storyline of the day. because everyday there are new attacks, and there's new word about this being a terrorist command center, et cetera, et cetera but these are the people i've known for many years, the people i admire have spoken of building an institution, supported by the muzzle community that would be of service to the entire nation. ..

>> host: finally o own spectrum, what about the issues of first met? are you pleased with the efforts that are going forward in that area tragedy i'm cautious on the efforts going forward. i'm concerned to make sure that the states are properly represented with the law enforcement and fire public safety community is a properly represented. it's disturbing when one of the persons or board members come

out of the public safety committee is pretty upset. about how things are happening. it was not a majority voice but an important voice. as you may or may not know when we did our oversight hearing on first met, i raised some concerns about the person that is emily qualified cio having been there a couple of states now works for the federal government. she's the representative for states. it's like saying a different company will represent yours on a board because you once were there. it's not the same. and so we will watch it. i think they're running into some of the obstacles we thought they would and some of, our proposal on the house was maximize the local infrastructure that's available, assets that are available, build up from there. what ended up in the long run was more top down approach.

but i think they are finding that has its own set of problems, especially when it comes to allocating costs. we have the witness from virginia who talked about the potential cost of the local fire departments that would be, i don't know, double, triple, a huge increase over existing budget and they're like i don't know how we can afford to do this. we've got to make sure they get it right. that's part of our due diligence as a committee. you don't just pass a law in a way i'm also joined our conversation is tony rahm of political spin i would like to talk more about spectrum of options. when the cbo did its assessment of the spectrum while they came back with a database of more than $20 billion of revenue from its in the options. as you pointed out some of that money went towards paying for middle-class jobs act, someone to first net. are these to holding the sec to that number or is that number now all of it unlikely? is it too inflated to expect more than $20 billion transit i don't think we really know at

this point but i think what we do know, i think this is correct that in the past the budget office estimates, the value of spectrum, usually in an auction if it's designed properly, they have auction failure. .. >> guest: they can limit. but what i wanted was the players to be at the table who

have the money. and we also put language in there to say also consider regional auctions so that other players can be at the table as well and have an opportunity to participate. so it's, you know, these are balances you've got to try to achieve. short answer, i think they can hit that 20 and probably exceed fit they do it right. >> sure. as you, obviously, know, the fcc's undergoing a significant leadership change right now and, frankly, a firm of purities -- a number of priorities that have been sitting at the commission. what do you think the fcc should do? should it continue to do some of this big legwork on the spectrum auction or wait? >> guest: no, i think they should continue. certainly, there's so much done at the staff level. first, let me also congratulate her for crashing through the glass ceiling. it's really impressive. she's an impressive member of the commission. i've worked with her on some issues, and she's very tall

lented and very bright, and i congratulate her on becoming the chairman, at least until mr. whiler's confirmed by the senate. yes, i think they should go forward, there's just too much work not to. >> are you afraid some of the work might be delayed? >> guest: it comes up to the commission level, so i don't think that the staff will be necessarily negatively affected by this. thai got outside -- they've got outside consultants they're working with to design the auction, so i would hope they wouldn't hit the pause button. we need to meet our deadlines, they theirs. we need to continue the active oversight back and forth. >> one last thing on clyburn just in the meantime, should the fcc take a step back and not do anything mayor while she's in

charge, or should clyburn have all the powers and capabilities -- >> guest: yeah, she's in charge. look, she's going to manage it properly, i think. she's not going to suddenly seize the kingdom and pull up the drawbridge. she doesn't operate that way. she's very thoughtful, and her creeings on the -- colleagues on the commission, i think they'll continue to move forward. and i think she would be cognizant of the fact you're going to have two new commissioners on and probably a new chairman. so i'm sure she'll be thoughtful. >> what are your thoughts about wheeler? folks praise his business experience and some in the public interest world who think he's too closely tried to telecom interests. >> guest: you know, first of all, i think he's a very tall lented, very bright individual who has a great depth on the business side which i think is important on the commission. you need people who know the realities of these different agencies that are changing so

rapidly. the part that troubled me were some of the writings he's had going back to 2011. because you know the work i've done on fcc process reform where he thinks it's fine to use merger conditions to effect and regulate the market which i find offensive, frankly, from a public policy standpoint. if a commission, whichever commission you want to pick; not just fcc, but others, because not have the regulatory authority to affect the marketplace on its own, it shouldn't use the extraordinary power it has to approve or deny a merger to exercise market changes that it can't do through a regulatory environment, and here's why this is important. because you've got other players in the market that aren't part of the merger that are going to be assumption to whatever -- subject to whatever the condition is. and that's not really fair to the other participants in the marketplace, and he's written very specifically that he thinks

that's a way to leverage more power to the fcc. if they don't have the underlying authority, i think it's wrong to have, you know, three people, in effect, a majority of the commission that could just say we're going to hold you to this because we can't accomplish it over here, so we'll do et through -- do it through your merger. some people might call such a strategy extortion because who knows what they're giving up to get something bigger. >> host: congressman walden, in a recent speech to the national association of broadcasters you said you see the fcc has been more concerned with expanding authority than working with us to embed better processes. >> guest: yeah, i think that's -- and i mean what i say. i would also quote blair levin who said recently the fcc is becoming more of a political institution and less an expert agency. and that's what i think people get concerned about is when they

feel like agencies whether it's this one or other ones we're hearing about in the press seem to have their own agenda and move away from sort of good public policy processes. and i felt that way with the fcc, i've said that there. i felt that way with the merger conditions especially. now, julius did a lot of reforms that have been good, and i know he's leaving, and he and i had a good relationship. we didn't always agree, as you know, but, you know, he did some good things to the reform processes, but he also pushed pretty hard on an agenda that he had, and i'd like to see them get back to being the expert tactical agency and not a policy-making body that really goes beyond what congress is. we're the policy-making body. they should be the expert agency. >> so let's talk about the future of fcc process reform. you know, you guys tried pretty hard last year to advance that legislation. >> guest: passed the house.

>> didn't get through the senate. there was a lot of angst. where do we go next if. >> guest: we're going to go right back at it. look, there are those who opposed our effort who think process reform means allowing the sunshine act to go forward which is ironically named, inappropriately named, because it allows commissioners to meet in private and conduct business. public officials have to do their business in public. this sunshine act says you get to do it in private with some safeguards around it, and i actually could support it if it's connected to other reforms. have shot clocks that you set, predictable timelines, and then if you don't meet 'em, tell us why you don't meet 'em. don't do these enormous data dumps that nobody has time to read and comment on. so we're going to move forward. i'm passionate about this, having good processes in government. it's part of why i led the

transition team and changed the house rules under speaker boehner. i'm a journalist by training and education, and i think open, public process is a good thing in government. >> so how do you do it though? this became such a pretty call debate -- political debate last year. >> guest: we haven't made those decisions yet. i'd like to find partners beyond what we had, certainly, and build on what we had to move forward. for the life of me, i can't understand why the democrats are against the more accountability and transparency at the fcc, and tsa all we're saying. -- that's all we're saying. i tried to make the case, as you know, tony, to julius and others that, yes, you did reforms, but when you're gone as chair, you could have another chairman come in that has a whole different management style, and all your reforms are gone. why don't we codify them so they go forward? we saw under certain chairmen in the past a pretty dysfunctional

fcc develop. >> do you have a timeline? >> guest: yeah, we do, but i'm not going to tell you. [laughter] it's on our agenda this year moving forward. we've also got, of course, the satellite home viewer act, and i just appointed the work group on supply chain, but it's, as you know, both of you, this is a priority for me -- why do you refer to the fcc as a friendly candy company? >> guest: oh, it's a phrase. my dad got his amateur radio license in 1934 as a ham radio operator, and he was in broadcasting all his life as an engineer, owner/operator, so he referred it to as the old candy company. i think that had to do with, you know, how you use words more letters, you know? fcc is the friendly candy company. >> host: representative walden, you spoke about stella, the satellite television extension local act, what would you hike to see done? -- like to see

done? [laughter] what's your vision? >> guest: you know, it's interesting, peter, we have people in the marketplace who say you don't need to do anything, let it expire. the marketplace has changed. people go, oh, no, reauthorize it very narrowly. and then there's a whole collection of folks who say that's going to be a must-pass bill, add on this, that and the ore thing. -- other thing. so i'm kind of a methodical guy on this, so we had a hearing on what is stella. why is it here, and then where's the marketplace changed? so we'll have another hearing fairly soon, i believe, on this issue, and we're going to continue a very methodical path to look at all the issues and then make some decisions where we go. i haven't honed in on exactly what i'm going to do or what the committee's going to do. it's not just me. but the video world is going through enormous change.

i think a huge paradigm change right before our eyes with the, you know, two to one decision in the court where they can basically download the signal off air, put it up on the internet and say that's okay. that has huge consequences potentially. and so you've got a limited basis in just one market but talking about expanding. you've got satellite providers thinking, well, we can get around transition here. maybe we'll do that. you've got a cable company that said, huh, we'll look at that too. and all of a sudden the whole business model and marketplace is getting tossed around pretty rapidly. >> well, when it comes to stella, are you going to try to prevent it from coming a christmas tree of legislation? >> guest: yeah, i'm going to have hearings, and we'll look at all the issues, and we'll see. my hunch is it ends up being a pretty clean act. and, again, i prefer to do sort

of one thing at a time and not have all these other things, you know, hooked on. but if it's, you know, i don't know. maybe we should -- that's where we should put process reform be, how's that? [laughter] i hadn't thought of that. i like this. we could get this dope. >> host: well, you also mentioned the aerial decision. >> guest: i was surprised by the decision. >> host: were you supportive? >> guest: no, i'm an old radio broadcaster, so i'm not a tv guy. i look at that and think that's a disrupter in the marketplace sort of like hopper's a disruption in the marketplace. disruptions aren't bad fessly, but this one really has, i think, much bigger consequences as people are beginning to read into it. >> sure. and just to piggyback off of that, you have others like fox that are talking about pooling their signals just in response. how does that play on capitol hill? >> guest: well, i think that's all part of the discussion because, you know, at some point

producers of programming have to have a way to get paid, or you aren't going to have programming. somebody's got to pay the bill, and a lot of that's been through the various financial arrangements among the providers and the tv stations and all of those very complicated mishmash of laws and rules and legacies. if that goes away and somebody's taking your product and putting it up on cable for free, basically, then all of a sudden you probably have to look at how you change that model. and that's, i think, what chase kerry was carefully saying at the nab in his remarks and, of course, it sort of lit up every switchboard in the telco world. but i think he, you know, he didn't say they were going to, but i think this is the point i'm making, you've got everybody sitting back going, wait, what just happened? what do you do if you don't have contracts and you're the local broadcast provider? i don't think we know all the

implications here. and again everybody's like, okay, a 2-1 decision in one court doesn't make this formal everywhere. >> host: in that same nab speech, you said you're not convinced retransmission consent needs need reforming at time. >> guest: uh-huh. that's true. >> host: why? >> guest: most of these agreements have been reached now. we want a marketplace that works. that's my sort of fundamental philosophy whether it's in broadcast, cable, wireless world. i want competitive marketplaces, and i want marketplace to work. i don't want government coming in unless the marketplace fails. and so here you have most of these retransmission consent agreements have now been signed. i think virtually all of them are. and some of them are now extended out four years or eight years. and so the marketplace has worked in that respect, and i think that's a more efficient way to deal with this than to get into a rate-setting body or having government create what's going to get paid what for what.

that, to me, is not agile, nor a good way to go. >> host: what do you think of john mccain's reintroduction of the a la carte bill? many. >> guest: you know, there's a lot of talk about the pros and cons, and certainly some of the smaller cable providers like the notion. i'm not sure it's the panacea that many think it is that suddenly you can just pick the shows you want, or they only have -- remember, you still have that whole tier i requirement locally where the broadcast signals are there, and you go above that. i don't know if he's talking about getting rid of that. and again, you wonder what that does to the pricing model and to the wide range of programming that's out there. i mean, there is the trade-off that says, um, with the current system you get a lot more programming that, frankly -- and maybe consumers wouldn't want it -- but, frankly, wouldn't exist otherwise. because there wouldn't be the consumer demand probably for it.

and it gets bundled in and this, that and the other thing. so i think you have to be very careful. that would be a real interesting disrupter of the market, and i'm not -- some think it'll be great and work, and others say it would be a disaster and people don't know what they'd be getting into. suddenly you're going to pay a whole bunch more for programming. >> let's talk about cyber. there were those two cybersecurity hearings before energy and commerce on tuesday. talk a little bit about the takeaways from there. are you happy with what you heard about the president's executive order focused on critical infrastructure? >> guest: well, you know, it's better than where he started a year or so ago where he was just against this and all. i think he came a long way. i tell you, tony, this is the biggest threat america faces is cybersecurity threat. and we heard that across the panel, even panelists who had a little disagreement about what you do about it, i think they all agree this is a very serious problem for the country. and so that's where i think mike

rogers has done a terrific job as chairman of the permanent subcommittee on intelligence and a member of our subcommittee. i asked him to chair a terrorist supply chain work group to bring members together and dive deep on these issues. that vulnerability is a big issue for america and for our security, and i think they'll develop a lot of good information for the full subcommittee on it. but going forward i think it's a matter of trying to figure out how do you, how do you determine where there is a vulnerability perhaps in a specific piece of equipment or a brand or line of equipment, how do you communicate that, who makes those decisions. those aren't easy to figure out, you know, how you get from here to a good housekeeping seal of approval on a piece of equipment. and if you're out there, some of these organizations, companies that have been talked about, you

know, are price leaders in the marketplace. by a significant amount. and so if you're out there trying to build out a little system here or there, a big cost differential which makes a real incentive to buy that equipment, and yet we have published reports indicating there may be problems with some of that equipment. >> sure. and on the supply working group, do you have a timeline under which you wanted to operate? >> guest: you know, i try to not put too many tight parameters around them. the value of the work group is they can bring in people who might not otherwise be the company's, not make 'em available to testify, you know, because then they get whacked with all these other issues, so we can get some real technical experts in, we can go into classifies environments, and we can, i think we can find -- what i'd like to find is, is there a way to get to procurement improvement and figure out where the vulnerabilities really lie, and then what's the most reasonable course of action. >> on procure can't, just to

follow up on that, there's been a lot of talk about requiring government contractors, those sorts of folks to adhere to certain standards. it's been pretty controversial. as far as we can tell, what do you think about that process? >> guest: you know, i think we -- this gets to the issue of, and literally i know somebody that was, that got one of the grants to build out broadband and putting together a proposal to do it and then got a call and said i don't think that equipment's going to be appropriate. and that person then called me, what's that about? i don't know, you know, we kind of figured it out. and this came out in the hearing that we had. this is sort of random. there's no standard out there. this' no consistency, there's no -- it's sort of this random call in the night, if you will, that says don't do that, and then it's classified. so we're trying to figure out how do you have a system in place that's more predictable, understandable and open to. >> host: representative walden, just recently the house passed

your internet freedom bill. why did you feel a need for that legislation? >> guest: well, because we didn't do so well in dubai, you know? i think it was 89 nations believe that there should be, use the old legacy itu, international telecommunications union structure to regulate the internet. this is legacy authority that's designed to deal with telephone calls over, between -- among countries and over copper. i mean, that's kind of where it all started. and you've got some actors out there in countries that probably don't embrace our first amendment rights and freedoms like we do, and they want control of the internet through the itu process, i think, in order to be able to control what's going on on the internet. and i don't mean illegal acts, i don't mean piracy and that sort of thing. i mean looking at your e-mails and figuring out who's speaking

out against the government and tying your ip address to your street address so that they can suppress speech and all. and is the internet's one of the greatest growth engines in the history of human kind, and anyway, we didn't do so well with. 89 against us, 50 some were for us. as we were voting on that, in switzerland there was another meeting going on, a precursor to the one next year in south korea. and i just felt as did my colleagues in the house we needed to take this up to a higher level now and make it the policy of the united states which puts it in statute that the multistakeholder approach to management of the internet is the best way to manage. it's what's given us this great engine of economic and speech -- >> host: so where is that in the legislative prosecution? >> guest: so it passed the house 413-0. as you know, there was some concern by some of my democrat friends that somehow taking exactly the same language they all voted for last time and

putting it in as a statute somehow might effect the net neutrality issue where we have disagreement. so we backed off, we got language they agreed did not offend that issue, and we moved forward and on a unanimous basis. so i'd be hopeful the senate would pick be it up and pass it. i don't see why they wouldn't. >> host: unfortunately, we are out of time. pardon me. greg walden is chair of the communications and technology subcommittee at energy and commerce. tony romm is with politico. [laughter] gentlemen, thanks for being on that iter. >> guest: thank you. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> what are you reading this summer? booktv wants to know.

♪ ♪ >> let us know what you're reading this summer. tweet us @booktv, post be it

on our facebook page or send us an e-mail at booktv@c-span.org. >> now on booktv, vladimir alexandrov recount it is life of frederick bruce thomas. thomas, the son of former saves, lived and worked throughout the united states before leaving for europe and eventually emigrating to russia where he became a successful owner of numerous restaurants and theaters, then turkey where he ran several nightclubs. this is a little over an hour. >> it's a pleasure to be at the the bookstore, and thank you all for coming. so the story of how this book came about began six years ago for me when i read a sentence that changed my life. i was reading the memoirs of a russian singer who was very popular at the end of the first world in russia. his name was alexander