in the senate, the house majority is working hard toward that goal. that is why the house spent the past week working on a bill to cut discretionary spending by $100 billion over the last seven months of the current fiscal year. we are not only living up to our pledge to america. we are exceeding it. more cuts and reforms are on the way. as part of our focus on job growth, committees in the house are combing through government regulations and conducting rigorous oversight of how the government spends the people's time and your money. we will soon begin work on legislation to cut wasteful mandatory spending. in the spring, under the leadership of our budget chairman, will put forth a budget for the next fiscal year that confronts the fiscal challenges facing our nation, instead of ducking them. it will offer ideas for real entitlement reform, so we can have a conversation with the american people about the challenges we face and the need to chart a new path to

prosperity. as a doctor and a parent, i find it astounding that the president has submitted a budget that ignores the recommendations of his own fiscal commission. it punts on all the tough choices, including entitlement reform. he has expanded entitlements to a government takeover that would destroy 800,000 jobs, according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office. it will accelerate our path to fiscal ruin. this demands presidential leadership, something the president so far seems unwilling to offer. if we can find an upside, it is that the president acknowledged his budget fails to address our fiscal crisis. some members of congress still will not acknowledge there is a crisis. senate majority leader harry reid said not too long ago that social security is fine. but you know it is not fine. . it will pay out more money than

it takes in. with a wave of baby boomers starting to retire there is no way we can protect social security and get our debt under control unless we can honestly address entitlements for the president. it means telling the truth, even if it is politically difficult. we will focus on saving these programs for current and future generations of americans, and getting our debt under control, by taking critical steps forward. we can fulfil security for all americans without making changes for those in or near retirement. the new republican majority will lead even as the democrats ignore their responsibility. senator reid and president obama can change their minds. we will be ready to work with them. in the meantime, republicans are confronting our nation's challenges and helping our economy get back to creating

jobs. thanks for listening. >> this monday, visit the public and private spaces of america's most recognizable home, the white house. c-span is original documentary looks at the history of the presidential residence and takes you through the mansion, the west wing, and lincoln bedroom. it focuses on the presidents and first families who have most influenced how it looks today. newly updated with interviews with president obama and the first lady, and comments by george and laura bush, this monday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> sunday, on prime minister's questions, david cameron response to concerns about the recent rise in unemployment in the u.k. he also talks about increased cost of health care, investment in broadband, and efforts at stopping human trafficking. that is at 9:00 p.m. eastern on

c-span. on television, on radio, and online. c-span, bringing public affairs to you. created by cable, it is washington your way. >> this week on "communicators," a discussion with bob goodlatte, chairman of the house subcommittee on intellectual property and the internet, and code-chairman of the house internet caucus. how you envision your role in the current congress when it comes to talk policy? >> what we need most is growth

in our economy. the tech community plays a huge role in that. a high percentage of our job growth is related to developing new technology. a very large percentage of our exports are related to that as well. promoting that through both intellectual property, which is the jurisdiction over patents, copyrights, and trademarks -- the internet is the largest collection of patents, copyrights, and trademarks in the history of the world. at some point, you have jurisdiction over anti-trust issues or competition policy. again, promoting competition, i believe, creates jobs. the subcommittee is very key in terms of job creation. >> how does your role meld with that of the energy and commerce committee? >> those are great guys, a great committee, very important. they also deal with some of the

same issues, but from a different standpoint. for example, their jurisdiction over the federal trade commission and federal communications commission is more regulatory, where as the judiciary committee generally is more focused on the creation and enforcement of various types of laws, like property laws, anti- trust laws, criminal laws, all of which come into play when you talk about the internet. >> when you talk about job creation, has the broadband policy of the last two years and its expansion in this nation been good for job creation? >> certainly, the expansion of broadband and bringing more high-speed internet access to more people is a very good thing. whether the process by which that is being done, with massive spending under the stimulus, all of which has been borrowed, and has, i would argue, is

countering effect, is good, and whether all the rules of the road -- remember, when you talk about extending service to the additional homes, primarily in inner-city youth and rural areas, you have to be careful the government is not subsidizing one player in that at the expense of another that is already making investments from the private sector into the expansion and development of that internet access. it is a historic role for the government, and when i do not object to. it started with telephones and electricity in rural america. by the same token, those have always in the past, especially when that service was rolled out, ben monopolies. this is a bit of a different dynamic. you have a number of competing internet service providers. you have to be careful they are using that money to bring new access to areas where the private sector would not invest,

as opposed to leveraging one company that has a base of operations in more profitable suburban or urban area, and then uses government money to reach into other sectors of the economy, as opposed to someone else who has already done that and is bringing internet service to the community based upon their business models. the government involvement here is like three-dimensional chess, as opposed to the traditional forms of oral telephone service. >> joining us in our conversation with rep bob goodlatte is gaurtham nagesh of "the hill" newspaper. >> you mentioned broadband stimulus grants. the president recently unveiled a new wireless plan in michigan aimed at doing the same thing, which is expanding broadband coverage. he really focused on rural areas.

he talked to the 98% of americans targeted to be covered. i know it is going to take congressional action to get some of those measures. >> we should look at it carefully. oversight hearings should be held. in the energy and commerce committee, based upon not so much our internet jurisdiction, or internet -- or property jurisdiction, but from the competition standpoint. is it good to be done in a way that will encourage private- sector investors to rollout broadband? they have done the most and have the largest resources available. the government, given its difficult economic circumstances -- as you know, we are right now trying to close at $1.40 trillion deficit last year. 40% of what the government spent last year was borrowed against our children and grandchildren future. taking money out of one pocket to put it into another has to be

done in a way that we are being assured that we are not discouraging private investment and are not disadvantaging private companies that are also looking to provide those services. that is the key to making sure to broadband rollout works well not just for right now, and expenditures right now, but in terms of future investment incentives for people to take the risk and put money into rolling out broadband. >> in terms of impact on the deficit, does the fact that the government is looking to fund through the spectrum auctions -- is it all revenue to you? >> one has to look at the fact that we have always relied upon spectrum auctions for funds that can be used for a variety of things. it is all fungible. therefore, if the government is proposing massive new expenditures that have to be added against the bottom line of the huge deficits we already

have -- not to say that making sure that high-speed internet access is not a good thing and does not involve, particularly in rural areas, some government involvement, but i think the cost of it bears some scrutiny. >> if a private company were to determine the coverage area were not economically feasible, you see a role in the government in supporting development in those areas? >> that is what the rural utilities service -- i have been chairman of the agriculture committee. that happens to be the jurisdiction of that committee. i have worked on these very issues of fairness for a long time. as i said, that some rural utilities service has been responsible for bringing telephone service and electrification to rural areas. there is a role. but we need to be careful that we understand the limitations of

the role, due to the fact that there has been a great deal of investment and rollout of broadband services in rural areas. i represent a district that is one of the more rural areas in eastern part of the united states, and i can tell you that not only our services being provided in the area, not always as competitive as in a major city, but being provided -- but often they are being provided by some of the smallest telephone companies and i s p -- and isp's in the country, who suddenly confronted with a new competitor financed by the federal government -- it is disconcerting to them. that has to be part of the equation. >> good luck with that call for usf reform. do you see that coming? >> that is not within the

jurisdiction of our committee. but the issue of what is a fair way to finance that is something that certainly ought to be reviewed on a fairly frequent basis. i suspect that now would be a good time to look it that. >> as someone who was the former chairman of the agricultural committee and represents a personal -- a rural district, what are your personal thoughts? >> i think it is an important principle that the economic vitality of the entire country has benefited by having our rural areas able to communicate with the world. this is something that is a lot like the railroads in the 19th century. it was also subsidized in the government, with a lot of fraud and waste, but nonetheless, the transcontinental railroad expansion into the more remark -- more remote parts of the country helped to grow the

economy. similarly, today you do not have to be inside wall street are in some other major urban area to provide certain types of job skills. this is a competitive issue for rural america. if they can communicate with the rest of the world, the can offer quality of life and jobs. that makes them competitive for people who do not want to live with traffic jams and high crime. >> you discussed stimulus broadband grants. i believe that up to $2 billion of the original grants were slated for the rural utilities service. have you been examining those text >> we have. that led to even before the stimulus fund -- there were early efforts to do this under the bush administration. that led to this discussion about how you write the rules of the road, under which

circumstances federal funds are appropriate. there are not clear guidelines for that. there are different philosophical points of view about what to have here. that calls for a close examination over what has been proposed, as well as a close examination of funding in the stimulus. >> our guest this week is representative bob goodlatte, a republican of virginia. he is chairman of the subcommittee on international -- intellectual property and the internet. joining us in our conversation, gaurtham nagesh of "the hill." >> you mentioned you felt your committee was one place where legislation is often written. are you indicating that you or someone on your committee will be taking the lead on intellectual property are

putting perform in the next session? >> congressman lamar smith of texas has been working on putting perform for many years, as have i.. he has tasked me with being very fast out of the gate on patent reform. i left a patent reform hearing to come over and be with you right now. fortunately, i was able to get my portion done there. there were lots of members interested in this, both in the congress and in various sectors of our economy, not just the technology sector. obviously a very keen interest there. we have run into a number of problems in past congresses in trying to get to the finish line, the house passing legislation that could not get to the senate, the senate passing legislation that was not of interest to many of the

people who are intellectual property rights advocates. we are both in a bipartisan and a bicameral way working very hard to try to find what patten reforms are necessary to enhance job growth in our country and what can get across the finish line to be signed into law by the president. that, i think, focuses for most on the efficiency of the patent office, both in terms of how quickly they can make decisions about patents, because there are increasing backlogs, and about the quality of the patent coming up. are these really new ideas, new inventions deserving of the kind of protection that the patent system affords to genuine inventors, which gives them an incentive to invest a lot of money in bringing that product through the manufacturing phase

and into the marketplace? or are they efforts to simply climb on the back of somebody who has done that legitimate work and already has the patent, or is attempting to license somebody else's patent ideas? trying to find our way through that is very important. fortunately, in the last several years, the courts have taken a more dynamic, more and renewed focus on how the patent system is working. a number of reforms have effectively taken place to court decisions. that has helped narrow the focus on what the congress needs to do. it may make it a little easier for us to pass legislation. we are holding a hearing today, listening to a number of the stakeholders. we will hold another hearing to hear from legal experts as to what the courts have done in recent decisions and how that

might guide us. we have had the commissioner of the patent office come in and talk to us about what he is doing to try to speed up the process and improve the quality. there will be a number of contentious issues. we will try to sort through which of those we can find common ground on and which need to be left by the wayside because we cannot get enough votes to pass them. >> what are some of the differences? why has it taken years to get to patent reform? >> you have basically two points of view. this is very general. there are as many different viewpoints as there are people. but the basic confrontations tend to come from people who utilize by license other people's ideas and create a device or software that is very

complex and might incorporate hundreds of different patterns. and you have people who are inventors and devise a single patent that can be used for a single device, or something that only contains a small number of patents. they do not encounter the same problems. if you are building a piece of hardware or software in the technology industry and it is incorporating hundreds of different patents, and one of those turns out legitimately or illegitimately to be the basis of a claim, that can hold up that entire product from coming to the marketplace, and make it no longer attractive to invest in bringing it forward. obviously, we want to make sure that does not happen. on the other hand, if you are the holder of that patent and you believe you have a legitimate claim, if you see somebody else utilizing your product, you want to make sure the legal system works to protect you and rewards you for somebody else is infringing upon

what is your property right. if you are in the pharmaceutical industry, you probably have a drug that only has a few patents attached to it. the current system works better for you to defend yourself than if you are developing something at cisco, intel, or a major technology company, in corporate and hundreds of ideas. the underlying genius -- that individual, whether they are at a large company or an independent inventor -- that is what we want to reward. we want to give them the incentive to go on inventing and to get that invention to the market, so that people will take the risk on investing in that patent idea to create jobs. if we can devise a system that improves our current one, which a lot of people think the starting to lag behind, because of the fact that it has become cumbersome and it takes too long

to get the patent to market -- there are questions about whether the quality of the patents are good. all of that is what our focus is. >> in terms of recent administration efforts, the have prioritized intellectual property. we have seen immigration and customs enforcement seizing the amazing -- seizing domain names, a new action of japan recently. have they shown you are serious about patents? >> i think that are serious about patents. the commissioner has taken a number of aggressive stance. i think he deserves some credit for looking to modernize the system. i think there is a long way to go. the testimony we have been hearing in committee of late focuses on the lack of the use of some of the very technology than has been developed and

patented to speed up and make more accurate the review process. if you have the opportunity to use technology to deploy how far-reaching your examination is to see whether this is a new idea, and to accurately compare, and you're still doing things the old-fashioned way, completely by hand, that blows down the process. we need more examiners, but we also need better use of technology to speed up the process. there are other legal reforms we may need to do in the courts. i mentioned several things related to venues. some people pick a particular court because they know they always rule in favor of the plaintiff. the courts have done some good in that area. in the area of damages, the supreme court has ordered

judges, based upon new standards, to look more carefully at how they apportion and assigned damages in a case where they have found infringement has taken place. with 400 patents in the product, you do not want one item to get some much compensation when there has been infringement found that it makes the whole thing and profitable. on the other hand, if that one thing is the key idea behind that entire piece of equipment, the obviously deserve even more compensation. it is very complicated. sometimes the courts are better suited to decide some of these things than the congress. but we need to look but that and find out where they have gone through it. there are internal things repaired -- internal things like post-grant review, where an idea goes through the patent system

without a lot of attention paid to it. the patent is granted, and somebody already has exactly the same thing. under what circumstances can they come in and challenge that patent after it has already been issued? a lot of examination behind that. >> one other note on patent reform. senators leahy and hatch have introduced a bill in the senate that has gained a great deal of bipartisan support. is that something you would use as a free market? >> we are going to start from scratch. we are going to look at if we think there is widespread support. that could pass the house with strong support. we are going to take into account where the senate is, where the have been, and have close discussions with the senators to make sure we are not creating a divide that cannot be

closed. we do not want to start with the senate bill. but we do want to look at what we think is achievable in the senate and what is achievable in conference between the senate and the house. >> what about the theft and bootlegging of intellectual property? the ec action coming forward in congress, and if so how the ec that legislative action being framed? -- how do you see that legislative action being framed? >> legislation allows customs officials to seize counterfeit goods coming into the country. in the old days, they had to just turn it away. they could not seize it. it would just go around to other corridors and perpetuate the piracy. that has helped. but today the problem has gotten much greater in magnitude.

more and more countries are manufacturing counterfeit cds, dvd's, and so one. of even greater concern is that much of it is not even tangible. it is going across the internet in ways that you cannot have a customs examiner sees at the port. recent studies have said that one-quarter of all international internet traffic is involved in infringing on other people's intellectual property rights, primarily a copyright and trademark rights that is staggering. that is not one quarter of goods. it is not 1/4 of music sales. it is 14/4 of all international communications. it involves stealing movies, software, books, video games.

you name it. if it can be digitized, it is vulnerable. that takes the whole incentive out of creativity that we rely on as the basis of our free enterprise system. we have legislation in mind. we are also holding hearings on what are called or wrote websites. -- what is called rogue websites. that is someone posing as a legitimate business. you can buy it online, download it. it may be located anywhere in the world. but the customer does not know they are being sold something that is being stolen. what kind of tools can we use? we need much more international cooperation. we need to continue the message to countries like china and russia. these are countries with tremendously creative people.

if they do not devise a system in their country to protect intellectual property rights of americans and others trying to do business around the world and saying their property stolen, they will never become more than just that, a country where the develop things based on ideas, a technology stolen from elsewhere. the cannot reward and protect their own citizens and others. they are going to miss out on the potential they have of the creativity in their own country. >> that study with 25% of the traffic -- that was commissioned by nbc universal and i am familiar with it. the ar domain name seizures taking place without adequate review. there is concern that the government has unilateral control to take down domain names, and this could be abused. how would you rea