiving the most oppression who are receiving the hurt more than any other group, then we are not having a full conversation, a full dialogue. we have to have those from hawkins and have those from university schools and have those from other schools across northeast ohio and have an equal conversation. but what we're doing right now is just talking to the people who are being brutalized and who aren't receiving the most pay. we know. we understand the pain because we deal with it every single day. recently the u.s. department of of justice came out with a study that showed that the cleveland police department engages in excessive force. now many of us didn't need no department of justice to come

out with a study to tell us that police department has been excessive. >> amen. >> because we have been dealing with it on a day to day basis. so i appreciate the conversation and i hope and pray that we all can learn and again always appreciate city club. but for future references we have to have an array of different people in order to have a true conversation. >> so with regard to what i think of when i hear the word race, i feel that there is another word that needs to come with it. and it's racism. in order to really evaluate and change structural racism, we have to talk about race and how it manifests itself in various different systems. in many ways, while we do not have laws and policies or legislation to specifically outline ways to marginalize specific groups of people as we

did in the past what we do have today are policies and legislation that are specifically enforced in a way that this barely impacts people who are traditionally marginalized. i'll give you a good example. there were laws at one point in this country that prevented black people, negroes, people of african decent, from standing outside. you're not going to find those laws anymore. those laws do not exist. however, with this country being still very segregated, cleveland being the fifth-most segregated city in this nation laws are often enforced in black communities. who lives in black communities? black people. and everyone who raised their hands. and i call that the scenic route to racism. but you can get the same outcomes even if you're not

explicitly articulating that. so when i think about race i also recognize that we have to talk about racism. >> anybody else like to answer that? >> yeah. when i think of race, of course i think about differences. i think about diversity. i think about different backgrounds, different experiences. and there's a word that i learned when i was young. it's call paradigm. and the best way for me to describe paradigm is looking at other people or trying to understand other people through their glasses, through their lenses. and so what i try to do in my role as chief of police, what i try to do is impress upon my staff and those men and women that go out every day to provide a service to be accepting of

those diversity, of that difference, of those different cultures. because we should not be treating everyone the same however, everyone has a right to be treated equal under the law. so when i think about race that's what i'm thinking about. also i'm also thinking about myself, my family, my heritage and where i come from. because it's no secret that if it were not for equal opportunity, i would not be here representing my career, my profession as police chief, being the first hispanic police chief in cuyahoga county. so race is very important something that we should not take lightly but something that needs to be respected, appreciated and accepted. >> i cannot speak as an

african-american but i am acutely aware in our society that discrimination still exists and i think there are many people today who think we're in a post-racial world where it doesn't exist and that the law does treat people equally. and i just don't think that's the reality. i think perhaps even well intentioned people may not be aware of their implicit biases. i'm not a social scientist either, but there are all sorts of studies that detail sending out people with the identical resume, but perhaps a name that is more typically african-american, and another name that's more typically white, and a greater percentage of the white resume -- even though it is the identical information -- will get call-backs or offers, job offers. i've even read a recent study about ebay cell phones being

sold on ebay. in the pictures, you can see a black hand in some pictures and versus a white hand. and the purchases were made with the person holding -- the same cell phone but with the white hand. >> wow. >> and there are all sorts of other social science tests that have come up with similar results. it's really shocking the percentage differences in some of those. we have to understand that the police acting in those -- in inner city communities that are predominantly african-american, people of color police are human. they have implicit biases, too. and even if there is equality supposedly under the law, people have these implicit biases that many could out in different ways and somebody can be -- there's great discretion especially when we're talking about minor or

petty crimes. stealing cigarettes. jay walking. ferguson. or selling cigarettes to avoid taxation in staten island. there's a great deal of discretion as to how people are going to be treated in those circumstances and we have to have better rules and policies that prevent the abuse of that discretion and abuse of treatment in people of color. >> so where do you think -- since we are talking about race and it's many stipulations about the word race or it is a touchy word when we talk about race. do you think that in order to have a greater understanding and accepting race, where do you think it starts, embracing the race and culture where do you think it starts? in the schools? do you think it starts at home? where does it start? >> it starts, continues and has to persist throughout society.

it has to involve conversations that happen at home. it has to vofr theseinvolve these great systems, whether it is education, social service, criminal justice health care. all these systems have to be held accountable to ensuring that equity is something that all of us realize that all of us know, that all of us live and breathe. and even to that extent we have to have some conversations about how we recognize injustice. pid's i'd like to add the name of tanisha anderson of people who recently died at the hands ever police. we mentioned tamir rice. we mentioned eric garner. we mentioned michael brown but we also have to uplift the names of women who have experienced -- women and girls who have experienced disproportionate abuse or have died at the hands of police and have experienced injustice. so it is a conversation that has to happen every day in every

setting in order for us to move past our past as and country and our present. i think -- i've heard people say, well, we just have to get over it. slavery is over with. but we have iterations of disproportionality and racism today. so these are constant conversations that need to happen in a number of different sectors, in a number of different systems, and we all have to collectively be a part of that. in the same way that we have many people of various races, and ethnicities and ages uplifting the black lives matters movement. you will see in pictures throughout social media, in protests, you see black and white people and latino people and people of asian decent, young and old, all participating and uplifting the value of black

lives. and again, it's another example that we all bear responsibility to have these conversations and push and demand for more. >> i think it begins in the home and it begins at school and it begins everywhere in our community. we all have that responsibility to discuss these issues. i'm deeply saddened by the events in ferguson and new york and here in cleveland and in paris last week. such tragic events and black lives matter mantra that has followed, i think people need to understand that. and that goes back to our schools and our educational system and understanding that there is this entire history where people didn't value black lives. slaves weren't full human beings

or weren't deemed to be full human beings. even under the law. then after emancipation we had jim crow laws. today michelle alexander has written about the new jim crow. we have mass incarceration with very disproportionate numbers of african-american men in our prison system. mass incarceration, the numbers are staggering in the sense that i think there are more men who are subject to our prison system or -- or on parole or on probation having been in the criminal justice system. not necessarily all in prison. those numbers are greater than the number of slaves prior to emancipation. we can't ignore those -- that disproportionality. we can't ignore that history. there's -- i think the police have co-opted and blue lives matter, too. police serve a very important role in our society and they take great risks on their job and many if not most are

dedicated to being public servants and upholding the law and observing the constitutional protections. but there are bad apples out there and they need to be weeded out. and we need to understand that it is through education ant in i, to answer your question. i think that we will -- i hope -- be able to address these problems. there are programs like facing history that i think some of the students here are part of and i think serve that purpose. i know i see people from shay robbins high school where the student group on race relations has been serving the community for quarter of a century and doing wonderful work i think to fight intolerance and hatred and i think that's really where it starts before we can expect the criminal justice system just to change on its own. >> so. there's two sides of it real quick. of course there's more that we

can do as a community and you know, for the students that showed up here today i see some of you with notebooks and others with no notebooks. like any time that you come to events like this you should come prepared to write -- write down things. because there's no way possible that you're going to remember everything everything. for the adults that are here, any time that you go to events like this, make your students bring their weaponry. it is an african proverb that says do not build your shield on the battlefield. so you have to come to these type of places. you're going to meet different people. get cards. contact. network. that's how you're going to be successful. so of course we know that there is a sense of hatred that exists in the world, but the real question is how do you feel about you. how do you feel about you. do you love yourself. when you look in the mirror do you see a beautiful person or do you see a hateful person. so that's -- there is a

community responsibility that we have. but on the flip side of it the media plays a strong part in the perception of how we are viewed. for example everyone heard about france and we are very sad about what happened in france. very sad. but, who's talking about nigeria and what happened in nigeria? or what's going on in places like somalia, west africa and east africa for a long time? i was driving -- when i was driving here i was driving through little italy. you know? anybody familiar with little italy? and it is a beautiful place. you know? i'm like wow, look at the history that is here. and no one feels offended when you hear little italy. you say, wow there is a very beautiful place. when you go through a jewish neighborhood, you don't feel offended when you go to the museum. you see this is a very beautiful place that's talking about the history of jewish people. you don't feel offended by it. you don't feel offended when you go to chinatown and see the history of chinatown. but why is it that people is

offended if we call our community little africa? why would that be offensive? matter of fact, more importantly, why is it even some who are african-americans will be even offended to call it little africa and some of you get offended when somebody say, well, why? you look like an african? why would you be offended by that when some of the most beautiful people come from africa? because media portrays africa as a place extremely impoverished. any time you see africans you see a skinny somalian, or my nigerians, or nigerians are all crooks. you don't even want to view yourself in that light. so a sense of self-hatred that the media plays a part in. we had an event -- chief, you was there. there was a media panel. all of the media people here in cleveland. the majority of stories that come out in the media about african-americans are not positive. i appreciate c-span being here. but why isn't channel 3 here? why isn't channel 5 here?

why is it these events you come to, you don't cause no problems no one shows up. let the twerk something happen, all the media is there, deikt. ing -- you know what i'm talking about. why is all the media there? so you have to understand that the media plays a part in this as well. why is it that people feel offended and i was in australia and we are very color conscious here in america. you know? i was in australia and a young lady was talking to me she said why is everything so black and white with you guys? everything is so black and white here in america. but at the same time, she said can you tell me about hip-hop -- atlantic hip-hop wives? know what i'm sayin'? so the media sends this perception of who we are and some people play into that perception. but the majority don't. majority don't. what happens is before even a person -- before you even get a chance to open your mouth, people already have a perception of who they think you are. >> that's right. >> so before you open your mouth, young ladies it's already like, oh she got a

attitude problem. soon as you walk in, you know what i mean? soon as you -- if we were to right now pass around a survey of how you feel about iranians or north koreans, or eyeiraqis or afghans, if you were to put out a survey many of us would very negative things about that. . you may not know somebody like that but already you have a perception of who you think they are. so what i want to say to us is that there is a community responsibility and every person in here must speak to their children and say -- and talk about humanity. that we all deserve to be treated fairly. why are you mad at me because i am saying that i deserve justice? why you upset that i'm marching for justice? why did that offend you so much? why you so angry when i say that i'm a proud black man? why does that offend you? why you so angry that i'm proud to be who i am?

why does that make you afraid of me that when i walk up or you walk up to my car, you already have your hand on the gun. what messages have been sent to you to make you feel that i am dangerous? and i can be in a tailor-made suit and walk flu an elinto an elevator and somebody will hold their purses close. so this is an issue that we are dealing with. but, in closing, but -- but, as young people you have a responsibility as well. i was talking to my guy, don. raise your hand there. my guy don, right there. it is young people like don and young people who are here today that are going to change the world, that you won't be as discriminatory as your grandparents were, as your great grandparents were. but that time is now. if not, this issue of race these race issues that we're dealing with in america, it will

be the downfall of our country. without a doubt. >> pllmr. gonzalez. >> yeah. i want to say something. let me be the first to say, because i noticed as a police officer, imhe a trained to look at people and try to gauge responses. truth. and as my colleagues were speaking, i just couldn't help but see everybody looking, and then looking at me. so, you know let me acknowledge a couple of things first of all. all right? in this conversation. cops, we don't always get it right. that's the truth. we don't always get it right. and, unfortunately, because we're police officers and

because we took that oath of office and because we made a commitment that no matter what we were going to lay our lives down if we had to that just puts an additional factor in to how we make decisions. now, because we don't always get it right the challenge for us is to work to get it right. when we sit back if we as officers, if we as enforcers with be if we just sit back and do nothing, then you need to get rid of us. you need to get rid of that police chief, you need to get rid of that police department because they are not serving you in a way that you need to be served. the truth is this folks. a police department is only as strong as the community allows it to be.

and when the community loses confidence in its police department then that is almost a beginning of the end. i would say to you, all of the young people in this room, you know, we asked about where does this start. does this start in the family. does this start at home, in the community. i would say that it starts with you. i'm not going to be a police chief forever. someone has to step up and step in to my role. someone has to be a police officer in the future. someone has to be an attorney a judge, and all those professions that you hear about. the issue is getting to a point where you're going to start making a contribution, a positive contribution regardless of your background regardless of your race, regardless of what you believe in. at the end of the day, are you

making a positive contribution to your community, to your school, to your family, and to your total environment. so for me it's about you. it's about what commitment, what decisions are each of you going to make, that is going to lend yourself to be a productive citizen in the future and eventually a more productive community. thank you for listening. >> i just want to add after chief gonzalez and mr. jones i just want to echo the sentiment that, you guys will make all the difference. i am sadden issed by en isdened by those recent events, those tragedies. but i am also extremely hopeful because you guys are here and you care. and i think there are communities in france, communities in africa, communities all over the united states now that, because of

these tragedies, i hope will come together and it's not just the public discourse which this fine institution stands for, and has for so many years but action needs to be taken. and the cleveland police department is going to need to make changes. the department of of justice report is scathing in terms of the abuses, whether many of us in the community have known about those abusive practices for years and the doj reported on it over a decade ago. not enough has been done. and perhaps through our action through our collective efforts, through our concern, all of us can help make a difference but we have to make sure those actions are taken. so public discourse and education aren't enough by themselves. we need to take action. >> so we're in a room full of teens. and it may be a few leaders, or -- we're all leaders in a

way, but some don't have you know, that particular push to do something in their community. so what can we as teens, or young leaders or game changers, however you want to call it, what can we do as teens to ensure justice in our communities? >> well, first, i want to start answering that question by asking all of you a question. raise your hand if you know anyone with a criminal conviction. >> everybody got a cousin. >> it's important for us to recognize that this country is the number one incarcerator of adults and children in the world. it's important to recognize that ohio is the sixth-largest prison state in this nation, that we rank fourth in the nation with regard to incarceration of women. so when we talk about contributions, we have to be mindful that when people are

saddled unfairly unnecessarily with a criminal conviction we are preventing them from contributing in some ways. we have to be real about that. we have to be real about the clt collateral consequences of criminal convictions, not only how they impact us as individuals, but our families an our communities. to answer your question i'd say that we all have to tell our stories. we have to tell our truths. whether you know -- whether you have been treated unfairly, whether you have witnessed someone else being treated unfairly, you have to speak to that because there is value in validating experiences. there is value in demanding that our systems change. anthony, you and i were having a conversation before the program began and i shared with you that i worked with a student once and i asked her what her perceptions

were of the cuyahoga county juvenile detention center. and her response to me was, i wish my school looks that nice. the fact is that we get our return on investment. and this country has pryioritized investing in incarceration of people. which is why we are the number one incarcerateing of all people in the world. now if we invested in education and valued it the way that we value incarceration, things would be very different. one of the things that i value most about young people is that they have zero tolerance for hypocrisy. and because i am here, i'm using that word instead of another word that i would normally use. but young people have zero tolerance for that. young people will not accept rhetoric if it's not followed

with action. don't talk about it. be about it. and the fact is that many adults and many systems are talking about this beautiful equity that we all have to work towards. but the truth is the policies are not made in that way. budgets are not allocated that way. and we have to call it out. about about sheer bashir, you and i were at a program a number of years ago and a young man said his biology project consis of dissecting a cookie. i will never forget that. i will never forget lou that child was violated. he was prevented in many ways from pursuing a career in medicine. you know why? because he was not properly educated. this city was a city that spent 23 years -- 23 years -- testing

crack pipes to charge people in the city of cleveland with felony cocaine possession instead of misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. 23 years. approximately 35,000 african-americans have a felony conviction but they should not have because cleveland was the only city in the entire state of ohio that had that policy. some of those people went to prison. they cannot get any federal financial aid to go to college. you know what cleveland did not test? rape kits. the city of cleveland did not test rape kits dating back to 1950. so it's all about priorities. when we evaluate the priority that we've given to the war on drugs, over other more important issues, we have to really look at ourselves. we have to look at ourselves. the choices that have been made in our name. the truth is that we all pay taxes. whether we make a little bit of

money or a lot of money we all pay taxes. this is our system. we have to take control of it. and i ask all of you to take control of it because 10, 20 years from now, your children will look to you and say what did you do for me. to save me. we have to demand better. we cannot allow these choices that are made in our name to continue to drive wedges and to give us a distinction that we should not have. the land of the free cannot be the land of the locked down. [ applause ] >> i just want to thank you ms. diaz thank you mr. goreman and mr. jones and mr. gonzalez.

this will conclude our moderated portion of the forum. and i'll send it over to kenia. >> i'm a member of the cleveland youth counsel forum. today we are enjoying the panel discussion on racism in america today. lately as i'm sure you know racism in america has been sparking a lot of the controversy across the country. i believe it is our duty to stay informed on such a controversial topic. not only is it a great conversation starter, it is very important for the future of our country as a whole. our moderator today is another youth forum council member, anthony price of shaw high school. please formulate questions for our panelists now.

and i remind you that your questions should be brief and tontth to the on it. on thursday january 29th the city club youth forum council will hold a panel discussion title the cleveland renaissance featuring alonzo mitchell mary ann krone b and thymeom hainan. for more information about upcoming and past forums visit online at city club.org. now we would like to return to our speakers for our traditional city club question and answer period. we welcome questions from everyone. holding the microphone are dom z and tallia m. >> i'll ask the first question. even though i've been asking questions the whole time. but personally, what do you think -- to what extent does

reverse racism exist? and is reverse racism an issue? and anyone can answer that. >> yeah i hear people talking about that. and i don't think there is such thing as reverse racism. i don't think that black people or brown people have the power to be racist. in a sense. what i mean by that is is that if you slap me and i'm upset that you slapped me. and i slap you back, and i'm not encouraging anybody to slap anybody. but if i'm reacting to what you have done to me that is exactly what is going on here. so we don't have the power. when you see what shakyra has been talking about, you are talking about institutionalized racism. talking about the power to create and enact laws. you are talking about the power to stop a person from doing something or allowing them to do it. there is discrimination across the entire globe.

once again look at what's happening in nigeria right now at this moment. look at what's happening in places of europe and parts of asia and so forth and so on. so there are all types of people. it's not just -- what we see across the globe is that there is hatred that exist self hatred and hatred for other people. and it's not just going on here in america. and it didn't just start. i know but talk about it kind of just starting in the civil rights but it started with the native american -- i mean you can't forget about all the people who have been impacted by the idea that i am better than you. i mean that is what it really boils down too. i am better than you and you don't deserve to be in the same space. you are beneath me. it doesn't just happen with race. it happens with men and women. it happens with the all types of cultures. you can go in places of africa and others where there are tribal issues. my tribe is better than your

tribe. so once we look at it from the global perspective we'll be successful. i just want to say something few ro you don't mind. i want to talk about ferguson for one second if you don't mind. with we had a chance to go down there and we created a organization called cleveland renaissance movement and we took 30 people down to ferguson and sat down where even still today his blood is on the ground. stained the pavement. and right now they are trying to repave the streets. and the place where mike brown was killed is a housing complex. they are telling the people they can't move back in. they can't renew their lease. so they are moving everybody out. ferguson is different from cleveland. the mayor white. and majority white. and police department majority white. in a majority african american city. cleveland is different. even though racism may be in the fold somewhere but cleveland got a black mayor. clooeld has a black chief of

police. cleveland has many african americans who are city council so it is not just a black or white situation in cleveland. i would say this to the adults who are here. we must true look at how the democrats have been treating african americans here in this city. we have to bring them to the table, bring different parties to the table. and ask this other question. we not just a one-might stand. and that's how we've been treated in this city for years and years and years. so what we have a black mayor. what does that truly mean if we continue to go through the same situations that we've been dealing with for years. what does it mean if we have a black mayor if our school district has been one of the worst for years, upon years. what does it mean if majority africa city council but the money goes downtown and don't go

to the eastside. they built the convention center so quickly. i mean i went downtown one time it was still the foundation. left, came back. that joint was all the way up. oh snap. we've been trying to build league park for 10 years. so the question is why is the money going to eastside. why do glenville still have the same issues and colinwood. i do a class there. look at colinwood high school and look at glenville. look at these schools and then go to the casino and look how that look? look at the taj mahal, aka is juvenile detention center. the question is it is not just a black and whitish in this city. it is a little bit deeper in this city. and i think as adults we must bring to the table republicans democrats and independents, and whoever does the best for us that is our choice. not just go with a certain party because we've been going with

them. >> morgan freeman once did a interview and one of his questions was, "how do we stop racism?" . and he said we stop talking about it. do you think this is rational? if not how would you have answered the question? >> anyone like to respond? >> so i'll start. that confused me. so i think it's irrational. what i would say is that we need to spend more time walking in each other's shoes. basheer mentioned the issue about schools. before i do the work i do now i used to work in schools. and i often found it fascinating that we were able to find money for metal detecters but not toilet paper and soap in the

bathroom for students. [ applause ] so again it gets to the issue of priorities and how we message to young people about the value of their worth. when you don't allow young people to have access to toilet paper or soap and can't figure out a way to do that you are telling them you are not worthy. you don't deserve it. so when we treat people like less than human, from the time they are children that we condition them to walk through metal detecters before they can really get they are education we are really conditioning young people for prison. so by the time they get there they have lost ownership of their mind and their body. so i think it's important to walk in one another's shoes. if children who are not in schools have to experience these types of conditions, ss do not know

that's not normal for everybody they think everyone has this experience. if children who do have access to toilet paper and soap in their classroom don't realize there are other kids who don't. think think their experience is normal and it is not. we have to trade places. we have to -- just for a moment -- take some time to walk in one another's shoes. to have those tough conversations. i often find it very enlightening to talk to young people. so you are experts in your experience. it's been a minute since i've been in high school. i'm not going to say how long but it's been a minute. so for me it is important to understand what the world looks like to you. how are we failing you? what is it is that we're not giving you? and i think that is how we can start. because the truth is that there are some people who do not want to talk about racism at