>> here's a look at what's ahead ts morning on c-span2. next, "the communicators" with members of congress on telecom issues including net neutrality, cell phone unlocking and what they expect of the new fcc chair, tom wheeler. after that, live coverage of the morning session of the anti-defamation league's middle east summit. later, james comey talking about the bureau's role in investigating hate crimes. and at 2 p.m. eastern, the senate returns from its two week recess for a period of general speeches followed by roll call votes on judicial and executive branch nominations. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and

brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> host: this week "the communicators" is on capitol hill to interview members of congress about some pieces of legislation that they've introduced. joining us this week, marsha blackburn and steve scalise, both republicans, both members of the energy and commerce committee, as well as jared polis, a congressman and democrat from colorado. first up, here's steve scalise. representative scalise, when it comes to telecom bills and the fcc, what's sure general philosophy, your approach? >> guest: my philosophy is that one of the things that we've seen in terms of great innovation, job creation and technology in the technology industry is the fact that technologies move so fast that government hasn't figured out how to regulate it and slow it down. and that's something that, i think, has been a great hallmark

of an industry that has really been a success story in our economy, but also something that's given people so many great things to do to help change their lives. i mean, what technology's done especially in the video marketplace has been revolutionary, and in large part it's happened because the government hasn't figured out how to slow it down. when you look at what the fcc proposes many times, we've had some pushback because we see them trying to come in and get the government involved in regulating the internet, for example, and interfering with some of the growth we're seeing, and we push back, because we don't think that's a good thing for the economy or for people who love all these gadgets and devices that literally revolutionize and improve their lives. >> host: you've got a technical background, don't you? >> guest: yeah. i worked in the technology field for years, programmed computers for a number of years and helped design computer systems, so i enjoy that industry. i've always been fascinated by new technologies, and it's something that continues to, i

think, make our lives easier. but i love the innovation and what it's done to the economy. the united states is the world leader by far, and we want to keep it that way. we want to make sure that the united states continues to be the lead place for innovation in the technology arena. >> host: what do you think so far of tom wheeler's fcc? >> guest: i think it's still early to tell. you know, we did have some real issues recently with his intent of trying to get into newsrooms, for example, and literally try to police our newsrooms. that's not a place for the fcc. you know, i think it's very concerning when you've got a federal agency trying to come in and ask people why they're broadcasting things and impeding their free speech rights. so i signed on to a letter with chairman upton and walden to tell them to back down, and ultimately, they did, and we're going to make tour shah they -- make sure they don't try to reengage there. we want to make sure that he's not trying to take advantage of the technology arena that

consumers enjoy. >> host: one of the issues that they're currently working on is net neutrality and what to do now that the second court case has been struck down. >> guest: you know, and here's another example where the courts actually said that the federal government doesn't have the right to regulate the internet in the way that the fcc was trying to impose net neutrality rules. i would hope chairman wheeler would recognize that means they don't have the ability to do it and don't try and come to do some back door net neutrality 2.0. so we're going to be watching real close. a cosponsor of marsha blackburn's bill which tells the government to stay out of regulating the internet. this is, you know, this has been a great, thriving private marketplace, and it's been something that's been great for consumers, great for families who love all of the different things that they have available to them, and the government trying to interfere will only make that more complicated. >> host: representative scalise, you mentioned that the government can't really keep up with the technology changes that we see. is it time to revamp the '96

telecom act? should it be done whole piece, piecemeal? >> guest: it's absolutely time. if you look over the history of congress, about every 20 years congress goes back and looks at these laws again because technology changes so much. and, of course, in the last 20 plus years even when you go back to the 1992 cable act, the laws have been on the books for a system that just doesn't exist anymore. when you look at all of the revolution that's happened for people that not just watch tv on big screen tvs instead of consoles that they used to watch in the 1990s, but i think the brick phone was the smartphone of the day back in 1992, and yet today on your smartphone you can watch live streaming of certain broadcasts, a tv show that was on any major network last night. and yet the laws are still built for a 1990s technology that didn't even include satellite or fiber options. you literally had one cable

provider in every market with your rabbit ears, and that was the way that people watched tv back in the 1990s when these laws were on the books, and yet today it's dramatically different. in fact, there's some people that don't even have a tv in their house because they watch everything on their smart or toni or laptops or ipads, and yet the laws don't really recognize that technology. so it needs to be revamped. that's something i've been pushing very hard to do. >> host: how partisan are tech issues? >> guest: i don't think they're that partisan, you know? we have philosophical divides on maybe the role of government, but when you look at the success of the technology industry, look, anna eshoo represents silicon valley, and she's the ranking democrat on the committee that i serve on. she and i have actually had some conversations where we have some agreement on areas. clearly, we do have some areas of disagreement about the role of government in technology, but there are some areas where we agree in terms of the outdated laws that need to be revamped, you know? and just like as chairman walden

and i have had conversations, you know, there's some issues between republicans and democrats. where we do have agreement and making sure that the technology industry still is able to grow and flourish and come up with even more new, kind of new gapping led things that -- new feigning led things that people will be enjoying tomorrow. >> host: want to ask you about a couple of pieces of legislation you've introduced. the next generation television marketplace act. what is it? >> guest: that's a bill that goes to the heart of revamping our video law, the laws that literally go back to 1992 that are incredibly outdated that don't really work for today's marketplace. and, again, you know, back then when you just had a cable company negotiating against a local tv station, that might have been the way that it worked then, but today as a consumer you've got so many options. not only do you have your local cable channel, but you've also got multiple fiber channels, satellite options, online streaming through the internet, you can buy a boxtop to go and

pull movies, you've got netflix and other operators that are providing so many new options, and yet the law doesn't really recognize how the current marketplace works. so if you have an issue as a company or as a consumer, you don't have many options if except to go to the fcc and try to get a favorable ruling, and they'll literally pick a winner and a loser. that shouldn't with the way it finish be the way it works. we should go back to a competitive marketplace not how it was in the 1990s, but when you talk about where we are 2014, it's a very different world. yet the law still is based on an old technology that just doesn't work anymore. >> host: so specifically, what does that legislation do? how does it change the current law? >> guest: we repeal some of the outdated laws and basically put in place a new framework where companies negotiate with each other based on current technology. that way you have a fair negotiation where you don't have literally the heavy-handed government that used to recognize monopoly negotiating against a monopoly. when you're live anything a

world where you don't have monopolies anymore, you have multiple companies competing for a consumer, for their options on tv, for example, that really doesn't work when the laws were written for a monopoly negotiation. so that's one of the reasons why consumers don't have as many options as they could have and why the prices are still going up for your television video services the way they should be going down because of more competition. usually what happens when you have more competition, it leads to lower prices and better options, but because of these outdated laws going back to 1992, you don't have that same ability to get good competition, to get good, fair negotiations, and i think if we get back to an updated law, you'll be able to have more options for consumers and ultimately lead to lower prices with those options. >> host: what are the chances of it passing in this current congress? >> guest: it's going to be complicated to get something this big as a major reform that's needed, but we've started the conversation last congress. a lot more interest is there now, in fact, there are more

members of our subcommittee that recognize that the laws are outdated. and so we're going to continue building that coalition and whether it's this year or next year, i think you're seeing a momentum grow that it's time for congress to revisit these laws that are incredibly outdated, that make it hard for the market place to work where you've got the government picking winners and losers. that's not the way we should be operating, and it's not good for consumers. >> host: some consumer groups have voiced their opposition to the proposed comcast/time warner cable merger. where are you on that? >> guest: well, if you look at that merger, i think the one thing you should look at is how does this benefit consumers. and the fact that in most markets where both comcast and time warner operate, they don't compete against each other. so it's not like a consumer's going to lose any options. in fact, i think consumers will get better options and maybe the ability to get lower costs through the efficiencies they would have with a merger. but right now the department of justice is looking at that.

i'm real concerned that the fcc is trying to play a heavy role in the negotiation because what we've seen in past negotiations with potential mergers, when the fcc gets involved, they try to, in essence, shake companies down and try to get them to agree to things that really are bad for consumers just to get their merger talks to continue going forward. that should be the role of the department of justice, and it should be based on what's best for consumers. and i don't think fig in this merger finish anything in this merger would hurt consumers, in fact, i think it may actually help in the long run. >> host: steve scalise is a member of the energy and commerce committee, a republican from louisiana. and that was congressman steve scalise, a republican of louisiana talking about some of the tech issues that the energy and commerce committee is looking at. up next, representative jared polis, a democrat of colorado. representative polis, you've been quite active in tech issues, telecommunications issues. where did your interest in this stem from? >> guest: well, you know, it stems from what i did before i came to congress.

i was an internet entrepreneur, started several internet-based companies, a flower company, and really saw firsthand the need for a highly educated work force. we need to do better in our schools to be able to accomplish that. and for schools to offer high grid learning, online learning, even just enrichment in regular coursework, they need to have high speed connectivity. and that's why president obama recently announced his initiative to bring high speed connectivity to 99% of schools within five years. i led a letter that over 20 other members signed about improvement toss the e-rate program which helps fund high speed infrastructure in school districts across the country. but it's really the infrastructure of the future that our schools and our students need in order to be able to succeed. >> host: what do you mean, the future? >> guest: well, look, more and more coursework, supplementary work, courses are being offered online. in some schools you might see ten different students on

computers each doing their own thing, self-paced learning, focusing in small groups and better spend their time. it's already happening. if you haven't been to an element arely school recently, they're or certainly all over the map in how they're implementing it, but when you go to come some, you'd be amazed how they're using smart boards, computers. kids are able to learn at a faster rate, these outcome-based measurements to see how kids. learn. but all of the hardware and the software side can't work without the right connectivity to the school. and that's what e-rate is about. just as our government had a role in the highway infrastructure that connected our cities for the 20th century, we have a role in the 21st century infrastructure information sector. >> host: at this point is the federal government doing enough? >> guest: we're certainly stepping up with e-rate. there are additional funding implications for congress to deal with, but certainly, freeing school districts up from paperwork, looking at the best

ways to get there even if it involves capital expenses, some districts have even bonded to build the kind of broadband infrastructure that they need. so we need to get there. some of it is policy driven, some of it is financial. >> host: how partisan is the issue of e-rate? >> guest: i don't think it's totally partisan. i mean, you know, this town manages to make something partisan out of anything at times. maybe now that, you know, president obama's embraced it, i hope that doesn't make it partisan. but in the past it's been very bipartisan. it's of particular importance to rural areas. many of them have republican representatives here, but it's certainly something that they hear from their school districts, from their superintendents first and foremost because they want to be able to compete with kids who are wired in the suburbs and the cities. >> host: how connected is your district around boulder,? >> guest: we have a pretty diverse district, so i have several small towns that are very much part of the information economy. i've had major local initiatives. we also have a very large, more rural counties like grand county, you know, southern

jefferson county. so in my district i represent we have a little bit of a microcosm of the country between small towns, suburban and rural. >> host: how tech is your district? >> guest: really a center for tech business and technology, fort collins and boulder, both were named among the top ten cities for entrepreneurship, and both have thriving tech sectors in part based on spin-offs from our top research universities, university of colorado at boulder, colorado state university in fort collins, major national companies like intel, google, microsoft, have a presence, and there's a strong start-up scene as well. >> host: congressman polis, recently you led a fight against the cell phone unlocking bill. what was that kerfuffle about? >> guest: well, you know, we had a good -- so this is about somebody's right to unlock their cell phone and change their carrier. now, not if you're under contract to a carrier. some people get a free cell phone because they sign up for that. it means if you're not in contract, you should be able to unlock your cell phone and

choose your carrier. there was a a ruling by the librarian of congress that consumers couldn't. there was a good faith effort to change that. president obama announced the voluntary agreement by industry providers that got us there. this was supposed to enshrine that in statute, and there was a bill that was reported out of committee that did that, but at the last minute some language was added that really threw a little uncertainty around this bill because it created a question about bulk unlocking and the sale of bulk unlocked phones. this is important because many consumers lack the technical expertise themselves to unlock their cell phone, and there's no reason for us to have a vibrant market in communications technology. they shouldn't be available to consumers to buy. and so i wound up opposing the amendment, and it very their roarly -- it very narrowly passed. >> host: wanted to ask you about what you think about the fcc under chairman tom wheeler so far. >> guest: well, you know, i've been a fan of some of their directions. i mean, if we're talking about

net neutrality specifically, we had a setback in the courts. i think there's a little bit of a refocusing around what can be done to insure that there's open access to different content providers through our networks. >> host: are we fighting yesterday's battles in a sense when we talk about the comcast/time warner cable merger? are we not -- is congress looking forward when it comes to a lot of these tech issues? >> guest: you know, what you see is just there's a whole lot of competition between completely different kinds of companies that didn't exist. when you're getting internet access in your home or even watching tv, it used to be you watched tv or you had a cable provider. now there's everything from cell phone companies offering cable services to satellite companies to just doing it over your internet with everything else like hulu. so there's a lot more consumer choice. consumers are wearers at the end of the day, but that still means, of course, we need an antitrust approach. >> host: jared polis, democrat of colorado, joining us on "the

communicators." >> guest: thank you. >> host: and finally this week on "the communicators," we talked with the vice chair of the energy and commerce committee, marsha blackburn, a republican of tennessee, about some of her views on the fcc and other issues. and now joining us on "the communicators" is the vice chair of the energy and commerce committee, representative marsha blackburn. representative plaque burn, you've been very -- representative black burn, you've been very active in telecom issues, be why that as that taken on special resonance? >> guest: it is so important to my district, and i think it's also important to freedom because look how we utilize electronic communications now. it's kind of the backbone of our communications process. and when we have an activist fcc and they are trying to reach in and control more of what people are hearing or how they're receiving their information, that causes concern. >> host: brand new bill that you have introduced --

>> guest: yes. >> host: dealing with net neutrality. what is that? >> guest: the internet freedom act. basically what it says is that the fcc cannot implement net neutrality rules. now, that is a warm, fuzzy name they have given to what they want to do to control the access to the internet. the way the providers and the users utilize the internet system. and that would be dipping into how you nuance your speeds and how you prioritize value and content. on the internet. now, this is not a new something that the fcc is trying. they've been down this road before, and they've had legislation in congress, and congress on a bipartisan basis said no to net neutrality rules. so then they decided they would do a rulemaking and give a net neutrality order, which they did. and you can look at december 21,

2010, and then again when they published it in november of 2011. after they did that, a lawsuit was filed. it ends up in the d.c. court of appeals, federal court, and the court rules against the fcc in making these net neutrality rules. now they're saying, well, we'll go at it another way and try to implement these rules again. so it is time for congress to step in and disallow the ability of the fcc to do net neutrality rules, and that's what my legislation does. >> host: overall, what do you think of tom wheeler so far as chair of the fcc? >> guest: mr. wheeler, i think, is someone who is going to be interesting and active. >> host: marsha blackburn, you've also introduced an fcc reporting bill. what does that do? >> guest: what we're wanting to do is make certain that the fcc releases all of their information in a timely manner. we're going to go through an entire process of fcc reforms

this year. we think the agency should be more transparent, that they should focus on what they are doing with spectrum and licensing. that is their core mission. we don't want them getting off into net neutrality and trying to have governance of the internet. we don't want them off in privacy and data security issues. those go to the ftc. so it's time to narrow their focus and get them back to their core mission. >> host: you represent nashville -- >> guest: yes. >> host: -- the nashville area. there's several bills floating around in congress now dealing with songwriters, with copyright, with radio issues. >> guest: yeah. >> host: what's your philosophy? >> guest: individuals that create content need to be compensated for that contempt. contempt. just as individuals who create a widget or a new software program or an app that you load on your iphone need to be compensated

for that creation. it's all about protecting innovators and allowing the creators of this nation to benefit from the ideas and the concepts they bring to the marketplace. >> host: do you hear from your constituents back in nashville about those radio issues? >> guest: to quote a country song, once a day, every day, all day long. >> host: marsha blackburn, one of the things we've been talking with members of congress about on "the communicators" is whether the '96 telecom act, it's time to be revamped. where do you draw the line in the sand to say, okay, now we're going to start? how do you make sure, if you do, that it's adjusted to evolving technology? >> guest: well, and the thing is you don't want a telecom act that is going to be focused on the technology. what you want to do is shift the focus to end use. and the, the light touch of the '96 act has served us well

because it has allowed innovation to take place within the, within the spectrum of the internet and broadband. and that is what you want. now, with the convergence of voice video and data technologies, you're having a reshaping of the marketplace. it gets costs down, it increases access. you also with the applications that are coming on smartphones, you have new means by which you can access voice, video and data. and because of this we're going to need a light touch that focuses on end use and not on specific technologies. and what we should do is take issues one at a time and have a very thoughtful discussion about these and rook at the possibility -- and look at the possibilities for the future. we've got some known knowns out there where innovation is taking place, but we also as we

increase spectrum and as we pack down and tighten the bandwidth within that spectrum and our able to layer more slivers of voice video and data into the same width, it's going to require us to not constrain those innovators, how them -- if you pack it, to split it back out and do an attachment to that particular part. of. >> host: a lot of your colleagues have talked about a comprehensive bill. >> guest: there are always those that like comprehensive. what we have learned is that comprehensive does not serve us well. whether it was obamacare, 2300 pages has now turned into 20,000 pages of rules and regulation. comprehensive ill gration reform failed -- immigration reform failed. what we do well around here is what the american people want, take issues one at a time, be very precise where you can define a harm and twine -- define a solution and take an

action. >> host: representative marsha blackburn, vice chair of the energy and commerce committee. as always, we appreciate your time. >> guest: good to be with you, thanks. >> host: "the communicators" airs every week, 6:30 p.m. on saturdays and 8 and 8:30 p.m. on mondays. if you go to c-span.org, you can click on "the communicators" tab and watch all previous episodes online. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> we are live this morning at the anti-defamation league conference taking place here in washington looking at u.s. policy in the middle east. speaking now, israeli ambassador to the u.s., ron dermer. >> today we have a jewish state. today we have an army that can defend that state. and israel's not alone. we have the support of so many

friends around the world, especially in this great country, the united states. friends who know that israel's cause is just. the jewish people have weathered the worst that history can thousand at us, and we will -- can throw at us, so on this holocaust day as we recommit ourselves as you will in this conference to the fight against anti-semitism, racism, discrimination, all forms of prosecution, we should all stand very tall and very proud because we are uniquely blessed generation. a uniquely-blessed generation. blessed to have the united states of america, the country that has been the greatest force for good in history. we are blessed to have the united states as the preeminent power of the world, and we are blessed to have witnessed the rebirth of jewish sovereign i in modern times, and with it, a renewed hope for a secure and

peaceful jewish future, thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mr. ambassador. we have a few questions from the audience. as time permits. first question is, what's the likelihood of fume rouse other countries -- numerous other countries obtaining nuclear weapons if iran gains nuclear capability, and what's the -- how does that play into the strategy for both the united states and israel? >> well, i think it's a huge concern. it's not something that i mentioned here today, but certainly it would basically turn all the nuclear proliferation efforts, you would essentially in attempting to stop one country from getting nuclear weapons, by leaving iran

as a threshold nuclear power, you are going to open up what the prime minister of israel called at the united nations a pandora's box of proliferation. i'll explain why. because if you just allowed a country that has violated six u.n. security council resolutions on its nuclear weapons program to actually have, to be a threshold nuclear power, to have enriched -- the right to enriched uranium on its soil, how are you going to possibly go to any country around the world and tell them you can't enrich uranium on your soil? every country will demand that right. it's important to understand, the idea behind the peaceful spread of nuclear energy was so essentially prevent countries from domestically enriching your rain qualm. there's a plutonium path and a uranium path. the plutonium path runs through a heavy water facility. if iran does not have a heavy water facility, it does not have a plutonium path to a bomb. and the way you can be sure that

iran will not have a nuclear well is to not allow it the ability to enrich uranium on its soil. if you cede that to iran in this debate, what iran is insisting its right to enrich uranium, i know people of iran from a young age talk about life, liberty and the right to enrich uranium. well, if you leave the iranian people with this ability, you will see many, many countries throughout the world, certainly in the middle east, that will demand that right. and how are you going to prevent them? what are you going to say to them? you've just let the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world with the ability to enrich uranium on its ?oil and now since i'm an israeli diplomat i won't name the countries, but you will see at least three or four in the middle east and beyond. that's why we're very concerned. i'll just say one other thing about it. nuclear proliferation is not the

most important concern we have. because we have a regime in iran that is openly calling for our destruction. and so when people put the threat of nuclear proliferation as the number one concern, i'm a little puzzled. i'm a little concerned that they're not fully determined to prevent this threat. because when my neighbor across the street says he's going to kill me, my big concern when that ak-47 is being shipped in the mail to him is not that my other neighbors are going to get ak-47s as well, it's this guy. our concern with iran ask unique because -- is unique because iran calls for our destruction. and the nature of the regime matters. remember this as well. if all of what you have in north korea would move 50 miles to the south, no one would lose any sleep over it. all nuclear proliferation is bad, but it makes a difference whether holland has nuclear weapons or whether a country like iran has nuclear weapons. [applause]