booktv, 48 hours of of book programming beginning saturday morning at 8 eastern through monday morning at 8 eastern. nonfiction books all weekend, every weekend right here on c-span c-span2. >> you're watching public affairs programming on c-span2. >> find a full video archive of each member, congressional chronicle, part of c-span's video library. it's washington your way.

>> this week on "the communicators," a look at potential telecommunications and technology policy in the 112th congress. our guests are former hill staffers trish saw and katherine mccull allow. >> host: well, with the new congress in place and new leadership in power, we thought we'd take this opportunity on "the communicators" to look at telecommunications policy and the 112th congress. joining us are two former congressional staff members, trisha pawletta was a majority counsel in the house of representatives for the republicans in the 1990s, and katherine mccullough was on the democratic side. thank you for being with us, we appreciate it. joining us, also, is juliana gruenwald. katherine, if i could start with you. you wrote in a recent blog in

comlaw blog.com that you look for two things; a high degree of activity on telecommunications policy in the upcoming congress and a high degree of cooperation. why did you write that? >> guest: um, i think that there's going to be a high degree of cooperation on certain issues. for instance, tv spectrum allocation, when it comes to the idea of deciding on authority for incentive auctions and who's going to get what slice of the pie. i think there's a lot of incentive to work together on those issues because it's going to mean extra money for the treasury which, of course, means that money can be used to lower the deficit or be put to other policemans. >> host: do you, trisha, see cooperation in the upcoming congress on telecommunications policy, and do you see them acting on a lot of different issues? >> guest: i think the minority party always calls for cooperation. that's traditional. [laughter] certainly, there is a lot of

common ground on spectrum policy and the need to rationalize the rules on spectrum auction, so i think there will be some of that. the priority coming out of the box, at least on the house republican side, is to do some very close scrutiny of the net neutrality decision that just came out from the fcc, and both chairman upton and chairman walden have called for hearings with the full commission and also potential joint resolutions of disapproval which will be a little more challenging coming out of the senate. but to look at that very closely, and i think because that was a very party-line vote out of the fcc very recently, there's a bit of a partisan feeling opening in this congress. so we'll get to cooperation, i think, down the road, but first there'll be very close review of the net neutrality decision. >> host: connecticut run mc-- catherine mccullough, your view on the net neutrality

issue. >> guest: he issued the release with chairman upton and also with lee terry, and i think that my colleague here is right. i think there's going to be a lot of review of that early on, and i think that a lot of the action, you know, once the initial flurry goes on in congress, i mean, the divide there is pretty well defined. so i think the next thing we're going to see, of course, is the next bit of action happening this courts. and i think it's very interesting that even though everyone is, seems to be divided on this issue and very far apart on what should occur and what neutrality should look like, you know, everyone is in agreement that a delay in determining the playing field hurts everyone. and yet i think, you know, that's, of course, what court action is going to mean. >> host: both of our guests are telecommunications lawyers and still involved in telecommunications policies following their stints on capitol hill. juliana gruenwald with "tech

daily dose." >> host: do you see tech and telecom policy issues playing a primary role in the house gop agendasome. >> guest: absolutely. it's widely agreed and this is senate and house and, of course, republican and democrat that technology is the growth engine for our economy. and our international competitiveness. so i do think it will play quite a big role. i mean, clearly, the house gop has announced it priority is health care repeal, so that's going to take a lot of energy, and then, of course, after that is energy. but telecommunications is important, and because as cathy mentioned there is a lot of broad agreement on what needs to be done, i mean, not quite how to do it, but what needs to be done. i think, you know, once you clear through those other issues, you are going to see some focus. certainly, chairman upton has a long track record in telecommunications policy, he chaired that subcommittee earlier on, so he understands

telecom. greg walden is a former broadcaster from early days, and i read recently he's one of the few licensed ham operators, you know, amateur radio operators which is, you know, has kind of a specialized niche. so he understands spectrum, understands the importance of it. so i think it will become, it will be a big issue in this congress. >> host: now, he hasn't really, mr. walden hasn't really outlined his agenda. in addition to net neutrality. what else do you see him acting, what other priorities do you see for him? >> guest: well, certainly universal service reform. he comes from a rural state, that's a very important issue for rural residents, you know, to get all services and to the extent there's higher costs in rural areas, you do need some kind of subsidization. the debate recently has been about reforming the program to cover broadband subsidies, so i think that's going to be an issue. he's bringing on as one of his staffers someone who chaired the

state regulatory group on universal service. and certainly the vice chairman of the subcommittee, lee cherry, has had a longstanding interest as has chairman rockefeller. so i think you are going to see that be a focus too. >> host: speaking of chairman rockefeller, will he push usf reform this congress, and do you see it happening? >> guest: i don't know if i see it happening. chairman rock rockefeller's very interesting in that he is very consumer-oriented in the avenues that he pursues. so on the one hand the argument could be head that if usf is reformed, bills will go down, and that's a consumer angle that chairman rockefeller could pursue. on the other hand, he also comes from a rural state. he's very concerned about getting good service for west virginia, is so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. i actually think one of the key players will probably be someone like senator demint who is on the committee, of course, has some very sharp staff who know

how to really get their way around telecom issues. but also, you know, a fiscal conservative, and he is against, in principle, kind of, you know, waste. and i think that you can maybe look to him for some leadership on how this issue's going to play out. >> host: is usf -- why is it such a money issue? [laughter] >> guest: well, depending on how you look at it, you have kind of shall we say entrenched interests in the states. that, you know, receive money for the services they perform. and so if you're, you know, a start and, obviously, you know, you're interested in your state interests and then you also have, you know, the national interest to consider about this national program and how to broaden it to take in new i technologies, you're in kind of, you know, you have kind of a hobson's choice there. so it's going to be interesting. >> guest: and it's a money issue

because in a competitive industry it's quite a burden on carriers who are contributing to the fund. the fcc sets the contribution factor. interesting word, but it's a mandatory payment, a percentage of their interstate revenues, and of late it's gone to historically high levels. 15% or over 15% of interstate revenues are supposed to be paid into this fund that the entity working under the fcc's governance pays out to eligible carriers to help, you know, expand service. but 15% is quite a high number, and not all carriers are subject to it because fcc regulation on internet. so you're also seeing less andless people really participate and then more of the traffic is going, moving on to internet platforms. so there's, it's becoming more ask more of an issue, more acute. it's a lot of money involved, and there's a lot of competitive distortions involved. this may be the year it gets done. >> host: lee terry had drafted a

bill with former congressman rick boucher to reform usf, and he recently told me he was looking for a democratic partner to work with him in the 112th congress. do you see any likely democrats that would work with him on that? and if be not, do can you see the fcc acting, and do they have the authority to do what needs to be done on their own? >> guest: yeah. i understand the democrats are still organizing their subcommittee leaderships, so i don't know who's going to sort of take those roles on. but i think there's plenty of democrat members who might be interested because it is, it's an important issue. particularly as the fund may move to cover broadband. so i think there's a number of members who might step up to do that. but, so it is an issue. and what was the second part? >> host: the fcc -- >> guest: oh, yes. they have stated they have authority to reform the fund. and the language from the '96 act is fairly broad to give them power to amend it for --

>> host: do you see them acting? i'm sorry. >> host: go ahead. >> guest: yes, i do see them. they're going to act one piece of it in february. it's already on their agenda. >> host: catherine, where does congressional legislative power end and fcc authority start? [laughter] >> guest: i think everybody wishes they knew the answer to that question, and i think that the courts are going to be the ultimate arbiters, of course, they usually rah. and i find it very interesting that both congress and the administration tend to ignore the courts a little bit until they're pretty far down the road and the courts come down with a hammer. so, you know, for instance, that's, you know, a very important question when it comes to net neutrality. as i said, we're going to be going to the courts over that issue. i think it'll be, you know, interesting to see how it comes out. i'm not so sure the courts are going to give the fcc what they want. >> guest: before i went to congress i actually worked at the fcc, so i took to heart the

provision in the commune caigs act that basically says the fcc can do whatever it wants in order to regulate interstate communications. and, of course, then i went up to congress, and it's a different story. the congress committees are actually unusual committees if this that their role is spelled out this constitution which is not very typical. but the ability to regulate interstate commerce is spelled out in the constitution and given to, you know, the commerce committees. and it's that authority that is delegated, you know, expressly in the communications act to the fcc. so there is always that yin and yang, you know, as to how much discretion the fcc has to fill in the blanks of what's not actually in the communications act. and that is the debate that cathy's alluded to in terms of net neutrality. and i wanted to pick up on one other point. in terms of mr. walden's priorities, i do think he'll be looking at the broadband stimulus funds be allocated. two years ago there was a lot of

money, about $7 billion, allocated to commerce and to agriculture to help stimulate broadband and, you know, a lot of that money has gone out the door, and i think this congress and presumably on the senate side as well will be looking at how that money was spent be. >> guest: and i think chairman issa will also with looking -- be looking at that issue. >> host: speaking of darrell issa, his name is starting to pop up quite a bit when it comes to telecommunications policy. do you see him playing a role in moving some of these issues forward or stopping some of thesish i shoos -- these issues? >> guest: i do. like greg walden, he has a technical background. he holds patents, he has a number of them. he is interested, and, of course, he represents a district in california where tech entrepreneurs, obviously, have a lot of political influence. so, yes, i think he will be just from his district's concerns and his own background, he will be interested in that. >> guest: talking with a member of the subcommittee staff this

morning, and it turns out that he is going to be going for seven hearings a week. [laughter] between -- yes, that's a lot of energy. and so i think that he is very serious in his, you know, in his determination, you know, review programs and to look at where government's role is and should be. >> guest: of course, he has letters to industry associations including those in the communications sector saying tell us, you know, what regulatory programs are undermining job growth, undermining innovation, so he already has stepped into that space. >> host: this is c-span's "communicators" program. we're discussing the 112th congress and telecommunications policy. trisha paoletta and catherine mccullough, former senate commerce committee counsel on the democratic side in the 1990s. juliana gruenwald is the editor of "tech daily dose of the

national journal. >> host: tom tack ya, a former congressman, said yesterday that his firm would like to see congress revisit the 1996 telecom act. do you see that happening? could some of these net neutrality, these fcc authority issues be clarified with a rewrite of the telecom act? >> guest: last year there was a lot of talk about rewriting the act, and i don't think that's going to happen too early on in this congress because you have a lot of new members who don't have the decades of experience that some of the departing members had. so i think you might towards the second half of the year start getting into hearings to help educate those members. but i don't see that happening early on because of the other priorities including net neutrality they'll want to get through. >> guest: i degree. i think that because of the factors that were just mentioned here and also because, you know, you have this situation where nobody is fully in the majority, nobody feels full control. i think that the first focus is

going to be on oversight hearings and on investigating specific matters. and when things calm down, then i think you might be able to see a chance of having kind of contemplative discussions and kind of gatherings of people who want to look at different sections of the act. and there was some talk about about that happening haas congress. and when these committees are going to get all this time to go and kind of rationally, you know, pick apart the telecom act, i don't know exactly when that's going to be, but i don't think it would be in the early part of this next congress. >> host: where do you see the senate and the house working together, on what issues? you mentioned spectrum, but are there other areas that you see, you know, senate democrats and house republicans working together on? >> guest: well, you go ahead. >> guest: i do. i think since there's going to be some kind of baseline privacy legislation worked out. i think that, you know, the

issue of privacy has ripened, certainly, from, you know, when i worked on it several years ago. the technologies have kind of come to fruition. and these definitions of what should be regulated, people are kind of coming to more of a consensus about that. and then in the marketplace it seems as though there might be a necessity, for instance, we hear about facebook possibly going public. that has tremendous implications for all of our private information. and it's difficult to see how i, you know, a company like facebook can make promises to its investors when it doesn't quite know how all the information that it has can be used. and so it'll probably with useful -- be useful for that field to become clear so that investment can go forward. >> host: do you see congress blessing the idea of a do not track mechanism that the ftc has called for in their draft privacy report release in

december? >> guest: possibly. i think after hearings. i mean, the committees move very quickly once there was -- you know, the do not call list, that legislation moved very quickly. and often, you know, congress is reactive if there is some privacy catastrophe, certainly they will move very quickly on that. another area i think of possible joint interest will be on public safety spectrum. there's -- and part of that will be because representative king who is the incoming or the new chairman of homeland security and senator rockefeller share an interest in how to allocate new spectrum for public safety, for interoperable network. and i think their approach differs somewhat from the house energy and commerce chair. the they do introduce legislation on what's called d block, it's ten megahertz of spectrum. that might put some pressure on house commerce to react to that.

>> host: catherine mccullough, on the opposite side of that coin, where do you see the senate and house maybe butting heads? >> guest: that's an interesting question. you know, the senate and the house work together at least on the commerce committees more than in many other committees on each side of the aisle. you know, the telecom world tends to be small, and people tend to know each other. the so, you know, a lot of the disagreement that you see even though, you know, you see opposing letters being sent and that kind of thing, actually when that's going on sometimes there are talks going on behinde going to see it, of course, on net neutrality, the way that the ds and the rs are al divided. and i'm sure you'll find it over issues such as usf reform and that kind of thing too. but we'll see. i think that, again, over these consumer issues, you know, like privacy you're apt to see, you know, a bit more coming together andal on issues, like i said, you know, in the blog where

there are money issues where it looks like money can come into the treasury. you're going to see a lot of iofrerat cooperation from a lot of different places. >> host: coming from the d side of the aisle as you do, were you relieved when fred upton became chairman of the house energy and commerce committee? [laughter] >> guest: what a question. i, i do think that he was a good candidate for it. i wouldn't put it up as relief. i, i'm, i think, i'm glad to, that he's the chairman. i'm glad that congressman walden will also be there. i think that he has a lot of good insight. i think that these -- the important thing is for these committees and subcommittees to be held by people who have some kind of understanding of these highly-tentacled areas. i think that helps everyone come to consensus and create laws for everyone. >> host: trisha, fred upton as

chairman coming from the republican side of the aisle. >> guest: and as a telecom lawyer ask lobbyist i'm thrilled that he's there because he does understand the issues and in terms of republican principles and governance, he has always articulated a preference for reliance on market solutions and letting, you know, technology involved. don't come up with an answer to fix a problem that isn't really there. so i think that gives a lot of comfort to folks in industry, you know, across the board in the different sectors of communications. >> host: getting back to privacy, who do you see being leading players on that? in the house joe barton has been outspoken on the need for privacy legislation. who do you see sort of stepping up to the plate in the house, who do you see stepping up to the plate on that issue in the senate? >> guest: ing i think in the house they'll take a measured view and hold some hearings. there's somewhat of a difference in approach to privacy, so i don't think you're going to see anyone initially jumping into

that and leading the banner and saying this is a priority. perhaps looking at it in this a more measured approach. >> host: do you see bobby rush's bill being at all a starting point in the house? and he may very well be the ranking member on the telecom subcommittee. >> guest: i think there'll be discussions on that, but i don't see verbatim that bill being the vehicle that one of the republican p member introduces. >> host: okay. >> guest: i think that the boucher-sterns bill that was, you know, the discussion draft was issued during the last congress. i think that that could serve as a basis, and i think that that bill combined with mr. rush's bill could serve as a basis. i mean, i think one of -- again, one of the important things about representative boucher was that he understood these issues very well. his staff understood these issues very well. and he worked together with mr. sterns very well. so i think that what you had come out of there was a pretty

strong indication of what a baseline privacy bill will look like. and i think, you know, when you see a bill come out -- >> and i do -- and i do say that bill will come out -- it will be a baseline approach in order to attract republican votes. and then there will also be some elements of industry self-regulation which, you know, of course, the industry has been doing for many years now. >> host: if you would for just a second reflect on the loss of will boucher to the congress and to telecommunications policy. >> guest: i was, obviously, disappointed. i thought that he was terrific. i thought his staff was good. again, i like his consensus approach. but i think that, again, if congressman rush comes on, i think, you know, he'll probably take less sons from -- lessons from mr. boucher's chairmanship and probably do the same thing. >> host: catherine, in the last congress or seems like the last two congresses so much of the attention has been on the energy

and commerce committee and not on the senate side. is that reflective of senator rockefeller's leadership for whatever reason, or is it, or is it just because e and be c has that vibrancy? [laughter] >> guest: vibrancy's a good word for it. i think part of it is a matter of jurisdiction. of course, on the house side enc has health care. i think that that has a great deal to do with it. the commerce committee on the senate side has always been kind of reserved in some ways. they like to have consensus, for instance, in their committee votes. you know, they don't like to have a lot of -- they don't have a history of liking to have a lot of stuff play out in the press usually. you know, the two sides, two staffs get along very well. they certainly did when i was there. we were directed under no uncertain terms to work it out

as my chairman told me. and, of course, senator inouye and senator stephens called each other brother, co-chair. so on the senate side there's a definite cultural issue working there that, of course, you don't have in the house often because, you know, the house is all about rules that allow the majority even with one vote to ram something through, and the senate is all about the minority with one vote stopping something from going through. [laughter] so you're much more incentivized on the senate side to find consensus. >> host: trisha, same question. >> guest: why is the house more vibrant? because the house is, of course. [laughter] some of it is personally-driven, and catherine alluded to the close relationship between some of the senators. so i think i'll leaf it at that. -- leave it at that. yeah -- well, no, i will add. some of the more recent chairmen are big personalities, so i

think you've seen that through the culture. >> host: juliana gruenwald. >> host: one area where senator kerry who's the chairman of the communications subcommittee on the commerce committee in the senate was very vocal last year was on this issue of retransmission disputes between broadcasters and cable companies. now, do you see congress getting into that, or do you think they'll defer to the fcc now that the fcc has indicated that they may do a rulemaking on that? >> guest: media issues always tend to get a lot of interest in congress for a variety of reasons. so i think, yes. certainly, it's not a priority right now, but certainly that will get some bandwidth down the road. >> guest: i think if fcc does not take care of it particularly when you're getting closer to the elections, that's one of those kind of consumer issues that resonate with the voters that all of a sudden, you know, the dark horse, you know, issue comes up and all of a sudden it gets resolved and gets a lot of attention. >> host: media ownership. will that be addressed in the

112th congress? will the rules be with changed? do they need to be changed? >> guest: do they need to be changed -- >> host: updated for today's telecommunications world? >> guest: i don't see it being a hot button issue. of course, you know, the review's going to be the review, but i think that with everything else on the agenda in terms of congressional action there are more things ahead of it on the agenda. >> guest: and there was some concern expressed last congress by some of the republican members that some of the fcc's proposals that, perhaps, given cuts in journalism budgets by media companies that the government must fund the media. and i think that causes a lot of concern. and actually chairman walden, now-chairman walden and representative pence introduced a bill addressing some of those issues. some i think in congress at least on the house republican side there will be close monitoring of the fcc's

proposals on that. and if necessary, there'll be legislation introduced that they are concerned with some of those proposals. >> host: you mentioned legislation. i think it dealt with the fairness doctrine, and that's been an issue of interest for mr. walden. do you see him pushing that legislation in the 112th congress? that's if he hasn't made any moves in that area. >> guest: yeah. i think because he's now chair he won't do anything unless it's necessary, right? chairmen tend to hold back and see what's important before they put their chop on the line. as necessary. >> host: final question. with today's telecommunications world, are they outdated at this point? would you like to see an overhaul of the telecommunications acts? >> guest: i think that will does need to be at least an examination of several issues. if this net neutrality issue can't get worked out in a consensus fashion reasonably

quickly, then i think that is, perhaps, a reason to open up larger issues. again, it's kind of been talked about for a while. that is the difficulty with telecom policy is that you have these technologies that are continually changing, and it's difficult to kind of hit the moving target when it comes to, you know, making sure the government is responsible to it voters. >> guest: for your viewers, the communications act is divided by sector. and, of course, we are seeing more and more convergence in the real world. you've got tablets which is convergence of a lot of different technologies. you have video on your tablet, it's a device where you can also speak, it looks like a cell phone, and currently those different contents and services are regulated by different bureau within the commission. so there is a challenge, but who's going to drive that is the central question because as we've heard from some members, it'sco