they felt this was inappropriate and subsequently they would never be allowed into the united states or in the european union. the second complaint was that american officials european union officials were blaming -- claiming ukraine was overwhelmingly for the european union because of the size of the -- there were hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating against same-sex marriage but the socialist government said wait a second. we have won the election and we have the majority of the legitimately elected parliament. we decide what is in the best interest of the country not the size of the crowd. .. glian

>> host: i guess the -- >> guest: i guess the reason is

there is no reason why they should not go address the demonstrators, but i think it is true that it isn't clear whether the majority of ukraine citizens want to go in one direction or another because it is as a split society. in 2004, during the orange revolution, you have russians doing things, but they didn't do it this time. they stayed in russia. but people in the united states questioned as well why, since the president was democratically elected, whether the united states should be going ther thed push ukraine in a certain direction. russia played this well i

believe this time. >> host: it is really important, and imformitive.

>> guest: this is the committee of the future. its jurisdictions are broad and

powerful. it is very exciting. so to step into that position, which isn't easy to do, because you have to be elected by your colleagues, i think it is an enormous opportunity to leverage everything there. not only in communications and the internet and technology, but how that is applied to health care and the other jurisificatijuri jurisdictions. it is very exciting. i think i have a skill set that fits with that. i did announce my running this week. it will be a long effort and i look forward to it. the competition is important. it is competition of ideas that

the candidates have. >> host: how would you describe your working relationship with the committee? >> guest: we respect one another i think we have a great relationship. we served together for some time before i was the ranking member of the subcommittee. and i think we produced important legislation on a a bipartisan bases. i believe saying to greg walden in our day and time the congress is dysfunctional. but we can set a different model and example with the large spectrum bills we did that. last year we worked on that for almost a year and a half. and i am proud of that. that is what the american people want. >> host: well, joining our

conversation about technology is kate tumarillo from the hill. >> if you were to become ranking member, what changes on the committee? how would the democratic focus shift? >> guest: i think what is important to first of all appreciate is the very broad talent that is on the committee. and i think that it is very important to be work with members and increase the number of services at the at the committee. it has to be more than showing up and waiting for an hour to wait five minutes of questions because that is the only you have there. i think that is 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 is 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 republicans and democratic presidents. so i think that those very broad jurisificati jurisdictions of the committee give me a deep and broad understanding of them. i am excited about it. >> the net neutrality was the other big decision you made. it seems like there is significant republican

opposition, which i am sure you expected. what are you hoping the february fcc does in addition to responding to the court decision and the pressure your bill puts on them >> guest: i did introduce a bill that would keep in place the rules of the road, if it were adopted which it will not be. but i think setting a bill down to the congress of the united states in the form it is in really reflects millions and millions of people in our country and around the world that want the internet to remain accessible, accessible and open and free to them. so that is a very important principle. now, i read the case and what the federal court said, it was

very interesting. a couple of elements. verizon brought the case. they sued. why did they sue? they didn't 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 what they struck down was how the fcc interpreted the ruling. the court said it shouldn't be this way, but you should consider the following items and that is unusual for a court to do. i am thought a lawyer, but i

think that is unusual. this will now be in the hands of the fcc. i think they have a roadmap. i think that they have a deep and broad awareness of what has made the internet the powerhouse it is. i don't think there is anything who uses the internet that would say i want blocking and i want discrimination. so let's see what they do. i think it is important for the commission to be cautious, of course, because the court case is split. but i think the upside to this 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, you know, as a legislator, i am not so much in the weeds on that. if that is the best way to accomplish that and the fcc believes that is the best way to accomplish that -- what i want to see is that the internet remain free, accessible, open and no blocking and no discrimination. that is my overall goal. that is what has made it what it is. this is now one of the great inventions of the united states of america. we invented this. this is our genius and that is why i want it to continue and prosper the way it is. this isn't i don't believe in a

democratic position and certainly isn't republican because they don't see it my way. but i think this is all about the consumer and their experience and what should be retained. regardless of who you are, where you live in the country, what your color is, what you do, what your economic background is, it is all neutral when it comes to the internet. and that is whau i want to see. that is what what i want to see retained. -- what -- >> host: what have you hearing from the companies in your district? the googles and netflix? >> guest: there are varying positions from company and that is not a surprise because their economic interests are tied to that. i believe my position helps them. i don't think any company is

congratulated or viewed through a positive lens if they block or discrkri discriminature nate -- discriminate -- that is not what people want. i want this to be structured and it has to go through a regulatory body with the language they use and the sections of the law that the congress has given them. and they are more than capable of doing that. we have five excelliant commissioners, a full commission, a new chairman in the commission who is skilled and very full becomeground iin this area. they all do. >> so, not directly related to the net neutrality, at&t announced their sponsored plan

saying it will help people. how do you perceive the argument? is that trading on ground of net neutrality and in spirit, if not, in the letter of the law >> guest: i think it does. because it affects the consumer. it starts splitting up an audience. it is as if you were breaking down different groups and users and segmenting them. that is not what the internet has been about. and i believe if it had gun -- begun -- that way it would not be what we know it as now. i understand the company's interest. they have a bottom line they have to perform for their sha shareholders. i understand that. but i think overall in terms of

consumers it isn't the track that the attractive to me. let me put it that way. >> there are rumors about a spri sprint/t-mobile merger. the advocates could say it would help them compete against at&t and verizon. where do you stand on this? >> guest: there is not an actual proposal that has been proposed to the fcc. what i would say about this particular case you raised is they 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 the country. how healthy is that? is that what is best for consumers and going to bring the price down for the consumers? i don't think all of the things 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 is part of capitalism in the country. when there is fierce competition, we know who wins: the consumer wins. people are under a lot of pressure, the average consumer is under a lot of pressure in terms of their bills and what they pay. and you know, in many cases, it just keeps going up.

so i think they would like to see -- i know my followers want more competition. so i think it has to be examined with that as the major operating force. >> host: you are watching t tth the the - the --" the communicators" here and we have anna eshoo as our guest. you announced your education effort and talk about that >> guest: it received the seal of approval because it is congression

congressional, not an individual, effort. the reason for it is the following: we know looking into the future of 2020 what the demand will be in the area of science, technology, engineering and math -- stem. we also can project what the short fall will be for those very important jobs leaving outs into the future. and the decision was made that we would challenge young people, high school students, to come forward and participate in this challenge. they will design their own apps and all of the high school student in each congressional district, as of yesterday, 129

house members have signed on it. it is totally bipartisan. i am so excited about it because i know this challenge is going to be responded to and it can be transformational to students in what career paths they follow. i think it is terrific. you can see by the response of members that they have really -- they see in this what, i think, i do. i am excite today cochair with with bob goodlet. we have worked together as the cochairs of the internet caucus. this is a wonderful opportunity for young people in our country. it is going to, i think, reap a great deal. >> is there a timeframe on it?

>> guest: there is. >> host: could people go to the website if interested? >> guest: absolutely. if they don't know who their member of congress is there is a tool to find out after you type in where you live and you can call that congressional office. >> i know the house energy and commerce department has decide to rewrite the telecom act. how do you see that going? >> guest: when i started working in politics, they were first writing the first attempt. it took many, many attempts before this is successful. this is a long, winding road and it isn't something that gets done in nine months or ever n

18. i think that, i mean i am open to it, but i think we should examine, because it is as a long-term effort, that we have an appreciation of the things we can accomplish in the short-term and not put them off for seven years or six years from now. i think it is important to know what you want to accomplish as well. it is easy to say you want to do it. i guess it is interesting but i think you need markers in this. i am open to it. and i will work with colleagues to help shape the direction and what i think we can take on board short-term and longer' term issues that are going on on in the country.

>> do you think you should we should take up recommunication? >> guest: i think that is short-term. and i think we could accomplish that with the reauthorization of stella. i have a bill, and another representative has a bill. and we have a lot of excitement between us in terms undering what is broken and what needs to be fixed -- understanding -- i do think we have the capacity to address this because i don't think this is a 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 the blackouts. we should not have to wait 5-7 years for video reform. >> host: can you give us an update on your's and mike

roger's work on the securing of the communication link lis in t united states? >> guest: i served on the house intelligence committee. we had term limits there. i was there when he was so we have partnered on many things, even more successful at energy and commerce. there is no question that we have to address cybersecurity in the country. the federal government represents 5% of the pie interestingly enough. 95% is in the private sector. 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 guarantees for companies to share. so there are participants -- parts -- of the legislation i didn't like or agree with, but bottom line, is this has to happen in the country. this is happening every day. you can ask people walking in and out of target. we have a problem. we have a security management problem in the system. and the snowden revelation says we didn't have the security management necessary in our software to secure especially the family jewels. this is a huge issues. the jurisdictions of our

committee patience way in on his, the house intelligence, the homeland security, this is going to take a bipartisan issue to address this. is the public and private sectors. and now we see this incursions. we need to prevent thes things >> host: do you foresee legislation on data breaches this year? >> guest: i don't know. i hope so. i hope it is at the top because we are living with this right

now. every week or month something comes out. the average person can't fix this. i read they are write checks and using cash because they don't trust the system. and one of the most important factors in our economy, and the reason we have the broadest and deepest markets in the world is the confidence factor and when that is chipped away, it isn't good for the county or economy. >> i know you were involved with patton reform. i am curious what you think of the innovation act compared to the original bill that some way was watered down and some say it was made more roeasoreasonable. how close had you are you -- how

close are you following that? >> guest: i am proud to be a member of the chair. the things you mentioned changed in the bill, i welcome. that is a result of building concensus which you have to do to get something through. no one gets hundred percent in these things and they do i question it. strong bipartisan effort addresses a huge issues issue in terms of patton controls. if companies are actually innovating $29 billion and increased overing -- over -- a handful 14% -- something is wrong. i think we did a good job with the bill in the house. now the senate will take it up.

they will scrutinize it as often is the case. that is our system. but i do think this must be addressed. this really calls out for a remedy in this area. >> you have a federal it procurement bill. it seems like a lot of talk happened after the health care website problems. do you think that provides enough to get this bill off the ground? >> guest: i think one think that is important, they say timing is everything, the american people, the congress of the united states saw the rollout of health ca care.gov and bungled comes to mind and downhill from there. what i said when we had the

hearing and hearing the questions from the contractors, i said if congress is interested in doing something, we need it reform. so it is my knowledge from there, and being in the house intelligence committee. the federal government spends $80 billion a year on it procurement alone. this is an area that cries out for reform. the gio has listed since the ' '90s that is high risk. i have introduced a bill. i met with many stakeholders. it is