first of all, i think that the commite itself, the energy and commerce committee which is one of the old toest committees in the congress, is really the committee of future. its jurisdictions are so broad and so powerful, and it's very exciting. and so to step into that position, which is not easy to do because you have to be elected by your colleagues, i think, is an enormous

opportunity to leverage everything that is there not only in communications and the internet and technology, but how that is applied to, increasingly, to health care, the other jurisdictions, the fda, the nih. and so it's very exciting, and i think that i have a skill set that fits with that and the leadership style that can leverage that. so i did announce my candidacy earlier this week and is will work hard at it. but it'll be a long effort as well. and i look forward to it. i think the competition is very important, the competition of ideas the candidates have, and then members will take their decision. >> host: how would you describe your working relationship with your current chair, greg walden, on the subcommittee, and fred upton, the full chair? >> guest: i think we have an

excellent relationship. we respect one another, we have, of course, we've served together for some time before i was the ranking member of the subcommittee. and i think that we've produced important legislation on a bipartisan basis. i remember saying to the chairman, greg walden, you know, in our day, in our time the congress is really dysfunctional. but we can set a different model and an example here, and we did with the large spectrum bills that we did last year. we worked on that for almost a year of and a half. and i'm proud of that. and that's what the american people want. >> host: well, joining our conversation about technology issues is kate tummarello of "the hill." >> thanks, peter. following up on the ranking member question, i mean, you've been such a big player in the tech and telecom space.

if you were to become ranking member, what would change on the committee? how would the democratic focus shift? >> guest: well, i think that what's important to, first of all, appreciate is the very broad talent that's on the committeement and i think that -- committee. and i think that it's very important to be collaborative with members, number one. finish -- and to enhance the opportunity of service at the committee. it has to be more than just showing up and waiting for an hour to ask five minutes of questions, pause that's really the only -- because that's really the only time that you have there. so i think that that's very important. every member of congress was motivated by something to run for congress. they have passions about things. and i think to harness that with the jurisdictions of the committee and look for

opportunities to create opportunities for people, i think that that's very important. and so i think i do bring a different skill set to the committee. i served for many years on the health subcommittee and produced a lot of legislation that was signed into law by both republican and democratic presidents. so i think that those z very broad jurisdictions of the committee, i have a very deep and broad understanding of and have worked on them, so i'm excited about it. you can tell i am, you know? >> the other big announcement recently is your net neutrality bill -- >> >> guest: yes. >> after the court decision overturning the fcc's net neutrality rules. it seems that there's already opposition, which i'm sure you expected. what are you hoping the fcc does in addition to responding to the court decision and also responding to the pressure your bill puts on hem?

>> guest: uh-uh huh. well, i did introduce a bill that essentially keeps in place the rules of the road -- if it were adopted, which it will not be -- but i think setting a bill down in the congress of united e united states in the form that it is in really reflects millions and millions and millions of people in our country and, most frankly, around the world that want the internet to remain accessible, accessible and open and free to them. so that's a very important principle. now, i read the case in what the, you know, what the federal court said. very interesting. a couple of elements. verizon brought the case. they sued. why did they sue? they did not want the fcc to

have any kind of authority in broadband. that says something in and of itself. two, the court's response was the fcc does retain authority in broadband. where they, what they struck down was how the fcc had interpreted the different sections of authorities that they draw from. but very interestingly, the court said it shouldn't be this way, but you should consider the following items. which is unusual for a court to do that. i'm not a lawyer, but i think that that's unusual. so this now will be in the hands of the fcc. i think that they have a road map. i think that they have a deep

and broad awareness of what has made the internet the powerhouse that it is and that i don't think there's anyone that uses the internet that would say i want blocking, and i want discrimination. so let's see what they do. i think it's important for the commission to be cautious, of course, because the court case, you know, was kind of split. but i think upside of it is is that the court gave them a direction where discrimination and blocking can still be addressed in a way that would meet the muster of the court. >> host: anna eshoo, could you support broadband being reclassified as a common carrier? >> guest: i think it's -- you know, as a legislator i'm not so much in in the weeds on that. if that's the best way to

accomplish it and the fcc believes that's the best way to accomplish it, what i want to see is that the internet remain free, accessible, open, no blocking, no discrimination. that's my overall goal. that's what has made it what it is. this is now one of the great entrepreneurs of the united states of america. we invented this. this is our genius. this is our ingenuity. and so that's why i wanted to continue and prosper the way it is -- that's why i want it to continue and prosper the way it is. this is not, i don't believe, a democratic issue, republican -- well, it certainly isn't a republican issue, because they don't see it my way. i think this is all about the consumer and their experience and what should be retained so

regardless of who you are, where you live in the country, where your color is -- what your color is, what you do, what your economic background is, it's all neutral when it comes to the internet. and that's what i want to see. that's what i want to see retained. i think we have a strong case to continue that. >> host: what have you been hearing from the companies in your district, the googles, the netflix, etc. >> guest: well, there are varying positions from companies, and that's not a surprise because their economic interests are tied to that. and i believe that my position helps them. i don't think any company is congratulated or viewed in a positive, through a positive lens if they block or discriminate. that's not what consumers want. so i think that this can be structured so that it retains

the original values and the structure of the internet but, of course, it has to go through a regulatory body, the language that they use, the sections of the law that have given them, the congress has given them, and they're more than capable of doing that. we have five excellent commissioners, a full commission, a new chairman of the commission who is skilled, very full background in this area. they all do. so i'm looking forward to working with them on it. >> host: kate tummarello. >> so not directly related to the net neutrality rules, at&t announced its sponsor data plan which they say will help consumers because they won't have to take data away from their data caps. i mean, excuse me, how do you perceive that argument? is that kind of treading on the ground of net neutrality violation in spirit if not in the letter of the law? >> guest: well, i think it does.

why? because it affects the consumer. it starts splitting up an audience. it's as if you're doing, breaking down different groups and users and segmenting them. that's not what the internet has been about, and i believe if it had begun that way, then it would not be what we know it to be. so i understand a company's interest. i mean, they have of to have -- they have a bottom line. they have to perform for their shareholders. i understand that. but i think overall in terms of consumers it's not the track that is attractive to me, let me just put it that way, you know? >> on the topic of wireless carriers, there are rumors about a sprint/t-mobile merger. i know you've talked about the

importance of competition in the wireless marketplace. you know, t-mobile and sprint advocates could say that this would help them compete against at&t and verizon. we've already seen signs from the administration that they think it could decrease competition. where do you stand on the reported -- >> guest: well, first of all, there is not an actual proposal that's been placed before the fcc. but there is a lot of conversation about it. what i would say about this particular case that you've raised is that they all have to be subjected to the scrutiny in the following way: what produces the most competition in our country? we essentially have a duopoly that operates today relative to communications in our country. how healthy is that? if that's what is best for

consumers, is that what is going to bring the price down for consumers in terms of what they want to buy? so i don't know all the things that are in the proposal. i certainly will look at it. but the agencies that have to examine this, i hope, will examine it in terms of what will produce the most competition in our country. that's part and parcel of capitalism in our country. and when there is fierce competition, we know who wins. the consumer wins. people are under a lot of pressure. the average consumer today is under a lot of pressure in the terms of their bills and what they pay. and, you know, in many cases it just keeps going up. so i think that they'd like to see -- i know my constituents say we want more competition. so i think it has to be examined with that as a major operating

principle. >> host: you're watching "the communicators" on c-span. anna eshoo is our best. she is the top democrat on the energy and commerce's communications and technology subcommittee. kate tunnel tummarello of "the s a technology reporter with that publication. anna eshoo, you recently announced the congressional student apps program. what is that? >> guest: very excited about it. congressman bob good last -- goodlatte, a republican, and myself are co-chairs of this effort. launched in the house, the seal of approval from the house administration committee because it is officially congressional. it's not an individual effort, it is a congressional effort. and the reason for it is the following. we know looking into the future to 2020 what the demand will be in the area of s.t.e.m.,

science, technology, engineering and math. we also can project what the shortfall will be for those jobs, those very important jobs leading out into the future. and so the decision was made that we would challenge young people -- high school students -- to come forward and participate in this challenge. and they will design their own apps, they -- all high school students in each congressional district in the country. as of yesterday, 129 house offices members have signed on, so it's totally bipartisan. but what i find so exciting about it is i know that this challenge is going to be responded to. and it can be transformational

for students. and what career paths they follow. and so i think it's just terrific, and you can see by the response of members that they really, they see in this, i think, what i do. so i'm excited to co-chair it with congressman bob goodlatte. we've worked together as members -- as the co-chairs of the internet caucus, and so i think this is a wonderful opportunity for young people in our country, and it's going to, i think, reap a great deal. >> host: is there a time frame on it? >> guest: there is. there are some deadlines relative to when applications have to be in -- >> host: so people who are interested, could they go to your web site? >> guest: they go to our web site, absolutely. and if they don't know who their member of congress is, there is

a tool to find out. you just type in where you live, and then you can call that congressional office. >> i know the house energy and commerce committee has dedicated itself to kind of rewriting the communications act which governs the fcc. this seems like a long process. what are you kind of anticipating from that? is. >> guest: uh-huh. well, when i paris went to the committee, when i became a member of the committee in january of 1995, the committee was writing the telecommunications act. it's important to note that it took many, many attempts, many attempts before it was actually successful. so this is a very long, winding road. this is not something that gets done in nine months, in 18 months. i think that -- i mean, i'm open to it, but i also think that we should examine, because it's a long-term effort, that we have an appreciation of the things

that we can accomplish in the short term and not put them off for certain years or six years -- for seven years or six years from now. i think it's also important to know what you want to accomplish. just to say you want to do it, well, that's, i guess it's interesting. but i think you need some markers in this. but overall, i'm open to it, and i will work with all of my colleagues to help shape the direction, and what i think we can take onboard short term as well as those that are longer-term issues in our country relative to communications and technology. >> is retransmission consent one of the issues you think should be taken up sooner finish. >> guest: i think that's short term. i think that's short term. and i think we could accomplish that with the reauthorization of stella. and representative scalise and

myself both have bill withs, we're working together. we have a lot of enthusiasm between us in terms of understanding what's broken and what needs to be fixed. so we have more work to do, but i do think that we have the capacity to address this because i don't think it's a sustain bl business model -- sustainable business model. i think that consumers really are at the short end of the stick when these blackouts occur. i don't think anyone can defend these blackouts. and so there's work to be done. we need video reform. we shouldn't have to wait five, six, seven years for that. >> host: can you give us an update, representative eshoo, on yours and mike rogers' work on the securing of the communication links in the u.s.? >> guest: well, congressman rogers, as you know, is not only a member of the energy and

commerce committee, but he's also the chairman of the house intelligence committee. and i served on the house intelligence committee. we have term limits there, so i was there when he was there, so we have partnered on many things even more successfully at energy and commerce. we had a real meeting of the minds in different matters. there's no question that we have to address cybersecurity in our country. interestingly enough, federal government represents 5% of the pie. 95% is in the private sector. so how do we leverage what needs to take place between the private sector and the government? sharing is very important, but there has to be some guarantees for companies to share. so there are parts of the legislation that i didn't like

or didn't agree with, but overall the has to be addressed -- this has to be addressed in our country. this takes place every single day. all you have to do is ask anyone that's walking in or out of target or nieman marcus. i mean, we have a problem. we have a security management problem in our systems. and the snowden revelations, what that says to me is that in our intelligence community that we didn't have the security management that is necessary to secure, essentially, the family jewels. so this is a huge issue. and the jurisdictions of our committee weigh in on this and the homeland security committee as well, the house intelligence committee. this is going to take a real bipartisan, grown-up effort on

the part of members to address this, because it is the public and the private sectors. and now we see these huge incursions relative to consumers and what that does. i think we need far better reporting, i think, to consumers. but before we -- that's after something has happened. we need to be able to prevent these things. >> host: do you foresee this year legislation on data breaches? >> guest: i don't know. i have to tell you, i don't know. i hope so. i hope that that will be nearly at the top, because we're living with this every today now. almost every week -- every day now. almost every week or every month, something comes out. and, you know, the average person can't fix this themselves. i read that they're writing checks and using cash because they don't trust the system.

and we need -- one of the most important factors in our economy and the reason we have the broadest, deepest markets in the world is the confidence factor. and when that is chipped away at, it's not good for us. it just is not good for our country and our economy. >> host: kate tummarello. >> shifting gears, i know you were very involved with patent reform. >> guest: yes. >> i'm curious what you think of the innovation act which passed the house as compared to congressman goodlatte's bill which some would say got watered down a bit but some would say got more reasonable. what are your thought on what's happening in the senate now? how closely are you following that? >> guest: well, i'm proud to have been an original co-sponsor of the legislation with chairman goodlatte, and the things that you mentioned that were changed in the bill, i welcome that.

that means that that is a result of building consensus which you have to do in order to get something through. no one gets 100% in these things. in fact, if they do, i question it. so strong bipartisan effort, and it addresses a huge issue in the terms of these patent troves. if companies have to spend that are actually innovating some $29 billion and that has increased over a handful of years 400%, something is broken. something is wrong. so i think that we did a very good job with the bill in the house. now the senate will take it up. they will scrutinize it as is often the case. the senate doesn't agree with everything in the house, that's our system. but i do think that this must be addressed.

this really calls out for a remedy in this area. >> you also have a federal i.t. procurement bill. >> guest: i do. >> it seems like a lot of talk happened after the health care web site problem. do you think that provides enough momentum to kind of get this bill off the ground? >> guest: well, i think one of the things that's really important in this is, you know, they say timing is everything. that the american people, the congress of the united states saw the rollout of healthcare.gov and bungled comes to mind, and it goes downhill from there. what i said when we had the hearing at our committee in asking questions of the contractors, i said if the congress is really interested in doing something about this, we need to pursue i.t. reform. so it is not only the example of

that, but my knowledge also from being a member of the house intelligence committee. the federal government spends $80 billion with a b dollars a year on i.t. procurement alone. this is an area that cries out for reform. the gao has listed since the '90s high risk. it's estimated by some that $20 billion is wasted. that's a lot of money. so i've introduced the bill that, based on my experience but also meeting with many, many stakeholdersings, and it's bipartisan which is very important. and i think addresses this in a very clear, workable manner and what the bill calls for. but this is a lot of money, taxpayer money, and we can do much, much better. we can do much, much better.

and we have to open the door for more competition in terms of smaller innovative companies that may, indeed, be able to build out a much better system. hay don't apply -- they don't apply now because you need a team of lawyers to pull together a 1900-page application, you know, response to an rfp and then agencies have their own supplement that may be up to a thousand pages. they simply can't compete. so i think that this is an area that is really ripe for reform. taxpayers would benefit from it and the product that comes out of the executive branch, all of the agencies, i.t. is absolutely part and parcel of all of this. so it's not just one part of the government, but we can learn a

great deal, i think, from the private sector, come up with a better, workable product hopefully for a better price but also, as i said, save taxpayers a great deal of money. it's an important area. >> host: and finally, anna eshoo, recently we taped this program with the head of the internet board, and he talked about he's pushing for a loosening of the u.s. stewardship of the internet and making it a more international stakeholder management board. do you have any initial thoughts on that? >> guest: i don't know what the specifics are in terms of that principle that he has put out there. so i can't do a deep dive on it. i think that we know as the country that mothered this, that gave birth to it and how it has

operated that i certainly have a vision of how that needs to be retained. but i'm always open to robust ideas on how to improve that. as long as it's not diminished, as long as it's not diminished. and many countries around the world have a different view. you know, they really regulate the internet. and from societies that are not open, democratic societies. i don't want to go there. i don't want to see that. but i don't want to discolor what he may be putting on the table. >> host: anna eshoo is ranking member of the energy and commerce communications and technology subcommittee. kate tummarello is a technology reporter with "the hill." this has been "the communicators" on c-span.

>> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your television provider. >> booktv continues with historian will swift. mr. swift recounts the relationship between president richard nixon and his wife, pat. the author utilized recently-released correspondences between the nixons and interviewed trends and family members to examine the couple's marriage amidst richard nixon's political career and presidential tenure. this is about half an hour. >> first of all, thank you all for coming, and thank you so much to sandy and the foundation for inviting me. the book, "pat and dick," literally came out on