politics and public affairs. weekdays feature live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. .. >> the senate banking committee's confirmation hearing of federal reserve chair nominee janet yellen. >> the senate returns today at 2:00 eastern time to continue consideration of a bill that would provide a three month

extension of unemployment insurance for over one million americans whose benefits expired late last month. later in the day, senators will continue debate on the nomination of janet yellen to be the federal reserve chair, and they'll hold a vote at 5:30. a simple majority is needed for her confirmation. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. and over in the house, members return tomorrow at 2:00 eastern for a pro forma session, no legislative business is scheduled, but the chamber will recess until 6:30 and then hold a vote to establish a quorum known as a call of the house to mark the start of the second session of the 113th congress. later in the week members plan to vote on bills related to the federal health care law including one to protect personal information used on the web site, healthcare.gov. live coverage of the house over on c-span. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by

your television provider. >> host: and joining us this week on "the communicators" is gary shapiro who is president and ceo of the consumer electronics association. mr. shapiro, who do you represent in that association? >> guest: we have over 2,000 u.s. technology companies. everyone who's involved in innovation and has electricity going through it. or. >> host: and what are some of the issues that you're concerned about? >> guest: well, we for example on the issues you would expect the tech industry. we are focused laser-like on innovation. we want to make sure innovation is a national strategy and american companies can keep introducing the neatest products to the world. you know, we dominate in so many areas. we have a lot of foreign multi-nationals, it's a global phenomenon be of innovation, but the u.s. is the world leader, and we want to keep it that way which requires best immigration policies, the best and the brightest, it requires additional spectrum, it also

requires a rational patent policy. you can invent things, but you're not being sued all the time. and it requires free trade. >> host: i also want to talk about an issue that the fcc is currently hashing out, and that's a consumer issue. the unlocking of cell phones. do you guys have a position on that? >> guest: actually, we don't. you know, generally, we're very free market. we like consumer choice. we think that products that consumers buy they should be able to establish their own contractual relationships as long as they understand what they are and they're disclosed clearly and, obviously, the government has decided that once you buy a phone and the contract runs out, you should be able to have it unlocked, and we have no problem with that. >> host: how important is the fcc to your members? >> guest: well, the fcc implement it is communication strategy for the nation, and if you think about all of the growth in our economy and where it's come from, it's really with products that hook up through telecommunications, telephone lines, now the internet. and we believe that the strategy

our nation should have is focused on broadband and choice in broadband. you know, it used to be just broadcast, then cable and broadcast, then satellite, but now there's the internet, and we want to make sure people have choice of getting all those damages different ways. fast speeds and lots of choice. so there's all different sorts of flavors of wireless broadband, and we're reaching the point in the major cities we've run out of spectrum to have that broadband. so congress and the president passed legislation mandating a spectrum auction, and we want to see that happen. >> host: what do you think about tom wheeler, the new chair? >> guest: you know, i like the pact that he's bringing gravitas, maturity and business experience. he's head of an association -- which is a great background to do almost anything. i serve on a committee that he chaired until recently, a state department committee. he led the u.s. in a very unanimous industry/government approach on some major world issues. he also allowed that state department and industry to gather together as volunteers and help when there's a crisis

around the world in terms of restoring the telecom infrastructure, and i like the fact that he's not looking for his next job. every other fcc chairman has been relatively young, and there's nothing wrong with a guy with a little gray hair every thousand and then. that's a good thing. >> host: joining you are conversation is ad lex byers, technology reporter for politico, he also puts out the morning tech newsletter. mr. byers. >> gary, let's start with innovation, that's been one of the core issues for you this year, and yet things have been pretty stalled in the house, obviously. a comprehensive bill passed the senate a couple months ago is it time for the tech industry and perhaps democrats by extension to support more of a piecemeal approach to passing the immigration bill, especially because one of the bills that, you know, may have some legs in the house is the act that is very, you know, would look at raising the number of h-1b visas

or green cards that some of your members might be able to out to use? >> guest: well, thanks, alex, and you've done a great job covering the issue. as you know, the tech industry and, indeed, democrats and republicans are united that we should get the best and the brightest people to the u.s., we should want them at the universities, we should hire the ph.d.s and masters in s.t.e.m., so we have a decision that we want this, it's important to our future, and we're sending jobs and revenue overseas which is a bad thing. so how do we get there? well, the democrats have taken the position, led by the president, this that this -- that this must be part of a comprehensive package. sadly, steve jobs predicted four years ago as he spoke to president obama, you are killing then our future as a technology industry with this strategy because that immigration overall reform so difficult. we'd love to see a stand-alone bill, but we have to go with what the president wants, he's the president. frankly, it's not the president who's holding things up, it's

the speaker of the house of representatives. until or unless he makes a decision for that to go forward, we're just marking time. we're very disappointed that something didn't happen under a democratic congress. >> so you guys wouldn't have a problem if the skillsby act or a similar bill were the one to move through the house and, you know, obviously, there's a lot of questions on what would happen then with a conference report or what the senate or the president would do, but just from your perspective, that would be a fine approach, to focus on that specifically and leave everything else to a later time? >> guest: oddly happy with any way of getting that legislation true. of it's a shame that we're holding our innovation strategy, getting the best and brightest here hostage for other purposes which are very, very important. obviously, we have huge immigration issues, and it's the job of congress to address them. we would like to see a vote on the house floor on all the legislation, and we believe skills visa will be the one thing everyone will agree upon. >> do you have any confidence?

obviously, we're sort of at the end of 2013 here, 2014 is an election year and certainly as we get closer to november of next year, there's going to be probably less legislating going on as members are out, you know, campaigning again. do you have confidence that in the earlier part of 2014 there's an opportunity for movement here at all? >> guest: i have confidence that if speaker boehner brings something to the floor for a vote, it will pass. and that's a good thing. then it can be worked out in conference. our nation is slowing down while others are going up. we see canada advertising on build boards in san francisco. we're seeing members of our best companies in the united states between our tax laws and visa policy, they're being forced to invest overseas rather than the u.s. that's a national shame, and it's incumbent upon be congress to change it. >> so it's not been just the immigration issue that hasn't moved very swiftly this year. frankly, there hasn't been a ton

of things getting done in congress, and that's even more true when you look at the technology or telecommunications sector in general. how do you guys approach washington with, while knowing that there hasn't been a lot of successful legislation especially on some of the issues that you care about most? what is the strategy to get something done whether it's at an agency or in the executive branch or this congress? >> guest: actually, i think we've been fairly successful. we got patent legislation through the house with an overwhelmingly -- >> we're going to talk about that more soon. >> guest: and that happened quickly. we got the market place fairness through the senate, and we're hoping it will get through the house. that's really important legislation that makes it so that brick and mortar retailers are in the same playing field as the, those that are selling on the internet. and that's an important piece of legislation. there's a lot of support for free trade right now in congress. that's very important. in terms of -- also, like

everyone, sometimes we're defensive, and we want things not to happen. so, you know, i think it's a matter of sometimes the senate and the house have as much problems as the democrats and republicans, so our job is to try to get them to see that there's a national interest here. we've been a big supporter, for example, of the no-labels movement which is members of congress in the middle that are willing -- not necessarily in the middle philosophically, but they're willing to recognize their job is not to be idealist, and business people are prague maists. i could go -- pragmatists. i'm happy to be in the middle of that and say let's solve these major problems, because we are -- i wrote a book last year, or this year, and it did well, and i went around the world talking about it. other countries are going for the best and brightest, they're focusing on free trade, they have great education. they want to be centers for innovation. we have to keep our first place status by having policies which favor innovation. i'm not looking for government money of any type.

what i'm looking for is basic education, free trade and the access to the best and the brightest and a reasonable litigation and patent system. >> so let's actually pivot to patents, because you brought that up. as you point out, recently the house assed the innovation -- passed the innovation act, and there's certainly at least some appetite in the senate for pursuing a bill, perhaps a particularly similar bill. how important was that to your members? there has been a lot of sort of back and forth about whether this bill would sort of stop the trolls, as people like to say, or whether it would sort of weaken b the judicial system in terms of how patents are concerned. walk us through your thinking on that. >> chairman goodlatte moved tremendously quickly on that

with bipartisan support. it is very important. from the shawlest one-person -- smallest one-person company. what we're finding, what we're hearing is that the ceo, the cxo, the executive level, time is increasingly taken up defending threats of litigation. so every company's getting letters all the time, and they're extortion letters. sadly, it's legalized extortion. and it's not good for the competitiveness of the united states. so even those that are patent owners, and almost all my members are at tent ownsers of some type, they say we're getting to the point where we have to do something. this is the strongest, most passionate issue that i represent our members on, and this is equivalent to where card check was four years ago. >> you mention bed the demand letter issue which i think is a particularly interesting one given that there were a lot of members of the house that wanted to see sort of stronger reform

provisions on demand letters put into the goodlatte bill. i guess we'll see sort of where the senate goes on that aspect. but i think one of the concerns that seem have with that sort of lahr part of the -- particular part of the patent reform debate is the first amendment concern. to what extent can you say what a person or a company is allowed to say in any letter whether it be, um, you know, a demand letter, you know, malicious or not? do you have similar concerns that the government shouldn't go too far in saying, hey, here's what you can and can't say in some type of legal document? >> well, we have so many laws that already regulate how we solicit people, how we call people up for consumer debt, how we -- what we even say to each ore because of the antitrust laws, how we do so many other things. the first amendment is the bulk work of what we are, but the first amendment just protects the government interfering with the press and free speech.

that has nothing to do with threatening an extortion letter to a commercial business enterprise. i don't think it's a first amendment issue here, but i do understand the concern. we do have to address it, but the bottom line is if the lawsuits are, if the spurious lawsuits are thrown out, that'll affect the demand letters. and you have to respond be and the process that's already in the goodlatte bill is carried forth, i think that'll cut down significantly on the number of demand letters or at least those receiving demand letters will get a quick answer from a lawyer rather than having to spend $100,000 just to get legal advice on how they should settle something. >> host: gary shapiro, when you look at the framework of telecommunications laws in this country now, do they need to be updated for our current world? or could they possibly be with updated for our current world? >> guest: well, the '96 telecom act really doesn't even mention the internet. and, certainly, it is healthy for government to understand why there's regulation going on. and we should look at that. the world has dramatically

changed in almost the last 20 years. i mean, phenomenally changed in how we get information, education and entertain. entertainment. there is an argument there's too much regulation. i believe and i would point to the merger proposed of at&t/t-mobile where when the fcc chairman, with one sentence, could cause at&t to spend almost $4 billion despite having the best legal advice this the world and to have to pay a penalty to t-mobile because he has squashed the merger and there's ambiguous laws out there, we should not have ambiguous laws of any type. we should have legal certainty. and having this standard about the public interest and necessity and things like that is not healthy. it goes to how we live our lives as american. i think you have a right to know what law you're violating. we've seen where boeing was blocked from building a factory in south carolina, we've seen it with gibson where they were stormed by federal agents for

violating india's law when india says they weren't violating the law. we've seen it over and over again. and now we're also seeing regulation that is basically collapsing our business community. you see 2,000-page laws like obamacare and the dodd-frank law, it's out of control. and it's hurting business. so if we want to look at whether there's too much regulation in the fcc, absolutely, we should. but we should do it with the principle that we want to be competitive, we want to have the best system, the most competitive system in the country -- in the world. and we want to do it without, basically, sending thousands and thousands of pages of unclear things where you're throwing something to a government agency so businesses don't know what is legal and is what is not. >> host: so that said, is the '96 law outdated, outmoded, should it go away? should it be replaced? 1934 communications law, we still operate under some aspects of that as well. >> guest: i think we have to ask yourselves some fundamental questions. we should be asking ourselves

why is it that broadcasters get free spectrum in a huge swath that fewer than 10% of the population is relying on? why is it that broadcasters have a law that says a cable company must carry their signal? and not only that, they have a choice. they can require the cable company to pay them if they don't want it. when we have a world where you have broadcast competing with cable competing with satellite competing with the internet, and increasingly citizens are choosing to get their information not from broadcast and not necessarily from cable, but from totally other sources. and why do we have laws which favor one medium over another? i think the principles should be competition, fairness, and if the government is imposing laws, they should be on all media. >> host: one of the issues that has been discussed over in this past year is the issue of privacy. the nsa taking data, a lot of your member companies are

involved in this issue. what has the cea said about privacy of? >> guest: well, privacy is dear to us not only as an industry which relies upon trust with consumers, but also because we're americans, too, and it hurts us to know that our government has been doing all sorts of things that we just didn't expect they were. so there's two issues here. one is what is the government doing and requiring businesses to do, and the other issue, what are businesses doing and what rights do consumers have. so in terms of what the government is doing, i think we have to establish some principles, and if the government is requiring businesses like a google or a hoft or a yahoo! to do something, i think there has to be a little bit of disclosure there. there has to be a hearing of some part where the other side and the googles can be heard, and there should be be some principles established, and it should be min halley intrusive to accomplish the national safety that we all want. this terms of businesses and how we're dealing with consumers, i think businesses have an

obligation of transparency, disclosure, clarity, putting things so people can understand them, and i personally would like us to see us go with a little more standardization. i'm always clicking on i accept, and i have no idea what i'm accepting, and if there was a little more standardization, i think that's a good thing. the way we do with disclosure of mileage, for example, when you buy a new or car, epa standards. the government has a role, and i think it's a very important role. i'm not saying don't regulate. a government can really encourage some standardization, uniformity in how we communicate so we all understand where we are, what we're getting and what we're getting as consumers. and also i think the government that a lot to say, and this goes to the unlocking thing, if the company changes the rules -- and this could also go to net neutrality -- if the company changes the rules, then you maybe as a consumer have the right to do something different. you can get out of your contract. so between disclosure and the ability to change your contract if the company has changed the

rules, i think we have some solutions. >> on, you were talking about the government's role in regulating or not regulating sort of on the consumer privacy issue. one of big questions has been is this a space where there should be some kind of law that says, for example, chairman rockefeller has put forth his do not track bill which would basically prevent companies or allow -- force web sites to allow users to opt out of cross-browser tracking or cross-site tracking whereas a lot of other people say that is too heavy-handed, especially when you look at a sector like technology whereby the time the law is drafted, voted on and implemented, whatever was written in the statute will be obsolete. the obama administration has pursued what they call a hullty stakeholder -- multistakeholder model where we hash things out and whatever sort of agreements come out of that are either, you know, sort of de facto not law, but sort of guidelines and sort

of if a company doesn't follow those, they're, i guess, shunned or looked down upon. where do you see -- what do you think is the best approach for handling consumer privacy? is it this sort of multistakeholder model, or is there a role for the government to weigh in this and perhaps give some clarity with this is the statute, here's what you're allowed to do and here's what you're not allowed to do? >> guest: well, what keeps me awake at night is our nation which will do something which will choke off the future of innovation. because i think innovation is our destiny and will keep our country great. we have innovative businesses. so i think whether it's because the goth is protecting the status -- the government is protecting the status quo business lobbying or because there's well meaning like, of course, senator rockefeller, rather, is correct, we are concerned about our privacy and our ability to do things, that's well meaning, that's well intentioned. but the problem with good intentions, we know what happens. if you were choking off new

development and new technology, so i think a multistakeholder approach where you're listening and agreeing on what you want to accomplish. you want to accomplish where something as people, as human, as consumers, we feel comfortable in our privacy, and we have choices, and they're very clear to us. if we could reach that goal together rather than have something forced by either side, that's a good thing. the internet is free, and it's a great source of information. but what is often being sold is the fact that you as a consumer are being exposed to something through ads, all sorts of information, so people can know about you and market to you. that's what's being sold. >> host: gary shapiro, you talked about innovation. just kicking off is international ces which is what? >> guest: it's the world's largest innovation event, it's a hands-on experience. 3300 companies con eventualing for a week in las vegas -- converging for a week in las vegas where you are seeing the future, and you are seeing where innovation actually can come to market, and anyone with a good

idea can expose it to investors, to retailers, to media. and they'll make it or break it. some investors are life savings, some companies their entire marketing budget. but the point is, this is where the world's innovators come together. we get 35,000 people from outside the united states. we have a big portion of washington which comes there, legislators, government people, all the commissioners of the fcc, many others from other countries as well in government, and they're all there for one purpose, because they know that's where innovation is going to be a real-life experience where they can see, feel, hear, touch, listen, meet people, learn things and totally be with inspired. what we have there is solutions to real types of problems we're talking about. safe driving? we have a whole bunch of stuff with technology solving some of the problems, including a special area for driverless cars. we have all sorts of stuff for disabled, allowing them to experience things. we have a whole focus on robots, 3-d printing, high-resolution

audio. there's a whole new wave of technology. this 3-d printing thing is going to be wig as -- big as well. we have drones being shown there. how do you want something? do you want it air shipped from a krone? do you want to create it yourself in 3-d, or do you want to have a driverless car drop it off at your house? >> host: now, you've also got during this week this vegas you've got several leading telecommunications corporate leaders speaking as well. >> guest: absolutely. we have the leader of almost every company involved in the world of innovation there from the head of verizon and at&t to the head of twitter. you name it, they are there. john chambers of cisco, the new president of intel, the head of sony worldwide, the head of yahoo!. so many different people. we have 900 different speakers at ces, and they all have their or creative, bright people and they're focused on the future and solving robs. and we as a society through

innovation and technology. >> host: is it open to the media -- is it open to the public? >> guest: despite being called the consumer electronics show, it is open to those who have a business connection or reporters who can cover those that are there, but that's a pretty big -- we have to keep the crowds low because we invest, it's -- las vegas has more hotel rooms than any city in the room, but they can only handle so many people. we look to keep it around 150,000 people, plus or minus b 10,000. >> i remember there was a talk about patent reform a year ago, and i imagine they will continue to talk about it this year, especially because there's still work to do in terms of legislation. on the patent issue, i remember when that bill was being voted on in the house, cea said that you were going to score this bill as part of your technology legislation scorecard. can you tell us what that is? >> guest: so, basically, we have a political action committee, and when we are making decisions about whether to give money to members of congress, what we're

saying is we're looking for members of congress that we are scoring as aligned with the world of innovation. and what their positions on immigration, on intellectual property, on trade, very important. we support members who are philosophically consistent. so for the patent reform legislation we thought it was significant and important, so we announced we were scoring this let's. when we have a pac meeting, we want to know how members have voted on different pieces of legislation. it's not a quid pro quo and, certainly, no member of congress gets a perfect score by be us. but we do score them that way and other things. are they speaking about innovation, do they care about it as a national priority, those are the things that are important to us. >> certainly, there are similar scorecards, i guess, out there, you know, from the nra or from a group like the club for growth, for example. do you have the sense that lawmakers are particularly tied into something like a technology legislation scorecard? are they saying, boy, i better

be on the right side of the patent bill, or are they more say, you know, i could get in trouble if i'm on the wrong side of the debt ceiling or budget debate in. >> guest: what i think legislators share in common, they're trying to do what's best. somehow constituents, you know, if only one constituent who's a patent troll talks to them, likely a large donor, they hay go one -- may go one way. this is really not just a patent troll who's not producing anything and extorting americans, but this is 2,000 technology companies that care about this legislation, and they're saying this is very important. that's why we do things like that. that's why we do a lot of things we do. we want members of congress to understand that when the technology industry can speak as one voice, and it has on most of these issues, this is important for the future of not only our industry, it's important for the future of our country. because our job growth and our growth in small businesses relies upon innovation. and that's what this country is built on. and they need to hear that

voice. >> host: gary shapiro, how much discussion at ces will be about spectrum? >> guest: we will have, certainly, be talking about spectrum, the auctions. we'll have every fcc commissioner there. it's a very important issue, and what i like to think is i'll explain that, when we talk a lot about an issue, there's action on it that we're. by gosh, we had a pipa/sopa press conference two years ago, and it was defeated within a month. patents were certainly talked about very visibly in january, and members of congress told us by listening to that conversation and hearing the anguish of real-life entrepreneurs and innovators that are being killed by these trolls, they were willing to step up and act. spectrum isen r an issue where it's like a ticking time bomb. we know it's a problem, we have to do something about it. congress did do something about it, it's a matter of execution. but it's not enough. legislation that was just passed recently which says that the government spectrum -- this is bipartisan -- government spectrum should be put out there and usable, and there's some incentives and ways of doing it. it doesn't get a lot of

attention because it was bipartisan, and there was no opposition. this is like a lot of things, there's many different ways and solutions, and you have to keep chipping away. spectrum issue's going to be around for a long time. >> host: so when tom wheeler comes out to ces this year and you get ten minutings with -- ten minutes with him, what do you want to do? >> guest: actually, i'll just be the neutral questioner, i'll take questions in writing from the audience, but i'll be asking about spectrum and how he feels about telecom act reform, what he wants his legacy to be, you know? tom is a very articulate guy, and, you know, with prior fcc chairmen sometimes it's a challenge. a lot of people, especially early on in their careers, they're very careful of what they say because they're not that confident or they're afraid they'll make a mistake. what i like about chairman wheeler is he's really at a point in his career where he knows the fcc, he knows the issues. he's had a long time waiting to be confirmed by the senate to

think about these issues, and i look forward to a very lively discussion with him. >> host: what technology are you most excited about this year? >> guest: you know, that's a difficult question because there's so many. i really think 3-d printing is going to change the world. because it will allow not only local manufacturing, it's been around for a while for prototyping, but it's becoming a consumer product. and there's things you can do and the way you can inspire kids, great things for their school projects or become innovators and entrepreneurs themselves, it's very exciting. there's 100,000 downloadable free things you can build be, but the next step is you design your own things and build them. to me, that is incredibly exciting. it allows the spirit of innovation to be tapped, and it's a killer product. and, of course, ultra 4k is just beautiful -- >> tvs. >> guest: it is fabulous. i am, in the long term, you know, robotics, driverless cars, they're going to solve real problems, they're going to save lives, make life better. and also all the different things that are changing o