and joining us this week on "the communicators," representative anna eshoo, democrat of california, and the chief democrat on the energy and commerce subcommittee on communications and technology. welcome back to the program. >> guest: thank you. >> host: earlier this week the democratic leader, nancy pelosi, came out in favor of reclassifying broadband as title ii, making it more open to regulation. do you support that? >> guest: well, actually, going back to 2010, i spoke publicly about what i thought the fcc

should do to be on firmer legal ground and pointed to title ii. and, now, we've had -- fast forward, we've had discussions at the committee about it. this is all about net neutrality, obviously. people in our country feel very, very strongly about the internet, in not only how they e it, but how they think about it and the access to it and that it be free and that it be open and that no one, no isp or anyone should be able to interfere with that. now, there have been a lot of problems, obviously, with court cases, lawsuits, and i think a lot of time, valuable time has been eaten up by that. so now we're at a juncture. we know that close to one and a half million people have commented to the fcc. it's, i think, the single

largest response of the american people to any federal agency in the history of our country. that's really saying something. so i've examined title ii. now, one of the charges against title ii is that it is the old-fashioned way to regulate. in other words, it's a heavy hand. and you really have to be very careful, cautious about heavy-handed regulation because we want innovation. i mean, i represent the innovation capital of our country, i think of the world, and we want to keep it that way. and there have been a lot of investments made around this inknow vase as well, so -- innovation as well, so i'm very sensitive to the heavy hand of regulation. but i think for certainty, both for consumers, for innovators that you can do a light touch of regulation, i think particularly

in section 202. now, title ii has 47 statutes in it. you don't have to take 47 statutes and throw it at this to cure it. so i would, if i were a member of the fcc, i would examine that section very particularly. it's brief, it gets to the point on blocking/discrimination which is the big stumbling block. that's the one that we have to, you know, we really have to answer for consumers, for innovators. and so i think it's not all of title ii, but i think you can find the gold in that particular section. and where that's placed andóihnw they, you know, how they handle it, that is the fcc, there are five smart people there. but i hope that the rhetoric

doesn't prevail, that you simply cannot go near title ii because it's old-fashioned, heavy-handed regulation. we're legislators, and words really matter. and what's written matters because it walks into people's lives. so, again, you don't need all of title ii. you need very little of it in order to address blocking which is the most upsetting part of the proposal that the chairman made, and that's what's really caused the ruckus around the country and, i think, legitimately so. so that's what i would look to. >> host: can you reclassify broadband and not use all of the statutes? >> guest: i believe so. i believe so. yeah. this is, this is today's form of communication. it's today's form of communication. when we talk about

infrastructure, we're not just talking about roads and bridges, we're talking about broadband as well. so i think that, you know, our thinking needs to catch up with our words or our actions. and, now, there are some people that will say one sentence out of title ii is not acceptable. well, i think that that's an uninformed view, most frankly. you have to be a problem solver in this. so it's not what is at the top of the page, it's the language itself that is going to address what i think the american people have spoken very clearly about as a high value that no one is for blocking. you can go, i can go into umpteen town hall meetings or my telephone town hall meetings. and by the way, as the american

people were expressing themselves, they were expressing themselves to the fcc on their wireless device. so this shouldn't be addressed as simply, you know, the old way in terms of landlines. everything has gone wireless. and so i think our thinking and our legislative language needs to embrace all of that as well. >> >> host: and, finally, before we get to brendan sasso soft "the national journal," you represent google, facebook, some of the great big players in the tech world but then thousands of upstarts as well. what's been the reaction to your approaczdráz some of your con constituents? >> guest: well, i spent a lot of time with them, most particularly the start-ups. i'm proud of the companies that were born in my district, that became toddlers, that grew and are what they are today. i mean, these are brand names

around the world, and they're thinking, and their products are very exciting and have really changed how people live and learn and work. but i think in the united states of america we always have to have policies that encourage new companies to be born. because that's the creation of jobs. and that's at the top of the list of every american. they want more opportunity, they want more jobs÷m( created. and so this is, in doubt in my mind and in the mind of many, that we have to make sure that innovation continues. that innovation comets. continues. now, these small start-ups d7, 9, 11, 17 people, they don't have an army of lawyers, and they don't have an army of

lobbyists. but they know that if there's a boot at their throat in terms of what they have, what they offer can be slowed down or discriminated against or blocked, they are just knocked off of their blocks. so i think that we have to be wise and and we have to be prudent, we have to be practical, and i think that we can, we can protectty innovatio, and we can do so with what i call a light touch of regulation. i think we can accomplish all of that. >> host: brendan sasso of "the national journal" is joining our conversation. >> thanks, peter. you're saying a light touch regulation, but, i mean, do you think it's necessary, though, that the only way the fcc can get where you think is necessary is to reclassify under title ii and then waive the more burdensome requirements, is that the position? >> guest: i think that what we want to accomplish is certainty.

businesses, regardless of their size, always need certainty. they need to know what the rules of the road are, and we need to be clear about that. i think that the fcc over several, you know, chairmen have tried very hard to come up with, you know regulation to go ahead and move ahead. but it's been a decade where there's been one lawsuit after another, the fcc has had to go back to the drawing boards. i want to get beyond lawsuits, i really do. i think that america really needs to be on the move. and we have been. but just think if we don't have to drive with an emergency brake on. that's the way i would characterize it. so, yes, i think that the fcc

should direct itself toward -- and i think it wants to -- toward certainty. and certainty means that there's not a legal cloud hanging over whatever their decision is. and that's why i think that this particular section that i mentioned holds a great deal of promise. >> fcc chairman wheeler gave a speech yesterday where it seemed like he was hinting he might want to expand the net neutrality regulations for wireless, also rules for your cell phone. >> guest: uh-huh. >> do you think that's an important piece of the regulation? >> guest: well, i mentioned it just a few moments ago, i do. if, in fact, close to one and a half million people have voiced their opinion to the fcc during the comment period on the whole issue of net neutrality with a wireless device, i mean, what more can we say?

this is, this is our world today. it's simply a fact of life. and i think that our, you know, your national law should reflect it. >> a few weeks ago you did a post on reddit. are there any new names that have come out that you think might work better? [laughter] >> guest: well, let me just say this. something like 28,000 people have submitted their, their choice, and i think that we need something that's simple and that the american people will understand. so i haven't gotten to review them all. i mean, my plate has really been full in the last several days. but we're going to be putting out an announcement about it. i'm thrilled that so many people participated. 28,000 people, that's larger than some of the communities i represent. so people care about it.

and in addition to their voting, so to speak, there were thousands of others that weighed in and gave very long written opinions on how to address net neutrality. now, that was not the intent of the contest, but they still felt very strongly about it. >> host: back to section 202, congresswoman eshoo, you're either a common carrier or you're not a common carrier, is that a fair division on section 202? and how do you delineate using just that to achieve a net neutrality? >> guest: well, i think you have to read the section and see how it's drawn. and, because it has worked for a long, long time, and it has finish the first section, a, speaks to that, that

discrimination, blocking -- well, we call it blocking in the broadband world -- is not acceptable. and that really is the basic tenet of the effort. but it also speaks to penalties. if people disobey, so to speak -- that's the mother in me speaking -- and how that's handled. it's really, it's about six sentences of section a. this is not a long, winding, complicated road. now, everyone's not going to agree, and there are corporate interests in my district that probably don't agree. but that's all right. i mean b, they supply equipment to different people, and i understand that. they have a different purpose in life. my responsibility is to the

public, to the public good, to the public interest. and i'm a very pragmatic person as well. we need to get beyond lawsuits around this. we need to keep expanding our economy and understand that this area of our economy holds extraordinary promise with good paying jobs. and then the effect that it has on people across our country and around the world, we don't want to lose american leadership in this area. so i'm not for stifling anything. i want -- if anyone has listened or read what i've said or the legislation that i've done, it's always been around innovation, protecting consumers and growth. and i think that we need to direct ourself to that, and i think a very light regulatory

touch will do it. that's my view. let's see what the fcc does, and i think the american people are -- you know, the american people are not caught up in different sections. of the law. and title ii and, versus whatever. they know what they5vu want, thy think that it's fair, and they want the regulatory&'ç agency, congress, whomever -- they call it government -- they want, they want those protections, and they'll move on, and so will the companies and so will the start-ups. so they're not caught up in all of this language. it's our job to get the job done for them. and i think that this is a good pathway toward it. >> host: my last question on net neutrality, i promise. i don't know about brent can. netflix is supporting

reclassification of title ii, at least they put their name to that. but at the same time, they were looking at deals to maybe have enhanced broadband service or so-called fast lane. do you support the fast lane, so-called fast lane -- >> guest: well, i think that, obviously, companies do what they need to do to protect, you know, their investments and their shareholders. so i don't get into the weeds about what someone is doing before the next decision is being taken. they're doing that for their own interests, but i think that what it points to that they need it to protect themselves because of the specter of blocking. that's what i pull out of that, out of that story. and so, look, there isn't anyone that's going to stand up anywhere -- and i"[lid this earlier -- and say, guess what?

i'm for blocking. there just isn't anyone that's for it. even those that maybe have been inclined to it say we're not for discrimination. so i think we need to be adult, and we need to be pragmatic,! yñ ]6 know, it there's a whole range of interests that are an interest in this. god bless all of them. i have my responsibility overall jt the country, the people of the district and the, you know, the public interest. that really has to, at the end of the day, after listening and weighing outjmñ all of this, tt is the major ingredient that i have to throw into the mix in order to, in order to bake the cake.tn4 and for those that fear heavy regulation, i understand that. i'm not for that. >> brendan sasso. >> not a net neutrality question but another issue i think is

important to the future of the internet which is the sort of wave of potential consolidation that we're seeing. comcast wants tou7 buy time warr cable, at&t and directv, and the government's scaring away sprint from trying to buy t-mobile. should it be allowed, and what does it mean? >> guest: well, i think that the american people vieo?8ç these proposed mergers witho1p wary eye, and i say that because of the number of constituents that i've heard from. i mean, thousands have sat down, handwritten notes to me. obviously, most of the correspondence is via e-mail. and there's a reason that they are skeptical about it. they want to befo8 assured that less and paying more. they are for competition, and they know just in their own

personal experience that without robust competition that they 8y the price of their -- and the price of their bills go up. and in some instances, their service is less than what they want. the reviews of these mergers have to be viewed through that9&n lens. now, i mean, there have been mergers that have been approved, you know, over the years.q:%! i guess, you know, people say that they've worked, you know, inn terms of, you know, what would they don't, they don't compete with each other in the same, ine? the same market. but the lens that i vi5iarñ it through is what i just statedwfo you. and i think that that is a central responsibility of those in the federal government that are going to review this.

because atñ)q end of the day, who are our=ñ bosses?b. i mean, who's paying our salary? who is, you know, ends up with lives? the american people are. so i think that these mergers reallyi] need to be scrutinized very, very carefully, and i think that?oúz;bvio driving thes of the reviewñi need to be these values, because they are values to people. >> do you think there could be maybe some tough conditions that would make the deal acceptable, or do you think that the fcc and justice department should block comcast from buying time warner cable outright? >> guest: well, i'm not ready to go there this terms of outright blockage. i'm not the one that's going the reviewing. idea for the, for our committee,

our subcommittee to bring in thh parties and have a hearing on it. i suggested it, i asked chairman walden, chairmaná of our technology, you know, communicationxd technology subcommittee to do that. i i think perhaps he doesn't think9xuit's abwjt idea. it hasn't happened, let's put it that wayment but i thought that it would be a very good idea for members to be exposed to more of the issues other than what we may pick up, you know,é@ a]ñ o, you know, however we absorb information; newspapers, alerts op our phone -- on our phones and what our staffs may give to us. but that hasn't happened. and i still think that there's some time for it.ñr i mean, i don't think these decisions are going to be made immediately. but that didn't happen.

>> guest: i did go through my statements according to the time frame that was mentioned in the news, and during that time frame i hadn't made any purchases, so i just, i didn't make a call to replace my card. but these are sweeping breaches. i mean, this ensnares millions, tens of millions of people. and it is no source of comfort to my constituents -- and i don't think anyone else, certainly not to me -- when it's

announced after the breach has taken place, well, we detected it, two weeks later or three months later. what does that mean? it just is not a source of comfort. so, now, we have, we have real thievery going on, and it needs to be addressed. if every major bank in the country were held up all at once or successively, don't you think there'd be, you know, a massive response on the part of law enforcement? so we're the cops on the beat. congress and the administration should be, i think, working to achieve two changes, at least i think that these are prudent ones, and that is, one, that there be security requirements, that you have to work with the private sector. i've never done technology-specific legislation, but i think that we can work

with the private sector and say we need to, there need to be standards met. and it would be in their interest as well. this time and money and effort that has to go into playing catch up after the breach takes place as in my case, you know, i got a new credit card. i didn't ask for it, but it was replaced. and so were tens of millions of others. so i think that security standards should be -- two steps; security standards to be examined in working with the private sector and also, what would be the other one? the penalties. the penalties need to be very, very stiff in terms of these really huge and malicious undertakings, those that do them. and that would send a very, very strong message as well. >> another important issue

that's coming up, the fcc wants to hold a spectrum auction where they'll buy back the licenses from the tv stations and auction those to the cell phone companies. the national association of broadcasters has sued the fcc. are you concerned about that lawsuit? could that delay the auction? >> guest: i think it's a bump in the road, but i don't think it's going to delay the auction. i think the fcc is on track to conduct the auction in 2015. it's a huge and very, very important undertaking, and it's the first time in the history of our country -- i think in the history of the world -- that an auction has been set up this way. it's voluntary. and the purposes of the auction are real essentials in the 21st century that we create more unlicensed spectrum which is an innovation platform, that we

fund firstnet. you know that there was one recommendation of the 9/11 commission that congress had not made good on, and that is that we establish a nationwide, interoperable public safety network. why? because on that horrible, dreadful day of 9/11 fire and police went into those towers, and they could not communicate with each other. and so we finally put that in place. and so the funding for that effort would come out of auction dollars and also to pay down the deficit. so it's a very, very important and historic undertaking. i think it's unfortunate that the broadcasters have done that, but i would consider it a bump in the road. i don't think that it's going to stop the effort.

>> host: representative eshoo, the 113th congress is nearing its end. >> guest: yes. >> host: henry wax match, the current top democrat on the energy and commerce committee is leaving, you've expressed interest in taking over that position. what's the -- how's it going? >> guest: i have. i think, first, we should appreciate the number of years of service of henry waxman, 40 years in the congress. forty years of extraordinary leadership. john dingell from the committee, who also served as chairman, chairman emeritus, ranking member, 60 years service. that's 100 years of service to american people, so i salute them. and, yes, when mr. waxman made the announcement, i also made mine that i would throw my hat in the ring to be the lead democrat at the committee. and so we've been working hard on the effort. i'm highly encouraged.

it's been, it's a long journey from the end of january to december. but it's a worthwhile effort, and so i'm encouraged by the support i'm receiving by my colleagues, the people that are listening are probably wondering when votes on this. who votes on this. it'll be the democrats, the democrats -- the new democrats that come in plus the reelected democrats after the national election. so i'm looking forward to it, and we're still working very, very hard which you need to do to earn people's support. but i'm very encouraged, and i'm overwhelmingly grateful. >> host: does your fellow californian, nancy pelosi, support your bid? >> guest: she does. >> host: does that help? >> guest: oh, i think so. i think enormously. i think e enormously. because it is, it's a, it's such an important vote of confidence. this is not something that she has ever done on a regular

basis. and i didn't know that she was going to do it. and so it is, i think it's a blessing myself. >> host: anna eshoo, brendan sasso, thank you. >> guest: thank you. >> 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 provide err. provider. >> hi, we're excited to announce that it's launch week for the 11th annual student cam documentary cop test. $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded to middle and high school contest winners. this year's theme is the broadest ever, it's the three branches and you. we'd like you to tell a story that demonstrates how a policy, a law or an action by either the executive, legislative or judicial branches of the federal government has affected you in your life or your community. the competit