when i grew up in a household where my parents were, you know staunchly in favor of the embargo believed that trying to choke that economy was going to be the best way to bring about change in the island, and i came up believing the same. it wasn't until i had an opportunity to visit the island in 2000 that i realized that our policy was grossly overreaching and was really actually aggravating the issue. where i got to meet a couple young, very entrepreneurial cubans in havana who were basically street hustlers. they were making ends meet by driving tourists around anything they had to do so they can make money and feed their families. and their dream was to start their own businesses in miami. leave the island in start their own businesses in miami. i would ask them why, and they

said because there's absolutely no opportunity here. and i thought everybody who is young with any sort of drive or initiative, if their dream is to get out of this country this is never going to change. and i thought, well, what are we doing to help remedy this? and that's when i realized the answer was absolutely nothing. our policy is only aggravating the situation. instead of being able to bring the international community together to help reserve pressure toward the castro regime we've isolated ourselves toward the international community. they've run the other way because they don't want to be seen as maligned with this overreaching policy. it's done nothing to help civil society on the island, tomorrow power -- to empower them in any way. it's given us no leverage with the cubans to push for changes. they don't respond to basically anything we say on this side.

and it hasn't -- overall it hasn't achieved its objectives. it hasn't ushered in a democratic transition. so when you grow up your entire life seeing that this is the approach and it's not doing anything, yet you see also that when we engage with cubans on the island, you're sharing ideas when you open up the flow of resources to them. they take every opportunity to try to get ahead on their own right. then you see that there is an opportunity there to build something new that can render the old system irrelevant and i think that that's why folks my age seem to be a lot more open to a different policy. >> let's, again go back tot( the rationale rationale, then, for president obama's policy change. he believes that while this new policy won't make or democratize cuba overnight, he believes i think, that it will position the united states more effectively to take advantage for change

should it come when the castros disappear from the scene. if that's the rationale for the policy change mayor cason you however, made a point to me a few weeks ago and just a couple days ago, i thinkr don't even think that normalization is really going to have a chance to occur under this process. >> yes. i don't think it will. i think the cubans have said very clearly, read my lips recently, that we're not going to allow anything you do to change our view of the political -- what we want to do with the political system. they've been very clear. we want to take the money that you're going to give to the military, which runs all the economy there, and we're going to use it to continue to perfect communism and the system that we have. there is a big difference between diplomatic relations, which, if you look up the definition, it means you have diplomats in each other's countries. as mr. calzon said we've had that since 1977.

we have an embassy, except we don't have a name on the door and we can't use an american flag. i don't think diplomatic relations gains us much. what we really need is normalization, and there has to be at least 15 things we need to do that i've come up with. we talk toed to the cubans over the three years i was there. they need to allow the diplomats to pursue what diplomats do, and part of what we do is normally defending our values, and the cubans just a couple days ago made it clear that we don't want what your diplomats do. they restricted us to 151 employees, and they restricted what we have to be effective. they don't let us travel outside havana. they refuse to have postal service. they don't allow internet to reach the average cuban person, they harass our diplomats. they won't let -- if you're a

canadian and you invite an american diplomata%çz to your diplomatic residence the cubans refuse to go. nor will the cubans allow us to speak with anybody other than the head of the north american affairs who is an administrator of interior official disguised as a diplomat. the point is, unless we think they're dumb -- listen to what the president says. he says, we're going to do this because we're going to empower the cuban people. cuba says we're not going to allow them to benb empowered. so the view that somehow they are so dumb as to not be -- they know they can control it. they've controlled everybody else's efforts to do this, to change their system, and they're not going to do it and they're not going to allow normalization because that would mean that our diplomats can travel around, we can bring in the materials we want as they do in washington. so normalization, i predict, will not happen. i hope it will. maybe someday when the castros

are gone i think there is a chance. but until they begin the cuban government, to create institutions that allow the only they can empower the cuban people, not our foreign policy. >> mr. calzon i'm sorry -- did you have -- >> no. >> mr. calzon i know you wanted to makeokry's a rebuttal to the point he made, this simply can't work because we gave too much away to the cubans at the outset. we made too many concessions without asking for enough in return. if you could explain that point. >> when you look at what the president has done and what the president talks about doing is basically what the cuban government has been asking for for a long time. when you hear some folks talking about cuba policy, you have to put that on a blackboard and say, this is what the cuban government wants.

the cuban government wants the embargo lifted. the cuban government wants to be removed from the list of countries that support international terrorism, despite the fact that in cuba the american terrorists who kill american police officers who went to prison escaped to cuba. if gu toyou go to the fbi page, you'll see one of those terrorists that murdered an american is one of the ten most wanted on the fbi list. cuba is the only country in the list of countries that support terrorismq/z who has publicly acknowledged that there is a murder of an american police officer who is welcome there. i think that has to be taken into account. the other thing that i just wanted to say something, which, again, when you hear the cuban government talk, the cuban government says, for example,

american foreign policy on cuba is% if the cuban americans have not earned the right to have a point of view. in case some of you don't know, i'm sure all of you know cuban americans have been here for some 50-some years. cuban americans pay taxes, they serve in the armed forces they become presidents of universities, they have a point of view. and if you want to go to the vietnam wall i could show you where you could put your hand on the names of cuban americans who have ñ died serving the american flag. i think that cuban americans have the same right as the jewish community, black ñr community, the gay community anybody else to haves7 a point of view. what controls american policy toward cuba is not the cuban americanñr committee. what controls the cuban policy about cuba are the actions of the castro dictatorship. it is not the cuban americans who send a large police

contingent to venezuela to beat up dissidents and to train the venezuelan police forces. it is not the cuban exiles who would like to go back to the cold war. the president wants to forget about the cold war, fidel castro wants to go back to the cold war. he wants to open up a spy station that has been closed back in cuba while the american diplomats in cuba, a soviet spy ship showed up in havana. castro has in cuba's national bank -- look it up in your newspaper. there has been a lot of fraud with medicaid and medicare. at least in one case, and there are many others, $300 million were stolen from medicaid and medicare. that money is now in cuba's national bank.

is that a savings account? shouldn't the administration say to mr. castro, give us the money right now before we talk about anything else? it's yourçó money. it's taxpayers' money. and the path of theìáhp &hc% administration is not interested in getting your money back. >> mr. calzon if i could ask mr. duran to follow up on that point. if i could just ask mr. duran really quickly to follow up on that point which is a centralone, i think, that cuban policy for too long in the united states has been based in the eyes of many on cuban exile anger lpwhich albeit, it very justified, obviously, but is not the basis for sound foreign policy perhaps. i was wondering if you could afdress that aspect. >> that's been precisely the point and that is why it is so important what president obama has done. up until now, u.s. foreign policy towards cuba did nott(

exist. it was u.s. policy for the elections, to get electoral votes in new jersey and in florida, and to get political contributions from wealthy cubans in new jersey and in florida. that is what has determined u.s. foreign policy towards cuba until now. for the first time, there is a foreign policy towards cuba. and that is what obama is doing. he is taking the best interest of the united states into account and not electoral policy nor political contributions. the fact of the matter is that we're going to have to dean3 with cuba because changes are coming. like i said before there's only two or three that still walk around and they all have more than 85, 87, 89 years old. they cannot last much longer, and you have a new generation that is taking over, and if you take a look at the central committee of the communist party in cuba, almost 90% are under 55

years of age. those people were not in the sierra with castro those people do not have the same geological need to be historical figures. those people want changes, and they're going to do their own form of government and the united states should be already trying to make contact, talk to them and make changes. because you know what's going to happen when castro disappears? miami, florida and havana and cuba are going to be china and hong kong. i don't know yet who is going to be china and who is going to be hong kong, but that's what's going to happen. you'll have a tremendous zuñ of business going back and forth, and you better start looking forward to that event that is coming sooner rather than later. >> mr. duran, is a better way to put this that this policy is a new bet replacing an old bet in the sense that we are betting with this new policy that when the castros are gone we will

see a sort of gorbachev-like presence emerge in cuba that we will be better situated to take advantage of. is that essentially it? >> i just don't understand that somebody can think that something that hasn't worked in 55 years is going to work in the next 55 years. it just doesn't work. the policy has not worked because it has nothing to do with u.s. foreign policy. it has to do with political policy and political contributions. you can govern u.s. policy towards cuba by just contributing money to two or three chairmans of subcommittees that have to do with latin america, the caribbean and cuba. most of those chairmen are from states that don't even know where cuba is. so it's very easy to form cuban policy. >> if you could follow up on that point and i'd like to ask another one as well. >> just to respond to mr. calzon, the year that castro shutq brothers to the

rescue planes 1996 it was a presidential election year. clinton was up for reelection. there was a bill making the rounds in congress that really8 was not seen as having a shot of getting passed because it had a constitutionally suspicious suspect extraterritorial provisions, and it just didn't seem like it had much traction. the bill was holmes burton, it controlled all the sanctions and puts them in the hands of congress and lifts all of them, lifting all sanctions on a series of conditions that the cuban government must meet and it must meet all of them before we can even lift one of these right? the bill wasn't expected to go anywhere, but the cubans shut down the brothers tow3 the rescue planes, it was=ñ an election year clinton signed the bill. he recognized in his own

biography that signing that bill was good election year politics in florida but that it tied his hands to be able to lift the embargo in the future and exchange through negotiations for positive changes in the island. so it is very much about south florida politics. now, as far as what the bet is what the bet is you can't micromanage a transition in cuba from coral gables. right? or from washington. a change in cuba has to come from wi it's got to come from the people. it's got to be -9home-grown democracy. they have to want it and the best way that we can help facilitate that is by opening up the flow of contacts resources, capital information to the human people so that they can be in a better position to make greater demands from that government. so that's the bet of this policy that we're empowering civil society we're empowering

all sectors of the cuban people so they're in a better position -- they can put food on the table better provide for their basic needs and then will be in a better position to make greater demands from that government. >> but what about this argument that mr. carzon brings upop that in so doing we're giving up a lot to get to that point? >> we're not giving6z anything away because there are no concessions. it created this idea that somehow removing sanctions that haven't brought any sort of solution whatsoever, having produced their intended outcomes for stuff that we want the cubans to take but they're not inclined to take are somehow tradeable commodityiescommodities. they're not. we're replacing a bad policy with a promising policy. we're doing what is in theçó best interest of the united states and what we think will be in the best interests of the cuban people. we're not giving anything away. the value of a failed policy is

zero for everybody except for those who have benefited from the status quo that that policy creates. so it's not a concession. again, it's just a reform of a policy trying to do something that finally achieves its objectives. >> mayor cason, when i first visited cuba in 1990 the soviet union had just collapsed, and the special period, as they called it, which is one of the worst economic periodsñr in cuban history, the economy was in freefall the suffering was terrible, and every day i would wake up and walk around and see empty shelves and empty tables and houses, et cetera, and i would say to myself, there is no way they can survive this. somehow they did. we've come to a point where

slava is about to fall, their newest help, they always seem to find a way to survive it. i think one of the reasons is because unilateral embargoes don't seem to work. i think one of the reasons we were able to successfully encounter apartheid in south africa, for example, that was a multilateral international effort and those do work whereas unilateral efforts historically don't. but back to this moment in history, then. because venezuela is so weak right now i'd like to go back to that point of your argument and mr. calzon's argument that this was not the right time to do this because this was the time we could have put the squeeze on cuba. >> well look cuba survived in part because, one, it's an "l6 island. two, it's got very good security forces

forces. they have been getting live preservers from venezuela oil. they always seem to get a life support when things get tough. they live off microenterprises. they did it when i was there. as soon as money comes in from wherever it is they cut back on the number of licenses. they only licensed 157 little occupations like filling cigarette lighters. they have pawned this off on restaurants, but some are actually individuals doing it, but a lot are just relatives of the military who now have a way to invest money they've gotten from corruption on the island in enterprises. what they tend to do, in bad times they open up a little bit, and when the money comes in, they tighten up again. i think thatzv yeah it was a very difficult time fotñ them.

it's unlikely that iran and russia will be continuing to supply all that money. one of the reasons that they were able to survive is that the europeans have invested billions survive is the europeans have invested billions and billions on the island and they don't ever pay them back. what they really want the embargo, not so much american tourist, american loans guaranteed because they have never paid back the loans given by other countries and they're not about to pay us. that's what they really want from the embargo and want to pay for these food çóstuffs which when they do come in can buy all the food anything organic from the "uss and been able to do it for 10 years and bought billions of dollars in food. even the newspaper for grandma comments from the united states telephone policy. they

they we don't allow loans to a government that won't pay them back. what happens we have thrown them a lifetime to give them !zfá:áj renewed life for the regime because all that money that comes from american tourists tourists, the few that can find loans in havana because most are full. and the tobacco ahhñ cigars and rum and hotel industry are in the hotels. why do we keep throwing lifelines. my view when people say it hasn't worked back to what i said originally, nobody's policy has worked. you name it and i will support it. the united states has been engaging for 50 years. >> what about that argument,?; raul castro never would have agreed to normalization in the first place if he hadn't been so desperate and that desperation is the argument why we shouldn't

pursue an engagement right now and continue to what we're doing. >> castro has not agreed to normalization. as a matter of fact, hei] just said in honduras the onlyko ways he would normalize with cuba is if they paid for the damages that goes into the billions of dollars. >> used a trillion dollar figure at one point. >> they don't want normalization. that's what people don't get in their mind. cuba does not want normalization with the united states. it goes against their best interests. they want the things as they are. the most terrible thing happening in cuba right now, everybody wants to leave b.cuba. i have notok heard in the past 10 years any cuban that feels love for cuba. they all want to leave and they want to leave to the united states. that's the most unfortunate thing. you don't see one single person that gets on an airplane or gets on a boat that says, i want to

go back to cuba because i want to liberate cuba. no. they say i want to come to the united states because i want to send money back to my family in cuba. they're acting not as political refugees or people that want to change the government they're acting as immigrant. that is the most terrible thing that has happened in cuba. if you want people to have lost love for the island. they just want to leave, especially the young people. >> just briefly, if you could both address that point. why should we at this point have let the embargo work? >> that has never been my point. my pointfá is the embargo should be used to condition real change in cuba. no one is really defending embargo, we keep saying embargo. embargo today was not the same thing as 1960. the idea nothing has been done in cuba in all this time is

simply not true. when ambassador cason was in cuba, he distributed 30,000 short wave radios. that's the strategy of radio-free europe and radio liberty. those things arer neither the cuban government nor the advocates for the cuban government want to concede that. something just came out of the blue and you probably don't know, on the one hand, mr. herrera says it's just the sflouth florida votes or whatever and what mr. duran said about cuba if you're concerned about cuba, you should be concerned about middle east policy. >> my friend -- >> my point is that this is not a cuba specific issue. >> we all know that. >> no not -- >> we all know that. >> well, let me go back to what

i want to say, because the cuba policy is not simply the votes and we're in a democracy or the contribution, but lies. mr. herrera says that the brothers to the rescue. i don't know if you know what happened here, but there were four young men, one who was born in new jersey, another one was serving in vietnam and they were looking for refugees on the florida straits and cuba mics came out and destroyed those planes with international airplanes. one spy had something to do with that. that man was sentenced to two life sentences. and that man who had something to do with theé@ death of americans was exchanged by the president. and the mother of -- of one of those who died told me it was just like seeing my son die one

more time. how could it be? i guess anybody who wants to kill americans can then get some government to blackmail the president and get freedom for the murder. i think we have to take that into account. american lives are at risk, not simply a game. you say people benefitted. just let me say this, mr. herrera always talks about people who benefitted from the all policy. what about the people who won't benefit from the new policy, what about the businessmen that you work for who want to go to cuba and pay $20 a month in an environment you don't have a labor union and you don't have a right to strike and taught cubans don't know about freedom. i don't know if you haven't heard they're having thousands of political prisoners in cuba. many in cuba want to stay in cuba and fight for cuba and love

cuba. whenever somebody says all cuban, it's not true. >> can you finish up on that point, mr. herrera? >> yeah. just a couple points. it was mostly driven by south florida florida politics. what we've seen in recent electric, cuba is no longer the third rail of south florida politics as it used to be we saw that in the campaign where president obama won close to 50% of the vote and charlie crist in the governor campaign won almost 50% of the vote 30,000 more than alex sink had previously. we constantly call the castro government liar, crook, can't be trusted -- fine -- whenever they make a full throated demand for

lifting of the embargo do we believe it's really what they want. second when the special period of gdp in cuba dropped 35% over the course of four years 35%, they were able to survive that. it is estimated if they lose venezuelan subsidies theyies the gdp drop would drop 30%, and they're trading with the rest of the world. to think this is a time they would bow down to the americans and give in to our demandsknzt>z3.ol$#: to pass away soon after 10 years of retirement, this is how effective our policy has been. his brother has announced he is stepping down in 2018 and

instituted term limits. we'll see if they honor that. we know there's already -- they're at the twilight of this era. we know there is a transition in place. should we be standing on t(x"x sidelines and waiting and hoping for the best without trying to play a constructive role or should we be engaging directly and trying to influence that process as much as possible. i think we would be much more influential in cuba by being in the present instead of sitting on the sidelines. >> and i want to address to thec panel before we open it up to questions, then, because this is such aaò(uár'ess oriented group, i think it's appropriate we make the point and roberta jacobson [ has made this point, the top u.s. negotiate for the normalization process for cuba with the u.s. state department she has repeatedly made the point the focus of this new policy is empowering, as you pointed out, these fledgling

entrepreneurs in cuba that by giving them more economic power and therefore more civil independence in cuba you undermine communist authority in cuba, and that that really is the end game of this new policy. empowering these new capitalists in cuba so we can undermine the castro regime in that way. mayor cason, you believe that's a flawed approach? >> definitely. >> if i could ask you to keep your answer brief. >> the average income ind8 cuba is $20. the government knows how to run that money and goes the military repressive force. the idea microenterprises, by

supporting them they can change the government. the government has said we are not changing and they know how to control that. i just+ think the idea of trickle down is going to empower theñr cuban people no they will be empowered when the cuban government invites them to participate in the future. >> mr. duran. >> some of the most successful businessmen in florida have been traveling to cuba to look at theçó possibility of doing business in cuba. they haver5en all come back with very interesting opinions. one, carlos, in particular started doing seminar ss around cuba teaching the cubans about they were so successful. the government took carlos and put him in a plane and sent him back to miami. that's how fearful they are of private business. >> well, if you believe the cuban government does not want to receive millions of dollars

to support their government, which is what's happening under this policy, i gue1t÷ i could sell you the 7 mile bridge or something. the idea of trading with cuba. trading with a dictator is not the same thing. there are lots of people who trade with cuba and don't get paid. finally, yes, i know about the american cuba businessman who ]ìáhp &hc% went to cuba and i know some of those cuban american businessmen and put things across the border in mexico. cuban government don't won't cuban work others to get paid 20 or 30 as?zwñ month which is the attraction for these businessmenht because they don't havexd to peleay a labor union. if they do, they will be jail. we don't want cuba to be like

china, we want cuba to be like the united states. why not? why couldn't cubans be like anybody else. the idea you're missing an opportunity. cuba has something the u.s. will never miss any opportunities, called nine miles. the island is not going to move anywhere. the cuban people have known for many years, the cuban people have known for many years the american people have been on their side. and now somebody's telling the cuban people that the american government is on the;zt side of raul castro. that's a disaster.ktbúnut;x#uté >> only two ways -- >> if i can just ask mr. herrera to weigh in on that. >> the two largest protestkp we have seen in the last two years in cuba were actually protests by entrepreneurs who were protesting -- that's the truth -- the ones with the largest -- frank, there was one with 500 people in the street, mostly entrepreneurs. i know you don't want to recognize entrepreneurs if i

may, it's my turn. amnesty has called for a lifting of the embargo. and so has human rights watch. our policy-again, it goes back to whether we're trying to micromanage the transition from the united states and not talk or visit cuba and hope by demanding everything they will do everything we want or try to engage in constructive ways and empower civil society. civil society is not just a handful of dissidents that agree with a particular policy here everybody that is opposed to the government, the entire opposition movement. all dissident, not only that. entrepreneurs, academics, artists, anybody seeking to increase their autonomy from the state, they're the people we should be helping and that's what this policy is geared to. >> i would point out in the end i think what the obama administration is hoping, business people like you will be help entrepreneurs in that way

as well. some might call that a pipe game. i think that's the end game in the policy. we should open it up to questions from you. >> good morning. the question is oil pricesçó are -- oil prices are at historic lows right now. venezuela seems to be in a real financial difficulty. drilling off the cuban coast could cause?; billions of damages in south florida. do you think oil has part of this new openness? snoo>> i don't think so. when i was there, we had a number of foreign companiesnb that came in with hope to find oil. they drilled and didn't find oil offshore that was commercial. they might continue in some other areas. those were the sorts of things we were able to discuss when i was there.

it's not like we've never been talking with the cubans talking about migration, hurricanes, illegal immigrants, those sorts of things. we can talk about that and have talked about it. i don't think that had much to do with it. >> next question. >> current policy has relied on people who come from cuba, once they set foot here, to stay. in more recent years the sentinel just recently reported because people can come here and after a year and a day, be allowed to go back we have a coming from cuba ripping off medicare and ripping off medicaid and doing insurance fraud, which leads to the premiums in south florida being through the roof. i know you all don'te1 think the embargo should be lifted or relations changed. should the cuban adjustment act be changed? >> more than the cuban adjustment act, i believe that

people who break the law should go to jail. i think when the cuban government provides refuge for those people and refuse to return the money it gives you a pretty good idea who you're dealing with. >> is the cuban adjustment act responsible in some way for the phenomenon she's to that, i will say there's no mexican adjustment act no salvador adjustment act. the cubans will continue to come unless the united states has añr serious policy that if you break the law, we will go after you. and also unless the american government takes a look at the operat7mzez the cuban security services here because sending $300 -- $300 million to the cuban bank is not just a person here, it is the cuban government it's the cuban intelligence service who's doing that. we should not ignore that. >> mr. duran? >> yeah. i think we're very close to see

the end of the cuban adjustment act. i think there's a strong feeling not only in congress but even politicians here in south florida in the county commission in miami-dade county there were some expressions to that effect. as far asíaux medicare fraud there's medicare fraud all over the united states, not just cubans who committed medicare fraud. it's a crime and should be punished. the cuban adjustment act is something, asits time has passed and is7 think there's very strong sentiment in the u.s. in congress andá< amongst florida politicians, it'st( about time to end. for the first time in the past couple of months we're hearing a debate about that even in theh-ç miami-dade county commission. >> next question. i'm sorry. go ahead. >> hi. with all the demands that raul castro hasámh made on the united states recently i'm just

wondez , has anything been said or done to try to replace the assets that our original cubans gave up when they came to the united states? we had many many people. >> yeah. one of theu things that's going to have to be discussed in the whole long frustrating process of normalization if we ever get there, is going to be the foreign claims settlement commission. there are about 6700 claims that total 7 or 8$8 billion now for american citizens at the time whose properties were taken. then, there's the question of all of the people that left their goods on the islandok because they were not allowed to leave, even with rings on. yeah. that's going to be a big discussion. it's a discussion in a lot of countries and a long process, usually to get 10c cpw on the dollarp,or bond or tax credit. obviously, that's one of the major issues to be discussed.

what the cubans will say because they said it when i was there once the embargo is gone you owe us between 100 and a trillion dollars because you have decided not to trade with us. get anotheru excuse and that's @r(t&háhp &hc% this one and they want guantanamo 6zback. >> this is an interesting aspect and it will affect all cubans that are here. as far as the cubans properties there were very few cuban properties actually confiscated by law degree. most of thenb cubans left their property and they their property. it's just like in florida, if you don'tfá pay your taxes in seven years, you lose your property. that is what's happened in cuba. that is one of the biggest debate never settled in eastern europe yet, what happens when you leave your property and you don't pay taxes on it for seven years? now, that's one thing. the other thing is cuba has

settled all of its foreign asset loans with everybody except the united states. the reason even though they made an offer to settle the question of u.s. property interests, is because they wanted to settle the property interests that they confiscated of american properties at the value that the american company companies reported in cuba for tax purposes. and they had already got tax deductions here for 10 times what they reported the value of the taxes in cuba. and that is why they -- cuba came to an agreement with every country in the world except the united states. for instance a company that lost a farm, a u.s. company that lost a sugar farm. in cuba, got a tax deduction $1,000. while they reported the value of that property in cuba for $100. that is the difference never settled between the united states because the companies don't want them to be paid

because they are already tax deducted, those properties by much more value than they had reported to the cuban government. >> mr. calzon has a quick response to that and then mr. herrera would like to weigh in quickly about the cuban adjustment act. >> that is the position that the cuban government promotes and the idea that cubans left the property. i guess we could say the jews left germany, you left your property. we know how we came.@f we came with nothing. we came with five dollars in our pocket. the view the cubans left the country, the cubans were forced out. people were inmy prison. other people were executed and now you're repeating the cuban government statement? >> you will take the property from most people who have been living in it for 55 years that is the same argument going on in eastern europe. >> gentlemen, gentlemen, we do need to get tonb other questions,

if mr. herrera would weigh in on the cuban adjustment act. >> going back to the last touchy subject of the cubanbq adjustment e1 act, i agree with frank thatb. criminals should be prosecuted and thrown in jail. not having normalized diplomatic relations, not having banking relations, not having travel -- having travel restrictions makes it harder to go after these people than otherwise having these relations right? because if we're not -- if it's just cash e9jáey if we're not talking to the cubans and make it harder for law enforcement and others to go after these people on the island how will we ever get there? the cuban adjustment act allows this. so does the embargo. as far as the cuban adjustment act is concerned, it seems immoral at this juncture to say, we are going to close the door to everyone else coming here seeking a better life, even though the same regime is still

in power yet we will keep this policy in place trying to destroy your economy. i feel what we should do is take a look and revisit our entire legislative framework towards cuba so we can have a coherent policy towards the island. if ñ there's been enough changes to revisit the adjustment act, i think we canw3 agree there's enough changes to revisit the >> a question from the other side of the room. the young lady back there? >> thank you gentlemen. my name is beverly benjamin. i understand raul castro has a son who serves as a captain in the cuban army and trained in russia. is this in fact someone who is being groomed for the next generation? >> nobody really knows. government wants a succession not a transition. they had aó[ series of nine

cartoons when i was there about me in which the whole political purpose of these nine cartoons would show theq cubans are better off with a succession, not transition to democracy because then you would have to pay for medical and all these sorts of arguments they use.ko it's possible that he's being groomed. alsoé@ it's possible one of the five heroes, one of the spies that's come back, could be groomed because they're bringing them out now. they've ñ been q -- they've gone through prison remained firm with the regime, they've becomeé@ heroes. i wouldn't overlook the possibility of one of the released murderers being groomed. we have to wait and see. i think it's going to be a succession. they certainly don't want a transition to democracy. >> any else have any thoughts on that? >> i think that the changes in cuba are going to be s generational.

i sincerely believe the government would love castro's son and nephew to take over. like you said before you have more than 90% under 55 years old and they have their own program. >> just quickly. >> yeah. when you look at cuba, youmyauh have to remember north korea.ñi cuba the brother of the dictator is there. they want to stay in power indefinitely. their relationship with north korea is very obvious. just a couple years ago cuba sented uhcn:f ship caught in the panama canal. it is not seeking raul castro's demands, it's raul castro's actions we have to take into account. >> yes, sir. you had a question right there? >> thank you for being here. i'm cuban american. i came when i was 7 years old.

i agree the embargo has not work. are we ni ev enough to believe the government will allow the entrepreneur entrepreneurs on the island to empower themselves? that's ridiculous. sir, you said people left their properties. i came when i was 7. my father was a doctor. they left everything, not by choice. it's kind of sad to see someone that fought in the bay of pigs envation madeçó comments that people just left their property there. [ applause ] >> if i can address the part about -- again about the entrepreneurs. the cubans -- when i was there fidel traveled to china, vietnam, malaysia and japan and came back and told the communist party he had seen tremendous economic development there but they were making a mistake.já"ti q+entually if they kept allowing economic policies that come from economic growth they would lose

political power. they would have demands for elections and internal elections from china. he came back and said we are not going to allow that. he passed a law that had at the end they would penalize other elicit activities and that's when they cracked down on the entrepreneurs. they know if you keep the income, as they've been successful, at $20 a month people scrounging for food everyday, they're not going to be thinking about higher level things. that's their goal, not to allow $-+a]!q we want to do to happen because they don't want to give up political power. they've said it. they said read our lips we'red% not doing it. >> mr. herrera. >> when we're asked the question are we so naive to think the cubans will all of a sudden do the right thing? no one is that naive or making that argument. it's how do you change the game so that you're o forcing them to actually open up or to take steps in the right direction, right?

we know the name of the game for cubans is control. they're more concerned about staying in power than anything else. to be able to do that in the 21st century they need to open up their economy to some degree because they canko no longer depend on one sugar daddy as mentioned earlier than in previous decades or venezuela. now, they've been pivoting away from that model to trading with the rest of the world. they've opened up and allowed entrepreneurs to start their own businesses because they can no longer keep them on the state payroll. right now you have over 470,000 licensed entrepreneurs operating in cuba.xd @r(t&háhp &hc% they're making -- compared to what folks make here it's a pit tans. but for a lot of them this has = been life changing. it's been very empowering. i don't know a single entrepreneur who is satisfied with their lot, and all the heavy handed restrictions they have to deal with in cuba. entrepreneurs like there are like$u entrepreneurs here.

they want to grow their businesses and fight the government to get rid of unnecessary regulations so they can expand. that's what the entrepreneurs are doing on the island today. it's -- the question is are they going to let them?)qv don't have a choice. in that opening we should be doing everything we can to help those entrepreneurs and empower them. >> one last question from over here. this will have to be our last question. question. >> ñ&2%uáz south florida, i represent many business owners.[wv how many business owners would like to do service in cuba and not get paid raise your hand. not get paid. in termsv' of policies supporting a change in cuba. the idea behind the policy change is that somehow we will motivate cuba to the government to somehow become more open, i heard the phrasez1grj3'wsb" civil independence of the people rising up. how many years will it take?

five years to see that change? 10? we don't have to go back, all you have to look at is china or vietnam. the last i knew we were to developt( relationships with china in 1972 and today if you google china china, liberal freedom, 2014, you have a report by the government because people that stand up against the chinese government. so ultimately, the question is if you think it's going to change. i know generational change, but your generation is the one that has to decide whether the older generation actually knows what they're talking about and truth they're conveying or meat and bones to the policy or not. other than the schooling, talking about changing=ñ the policy what has obama pronounced that would change cuba, so that we have a freedom

ás this country should be driven by a principle. do we believe in freedom and liberty or not? that's the question. respond? >> there's plenty of people in your generation and frank's generation that agree with us. they realize after 50 years of trying the same thing, we should try something new because it hasn't worked. that simple. >> it's not new. >> let me finish. let me finish, if i may. as far as the children and vietnam example it's a very convenient one because we have two communist countries and marketñi economies. those cultures different from cuban culture. the chinese value the greater harmony far more than individual rights, as a culture. you'll be hard pressed to find a more individualistic culture than the cuban one. there's a reason why the chinese model hasn't been tried and

succeeded anywhere else other than asia. thinking cuba will turn into china or vietnam is not really based on much. we had dissidents this week testifying in congress) both of them said we're not the chinese and we're not vietnam. one said the cuban government cannot survive the same sort of opening that china couldxd survive. again, we need to be a little more cognizant about the differences between those countries and these because there are many other transitions from communism to capitalist countries ort( totalitarian regimes to democracies that did work and did benefit from greater engagement. as far as when the change is going to come, this again is the poland, look at the whole eastern block. a lot of the former soviets countries. again, thinking about we can put

a timetable to this goes back to the whole mind frame of trying to micromanage this from outside opposed to trying to empower the people in the ground. that's what this policy is. you're talking about freedom. this policy iskwj about getting the governments out of the way and empowering individuals to become the agents of change. i'm sorry if you don't believe that but it is what it's about. >> mr. calzon i will give you the last word briefly. >> the problem is the president's policy is empowering the cuban government. that's where the money is going. it's not going to the cuban a5 people. as far as poland and all those place, the u.s. government has been trying to do that by sending radios sending laptops by helping the dissidents. i know from china i'm a human rights activist, the idea chinese don't care about freedom is unfair. >> i didn't say they don't care about freedom. their greatera5 harmony

supersedes. >> we have to leave it there gentlemen. please join me in thanking this very distinguished and lively panel. [ applause ] a live picture this morning outside the federal communications building here in washington d.c., where a meeting is about to convene examineing chairman tom wheeler's open net or net neutrality proposal to prevent internet service providers from excludingok illegal content run through their networks and alsov content providers for paying for fast lane or preferential treatment in response to a court decision striking down enforcing net neutrality. the idea no internet service provider can give preference or discriminate against a website

by changing the speed consumers can access its content. the meeting about to get under way. live coveragegnp in its entirety. we're also expecting a pair of news conferences afterwards beginning with chairman tom wheeler and fcc staff. if you miss any of this meeting it will re-air in its entiretyfá on our companion network c-span2.

again, we're live inside the fcc commission building. the meeting is about to get under way on the open internetb. or net neutrality. the chairman of the commission, tom wheeler, is expected to gavel the meeting into session in a couple moments and commission members will vote on this. it is expected to pass.he=5 to this. the senate commerce committee is slated to grill all five communications commission members on march 18th in oversighté@ according to chairman john thune and fcc tom wheeler and the other commissioners will

answer the questions about the net neutrality order expected to be approved today. the regulations expected to be approved in a 3-2 vote. the new rules would reclassify broadband internet as a communications service and it gives the commission more authority to enforce internet rules meant to prevent internet service providers from blocking or slowing traffic to any website while also preventing companies from negotiating deals for priority access. the meeting about to get under way here live on c-span3. [ applause ]

[ applause ] the world is not going to believe that we did not coordinate coordinate. okay. there's some things in life --

[ laughter ] >> the only reason i said that, it's normally -- >> i know. good things come to those -- >> got it.aá$

here he comes. >> we are all gathered. good morning. welcome to the february meeting of the federal communications commission. ma'am secretary, good morning to you. would you please introduce today's agenda?lp >> today, you will hear two items for your consideration. first, you will consider a memorandum opinion and orderolá addressing petitions filed by two municipal broadband providers asking that the commission preempt provisions of state laws in north carolina and tennessee that restrict the abilities of communitities to provide broadband service. second, you will consider an

important order on remand declaratory ruling and order that responds to the verizon court remand and adopt strong rules on the open internet grounded in multiple sources on the commission's legal authority to ensure americans reap the çó economic, social and civic benefits of an openñr internet today and into the future. this is your 8 for today. the first item will be presented by the wireline competition bureau and the office of general counsel. julie veech, chief of the wireline competition bureañ will give the introduction. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> a memorandum opinion and order granting in most." respects petition by the electric power board of chattanooga tennessee or epb and the city of well son,

north carolina. epb asked t(welson to preempt north carolina statutory restrictions on the provision of broadband service by municipalities so they can expand and bring state-of-the-art broadband to surrounding communities. it's no exaggeration to say broadband internet access affects all aspects of daily life to individuals and the communities where they live. it affects education health care, public safety and drives local economic growth as well as our nation's ability to compete in the global economy. the item before you will take an additional step towards ensuring broadband is!u deployed to all americans on a reasonable and timely basis. with me at the table are john salic and madelyn finley of the office of general counsel and the wide line competition bureau and gregory juan also of the

competition bureau. i'd particularly like to thank the other staff of the office of general counsel andi/k competition bureau who aren't here for their tireless work on this item. greg will now present the item. >> thank you. mr. chairman commissioners, the item before you areconsiders a grants or grants a specific part preemption in the city of wilson north carolina. these petitions arelp about getting better broadband to more people. the petitioner raised the issues before us because they are operating state-of-the-art broadband networks and like to leverage these networks to expand and provide more services to neighboring communities that are requesting it. on the screen, you will see where apb's network is located. as you will see, apb's network is an island of broadband service surroundeded by areas

for the most part of single or no provider of advanced broadband. here on the screen again is wilson's network. as you can see it is a similar situation, island of comepetition with no equal broadband services. broadband are authorized to provide service in their states and like to expand their service to serve their neighbors in nearby communities. they cannot. in their petitions they asked us to prevent restrictive state laws that expand services in their expansion. they're willing and otherwise able to expand and their services are in high demand. epb, a+ municipal electric service provider deployeds at( gigabit per second broadband service in connection with a look grid. this has presented significant

benefits to epb's service territory in including economic growth andc improvement in education and library services, just to name a few. epb has received numerous requests to expand and they cannot because they are restricted by state law requiring them to provide broadband service only within its electric service territory. wilson also municipal electric service provider offers gigabyte internet access over is network in wilson, north carolina. its decision to provide broadband service was driven in s)cdr#icant part by community dis dissatisfaction of prev services that were available. like epb wilson's high quality broadband service has generated significant benefits fnp theríh community. also like epb, wilson has received numerous requests to expand into surrounding communities. but like epb state law restrictsg its network. the item before you would preempt the geographic

restriction in tennessee and most of the north carolina statute as it applies to municipal broadband services. this willó[ be down under our authority pursue analyst to section 706. in doing so the item will remove barriers that prevent epb and wilson from expanding their networks. by preempting these laws we are allowing +g1su'ities to choose how to insure their citizens have r(((qáj to the best broadband services available along with all the benefits that come along with it. we as a practical matter are letting communities that are already providing service to their citizens to choose to serve their neighbors. in section 706, congress has charged the commission with encouraging thep, deployment of advancedlp communications capabilities to all americans on a timely basis. the commission's recent 2015 broadband report however found this goal is not being met. when the commission makes such a

finding, sections 7 706.nb directs the commission to remove barriers from investment and promoting competition. the item evaluates a specific statutory provisions at issue and concludes with a few exceptions that they are a barrier, that they are barriers to additional broadband investment in competition for epb and wilson as well as other municipalities in tennessee and north carolina. the item concludes the commission has authority to preempt these state restrictions pursuant to section 706 of the 1996 act and sections 1 and 2 of the communications act. in order to remove barriers to broadband investment and promote competition. while the item preempts tennessee and north carolina state laws, it does0[ñ notñr compel any action by any entity. instead, it takes affirmative steps to ensure local

governments areçó positioned to choose whether or not to build broadband networks or p,not, as they determine what is best -- what bestyuá j the needs of their communities. in conclusion the bureau recommends adoption of this item and we request editorial privileges. thank you. >> the efforts you have put into this, thank you.çó commissioner. >> for those and those live streaming it is hard to imagine how many people lack the capacity to access the internet. millions are trapped in digital darkness, robbed of the opportunity to telecommute in the wake of this winter's weather madness or keep up with classroom studies due to the ever mounting number of snow days and delayed start times and apparently lost voices. for scores of americans, the choice of one let alone multiple broadband networksçó is a dream deferred.

and the promise of universal access remains unkept. today's vote seeks to draw a line in the sand once and for all by removing barriers to deployment and fostering competition consistent with the sec's core mission and values. what has been regrettably lost inb. the thunderous debate over whether constructing municipalzv broadband networks is a good idea or if one system or another is consideredd success is the only question that reallyzv matters. broadband investment infrastructure and competition. the north carolina issues present this question to the commission and today we conclude that the answer is yes. there are provisions that limit service by municipalities to specificñi areas but not others.r even if the local government

entity has a pre-existing telecommunications network in that region and just what has] been the xdresult?'c certain communities have the capacity to achieve limitless outcomes while others a few yards from town are stuck in a digital desert, deprived of the means to close persistent opportunity gaps. duly elected officials armed with the desire to address these concerns should not be denied the ability to respond to the infrastructure needs ofó[ their communities, particularly when the private sector has opted not to do so. when a community is so desperate that it literally begs privateu companies to come in and serve then is turned down cavalier and dismissive fashion by enterprises seemingly best suited to provide broadband to their citizens then the option

for that municipality to act on its own should not be foreclosed. sadly, opportunities are being closed far too often, leaving citizens without broadbands and leaders with few meaningful ways to address their needs.fá fortunately, we are poised to adopt an item that grants relief from barriers in the provisions of the laws of twolp states and we retain the means to address any concerns that may come before us on a case by case basis. and we are not alone. members of congress led by senator cory booker and co-sponsored by senators claire mccaskill, ed markey, angus king and ron wyden, introduced the community broadband act of 2015, which seeks to remove state barriers for constructing municipal broadband networks. it is unfortunate however that

this issue has become a partisan one as of late because it was not always that way. indeed in 2005, an effort by senators john mccain, lindsey graham norm coleman, john kerry, russ feingold and the late frankxd lautenberg sought to block states from restricting local governments abilitylz to provide internet service through the community broadband act of 2005. when the bill was reintroduced in 2007, senators-the late senator ted stevens, olympia snowe and gordon smith co-joined as co-sponsors. across the hall, a house version of the bill, co-sponsored by representatives fred upton and rick [zmu(rq) made it not quite, but it was y but what is strikinga5 s that the language in all of these bills is nearly identical.

the only thing that has changed is the lack of bipartisan support. so i am hopeful that in this time in time,v unite across party lines to endorse measures that will break down barriers to infrastructure investment investment, so that no american, no matter where w(÷elive, no matter their economic status, will bet( perpetually stuck in digital darkness. i want to thank the wireline competition bureau for their work on this item and the chairman for his leadership on this issue. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner5a rosen woreworcel. >> american enterprise andxd efficiency is the stuff of legends. when we really thrive, is when we find common cause and come together to get things done.

for our forebearers, this meant everything from holding barn raisings to building bridges to setting up cooperatives to bring electricity to our nation's farms. but infrastructure challenges the past. we have communities that face them today. with broadband. broadband broadband, after all, is more than a technology, it's a platform for opportunity. in urban areas, rural ñ areas and everything in between high speed service is now necessary to attract and sustain businesses expand civic services and secure a viable future. without it no community has a fair shot in i learned this firsthand last year when i visited lafayette louisiana, keep in the hard of

arcadiana, where zeidico was born i got the chance to sit down with awfully good gumbo with lafayette parish president jerry dural. i learned aboutv bring high speedcjrñ service to his community. it took time and tenacity. it was not easy. this was not for the faint of heart. eventually lafayette did it and brought lightning fast broadband service to town through its municipal utility. now, the story in lafayette is similar to the one that weñ= r(t&háhp &hc% discuss here in chattanooga, tennessee and wilson county, north carolina. they did something that was fundamentally american. when existing providers failed to meet their needs they came together as a community and they built it themselves. as a result, the electric power board of the sti ofcity of chattanooga

now offers gigabyte service to all its customers and the residents of wilson county have access to a management netunicipality also support gigabyte speed. they want to expand their offerings to other communitiess7 nearby in communities where the speeds are slower and the competitive choice more limited. today, we tear down barriers that limit them from expanding their broadband service and offering more consumers more competitive choice.u! this has my full support. >> thank you commissioner. broadband barn raising. >> i like it. >> what a great image. and there can be nothing more fundament fundamentally american, as you express. commissionermy pai. >> thank you.

in 1999 tennessee authorized8uqo cf1 o municipalgn electric systems to provide internet service within the boundaries of their service areas. the legislation passeded the tennessee general assembly 96-0. the tennessee senate 32-0. each body was under the control of the democratic party. tennessee's republican governor then signeded the bill into law. today, however, three unelected officials in washington d.c. decide to rewrite tennessee law on a party line vote.çó specifically, this order attempts to empower tennessee municipal electric systems to offer broadband services outside their service areas authority those systems have never possessed. the order doesn't contest tennessee mayb. prohibit municipal electric systems from offering internet service all together, instead it claims tennessee may not condition such authority on

electric system only serving customers within their service areas. in other words once the people's elected representatives allow municipalities to offer any internet service at all, the camel's nose owns the tent. this decision, along with the decision to preempt a similar north carolina law is odd. and unlawful. judicial precedent makes clear that the fcc simplyxd does not have the power to do this. in taking this step, the g usurps fundamental aspects of state sovereignty and disrupts the balance of power between the federal government and state government that lies at thet core of our constitutional system of government. whatever the merits of any particular municipal broadband project -- and to be clear -- on this question i take no position deferring to affected voters and elected officials. i do not believe this agency has the legal power to preempt.

i therefore dissent. let's begin with the one key point thatr not dispute. the fcc cannot preempt state laws that flat out prohibit municipalities from offering broad band service. why? our constitution establishes a system is of dual sovereignty between government. they are separate sovereigns. this is the defining feature of the relationship between the federal and state governments. however, the relationship between a state and its political subd visions like counties and city ss a different animal. legally speaking, municipalities exist as arms of the state. as the u.s. supreme court has explained, they are quote created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the state

as ed to them in the state's absolute discretion. because of because a municipality is merely a department of theg follows that the state may withhold, grant or withdraw powers and privileges as it sees fit. so, what does this mean for purposes of today's order? well, first as a result of our system of dual sovereignty, the supreme court has advised that any federal legislation threat threatening to trench on the state's arrangements. should be treated with great skepticism. in the case of gregory versus ash croft if the government wishes to preempt the power, it must make its intent clear and this has come to be known as the clear statement rule. second, because municipalities arec creations of the state any

federal attempt to interfere with a state's governorer nance of his municipalities necessarily constrain it iszv traditional state authority to order its government. indeed the d.c. circuit court of appeals has held that interfering with the relationship of a state6i#d its political subdivisions strikes near the heart of state sovereignty. each of these two points applies to this order. first, any attempt by the fcc toyá÷

that missouri's able toy determine whether they could provide such services was part in parcel of the traditional state authority to order its government. led by justice suitor the justice decided the rule applyied and second it is clear that any commission attempt thatok preemption would not satisfy the clear statement rule. now, the nixon case is instructive. there, missourir argue that section 253 empowered to preempt at issue, but despite the fact that section 253a specifical ontemplates the preemption of state.:5)$ @r(t&háhp &hc% despite the section that 253d specifically directs the fcc to prohibit laws that affect the services, the supreme court still concluded that section 253 did not contain the requisite clear statement necessary to

allow the fcc to preempt. now, nisin this case, the commission relies on section 706 of 1976. not 3, for itsk:>p authority to preempt. but if section 253 could notód clear thet( high hurdle presented by gregory, section 706 falls even:iw further short of the mark. for while section 253 at least ñ mentioned preemption twice, the text of section 706 makes no reference to it whatsoever. and not with standing this the fcc maintains it can preempt the tennessee and north carolina laws at issue here. why? according to the order, the clear statement rulep, doesn't apply because those states have only imposedñi restrictions on broad©óv together. but what difference does this make? a state doesn't forit fit fit its core, sovereign power merely

because it grants them certain powers and not others. as the supreme court is held, quote, the number nature and duration of the powers confirmed upon muvm b/d?b nisnicipal corporations and the territory rests in the state. a state doesn't lose that simply by giving a=#eñ municipality somefá authority rather than

the very essence of a subdivision is the idea that the locality will govern within a limited geographic area within the state. thus, when the commission tries to preempt tennessee and north carolina laws in this context, it is directly interfering with the core aspect of state sovereign thety. namely, the ability of those states to organize their own governments and to determine the territory over which powers shall be exercised. and this hypothetical illustrates why. suppose that the federal government attempted to tell tennessee that it could not limit the city of chattanooga's police department to enforcing the law in chattanooga. instead, once the state of tennessee authorized the city of chattanooga to have a police department, it was required to let chattanooga's police officers have free reign to patrol from memphis to knoxville. would anyone seriously contend that such an edict from the federal government wouldn't

interfere with tennessee's ability to order its political subdivisions subdivisions? of course not. there are other problems with the contention that it can preempt state restrictions on municipal broadband projects. this yields a strange result. while a state would be free to ban broadband projects outright it would be forbidden from imposing more modern restrictions on such projects. in other words, the most severe state law restrictions on broadband projects prohibitions, could not be preempted, but less strict could be. i doubt that congress adopted, much less intended, such a con vaa luted frame work when it enacted the act. and this could lead to perverse consequences. if a state can't athuthorize municipalities, it might be less likely to authorize them at all

and doubt the porters would would welcome. more over -- state prohibitions on projects and state restrictions of such projects. tr a state law providing municipalities were operating projects beginning on january 1st, 2020. would that condition as to timing be a restriction that the fcc could preempt using section 706 or would the law be a prohibition on projects through the end of 2019 that it could not preempt? who knows. in short the heart of the analysis rests not on a principle distinction, but semantics. and no matter what play the commission employs, it cannot escape one fact. through preepgs, they are -- with authority that their state governments have not given them.

but it gets worse for the fcc's position. i doubt that the section 706 gives the commission the authority to preempt any state laws, even those governing private actors. there are many reasons, but here, i'll only mention the provision's stat torrey history. that history shows congress did not intend to give the commission authority to preempt state laws. when the united states senate in 1995 passed the bill that became the telecommunications act of 1996, that bill contained a precursor to section 706b. that ath rised the fcc if it determined broad band was not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion, to and i quote, preempt state commissions that failed to act to ensure the advanced capability to all americans, unquote.

but congress decided not to grant this power to the fcc. it eliminated that language from the final version of the bill. and the order's response to this truth is to claim that the language regarding preemption was moved to the legislative history. this argument is remarkably misleading. to be sure the conference report does describe the senate provision as state thag the commission may preempt state commissions if they fail to act to ensure reasonable and timely access. that was an accurate statement, a fact, as to the senate provision, but that report goes on to say that the senate provision was adopted with a modification. and what was that? the senate language was removed. put simply neither the text of the statute nor the legislative history discussing the final history provides support for the argument that section 706 gives the fcc the power to preempt

state law. in conclusion, the elected representatives of the people of north carolina and tennessee have chosen to grant municipalities and the respective states limited abilities to offer broadband services. notably, they have allowed them to provide service within a specified geographic area. reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of such policies. some agree that the conditions imposed by tennessee and north carolina are too restrictive. others believe municipal governments shouldn't be in the broadband business at all. as i said earl yes i will leave that debate to others, to effected voters and elected officials in the many states. what is clear, however, is that the fcc does not have the legal authority to override the decisions made by tennessee an north carolina. under the law, it is up to the people of those states and their elected representatives, not the federal communications commission, to decide whether and to what extent to allow

municipalities to run broad band projects. today's order is therefore unlawful. during the clinton administration, the fcc called one city's a quote, extraordinary step that enfringed a state's sovereign power, end quote. in 1997, the fcc stayed within its legal bounds and refused to take that extraordinary step. unfortunately, the agency does not show the same restraint today. this decision violates the principles that lie at the heart of our form of government. the fcc treats tennessee and north carolina as mere appendage appendages of the federal government rather than the separate sovereigns that they are. for all these reasons, i descend. >> commissioner riley. >> this order highlights the unprecedented lengths the commission is willing to go to undermine the free market system, the federal statute and

common sense in order to try to dick kate where, when and how broadband is provided in this country. the commission is just about to vote to rewrite the communications act to assume vast new regulatory authority over broadband providers in the next item and here, the commission as the arrogance to try to rewrite state laws as well. the order is both legally infirm and bad public policy and i cannot support it. let me start by express inging my profound opposition to the offering of broadband or any communications service by a government entity. some like to talk about the principles of network come tacts, but this issue goes to more of a core principles, the foundations of u.s. economy and free enterprise. for historians, you will remember how government involvement was debated and dismissed in many other sectors such as banking, while other countries like cuba, china russia and venezuela have effectively nationalized private

companies, the bedrock of american capitalism is private enterprise, free from government manipulation as a market entrant. if there's a market need, an individual with a dream and a propensity for risk will enter to provide service. it is not the government's role to offer services instead of or in competition with private actors. separately, i would like to clarify any misperception that i am against preemption as a general matter. while a support federalism i embrace the realities of a marketplace that does not recognize political borders of yesterday. for instance, i have no difficulties preempting state and local restrictions on wireless tower and antenna citing. i've worked in my career to preempt state and local burdens on the offering of internet applications, so it shouldn't

come to your surprise that i believe the internet is an interstate service while making a finding that a service internet is not sufficient when preemption would trench the state's reactions when conducting their own governments. the missing ingredient necessary is clear, congressional direction via the statute. if congress enact as legislature to preems to enact state law, my colleague has highlighted a number of bills to further broadband, then i will empment it, that key ingredient is not present here. the order ryry ryelies on an act to assert authority. my views haven't changed. the fcc claims that its authority under section 706 is not unbound because it may act only within the limits of its

ever broadening subject is matter jurisdiction. and its actions must be designed to achieve a particular purpose so encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced communications ability to all americans. but as judge silverman commented, quote, this is an almost meaningless limitation. any regulation in the fcc's judgment might arguably make the internet better. could increase demand. i do not see how this limitation prevebt vents 706 from being carte blanche to issue any regulation might be in the public interest. end quote. in this item, we see the prediction come true. indeed, anything that may insent the use of the internet now apparently is fair game for fcc regulation. yet, even if i believed that section 706 provided some general authority, which i do not and nor does section i of the communications act it does

not contain the clear statement that the support has said is a prerequisite for preempting a state's control of its municipalities. on the contrary section 706 expressley contemplates a joint federal and state role. we are told however that the supreme court decisions don't apply here for two reasons. one, this is an area that there has been a history of significant federal presence and two, the laws that issue here do not constitute flat bans on the provision of municipal broadbrand. the presumption must a pli here. the petitions focused on the nor rower questions of where service may be provided and that is a core function of the states. as the state of tennessee noted while the commission may regulate the provision of a service that a local government

unit is authorized by state law to provide, the commission cannot expand the territorial jurisdiction of a local government unit since any such action would exceed the powers of a federal agency and manifestly enfringe on the sovereignty of a state. in other words the commission cannot mandate that a state authorize a municipality to offer broadband. it's just that simple. further more the types of restrictions under scrutiny are not necessarily specific to communications policy. for example, states may require ref refererendum on a variety of spending our other matters. the fact that a state may require one for broadband does not necessarily mean it's being imposed to affect the state's communication policy preferences. indeed, public hearings and referendum have a long and well regarded history in the american political tradition.

even restrictions that seem specific to policy do not necessarily conflict with the commission's role in regulating internet interstate communications. for example, restrictions truly designed to prevent cross subsidization can be consistent with existing policy and requirements for businessing and feasibility studies are similar to fcc rules that ensure it's own funding recipients are technically and financially qualified. are we really striking down a requirement that a municipality have a cogent business plan? second, the order turns precedent on it head to conclude that the commission has the authority to preempt any restriction that falls short of an outright ban. finding the state's provisions here are not flat bans. it tosses the provision and proceeds line by line through the carolina statute to eliminate what it sees fit. in doing so the order ignores how both the city of wilson and state of north carolina interpret their own statute and

the relief petition ners actually sought. in essence, the overly broad extension of this item would overrule certain sound restrictions justified by the use of taxpayer funding, such as public hearings and votingeing requirements even though the city of wilson said they can live with them. they were completely agreeable to most of the restrictions and previously complied with them, but somehow, we need to preempt them. moreover, the order is hostile to states accusing them of passing laws that are allegedly, but not not protect taxpayer risk. it seems no protection enacted by a state could survive the fcc's unvarnished skepticism. in fact, the only restriction that may survive is the state law imposing a flat ban which seems short sided and counterproductive.

that is the order may encourage states that are concerned about the risks of municipal broad band to prohibit it rather than permit it under tailored conditions that ensure such prolgts will be successful and not burdens on taxpayers. broadbabd that works have a history of overpromising and underdelivering, leaving taxpayers at risk. we've seen examples of projects that failed did so due to competition, poor planning or unethical practices. that's the very scenario and conduct state ises are trying to remedy by requiring a rite of first refusal to providers, feasibility studies, public hearings and referendum. finally, i have to wonder if this is for naught. broadband providers will now be subject to regulations. notably, dozens of these

providers oppose reclassification because in their on words, raises our costs and hind rs our ability to further deploy broadband. it is an odd result to remove barriers to broadband deployment only to impose new barriers in their place. in sum, i find it appalling that we would overwrite democratically enacted common sense protections for consumers, especially in the absence of clear direction from congress. i must decent. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you and i think for the audience i think for the first time the 21st century has come here because commissioner riley was reading that off his ipad, rather than the rest of us here still dealing with mr.

guttenberg's ideas. there are few irrefutable truths and broadband. one is you can't say that your for broadband and then turn around and endorse limits on who can offer it. another is that you can't say i want to follow the explicit instructions of congress to quote, remove barriers the specific language congress has told us to do, to remove barriers to infrastructure investment but endorse barriers on infrastructure investment. i think as they say in north carolina, that dog don't hunt. you can't say you're for competition, but deny local elected officials. the right to offer competitive

choices. it's important to recognize we're voting on here today. this item is respond inging to two specific petitions from two cities. the rulinging is enforceable only on behalf of the petition ners and their states. i do hope however that this decision was shine some light on the fact there is an ongoing effort to impose restrictions. on what elected local officials can do at the request of their people. and that it calls out the activities of incumbents to block consumer choice and competition. through legislation.

the bottom line of these matters is that some states have created thickets of red tape designed to limit competition. we're not talking here about the state's authority to determine whether a community can offer broadband to its citizens. in both north carolina and in tennessee, the state has given the localities that authority. but that grant of authority has been undermined by state imposed bureaucratic red tape requirements. and what we're doing today is cutting away that red tape consistent with congress' instruction to quote, encourage the deployment of broadband and quote, promote competition in

broadband. while we've heard a lot of talk about legal issues today and certainly, everybody has their own interpretations and is entitled, what we too often lose sight of in our discussions here in washington is that these issues we're talking about have a very human face. when local leaders have their hands tied by bureaucratic state red tape, local businesses and residents are the ones who suffer the consequences. let's look at a few of those faces. jeff wilson from holly springs

north carolina is with us. jeff where are you? stand up. jeff can tell you about the health care company in his city that relocated to another area because of inadequate access to broadband and the constraints that it put on that company and their ability to do basic things like back up. they were simply unwilling to lose business because they were stuck in the digital slow lane and so as jeff tells us, they moved their operations elsewhere to the debtriment of the citizens of holly springs. matt shuler is here from, there he is, from highlands, north carolina. matt can tell you about how local leaders saw the internet

as a way to bring economic opportunity to this town of about 1,000 inhabitants. but the red tape with the state law stopped them from being able to do so. thank you, matt, for telling us that story. putting that face on it. richard thompson is here. richard. he can talk about the frustration of living only three quarters of a mile from chattanooga's gigabit network, but still being in the internet dark ages. mr. thornton has to pay $316 a month for a collage of services that include two mobile hot spots that require careful monitoring of his data con sunlgts and don't deliver at the kind of speeds that epb deliver, plus satellite tv, but phone service. yet, less than a mile away

gigabit service is available with tv and phone for $133. and the provider of that service would like to extend their lines to provide mr. thornton with the service that he seeks. but they're prohibited from doing so by tennessee's bureaucratic requirements. eva van hook is here. eva. eva's from bradley county, tennessee. she can tell you. she's told me. she can tell you. how she has to drive her son to their church or her son can drive himself, to watch online material that is assigned as a part of his high school curriculum. she hasu to go 12 miles sot( that her son can see the biology

videos that he needs to have for the next day's classes. because state rules keep her from getting the faster and cheaper internet service that chattanooga epb wants to offer. eva, thanks for joining us. now, the commission respects the important role of state governments in our federal system. and we don't take light lyly the matter of preempting state laws. but it is a well established principle that state laws that inhibit the exercise of federal policy may be subject to preemts in appropriate circumstances. the human faces of those who are condemned to second rate

broadband are a message to all of us. and in these matters, our instructions from congress are clear. so, let us be clear. this decision is pro broadband. this decision is pro competition. and this decision is for the right of americans through their elected local officials to make their own decision about their broadband future. i want to thank the staff for all the hard work you put in to this issue. and we will now go to a vote. all those in favor say aye. oppose -- >> no. >> the ayes have it, the item the carried.

[ cheers and applause ] and editorial privileges are granted. >> objection, mr. chairman. >> madam secretary. >> mr. chairman commissioners, item two on your agenda will be presented by the wire line competition bureau the wireless telecommunications bureau and the office of general counsel. it is entitled protecting and promoting the open internet. >> thank you, madam secretary. you didn't even change seats. >> didn't move a muscle.

>> okay. we're now pleased to present for your consideration an order that would set forth clear, sustainable, enforceable rules to preserve and protect the open internet. as a place for innovation and free expression. the order builds on the views of some 4 million americans who commented in this proceeding in response to the notice of proposed rule making that you adopted last may. before we present the item, we have two very special guests with us today. chad dickerson ceo of etsy and venus sund, creator of the tv drama, the killing. we have a brief video from the inventer of the worldwide web and founder of the consortium. they would provide us with brief remarks remarks about the importance of an open internet to creation and

free exprex. i'd first like to turn it over to mr. dickerson. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman for the opportunity to speak today. also, the commissioners. as a ceo of etsy, i'm here to thank you you and your colleagues as a platform for entrepreneurship and innovation. etsy is an online marketplace where you can buy handmade goods from artists and designers from around the world. we've dmoktized access to entrepreneurship for over 1.2 million sellers, 88% of who are women, who collectively told $1.35 billion worth of merchandise in 2013. most are sole propry terrors who work from home. they live in all 50 states and depend on their income to pay their bills and support their families. 18% support themselves full time on etsy.

we rely on a free and open internetinter inter. it allowed etsy to grow fromv4j a tiny start up in a brooklyn apartment to a global company with over 600 employees. it allowed the micro businesses to reach buyers around the world and compete with much bigger, more established brands. back in 1993 it allowed me an english major with a data entry job at a newspaper, to jump-start myself in technology by learning how to code. there's hope for english majors. without strong rules to prevent discrimination online the innovation economy would suffer. we charge only 20 cents to list an item on etsy and we take only 3.5% of every transaction. we couldn't afford to pay for priority access for consumers, yet we know that delays of milliseconds have a direct and long-term impact on revenue.

absent the rules you're voting on today, we would be forced to raise our fews, hurting the businesses who depend on our platform, most of all. the etsy community knows what's at stake. that's why on september 10th, 30,000 of them joined others to urge congress to protect the open internet. many others made hand crafted objects, calling for net neutrality and several more sent thank you cards for me to bring today, which i gave to chairman wheeler a bit earlier. so, i have a handwritten note in my hand. from nancy from california. and she wrote to chairman wheeler, dear chairman wheeler, my note is a heartfelt and personal thank you to you for protecting the free internet for all. i worked in the medical field for 30 years and loved it, but a couple of years ago, a girl texting on the freeway took my career away from me. my injuries forced me to find

income from something i could do from a chair. i turn eded to my passion for creativity and joined etsy. my dream is is alive and viable because of neutrality. thank you from the bottom of my heart for your earnest support for me and countless other people trying to glean income from their artistry. thank you, chairman wheeler. so, today i applaud the fcc for establishing clear bright line rules that ban online. over the last year, over 4 million people weighed in on this. today's vote demonstrates that they've been heard. thank you for voting to protect the internet as an engine for economic opportunity, the likes of which we have never seen. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for your leadership and please say thank you to nancy. >> good morning. thank you for the opportunity to

speak. i'm a television producer and writer and a member of the writers guild of america west. i developed the tv series the killing, the show that survived two near deaths because of the open internet. the killing originally aired on a amc, but the network canceled after our second season. netflix offered to share financing with amc of a third season, and we were resurrected. when am canceled us yet again netflix took over the show and we were able to end the series as it was intended all because of the internet has opened up competition and widened the playing field. we told some of our best stories, our toughest, most heartbreaking ones in those last two seasons. stories that never would have been on the air had it not been for the open internet. we talked about the death penalty and teenage homelessness and drug addiction. what the open internet means for creativity, innovation and diverse viewpoints is by no

means limited to my own experience. series like oranges in you black and transparent are giving voice to worlds and people and experiences never before seen on the small screen. and while little more than 20% of comedies and dramas on traditional television have a woman at the helm, almost 40% of the series airing on these new online platforms this season will be run by women. this progress is the result of new competition let loose on an industry that is highly consolidated. the result of pent up demand by the american public tired of hearing the same old same old. it's the result of renovation on a flat form that does not require permission which has expanded how stories can be told. because of the open internet, we are seeing the free market ideal work with increasing competition, which rewards both consumers and creators, however, this is not konl without strong

rules that help ensure markets work properly. a few companies that control the pipe and that face little competition have already begun to exercise their gate keeper power to limit the promise of this new platform. today, we have arrived at thexd moment where you decide the future. the right decision, the one that will benefit creators, innovators the economy and most importantly, the american people, is to reclassify broad band internet service. only reclassification will allow the commission to institute the rules that will ban blocking and pay prioritization and all the ways in which the companies that control distribution can tip the scales in their favor. what you do today can secure the future of the open internet and make sure our voices are heard. thank you. >> thank you.my and now i'd like to ask our team to play the video from --