inherit this debt deserve much better. this spring republicans again will offer a budget that lifts the crushing burden of debt and secures the future of opportunity and prosperity. this budget is part of the republican plan for america's job creators which removes government barriers to private sector job creation in stark contrast to the president's failed stimulus approach. to learn more about the republicans' jobs plan by visiting jobs.gop.gov. thank you for listening and god bless america. >> on "news makers" fred upton talks about the key fiscal issues before congress. the president's fiscal year 2013 budget request the keystone pipeline extension and the recent debate over the administration's contraception policy.

"news makers" sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> this week on "the communicators" our guest is talking to us about several issues being discussed in congress concerning telecommunications policy. >> now joining us from the u.s. capitol is representative anna eshew. thank you for being on "the communicators." we appreciate it. >> we are delighted. >> several issues are working their way through congress right now, and i want to start with one of the bills working its way through the senate. that's the cyber-security bill. your committee just held a hearing on cyber-security last week. have you had a chance to look at the senate bill? what are your initial thoughts? >> i think that the senate is a

little ahead of us on this. i am one of the original co-sponsors of cyber-security legislation that congressman mike rogers that chairs the intelligence committee -- we work together at the intelligence committee, even though i'm not a member there any longer. but that really applies to relatives to the intelligence community, and that's a good bill. when it comes to our subcommittee, i don't think we're ready for a bill yet. we had had our first hearing last week. and i think all of the members on both sides of the aisle felt it was one of the best hearings in terms of witnesses and information that we have had. so there is a lot to draw from in terms of what the witnesses -- you know, how instructive and how informtive they were to us. but i don't think we're quite ready for a bill yet. but we must get to it, because

our nation's telecommunications network needs to be security. i can't imagine any of that going down. >> do you see cyber-security making it through this session of the 112th congress? >> well, you know, not much gets done during an election year. i like to set things like that aside because i like to get things done. i have a commitment with the chairman, and i know he has that commitment as well. let's see how far we can get. >> also joining us here on "the

communicators" is tony rahm. >> one of the things we're hearing from the civil liberties community is the extent to which the department of homeland security would take a leading role in setting the security for homeland security. are you comfortable with the level d.h.s. would have in this space concerning what critical infrastructure would be and working with those entities to determine what they have to do to secure themselves in the event of a cyber-emergency? >> i think two words immediately come to mind. "home wlnd," "security" and the issues that people care about -- they care about security, of course. that's our number one responsibility as members of congress. we also have to balance that out relative to privacy and civil liberties.

i know what these issues are because we have struggled with them mightily. you can't leave these issues out but you can't bee tray or push the constitution aside either. i think what we're probably going to see is committees of various jurisdictions coming up with bills that deal with parts of the responsibility. there isn't one agency that deals with cyber-security. i don't know if that's a blessing or a burden. it could speak to overlap in some places. i think if the overall effort is well coordinated, that you get closer to having a very balanced view rather than one that isn't. >> one of the big issue ss whether communication streams

might be set higher and whether that data could be set. that is some of the issue raised by the aclu and others. do you think there is a good balance or do you think there is work to be done in that area? >> i think we still have work to be done in that area. for some reason, it is not what we start out with. and there is a heavyweight that has continued to -- as if we weren't attacks. i think we weren't so interested in these issues when it wasn't homeland. that's lilingt. -- that's legitimate. but it is i know, very delicate but very important to be able to combine the two. that's what i will look for. i think the importance of the legislation is it needs to be a combination of the two.

>> representative eshoo represents silicon valley. one of the issues she has been working with is the piracy issue . something that is of concern to her constituents up there. congresswoman, do you see action coming on that issue? >> well, there was a lot of action before the end of the year, and that came to a halt when mebbeds of congress heard from their constituents about how strongly they felt about the public interest, how this would affect the internet, how it would affect free speech, how it would affect cyber-security. how it would affect the future of the internet. in many ways it has come to a screeching halt.

so in many ways it is not resolved. the country is faced with the hijacking of american genius. that is not acceptable to anyone. now, the sulfa bill, in my view, was so broad i don't think it ever was going to work. if it did it was so broad it was in such a great deal of damage. i'm on alternate legislation that takes things in a different direction. i think everyone will have to sit down and work this thing out. i'm glad the bill was stopped in its tracks because it is moving very, very quickly. most members didn't even know what was in it, quite frankly, even if they were co-sponsors. so that tells you something. but we have a problem that needs to be resolved. i don't want to see one winner and one loser in this, because

it really represents in terms of southern california and the genius of -- and the creativity of the artists that are there. the innovation and the creativity that has come out of sill gone valley and gives us world standing in both areas. this needs to be worked out. i think that it can be. i can't tell you the date or the time. i can move on to another track. none of us are for the hijacking of american genius. >> this has really turned into a southern california vs. northern california fight, hasn't it? >> well, some have characterized it that way. i think of myself as a californian, and i am very proud of what our state represents. but it goes beyond the borders. california is home to both of

these giants, as it were, in terms of what it represents creativity, innovation. it is, of course, embraced around the world. this is something that affects our entire country. so it doesn't just reside in the state of california. we are home to this innovation and creativity. i want to see that it continues. infringement and copy rights -- it is one of the essentials not only in our constitution but it has been the mark of every chapter of american history. so i just think that the bill was far, far too broad. we need a little that will stick with piracy but allow people to move forward and succeed.

if they do, we will know that we came up with the right thing. >> in -- another one of the topics you followed closely is spectrum reform. as we speak here today lawmakers are hatching out what could be a final compromise of the cable tax bill. and one of the pay-fors could be spectrum reform. i know we are currently in the process, but do you have an idea what this spectrum reform might look like? >> i don't have an idea. the change is almost by the hour. so by the time the program is broadcast, we may know the exact answer. at this moment, i don't. what i do know is spectrum, even when there was a super committee, the reason there was an interest on the part of legislators and members of the very important committees, now today the conferees is because there is money there.

there will always be interest where ever dollars are generated. of course in the house spectrum bill as well as in the senate, we established a means by which spectrum can be sold, auctioned on a voluntary basis which republicans and democrats on a bipartisan basis we greed -- agreed to that. that will generate billions of dollars to the federal government. how much of it will be used to pay for that i don't know. i spent the better part of this year working on spectrum legislation which is so important for the future of the country. we know so much is moving toward wireless. we know these new platforms and apps need spectrums. we want to be able to create the platforms for the future of our

country. i think the smart spectrum includes not only licensed but unlicensed as well. i have been quite outspoken about that. i would like to see that included in the final legislation because there are enormous opportunities for innovators, for the patients in terms of medical devices and records and access. the smart grid in terms of energy. i don't want to use that opportunity, especially licensed and unlicensed. it has enormous potential. it represents anywhere from 60 to $37 -- it represents anywhere from $16 billion to $37 billion a year. so i want to make sure we keep our eyes on the future and not just do what we are doing today but that the bill really

represents where we need to go and that we provide the platforms and what is necessary to be part of that platform. thank you for asking that question. that's what i have lived this entire year. >> you and dozens of others wrote to the congress committee recently to express interest in an unlicensed spectrum but an interest that it be respected in the final proposal they put together. one of the things house republicans have put together is, hey, we have a deficit problem on our hands. we have to get that money from somewhere. so the machination they have put forward is putting unlie sention -- unlicensed spectrum in there. is there a need to balance unlicensed spectrum with the need to put more money into the federal government to address this growing deficit problem?

>> it is certainly one view that you express. this immediate issue at hand being dealt with by the conferees is by no means going to address the national deficit and the debt. that's a very long-term policy. i think that the number one economic booster in the country is full employment. so what i'm looking for in this is to pave the way for america's future. i think we should be number one in broadband. i think we should be number one in opportunities in the unlicensed area. we all see what unlicensed unleashes. everything from wii-fi to youtube.

20 years ago no one would have known what we were talking about if we used those terms. so you can put a green eye shade on get out your pencil out of your plastic followeder and get into counting b in this. or you can say look, we are going to be bringing in a lot of plone to the federal government because spectrum is gold. spectrum is gold. you can't go to markets and buy spectrum. you can't go to macy's you can't go to nordstrom. it is the congress that has to do the allocation. and it seems to me we have to create the atmosphere for a 21st century america where innovation is absolutely bundling up constantly. now if you remove the license

we're talking $1 billion or $2 billion here. i think america is a far more important idea than that. i understand, and it is a challenge to have the kind of deficit this hangs over our head. but there is going to be considerable sums much -- sums of money brought in, i believe with the voluntary auction. that is going to be a very good downpayment relative to the committee that i'm on. i wish all committees in congress would produce something like i'm producing relative to spectrum. i think one view is the long view. that america really takes a stand that beer going to be number one in everything. and then there is the short-term view that you mentioned. i prefer the former.

>> one side of that, of course, is voluntary incentive options here. and one thing we have seen played out is what conditions should be on the s.b.c. with respect to selling those air waves to companies. we don't know what the final plan is going to look like, and it might be out by the time we air, but is there anything that can be done that can concern telecom companies that may not hand options appropriately? i know you are saying the agency is handling it the way they have for years now. is there a way to reach middle ground even without legislation? >> i think what certainly guides my thinking is the following. that the f.c.c. take steps to make sure that there is true real honest-to-god competition

in the country. there are some that talk a good game about competition but once they see it coming toward them from 1,000 miles away, it is like "fire fire, house on fire." and what spurs the public interest? there are so many technical issues that are part of my work at the subcommittee. but you have to have a rudder in all of this about what counts, what is going to guide you. for me it is the public interest. certainly competition, and the opportunity for people to really compete locally. re-doing nationally. i think that is at the heart of what we're supposed to do. i think that is part of the mission of the f.c.c. i don't think of that in terms of doing any kind of reforms relative to the f.c.c. that i don't think should be

tinkered with. then you would be teering the heart out of the real heart the core of what the f.c.c. is there to do. >> you are watching c-span's "the communicators" program. our guest tonight is anna eshoo. our reporter guest is tony romm from "politico." to continue our discussion on spectrum congresswoman how far apart or close together are you and your subcommittee chairman representative walden on this issue? >> i think we have a different view about unlicensed in the tiny white spaces. i think we haven't come to a total agreement. if you know that we did agree on many different parts of the bill, which is wonderful. and that's the way it should be

because these are not partisan issues. the different viewpoints or approaches that we have a national interoperable public safety network for our country finally. that the 9/11 committee called for this. there is agreement about the d-block where -- d-block. where we have some difference of opinion is about a governing body relative to that effort. so i hope we can come to an agreement on that. i hope by the end of this legislative year we will have a bill that can be sent to the president and have him sign it. because again this whole issue that we're working on under the umbrella of spectrum contains so many elements that are so important for the american people. they are going to benefit from

it. i think those are the two things we need keep our eye on. >> when it comes to auctioning off spectrum aren't we already behind the eightball as far as timing? we are already soog shortages -- seeing shortages in many metro areas. >> we are. that's why this needs to get done. once the legislation becomes law, it still takes time. from the time that spectrum is auctioned for the various companies to tee up, essentially. so we don't have a moment to waste in this. i think it has been an exciting effort to be a part of. say the word "spectrum" to most people and they don't get excited about it.

but when you tell them how it works in their lives and the applications and the potential for future applications, they find it not only interesting but very exciting. >> some mentioned it can be up to a decade to cover 98% of the country. with that d-block spectrum that monitors have advocated. so what does congress do over the course of the next couple years to ensure that this all proceeds according to the time frame and gets done in an amount of time in which public safety has resources to communicate before there is a huge natural disaster like the one that ultimately prompted the call for public safety in the first place? >> i am always reminded that time is the most precious thing that's given to us. in our day-to-day lives. certainly our legislative lives. look how long it has taken to even address the issue that the 9/11 commission called on the congress to do.

that is, to have a nationwide interoprable public safety network. so that time is lost. i have a lot of confidence in what the american people can do and what the private sector has the capacity to do. number one, i think congress has to stay on this. one of the most important things we do is oversight. so you have to bring people in that are the stakeholders and the movers and shakers in each one of these areas and by the very fact that you bring them in and the congress is asking questions and keeping our pedal to the metal on how important this is and how we want there done as quickly as possible i think will help it along. if we are lack days cal -- if we are lacksdaisical about it, if

we move along with it, that might be the ad tute that sets in. but we can't afford to do that. >> congresswoman does your 9/11 call proposal, is that a short-term solution? >> it is not a short-term solution. we have call centers, as you know, and as listeners know, all over the country. i remember working in a call center when we had a huge earthquake in california in 1989. i was in local government. i went downstairs in that county government center and worked in that call center all night. so this is an effort to bring the call centers into the 21st century so that texts and video and all of that can be a part of them. now, there is going to be a debate about the funding how much the funding will be. and depending on how much we can secure, that will depend on how

much of a change will take place sooner rather than later or later rather than sooner. i have been working on this for a long time. i think this is the first place that people call. if they dial 9/11. parents even teach their small children. if there is something wrong this is what you should do. so i think our call centers deserve our attention. they deserve to have a share of the funding. certainly the federal government is not going to pick up the tab for the whole thing. they can't. but it is an overall effort. to make sure that our call centers are 21st century call centers. >> tony romm. >> congresswoman eshoo, the big

discussion this week is the f.c.c. says it cannot proceed in the way it has planned. the question for you, did the f.c.c. handle this appropriately? secondly, what are the issues going forward for the wire space generally? >> well, i just heard of this relative to light squared technology that the f.c.c. made the determination that there would be interference that was serious enough to displace the light squares proposal. i understand the great blessings of g.p.s. i believe there is a company in my district that may even be the

father of g.p.s. i know it has done great things in the military and i know what it has done in private life. i trust that the f.c.c. created a -- and carried out a totally unbias testing of this. but i think that the overall question now is how do we make sure that we have broadband that penetrates every single area of our country. we are not there yet. shame on us for not being there. we should not be self-congratulatory when we are ranked 24th in the world on broadband. the united states of america should be number one.

that certainly is my goal. we will move along past this. i know that the military raised a lot of questions about it. i certainly hope that everything that was conducted -- and i'm not suggesting that it wasn't -- that it would have been totally unbias and that this is a scientific and engineering decision that is rendered as a result of the tests and that spells out the rest of the story. >> finally congresswoman there has been talk in congress about reforming the f.c.c. model as it exists. what reforms if any would you like to see? >> i think legislation by republicans partner john shimkus of illinois, myself have offered to my colleagues, and we have very good bipartisan support on that bill as well as the agreement of former members