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

ms. gonzalez. >> i agree it's legal and sustainable. >> ms. turner-lee? >> aim not an attorney but we think that title 2 would actually stifle the expansion of mobile. we think that's a bad idea. >> ms. baker? one more time from you. >> mobile broadband has never been under title 2 because of explicit expression of congress. it's not sustainable. >> there might be an opportunity for litigation here, you think. this is my point. we have soltalyinted people. some are attorneys. some are not. some are backed up by smart attorneys. there's division right here on this panel. this is where i think certainty matters and legislating matters. yes or no. have you actually seen what the f.c.c. is proposing? mr. dickerson? >> we have seen principles. >> i mean have you seen the language? >> no. >> mr. misener >> i have heard a great deal about what's in it. >> you have. but you haven't read it. >> no. >> ok. >> don't no nothing. -- don't know nothing. >> ms. baker? >> no. >> does anybody anticipate they'll see it before they vote on it? >> no. >> could you repeat tha

ms. gonzalez? sustainable. >> all right. >> i'm not an attorney, i think title 2 -- >> mobile broadband has never been under title 2 because of the explicit expression of congress. it's not sustainable. >> might be an opportunity for litigation you might think? this is my point. we've got talented people, some are attorneys some are not. some are backed up by really smart attorneys as well. there's division right here on this panel. this is where i think certainly matters and legislating matters. yes or no? have you actually seen what the fcc is proposing? >> no. >> mr. powell? mr. dickerson? >> we've seen principles. >> have you seen the language? >> no. >> got it. mr. misner. >> i've heard a great deal about what's in it. >> haven't read it? >> no. >> don't know nothing. >> ms. baker? >> no. >> and does anybody anticipate they'll see it before they vote on it? >> no. >> could you repeat that question? >> does anybody anticipate actually being able to see before the commissioners are called upon t

ms. gonzÁlez what you briefly summarize the type of litigation risk the fcc will likely face under the approachprovided by the draft legislation? >> i think there's quite a few factual determinations. if we are talking about procedural risks the legislation poses i think it puts a burden on consumers to first of all ss whether or not they have had their net neutrality rights violated and then figured out how to bring up before the commission and its somewhat complicated that requires both lawyers that even many but even many of the startups that do have some resources more than the consumers at least have said they would be unlikely to be able to engage in because they have limited legal counsel. but beyond that over those decisions after they are issued there could be follow-up litigation because this creates a situation where we would have to get to the details on a case-by-case basis which could just be one lawsuit that would likely come from the fcc order but a series of lawsuits. >> what the gentleman yield? >> i will give you a little extra with unanimous consent. how does what we are pro

ms. gonzalez, would you briefly summarize the type of litigation risk the fcc will likely face under the approach provided by the draft legislation? >> i think there's quite a few factual determinations. if we are talking about procedural risks the legislation poses i think it puts a burden on consumers to first of all ss whether or not they have had their net neutrality rights violated and then figured out how to bring up before the commission and its somewhat complicated that requires both lawyers that even many but even many of the startups that do have some resources more than the consumers at least have said they would be unlikely to be able to engage in because they have limited legal counsel. but beyond that over those decisions after they are issued there could be follow-up litigation because this creates a situation where we would have to get to the details on a case-by-case basis which could just be one lawsuit that would likely come from the fcc order but a series of lawsuits. >> what the gentleman yield? >> i will give you a little extra with unanimous consent. how does what

ms. diaz chief gonzalez jonathan gordon and basheer jones. and thank you ladies and gentlemen for coming to this forum. and i hope that you guys learned a lot about your roles in this community and this forum is now adjourned. [ applause ] >>> in the old days people went to work in factories. they were paid for their labor and worked nine to five and went home and kid what they want with that money. today we're all in these factoriesfactory s like google and facebook twitter. we're unpaid labor. we're working like crazy. and it's not even acknowledged that we're creating the value for them. and worse, we are the ones packaged up as the product. what these companies are doing is learning more and more about us from our behavior, from what we publish from our photographs and from our ideas and what we buy and say and don't say. they are learning about us. they create this bantem like pen onty con. and they are transforming us. they are repackaging us as the product. we're the ones being sold. not only are we working for free but then we're bein

gonzalez to cuba. thank you very much again, congresswoman jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, as you notice, members who are on the floor today have come from a variety of states, a variety of political philosophies and positions. but i think it is appropriate to acknowledge congresswoman barbara lee for galvanizing members of both sides of the aisle on an important and enormous leap of change that we have made over the years by her determination and persistence and knowledge. and so i thank her very much for that kind of leadership allowing many of us to travel to cuba on any number of occasions meeting with both fidel castro, speaking about issues of government and the needs of the cuban beam and the needs of -- people and the needs of the american people. to my colleagues, as everyone who has visited they have found the cuban peoples who pitble and friendly -- hospitable and friendly, desiring peace and respecting america. if there's ever one impression that you have when you leave cuba it is the desire for strong relationships and the connectedness between cubans,