we asked the president to do his. thank you for listening. >> coming up next on c-span, all "the communicators." after that, c-span's original first ladies. >> c-span, created by america's cable company 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your television rovider. >> and joining us this week on "the communicators" is the ranking member of the commission on technology, anna eshoo.

democrat from california. some of the companies she represents in her district include facebook, googlele, netflix, mozilla. you recently said you wanted to be the new ranking member, the top democrat to replace the retiring henry waxman. why do you want that position? >> first of all i think that the committee itself, the energy and commerce committee, which is one of the oldest committees in the congress, is really the committee of the future. its jurisdictionses are so broad and so powerful and it's very citing and so to step into that position, which is not easy to do, because you have to be elected by your colleagues, i think is an enormous opportunity to leverage everything that is there, not only in communications and the internet and technology but how that is

applied to increasingly to health care, the other jurisdictionses, the f.d.a., the m.i.h., and so it's very exciting. and i think that i have a skill set that fits with that and the leadership style that can leverage that. so i did announce my candidacy earlier this week and we'll work hard at it but it will be a long e. as well and i look forward to it. i think the competition is very important. the competition of kids. the candidates have and then members will take their decision. >> how would you describe your working rhythm with your current chair, greg weldon on the subcommittee and fred yum on the? >> i think we have an excellent relationship. we respect one another. of course, we served together for some time before i was the ranking member to have subcommittee and i think that we

produced important legislation on a bipartisan basis. i remember saying to the chairman, greg wad en, you know, our day, in our time, the congress is really dysfunctional, but we can set a different model and an example here and we did with the large spectrum bills that we did last year. we worked on that for almost a year and a half and i'm proud of that. that's what the american people want. >> joining our conversation bout technology issues is kate tummarello of "the hill." >> thanks, peter. you've been such a big player in the tech and telecom space. where you were to become ranked member, what would change on the committee? how would the democratic focus shifment? >> i think that's what is

important to first of all appreciate is the very broad talent that's on the committee. and i think that it's very important to be collaborative with members, number one. and to enhance the opportunity of service at the committee. it has to be more than just showing up and waiting for an hour to ask five minutes of questions because that's really the only time that you have there. so i think that that's very important. every member of congress was motivated by something to run for congress. they have passions about things and i think to harness that with the jurisdictionses of the committee and look for opportunities to create opportunities for people. i think that that's very important. so i think i do bring a different skillset to the

committee. i served for many years on the health subcommittee and produced a lot of legislation that was signed into law by both republican and democratic presidents, so i think that those very broad jurisdictions of the committee i have a very deep and broad understanding of and have worked on them. so i'm excited about it. you can tell i am. >> the other big announcement recently is your net neutrality bill after the court decision overturning the f.c.c.'s. it seems there's significant republican opposition, which i'm sure you expected what are you hoping the f.c.c. does? also the court responding to the pressure your bill puts on them? > well, i did introduce a bill that essentially keeps in place the rules of the road, if it were adopted, which it will not

be. but i think setting a bill down in the congress of the united states and the form that it is in really reflects millions and millions and millions of people in our country, and most frankly, around the world, that want the internet to remain accessible, accessible and open to free to them. so that's a very important principle. now, i read the case and what the federal court said. it was very interesting. couple of elements, verizon brushed the case. they sued. why did they sue? they did not want the f.c.c. to have any kind of authority in broadband. that suzz something in and of

itself. two, the court's response was, the f.c.c. does retain authority in broadband, where they -- what they struck down was how the f.c.c. had interpreted the different sections of authorities that they draw from. but very interestingly, the court said it shouldn't be this way but you should consider the following items. which is unusual for a court to do that. i'm not a lawyer but i think that's unusual. so this now will be in the hands of the f.c.c. i think that they have a road map. i think that they have a deep and broad awareness of what has made the internet the powerhouse i don't s and that

think there's anyone that uses the internet that would say i want blocking and i want discrimination. so let's see what they do. i think it's important for the commission to be cautious, of course, because the court case, you know, is kind of split. but i think the upside of it is daysat the court goes --'s of the direction where discrimination and blocking can still be addressed in a way that would meet the muster of the court. >> anna eshoo, could you support broadband being reclassified as a common carrier? >> i think it's -- you know, as a legislator, i'm not so much in the weeds on that if that's the best way to accomplish and it the f.c.c. believes that's the best way to accomplish it, what i want to see is that the

internet remain free, accessible, open, no blocking, no discrimination. that's my overall goal. that's what has made it what it is. is is now one of the great impromoters of the united states of america. we invented this. this is our genius, this is our ingenuity. so that's why i wanted to continue and prosper the way it is. this is not -- i don't believe in democratic position, republican -- well, it certainly isn't a republican position because they don't see it my way. i think this is all about the consumer and their experience and what should be retained so regardless of who you were, where you live in the country, what your color is, what you do, what your economic background is, it's all neutral when it

comes to the internet. and that's what i want to see retained. i think we have a strong case to continue that. >> what have been you been hearing from the companies in your district, the googles, netflix, etc., about -- >> there are varying positions from companies and that's not a surprise because they're economic interests are tied to that. and i believe that my position helps them. i don't think any company is congratulated or viewed in a positive -- through a positive lens if they block or discriminate. that's not what consumers want. so i think that this can be structured so that it retains the original values and the structure to have internet but, of course, it has to go through a regulatory body. the language that they use, the

sections of the law that have given them -- that the congress has given them. and they're more than capable of doing that we have five excellent commissioners, a full commission, a new chairman in the commission who is skilled -- a very full background in this area -- they all do. so i'm looking forward to working with them on it. >> kate tummarello? >> a.t.p. announced its sponsor data plan which they say when will help consumers because they won't have to take data away from their data cap. how do you perceive that argument? is that treading on the ground of that new centralty policy, at least if not in spirit, in the letter of the law? >> well, i think it does. why? because it affects the consumer. it starts splitting up an

audience. it's as if you're breaking down different groups and users and segmenting them. that's not what the internet has been about and i believe if it had begun that way that it would not be what we know it to be. so i understand a company's interest. i mean, they have to have -- they have a bottom line. they have to perform for their shareholders. i understand that. but i think overall in terms of consumers, it's not the track that is attractive to me, let me put it that way. >> on the topic of wire lescare yers, there are rumors about a sprint-t-mobile merger. i know you talked about the importance of competition in the wireless marketplace. >> uh-huh. >> t-mobile and sprint advocates could say this would help them

compete against at&t and verizon. where do you stand on the reported -- >> first of all there is not an actual proposal that's been placed before the f.c.c. so -- but there is a lot of conversation about it. what i would say about this particular case that you've raised is that they all have to be subjected to the scrutiny in the following way -- what produces the most competition in our country? we essentially have a duopoly that operates today relative to communications in our country. how healthy is that? is that what is best for consumers? is that what is going to bring the price down for consumers in erms of what they want to buy?

so i don't know all the things that are in the proposal. i certainly will look at it but the agencies that have to examine this i hope will examine it in terms of what will produce the most competition in our exun country. that's part and parcel of capitalism in our country, and when there is fierce competition, we know who wins. the consumer wins. people are under a lot of pressure. the average consumer today is under a lot of pressure in terms of their bills and what they pay. and, you know, in many cases it just keeps going up. so i think something i'd like to see -- i know my constituents say we want more competition so i think it has to be examined with that as a major operating principle prosecute. >> you're watching "the communicators" on c-span. anna eshoo is our guest.

she is the top democrat on the energy and communications subcommittee. ate tummarello of the hill is top reporter with that publication and they recently founsed a the congressional apps student program. what is that? >> i'm very excited about out. congressman bob good let, a republican, and myself are co-chairs of this effort. launched in the house. the seal of approval from the house administration committee because it is officially congressional. it's not an individual effort, it is a congressional effort. and the reason for it is the following -- we know looking into the future to 2020 what the demand will be in the area of stem. science, technology, engineering and math. we also can project what the

shortfall will be for those jobs, those very important jobs leading out into the future. and so the decision was made that we would challenge young people, high school students, to come forward and participate in this challenge. and they will design their own ps, they are all high school students and each congressional district in the country. as of yesterday, 129 house offices' members have signed on. so it's totally bipartisan, but what i find so exciting about it is i know that this challenge is going to be responded to. and it can be transformational for students. and what career paths they follow and -- so i think it's just terrific and you can see by

the response of members that they've really -- they see in this, i think, what i do. so i'm excited to co-chair it goodlett.essman bob we've worked together at the co-chairs of the internet caucus so i think this is a wonderful opportunity for young people in our country and it's going to, i think, reap a great deal. for us and for them. >> is there a time frame on it? >> there is. there are some deadlines relative to when applications have to be in, and -- >> could they go to your website? >> they could go to our website, absolutely. if they don't know who their member of congress is, there is a tool to find out. you just type in when you live and then you can call that congressional office. >> i know the house, the energy

and communications committee have dedicated itself to rewriting the communication act of the f.c.c. this seems like a long process. what are are you anticipating from that? >> when i became a member of the committee in january of 1995, the committee was writing the telecommunications act. it's important to note that it took many, many attempts. many attempts before it was actually successful. so this is a very long winding road. this is not something that gets done in nine months, in 18 months. i think that -- i mean, i'm open to it but i also think that we should examine -- because it's a long-term effort, that we have an appreciation of the things that we can accomplish in the short-term and not put them off for seven years or six years from now. i think it's also important to

know what you want to accomplish. just to say you want to do it, well, that's -- i guess it's interesting but i think you need some markers in this. but overall i'm open to it. i will work with all of my colleagues who help shape the direction and what i think we can take onboard. short-term as well as those that are longer term issues in our country relative to communications and technology. >> is consent one of the issues you think should be taken up sooner -- >> i think that's short term and i think we can accomplish that with the reauthorization of tella and representative skscolise and myself both have bills. we're working together. we have a lot of enthusiasm between us in terms of understanding what's broken and

what needs to be fixed. so we have more work to do but i do think that we have the capacity to address this because i don't think it's a sustainable business model. i think that consumers really are at the short end of the stick when these blackouts occur. i don't think anyone can defend these blackouts. and -- so there's work to be done. we need video reform. she shouldn't -- we shouldn't have to wait five, six, seven years for that. >> can you give us an up -- update, representative eshoo on yours and mike rogers' work of the securing of the communication links in the u.s.? >> well, congressman rogers, as you know is not only a member of the energy committee but he's also the chairman of the house intelligence committee and i served on the house intelligence

committee. we have term limits there so i was there when he was there so we had partnered on many things, even more successfully at energy and commerce. we had a real meeting of the minds in different matters. there's no question that we have to address cybersecurity in our country. interestingly enough, the federal government represents 5 bank account of the pie -- 5% of the pie. 95% is in the private sector, so how do we leverage what needs to take place between the private sector and the government? sharing is very important but guaranteesto be some for companies to share. there are parts to have legislation they didn't like or didn't agree with but overall this has to be addressed in our country. this take place place every single day. all you have to do is ask anyone

that's walking in or out of target or neiman marcus. i mean, we have a problem. we have a security management problem in our systems. and the snowden revelations. what that says to me is that in our intelligence community that the security maggot -- management that is necessary to secure, essentially, the family jewels. so this is a huge issue and the jurisdictions of our committee weigh in on this. the homeland committee as well, the house intelligence committee. this is going to take a real bipartisan, grownup effort on the part of members to address this because it is the public and the private sectors and now we see these huge incursions

relative to consumers and what that does. we need far better reporting, i think, to consumers, but before we -- that's after something has happened. we need to be able to prevent these things. >> do you foresee this year legislation on data breaches? >> i don't know. i have to tell you, i don't know. i hope so i hope that that will be nearly at the top because we're living with this every day now. almost every week or every month something comes out. and you know, the average person can't fix this themselves. i read that they're writing checks and using cash because they don't trust the system. we need -- one of the most important factors in our economy , and the reason we have the broadest, deepest markets in the world is the confidence factor.

and when that is chipped away at, it's not good for us. it just is not good for our country and our economy. >> kate? >> i know you were very involved with patent reform. i'm curious what you think of the effort to pass the house. compared to the original bill which had some provisions which some would say got watered down and some that got more reasonable. what are your thoughts on not only the bill to pass in the house but in the senate. how close are you following that? >> i'm proud to have been an original co-sponsor with the legislation with chairman goodlett and things that you mentioned that were changed in the bill. i welcome that that means that is the result of building consensus, which you have to do in order to get something

through. no one gets 100% in these things. in fact, if they do, i question it. so strong bipartisan effort and it addresses a huge issue in terms of these patent trolls. if companies have to spend -- that are actually innovating -- some $29 billion, and then it has increased over a handful of years 400%, something is broken. something is wrong. so i think that we did a very good job with the bill in the house. now the senate will take it up. they will scrutinize it. as is often the case, the senate doesn't agree with everything in the house. that's our system. but i do think that this must be addressed. this really calls out for a remedy in this area. >> you have a federal i.t. procurement bill. >> i do. >> it seems like a lot of talk

happened after the health care website problems. do you think that provides enough momentum to get this bill off the ground? >> i think one of the things that's really important in this -- you know, they say timing is everything -- that the american people, the congress of the united states, saw the rollout health care.org -- health care.gov and bungled comes to mind and it goes downhill from there. what i said when we had the hearing at our committee in asking questions of the contractors, i said if the congress is really interested in doing something about this we need to pursue i.t. reform. so it is not only the example of that but my knowledge also from being a member of the house intelligence committee. the federal government spends $80 billion, with a "b" a year

on i.t. procurement alone. this is an area that cries out for reform. the g.a.o. has listed since the 1990's high risk. it's estimated by some that $20 billion is wasted. that's a lot of money. o i've introduced a bill that, based on my experience, but also meeting with many, many stakeholders and it's bipartisan, which is very important, and i think address is this -- addresses this in a very clear, workable manner in what the bill calls for. but this is a lot of money, taxpayer money, and we can do much, much better. we can do much, much better, and we have to open the door for more competition in terms of smaller innovative companies

that may indeed be able to build out a much better system. they don't apply now because you need a team of lawyers to pull ogether a 1,900-page application, you know, a response to an a.f.p. and then agencies have their own supplement that may be up to 1,000 pages. they simply can't compete so i think that this is an area that is rife for reform are. taxpayers would benefit from it and the product that comes out of the executive branch, all of the agencies. i.t. is absolutely part and parcel of all of this. so it's not just one part of the government but we can learn a great deal, i think, from the private sector, come up with a better, workable product, hopefully for a better price but also as i said, save taxpayers a

great deal of money, an important area. >> finally, we taped an interview on this program with the head of icam, the internet board. and he talked about -- he's pushing for a loosening of the u.s. stewardship of the internet and making it a more international stakeholder management board. do you have any initial thoughts -- thoughts on that? >> i don't know what the specifics are in terms of that principle that he has put out there so i can't do a deep dive on it. the k that we know, as country that moatered this, that gave birth to it and how it has operated, that i certainly have a vision of how that needs to be retained. but i'm always open to robust kids of how to improve that.

as long as it's not diminished. as long as it's not diminished. and many countries around the world have a different view. you know, they want to really regulate the internet, and from societies that are not open democratic societies and i don't want to discover what may be sitting on the table. >> the ranking member of the energy and commerce subcommittee. >> c-span. created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to