48 hours of the book programming beginning saturday morning at eight eastern through monday morning at eight eastern. .. ing american tax >> this week on "the communicators," a discussion ony technology and

telecommunications policy withia representative greg walden,tton chairman of the house subcommittee on communications. >> host: chairman greg walden, if you could start our "communicators" this week by telling us, what is your legislative agenda for the 112th congress? >> guest: we have a number of issues we're going to take up in this session of congress on the communications and telecommunications subcommittee. first of all, we started with a review of what the federal communications commission has done on net neutrality. obviously, our side believes they didn't have the authority, and we've been through the hearings, and i'm sure we can get into that later in the program. second is looking at fcc process and reform. chairman genachowski has put in some reforms, and i'm not picking on this commission. i think over time there are issues that come to the fore, there are processes that have, people have had some criticism about how rule makings move forward at the commission. and surprising commissioners and big changes late at night, kind

of what congress was doing for a while in this former chairman of the gop transmission. we tried to change that in our rules. the fact that no two commissioners can talk to each other about a policy issue is an issue they've raised with us, and there are members of both sides that say maybe that's something we ought to look at so they can actually talk to each other. and then, of course, there are issues related to the universal service fund. the fcc is working on some proposals on universal service reform, intercarrier compensation, all of those very technical issues, and we've got members in our subcommittee that have an interest in that. spectrum, who has it, who's using it, who's sitting on it, what are the needs, what's the value, how do we address the public safety need in a way that we can afford. broadband, where are we at the rollout? $7 billion was spent in the stimulus or at least obligated. it's all out the door, but it isn't all spent. i want to make sure we're

getting our money's worth, whoever's putting it in the ground, are we getting the fiber, the throughputs when it is connected? who's doing the oversight and evaluation there? and there'll be a host of other issues, i'm sure, as we go forward. >> host: well, if we could start with the net neutrality issue. your committee voted 15-8 to overturn the fcc's rulemaking on net neutrality. you used the congressional review act in overturning this. what was the purpose of that? >> guest: yes. right. you know, twofold. one, this is a very specific law that was passed in a bipartisan manner, senator reid in the senate helped get it through back i think it was in '95 to just address regulations that far big consequences that the congress says, wait a minute, we don't agree with you. so the vantage, frankly, for those of us who seek to overturn this government regulation of the internet is that using the congressional review act means that it can be brought up in the

senate. it is a privilege motion, it is, there are 40 senators that sign it, it has to come to the floor, and it's not subject to the filibuster. so if you're where i'm sitting and want to do something about repealing a rule, there is a shot clock that starts at 60 days. it's a complicated way to count 60 days prescribed in statute, but it gives you a real opportunity to move an issue forward and not get it road blocked in the senate on a filibuster. >> host: i'm going to read you two quotes and get your response. these are from your colleagues on the energy and commerce committee. henry waxman, quote -- regarding this week's net neutrality hearing. republicans couldn't get a single major broadband provider to testify in support of their resolution. and anna eshoo, who's a ranking member on your subcommittee, to upset the apple cart would be fooling around with something we shouldn't be fooling around with. >> guest: okay. so you want me to take chairman

waxman's comments first probably. look, when it comes to the chairman's comments, we, we are -- you're in a situation -- i was a licensee, broadcast owner for 23 years -- 22 years. if commission came to me and said either do this pad thing or this less bad thing, you're probably going to try and work out the less bad thing. and i think that's what you would find if you parse through the statements from at&t and others, that they felt like they were in a box. they have their regulator, other deals pending, commission says we think we have this authority, we're going to do title i light regulation or, by the way, we've got this title ii proceeding open where we may treat you as a common carrier and really come down on you. club hanging up here. what are you going to do? you're going to reach an agreement for the lightest regulation possible. and once you've reached that agreement, these are honorable people, i've cut my deal. i'm sorry, i can't come in and

testify against this. you know what? i don't work for a, the, and, the -- at&t or verizon, i'm trying to do best for public policy. they were the democrats' witness. we cut our deal and can't come in and go against it. did we want to be there? do we think it's mess? go back and read through the testimony from at&t, and you kind of find the words that say we didn't ask for this, but we've got to live with it because we agreed to it. okay. meanwhile, the fcc still keeps open this title ii proceeding, right? so that if they lose the court case, it's pretty obvious to me there's a gps locater that says go over here to title ii, and we'll regulate the internet as a common carrier. we've already got the proceeding open to go down that path. otherwise why wouldn't they close the proceeding? so that's from that perspective. hard to get somebody who reached

their deal back in december because they had a big club over their head. i can say the fcc is engaged in rather bullying tactics, if if you will, with some of these mergers and all. we're seeing voluntary side agreements that they're never going to speak publicly about the pressure they're under. but, you know, they've got a regulator they've got to deal with. as far as ms. eshoo's comments, look, we just disagree. the fcc, in my opinion, is picking winners and losers on the internet. if you're the provider of the flow, you're now regulated by the government. if you're a rider on be pipe, you're not. so -- and i'm not picking on netflix, i'm actually a subscriber. i'm not picking on google, they have a data center in my district, 20 miles from where i live. they're or great companies, but we're trying to look at this from a policy standpoint. we had an economist testify, dr.

dr. kovach, and she advises the financial world to invest in these companies. she's saying you can get to where the provider is not getting a return on it from those using it who, by the way, dramatically are increasing their usage. so at some point the demand on that is not connected up with a payment structure. and so you could do harm to the internet going forward if we don't get it right. so, i mean, these are issues that i think we immediate to continue to look at. -- need to continue to look at. >> host: joining us in our conversation with senator greg walden is mike zapper -- zapler, reporter with "the politico." >> host: you hear the likelihood of congress actually suck succeeding in overturning these rules is practically nil, the president would never sign it. why is the committee spending so

much time on this when there are these other major issues like broadband deployment, looming spectrum crunch? it has the feel of kind of an ideological pursuit instead of dealing with the serious issues. >> guest: and, mike, i know that's one of the arguments the democrats made. we would have had this markup done last week but for the fact they said, wait a minute, we need to have a hearing on this. so i canceled the markup, postponed it, and we said, okay -- we were going to do spectrum. okay, we'll go spend more time on this because the democrats asked us to. we got half the witnesses, probably unprecedented in energy and commerce. at the end of two hearingsing, the democrats had more witnesses in the minority than we had in the majority. it's a big issue. i don't mind spending the time on it. and they didn't mind spending the time discussing it because they asked for a second hearing. and so, you know, that's just chatter. we have plenty of time to get

after these other issues, and we tend to. we're going to run a very aggressive set of hearings and going to move forward because these are big issues. as i said, i was a broadcaster for 22 years, i know a little bit about spectrum, i know a little bit about telecommunications, and i intend to run a pretty active committee. >> host: what about the likelihood or almost certainty the president's never going to sign this? why spend all this time on this issue? it's going to be settled in the courts almost certainly. >> guest: we're building a legislative record and just because we don't live in a dictatorship. so the president doesn't just get to tell the house what it's going to do or not do. i don't believe in that. we're the last club across the country. every house member's up for election. public spoke pretty clearly. there was, by i the way, 70 or 80 members, candidates who signed up on the net neutrality card, and i i think virtually

every one of them lost. not that that was the deciding issue, i'm not going to make that case, but it's intriguing. we have an obligation to pursue it, and i don't work for at&t or verizon or google. we've had an open and vibrant internet absent government regulation. this is, even though it's a lighter touch regulation than title ii, this, you have to admit, is the fcc starting to regulate the internet. and if they fail in court as they have before in the comcast case, they may come back and think they'll reclassify under title ii. and i still think under section 706 they potentially open the door for state regulation by doing this because they balance part of their authority on section 706, sub 2. sub 1 says state regulators have the ability to regulate if you have the authority. and there are some state regulators that might say, huh,

i might start regulating. do we want to go down that path? i think there's some ieds out there. but i think it's important to at least have the discussion and get people thinking it's more than just some light touch regulation that should go because those affected got put in a corner and said they're okay with it. that's my story. >> host: you mentioned, chairman walden, spectrum as one of the issues you'll be looking at. last week on "the communicators," nab chair gordon smith called for an inventory of all the available spectrum. do you degree with that -- agree with that, and is this a fight between the broadcasters and the cell phone operatorsesome. >> guest: that's a good question, and i'm glad you had gordon smith on. a constituent of mine. i represent his hometown in oregon, and we're good friends. i would say this, i think it's important to do the inventory which is more than just identifying on a chart who has what spectrum. i think you have to go deeper

than that and look at who has it, who's using it, who's sitting on it, how much is out there. and that's both private and public which gets a little difficult on the defense side and all. but really i think spectrum is an enormously valuable asset that the citizens have, and it's our job to manage it appropriately, and there are lots of demands for it. there are enormous commercial demands, and you want to talk about unleashing innovation and new technology and jobs, look at what's happened in the cell world. we could all pull out our devices, if they didn't interfere with the microphones, they'd be in this room. the technology's gone out, and there's lots of opportunity when there's spectrum available. so that's a piece of this. what do you do with the d block? we're coming up on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. public safety still very clearly says we need more spectrum. i'd like to know how they've used the hundred megahertz that they have, what they really

need. there have opinion some waivers granted so that police and fire could build out in new york and washington and a few of the larger cities as long as it it n be interoperable. but as the president now says, give the d block to public safety at no charge runs in conflict with the broadband plan that -- and the law -- which says you're going to auction it. that's a $3 billion issue, at least that's the value originally assigned to the d block. so you have a budgetary issue and these other blocks of spectrum we need to look at. it's an issue we've just got to get into, and i assure you we will in the committee. >> host: the republicans are proposing fairly deep cuts, president obama says that's the exact opposite way that we immediate to go to compete with china -- need to go to compete with china and other global competitors. as a top republican voice in congress, what's your take on this issue and the remoney cuts -- republican cuts

specifically? is. >> guest: so here's the problem we face. first of all, you have to step back because nobody in 112 years -- 12 years ever came through my door and said, cut my spending. we have to be able to prioritize what it is that this country needs to move forward and create jobs and innovate and all that. i actually am a fan of research. i've supported nih research, supported investments in new technologies through some of the energy bills and all, and i think it's important. we have to look in the context of where's the money coming from and where's it going, and what are we getting for it as we did when we reauthorized nih and reorganized to say how do we maximize and create better communication and partnerships? without getting into the specifics because, frankly, i don't know the dollar per dollar what he's proposing versus what we're proposing, the second piece of this is, remember, in the last congress no budget was passed, first time since 1974 that the house didn't vote on a budget.

house and senate haven't all agreed, got that, but we didn't vote on that. and the continuing resolution got us to march 4th but didn't fund the fiscal year. it's just a bad way to govern. and so we're having to try to figure out how to, in a year of a record deficit -- i think 29 months in a row set a record for monthly deficits for the country. 223 billion alone in february, and we're arguing cutting 61 billion out of a $1.6 trillion deficit. >> host: are those cuts a good idea? specifically the science and research -- >> guest: well, i would say that i haven't got into the specific level -- >> host: the general direction though. >> guest: well, here's the problem, you're borrowing 40 cents on every dollar. you've got to cut somewhere. i would prefer not to cut science, sure. i would prefer not to cut research, sure. i was a small business owner for 20 years, some things are going to have to be reprioritized, and

that's where i hope we can figure out, you know, if you do what the president's proposing on d block and the other spectrum and repacking and all, rather than have that money available for other, you're cutting a new, big hole we're going to have to figure out. it's another three billion you've got to go find. those are big numbers. >> host: this is c-span's "communicators" program. our guest is the chairman of the subcommittee on communications and technology in the house, representative greg walden, republican of oregon. guest reporter, mike zapler of politico. mr. zapler, next question. >> host: i have a question just following up on the net neutrality debate. >> guest: sure. >> host: a lot of the tech and telecom issues historically have been nonpartisan. there's been a lot of partisan sniping so far in the committee over net neutrality. i'm wondering, what do you think will be the first bipartisan accomplishment of your subcommitteing? oh, i think we can find it on process reform at the fcc.

eshoo's dropped a bill on the sunshine piece i alluded to earlier, i think we can do more than that. we talked during the discussion yesterday when other people were talking, nan and i had a side conversation about potentially working together on broader reforms. i think on spectrum. i think we can probably find some common ground principles on usf. now, that may, in the end, be something the fcc handles although we have legislation that we're working on, but i think there's a lot on the tech side. this one, let's face it, this one's a controversial piece. this is the one you've got people on one side and people on the other. i got that, you know? is we didn't ask for this fight. in fact, 300 members of congress said don't do it. part of those were don't do title ii, but there are a lot of people that told the fcc at the end of last year, don't. this is, we want to operate in this sphere, and they said, no, we're going ahead. even after the election which should have been some indicators

things have changed. >> host: chairman walden, what would you like to see the fcr do when it comes to -- fcc do enwhen kit come -- when it comes to reform? >> guest: first of all, find some common ground that the fund's gotten too big. $8.8 billion and growing. there are things in some of the lifeline link-up that they've addressed that are problems that's going to explode, costs over here. i think as a sort of guiding principle, remember, i represent a district that's 70,000 square miles larger than any state this side of the mississippi. i've got a county that there's one person for every nine miles of power line, okay? so usf matters in a district like mine a lot. i want to make sure, though, that it's properly constructed and reformed so that the money that is there and is essential for service goes to those areas that without that support, you know, wouldn't survive. so we can't be taking away from them.

if we can get various reforms in place and we won't get into all those today but we're working on those, then maybe there's an opportunity to work on some broadband as well. because i want to make sure we've got broadband deployment into the last mile, the hardest to get to, the very rural areas. so i think there are lots of issues there to deal with, and we're trying to work -- >> host: rural/urban issue? >> >> guest: well, you've got sort of the doughnut in the hole, and we want to make sure the money's going outside, not inside. you don't need multiple carriers in the same market getting subsidy. people have come to me, i was in a meeting yesterday, a state i'll leave unnamed you've got third or fourth wireless carrier getting usf in the same market. really? that's not what for. so i think there's room to evaluate and say who's getting it now, do they really need it and, you know, because as you

know, both of you know, there are members of congress who want to do away with it altogether. see it as a cross-subsidy that shouldn't be there. it's 15.5% of your phone bill. i mean, there are people that say, why? why am i subsidizing your folks out there in wherever oregon? and yet we have a policy nationally as we've had with energy, we've had it with telecommunications to say nobody's going to be left off. >> host: a question about online privacy. there's an idea that's kind of gaining some traction to force web browsers to include a do not track function so people surfing the web wouldn't have their activities monitored potentially. what's your take on that, and how do do you balance the concen and the need for online privacy with the concern that a strict regime could hurt e-commerce which is booming right mow? is. >> guest: yeah, yeah. you know, it's interesting, and there are, clearly, arguments on both sides of that one.

as a consumer, i think i want to have control of that. and i think most users would want to have that. they make the decision. then if i'm going to some web sites that i do want to track me because i want to go back and, you know, they've got my information and i can order whatever and do whatever, it all works. but i think the end of the day the internet's great vitality has been driven by consumers. by individuals having control. and i think they value their previous. and they, this is an area we need to take a look at, but i think the market has generally stepped up. you know, there are already browsers that you can check and say private browsing. you know, i don't want you tracking me everywhere, you know? >> i don't know who it is, but i don't want you -- you know. and i think there is that sense. other people are fine with that. i go to a, you know, sporting goods site or something and, you know, there are others that then know i'm there, and they have offers or cooking or whatever,

you know? some people may be just fine with that. >> host: do you think congress needs to move on this? >> guest: i'm not convinced we have to jump into it right now. see, i'm a guy that believes in the marketplace as long as the marketplace can function. and if you haven't demonstrated that there's some power-harm analysis going on where the marketplace doesn't work, then there's maybe a role for government to step in. but absent that, you know, let's -- you know, when some internet provider, whatever, does something, the internet community rises up pretty quickly and slaps 'em down. it's pretty effective. >> host: are you satisfy with the the current federal laws protecting people's privacy except in the case of criminal activity or anything like that? >> guest: yeah. generally speaking, but, again, it's an i think you have your cybersecurity issues, and the speaker has asked max thornberry to lead a task force, and there

are a couple of us involved in that, so we'll be looking at all a that. >> host: any thoughts about the cuts the republicans are proposing to the corporation for public broadcasting? is. >> guest: yeah. you know, my own state a number of years ago stopped subsidizing public broadcasting. look, i used to be in the public broadcasting caucus. i'm not in asmany of those as i used to be. i've worked in with our public broadcasters. i think there's a role. the issue now, though, is how much of these shorts of -- sorts of things can we afford when we're borrowing 40 cents on the dollar? and i think any organization, this is shot the time, by the way, to be captured on video saying something that antagonizes a whole respect of either -- element of other peert. party. and i think there have been some of these things that throw up red flaks. and i've -- flags. and i've talked to my friends in public broadcasting.

they don't want to lose their cccp funding. >> host: you wouldn't favor that as it stands now? >> guest: well, i voted for the resolution that had it in it, and i think the recent disclosure on npr, you know, thai trying to address it. i've be met with pat butler, he's a friend, we've tried to talk through some of these things and, you know, i think there's a role for public broadcasting. question is, how much should taxpayers support? and if there is this attitude sort of inside the organization that would appear to be as partisan as what's come out, there's going to be a consequence. the reality, it's politically getting taxpayer money, and taxpayers are going, are we really funding that? my money's funding -- you know? hard to defend. >> host: did you receive as a radio broadcaster, did you ever receive any cccp money? >> guest: no, i was commercial. >> host: what kind of radio station -- >> guest: we had two ams and three fms, commercial.

>> host: talk radio, music? >> guest: oh, yeah. we had oldties, hot ac, country, we had classic rock, and our -- but it was, actually, we won a marconi award for am station, highest award broadcasters give out. number of years ago, great team. a lot of sports, local news. really focused on what, i think, makes broadcasting successful, when you focus on the local community's needs. >> host: so when it comes to radio issues, there's a music will of rights or a music -- bill of rights or a music issue out there about playing music out there. as a former radio station owner and chairman of the internet subcommittee, what's your take on that? >> guest: i've actually been with the broadcasters on the music royalty issue. maybe they can work this all out, and, again, i'd like to see those two industries at war occasionally could work it out. look, you've got a lot of small broadcasters out there that a

thousand a month or a thousand a year or five thousand a year is going to make a district. my district, these are mom and pop stations. the good thing about small business, you set your hours, all 24 of them. and my wife and i have done all 24 of them. foot of snow replacing a transmission line overnight, at the tower that burned out with an engineer, i mean, done it all. this stuff is hard work. and, you know, you add an extra royalty fee on top, something else you're already paying ascap and pmi, now, i realize that's a different group, but somewhere you'd hope the music industry could figure out how to compensate each other. >> host: recently, it showed there was increased brain activity, is that an issue that your subcommittee will be addressing at all? >> guest: it's not come up on the radar. i've not -- nobody's comet to us

and said better take a look at that: i think, too, now, a lot of us have gone to these ear piece devices that you plug in so you're not holding the transmitter which is the issue, i assume, they're addressing. you're not holding that antenna and transmitter right against your head. but it's not an issue that's come up. >> host: what's the number one thing that your subcommittee do do -- can do to promote job promotion? >> guest: oh, repeal the net neutrality rules. [laughter] look, i think, look, i think spectrum, spectrum allocation, getting it out there into the market. the more of it that can be out there in a commercial environment where the innovators can take it and go, you know? we talked earlier about cuts in research or not doing enough. the private sector's where multiples get done in terms of research and development

budgets. we support it through r&d tax credits, and we've all got our devices, and government's had a very small role in the development of any of those. but when somebody has a bright idea and they can take it and run with it and there's the spectrum to use. now, so i think spectrum probably is the biggest thing we can do. >> host: is it helpful to have anna eshoo as your ranking member who represents silicon valley? >> guest: oh, absolutely. yeah, yeah, in deep with those companies and has a long and very solid experience on the committee. so, absolutely. i called her the day she was picked. we got together in my office, and we've had some good chats. >> host: mike zapler, final question. >> host: question about a tax issue. the tech industry and other industries are about to push for repatriation holiday. >> guest: yes. >> host: profits overseas that they bring back, there's about a trillion dollars sitting overseas. >> guest: right. >> host: they say that's money that could be used to stimulate the economy, but by and large last time it went