>> this week on "the communicators," house energy and commerce committee ranking member, joe barton on the future of telecommunications and technology policy under republican-controlled house of representatives. >> host: with republicans in the majority in the 112 congress, which convenes in january 3, 2011 kernel legislative agendas will change as will committee chairmanships. in the chairmanship of the energy and commerce committee, which deals with telecommunications policy is being contested. what of those running for the chairmanship is congressman joe barton who is currently the chief republican on the energy and commerce committee. and he's our guest this week on

"the communicators." congressman burton, thank you for joining us from dallas. why do you want to be chairman of the energy and commerce committee again? and if so, what would be your legislative agenda when it comes to telecommunication policy? >> guest: i think the american people on tuesday gave republicans a second chance. you don't get too many second chances and politics, but the american people have given the republicans won. i was chairman the last time that the republicans were in the majority back in 2005 and 2006. and i think, you know, the bills that passed and became law -- we passed in energy policy act that was comprehensive. we passed the first reform act, the national institute of health, and probably 30 years. we authorize the orion a fact.

we just did a lot of what i thought were very positive things. and we did it in a bipartisan fashion. if i am given the privilege to be chairman again in the next congress by the republican conference, i want to actually deliver on the promises that we made in our pledge to america. first and foremost is repealing the new health care law that most people generically call obamacare. most of that will come to the energy and commerce committee. not all of it. some of it is his ways and means and other committees. the lion share is energy commerce. a first priority would be to repeal that. and follow up very quickly with a replace and reform package that really addresses the health care needs of america. i think we have to do more than just repeal to go back to the status quo. i think we also have to replace and improve the system so every

american has access to qualified health care. and telecommunication policy, i think it is imperative that we maintained the freedom of the internet. i do not agree with the fcc's attempt to regulate the internet retitle to. you can certainly move legislation, and they cannot crystal clear that they don't have that already. so will be doing aggressive oversight over the fcc. and if we can get a bipartisan agreement, i'm very open to reform and universal service funds. i think it's long overdue and i think congressman stearns and congressman boucher in the last congress, the bill that they drafted together is a good first step for a good base on which to

begin the legislation of process they are. but i'd guess just kind of generically, the reason i would like to be chairman if i want to create a federal system that gives every american an opportunity to better themselves and their family and to do so on a level playing field. i don't support government mandates and all areas of our economy. i don't support the government telling people what they can and can't do, except when it's necessary to protect the public health and public safety and on occasion to provide for common defense of this nation. so when the free market, can you read is. and i think if given the privilege to be the chairman, you'll see a very activist energy commerce committee that should see an open and

transparent committee that works in a bipartisan fashion. hosts are given a republican conference rules on term limits, what is the process that you could get a leg been appointed chairman again of the committee when it comes to -- do you need a waiver? >> guest: thank you for asking that question. not many people bother to want to know the answer to that. we passed a rule in 1993 when we were in the minority, before winning the majority in 1994 that says you can be ranking member or chairman for three terms. when i was put into place, republicans had not been majority in house since 1964. asleep at the ranking the ranking member and mayor because that's all we had. and newt gingrich we had to let him who became chairman. five of those have served as ranking member for three terms.

and all five of those served as chairman for three terms. so we had the same rule in place in 1994 that we have now. we didn't apply the ranking member time towards their chairmanship time. i interpret the rule to be that i've served one full term as chairman but i'm eligible, not entitled, but eligible to be chairman for tumor terms. how does the steering committee, republican leader and the commerce to clarify the rule. i'm fine i'm having a term limit rules for chairman. i would have got to be chairman when i did if we hadn't have had term limits on chairman because chairman bliley and chairman chosen i think one or both of them probably would've petitioned to be chairman. so i'm a not to get term limits, but i think you apply it in your majority time.

and i don't think it's a consecutive minority. that's a rule clarification. so i think i'm eligible for tumor terms. i'm going to petition on that process. if that's not successful, i will ask for a waiver and i think i'll be successful on the waiver. but the process is very transition team that puts a rules package together, try to get the road clarified in the transition and then if necessary put it before the conference to have a vote and then whatever the rulers, played by that role. >> host: joining us on "the communicators" this week is our guest reporter, editor of "national journal," "tech daily dose," juliana gruenwald. >> hi, mr. burton. but kind of feedback are you getting from mr. boehner and others on seek interpretation of the rules? >> guest: well, i'm getting very positive feedback in terms of support for chairmanship, in

terms of clarification of the rules, what john boehner has said and also some of the other senior republicans is it something to take up with the transition team. and gregg waldron has on the energy commerce committee is in charge of it. there was also the republican study committee. the chairman is tom price. we have not paid to the new chairman is going to be, but appears going to be congressman jordan. they're looking that some rules changes also. but to answer your question, in my outreach effort, i'm being very, very positively received for my chairmanship in terms of the rule. that's something the transition team is going to make a recommendation to the leadership

into the fall conference and >> host: congressman barton, election night as john boehner was finishing his speech, we happen to notice you at the bottom of the stage shaking hands with presumptive speaker boehner right there. what we do in washington? what is your relationship with john boehner? >> guest: well, my relationship with john boehner is very positive and very cordial. and no, we worked together when he went chairman of the education committee and would've worked together both when he was majority leader and in the minority leadership position. so we're both very positive and were also what i would say are adults. we've been on the block a little bit and know that it's not necessarily what's good for either one of us individually. it's what's good for the entire republican conference. so we've got a very positive open relationship.

when i was in washington in 1994, i stayed in my district on election night. we would go back and the minority, but as we got closer to the selection and it looks like we might get back in the majority, i said i want to be in washington to share in that moment. and i was very pleased to be at the nrcc with pete's sessions and kevin mccarthy and then to go over to the hotel when they made the big announcement. i just wanted to be there to share in that because i had a feeling that we were going to win and win big. and i wanted to be a part of that celebration. and in terms of my congratulations to speaker boehner, i'm one of the first persons that have the sticker

john boehner for speaker. and i just congratulated him and also told him to get a little bit of rest because i can't tell you how many -- how many campaign stops he made, but he probably set a record for campaign stops for members of congress. and i told them to go, he and his wife to go get some rest and kind of enjoy the moment because he won't have too many late. >> host: juliana gruenwald. >> mr. barton, the committee has a broad jurisdiction. what were those telecom issues follow on the priority is? >> guest: the number one immediate priority is going to be health care because of the emphasis on appealing obama cared and then replacing it with something that is much more in tune with what the american people want.

telecommunications is going to be a high priority, especially preventing the fcc for regulating the internet. and as i said earlier, if we can put together a bipartisan reform package in the universal service fund, i think i would be something that we could move. so health care would be number one. i would cite energy and telco would be kind of co-equal number two. and then, oversight -- where one of the committees that has a specific oversight subcommittee. and it's going to be very, very busy just having oversight over the various agencies and the obama administration and the jurisdiction of the energy commerce committee. >> you recently said privacy was an issue of importance to you. we'll be right in a privacy bill

for we've pick up where mr. boucher and mr. stearns left off? also, bobby rush was also on the committee has a built. is he someone you could work with? >> guest: sure. i was a little bit surprised or has been that we haven't moved to privacy bill unless congress. of course, we have probably one more week in the lame duck, but i doubt it's going to be a privacy bill, but quickly. so that is certainly something we can work with our friends on the democrat side on a bipartisan basis. and as you pointed out, ed markey, abby rush, cliff stearns, mary bono, there are a number of republicans and democrats that are very interested in that. and i think that is something that we can work on. you know, we certainly have the issue. facebook has recently admitted some other information on

individuals whose use. they can perhaps about facebook's permission. we've had a number of other companies that have -- depending on who you believe is consciously or inadvertently allowed very private information to be disseminated to marketers and folks without the permission of the individuals. so i think privacy is one of those issues that is gaining in importance in this something that certainly could be addressed and if we can get the right coalition together as chairman, i'm certainly very, very willing to legislate in that area. >> host: mr. barton commie talk about coalitions in your letter to incoming freshmen campaigning for the chairmanship you've written, for turned to earn a reputation for fairness in dealing with policy opponent. but when i am chairman, you will find many democrats applauding.

[laughter] >> guest: well, that's more in reference to the cabinet heads in the obama administration. it goes without saying that when you're president of your party, your not as aggressive and overseen the presidential executive agencies has been the president is of the opposition. chairman waxman and chairman dingell are both very progressive overseers, but they focus their oversight out into the country. they really didn't, in my opinion, adequately oversee the obama administration. so, you know, we're not going to be punitive, but we are going to insist that all these executive orders and these pending regulation and some of the

actions that the epa and the fcc and the fda have initiated, that they're going to come before congress can justify that. so those are the folks will be a little unhappy. i really don't think the democrats on the committee will be unhappy because they're going to be a part of the process and fully engaged in the hearings will be fair and balanced. and it will be their decision whether to participate. my guess is that they will. as they should. >> you mentioned the fcc and chairman genachowski cb proposal to classify broadband as a dedication service. do you think they will be under more pressure to move forward with that other republicans have controlled the house and shoot something that you try the bill coming out of congress are

definitely smaller quakes in the mentioned legislation. will you move legislation to block that security map? >> guest: well, i think they can read election returns as well as anybody. the three democratic commissioners on the fcc are very brave people. happen to have a very positive personal relationship with all three of them. and i would think seen the republicans gain six or seven seats in the senate. and as of this program, i think were applies 63, 64 house he, that they would see the wisdom of not trying to regulate the internet under title ii. i am certainly willing, in conjunction with coordination with speaker boehner and majority leader kantor will remove it very quickly, that says they can. that i would think they could read the tea leaves as well as anybody can know that something they shouldn't go forward with.

>> host: congressman barton, on election night here on c-span we were taking calls all night as you well know. we take calls. and we were talking about legislative agenda of the republican and the democrats. a couple of callers brought up the issue of net neutrality.nk u i want to play one for you and get your response to this. a >> caller: i'm 20 years oldbut w come a bit of a younger voter or ths one ofk about a specific issue it is often overlooked by, both parties, which is that. neutrality. i think this is one of the biggest issues of our time, definitely a first amendmentwano issue.s but a lot of the time,institutio republicans didn't talk a lot about how they want to keep the constitution. they talk a lot about how that's kind of therefore running didn't. i noticed the republicans often overlooked this as an issue and would rather let the internet become tiered. >> host: congressman barton. >> guest: well, i wish i had

been on when that young man was asking his phone call -- or engaging and this phone call. republicans have insisted, since the telecommunication act of 1996, that the internet you open and free and accessible -- freely accessible to any and all comers. we don't allow any taxation of the internet. we have an open access policy. internet use has exploded as has cell phone use. so i think our policy of allowing the private sector to develop under rules and regulations developed by the fcc, that are open and transparent has worked very, very well. you know, this concept of net neutrality is a little bit of a misnomer. what it means impact is, if the fcc were to implement it is the federal government could

regulate the internet. and i think that caller wants the internet regulated by the fcc. i know that a republican majority in congress on the house side doesn't want the internet regulated by the fcc. so we've got a policy that's working very, very well. in outcome in the old colloquial phrase if it ain't broke, don't fix it, it's kind of where i can and i think the majority of the republicans are. >> host: it was an april appeals court decision that put the fcc authority of a broadband into doubt. do you think they are used to be any legislation to clarify the authority? and mean, should they assemble at overseen by broadband providers do? amine, is there a role for congress there? >> guest: that the refreezing of the question we party had several times. what happened was that the fcc tried to stipulate that it could regulate and they could command

a private company. i believe it was comcast and tell them how to manage their network. and the court said no, that under the telecommunications act you don't have that authority. so the response of chairman genachowski to that court decision has been to threaten to regulate under title ii of the federal communications act. and title ii is that section that regulates the old hard-line telephone service going back to the 1930's and 1940's when you had a monopoly situation because of technology and geography and telephone service was considered to be a natural monopoly. and so you had to regulated to keep the companies from exercising too much market power

and too much economic power over their subscribers. well, you don't have that situation and the internet. you've got numerous broadband providers, both in terms of wireless and wired and very robust competition, providing new services almost on a weekly basis. so there's just not necessity to regulate under title ii. and if necessary, as i've already said, will move a bill very quickly and there will be a bipartisan bill. in the current congress, i think every republican from john boehner on down to find a letter that we shouldn't regulation under title ii. i can't do the exact count of democrats, but i think in the neighborhood of 60 democrats in this congress have signed that letter or a very similar letter, so there's obviously a

bipartisan majority against regulating broadband under title ii of the federal communications act. >> you mentioned oversight would be an important role of the committee. the ftc recently informed google it was dropping an investigation into a google called the mistaken collection of information from unsecured wi-fi networks. is that something -- as critics of the d.c. decision calling on congress to look into this issue, it says something you think your committee would look into if you were chairman? >> guest: that's again very similar to the question about privacy that you've already asked in this interview. and the answer to that is yes. the google thing is very troubling. and in that case, there was -- there appears to have been a conscious effort to collect information. google said it was inadvertent, but it was -- it was just kind

of accidentally gathered. and so i do think that in some vain that we can look at. and i know congressman markey is concerned about it. you know, on the democrat side. chairman waxman is concerned about it. so i think that something in the next congress research that could look at may be put together a bill to prevent that kind of act two goodie from happening in the future. >> host: congressman barton, rick boucher and active democrat on the dnc committee on telecommunications laws, what does this was due to the committee in your view? >> guest: well, you know, i'm a republican and i'm always happy to get more republicans into having majority and obviously the gentleman who won

over rick is to be congratulated for his sick dirty. and we take aside the politics and the mathematics, as a person is not a better person than congressman rick boucher is someone who is knowledgeable on these issues of telecommunications, but also energy policy in many of the legal aspects of congressman boucher is going to be really, really nice. he was subcommittee chairman on the energy committee. was very active active also the judiciary committee. very bright person, very flexible and somebody that was willing to work across the aisle. i had the privilege when i was subcommittee chairman, back in the majority to have him as the ranking member on the energy subcommittee and he was just

very, very good person to work with. so on the political side, you know, i welcome his successor as a part of the new republican majority. i've obviously worked with him, you know, on a personal -- take the politics out of a side. rick boucher is one of the good -- one of the good folks and it is, you know, an example of what being a good congressman is. so he'll be missed as a person, but again i'm a political side of it, the bigger the republican majority, the better and we're certainly pleased that we have a new republican from that district. >> another big issue is the same for spectrum for mobile broadband for lots of other uses. there's various bills out there doing respect term.

one calls for reallocating h.r. for spectrum known as the d block to public safety officials were bribed and interoperable communications network. where do you stand on that issue? >> guest: that's a very vexing issue. it's a very technical issue. depending on your view of government of various proposals on how to deal with it, it's obvious that we need adequate spectrum for public safety officials. one way to do it is to allocate it and mandate it. there are other proposals out there to have an option, what's called an incentive option, where you create some sort of incentive for the winner of the option to voluntarily allocate spectrum for public safety. and then there are kind of proposals in between. i am not an advocate of a

mandate. i have advocated as of almost all the republicans for several years to have the option that's no strings attached and then try to deal with the spectrum allocation for public safety and a different way. i'm not an electrical engineer, so i don't have the technical expertise to go into various types of spectrum in the bandwidth and all of that, but, you know, this is obviously something that's been festering for a while and it is something that we would like to see successfully solved here in the next two years if possible. >> host: congressman barton, if you were chairman, could you see the ceos of companies such as facebook and google coming to testify at issues such as

product productivity? >> guest: i think you could almost guarantee that. just as when i said earlier in the interview that i don't believe chairman waxman and chairman dingell have been aggressive in oversight over the obama administration, if they had focused their guns on the private sector so to speak, it doesn't mean as a republican majority that we're just going to focus on the executive branch of president obama's cabinet and not take a look at the terror. to use an example, when i was chairman back in 2005 in 2006, we were very aggressive in oversight of british petroleum.