"beading gators," congresswoman anna eshoo -- "communicators," congressman and eshoo. earlier this week, anna] nancy i came out in favor of classifying broadband as title 2. do you support that? >> going back to 2010, i spoke about what i thought the sec should do to be on firmer -- fc should do to bec on firmer legal ground and appointed to title 2. discussions, we had about it. about net neutrality. people in our country feel very strongly about the internet. not only how they use it, but how they think about it. the access to it, that it be that no one,, and

no isp or anyone should be able to interfere with that. now, there have been a lot of problems, obviously, with court cases, lawsuits. i think a lot of time, valuable time, has been eaten up by that. so now we are at a juncture. close to 1.5 million people have commented to the fcc. i think it is the single largest response of the american people to any federal agency in the history of our country. that is really saying something. so i have examined title 2. one of the charges against title , thethat it is a old-fashioned way to regulate. in other words, it is a heavy hand. you really have to be careful,

cautious, about heavy-handed regulation. because we want innovation. ira present the innovation capital of our country -- i think of the world -- and we want to keep it that way. there have been a lot of investments made around innovation as well, so i am sensitive to the heavy hand of regulation. but for certainty, for consumers, for innovators, you can do a light touch of regulation. particularly in section 202. title 2 has 47 statutes in it. you don't have to take 47 statutes and throw it at this to cure it. so if i were a member of the fcc, i would examine that section very particularly. it's brief, it gets to the point discrimination, which is the big stumbling block.

that's the one we really have to answer, for consumers, for innovators. so i think it's not all of title 2, but i think you can find the gold in that particular section. where that's placed, how they handle it, that is the fcc, there are five smart people there. but i hope the rhetoric does not prevail that you simply cannot go near title 2 because it is old-fashioned, heavy-handed regulation. we are legislators, and words really matter. what is written matters because it walks into people's lives. again, you need very little of title 2 in order to address blocking, which is the most upsetting part of the proposal

the chairman made. that's what caused the ruckus around the country, i think legitimately so. that's what i would love to. >> can you reclassify broadband and not use all the statutes? >> i believe so. this is today's form of communication. it is today's form of communication. when we talk about infrastructure we are not just talking about roads and bridges. we are talking about broadband as well. i think our thinking needs to catch up with our words or our actions. some people will say one sentence out of title 2 is not acceptable. i think that's an uninformed view, frankly.

you have to be a problem solver in this. it's not what's on top of the page, it's the language itself that will address what the american people have spoken clearly about as a high-value, that no one is for blocking. i can go to umpteen town hall meetings or my telephone town hall meetings. and by the way, as the american people were expressing themselves to the fcc, they were expressing themselves on their wireless device. this should not be simply address as the old way in terms of landlines. everything has gone wireless. i think our thinking and legislative language needs to embrace all that as well. >> before we get to congresswoman eshoo -- brendan

sasso of the "national journal," you were present google and facebook and lots of upstarts as well. what has been the reaction to your approach from some of your constituents? >> i spent a lot of time with them, particularly the startups. i am proud of the companies that were born in my district, that became toddlers, that grew and are what they are today. these are brand names around the world. and they are thinking, their products are very exciting and have changed how people live and learn and work. but i think in the united dates of -- states of america we always have to have policies that encourage new companies to be born. because that is the creation of jobs. and that's at the top of the list of every american. they want more opportunity, more

jobs created, and so this is no doubt in my mind and the minds of many, that we have to make sure that innovation continues. that innovation continues. 7, 9,he smaller startups, 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 is 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 we have to be wise and prudent. we have to be practical, and i think we can project innovation innovation, and

we can do so with what i call a light touch of regulation. i think we can economist all of that. >> brendan sasso of the "national journal" joins our conversation. >> you say a light touch conversation -- regulation. is the only way to reclassify under title 2 and weaive the more burdensome requirements? is that the position? >> i think what we want to a comp which is certainty. -- accomplish is certainty. businesses, regardless of 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 the fcc over several chairmen have tried very hard to come up with the right combination of things in order to move ahead.

but it has been a decade where there is one lawsuit after another. the fcc has had to go back to the drawing board. i want to get beyond lawsuits. i really do. i think america really needs to be on the move. and we have been. i just think, if we don't have to drive with an emergency brake on, that is the way i would characterize it. fcc shouldhink the direct itself toward, and i think it wants to, toward certainty. and certainty means there is not a legal cloud hanging over whatever the decision is. that is why i think that this particular section that i mentioned hold a great deal of promise. wheeler gave a

speech yesterday where it seemed he was hinting he might want to expand net neutrality regulations for wireless. not just your home broadband connection, but also your cell phone. do you think that is an important piece of the legislation? >> i mentioned it a few weeks ago. i do. if close to 1.5 million people have voiced their opinion to the u.s. ec during a comment pe fcc from ae wireless device, what more can we say? this is our world today. this is simply a fact of life. i think our national law should reflect that. >> a few weeks ago you did a post on reddit where you asked if we should come up with a new branding for net neutrality. any words that might come out of this that you think might work better? >> some thing like 28,000 people

submitted their choice, and i think that we need something simple that the american people will understand. i haven't reviewed them all. my plate has been full the last several days, but we will put out an announcement about it. i'm thrilled so many people participated. 20,000 people. that's larger than some of the communities i represent. people care about it. in addition to their voting, so to speak, thousands of others weighed in and gave very long written opinions on how to address net neutrality. that was not the intent of the contest, but they still felt very strongly about it. >> back to section 202, congresswoman eshoo. carrier --her a

common carrier or not a common carrier. is that a fair division on section 202? and how do you delineate using just that to achieve net neutrality? >> you have to read this section and see how it is drawn. how it has worked for a long, long time, and it has -- the first section, a, speaks to that. the discrimination, we call it blocking in the broadband world, is not acceptable. that really is the basic tenet of the effort. but it also speaks to penalties speak,le disobey, so to that's the mother in me speaking, and how that is handled. entences.ut six st

not a long, winding, complicated road. everyone is not going to agree. inre are corporate interests my district that probably do not agree. but that's all right. they supply equipment to different people, and i understand they have a different purpose. my responsibility is to the public, the public good, the public interest. and i am a very pragmatic person as well. we need to get beyond lawsuit around thios. we need to keep expanding our economy and understand that this area of our economy holds extraordinary promise. good paying jobs. has on effect it people across our country and

around the world, we don't want to lose american leadership in this area. i'm not for stifling anything. says, listened, read what i said, legislation i have done, it has always been around innovation, protecting consumers, and growth. i think we need to direct ourselves to that. i think a very light regulatory touch will do it. that's my view. let's see what the fcc does. i think, the american people are not caught up in different sections of the law and title 2 versus whatever. they know what they want. they think it is fair. and they want the regulatory agency, congress, whomever, they

want those protections, and they will move on, and so will the companies, and so will be startups. they are not caught up in all this language. it is our job to get the job done for them, and i think this is a creative pathway toward it. >> my last question on net neutrality. netflix is supporting reclassification of title 2. at least they put their name to that. at the same time, they were looking at deals to maybe have enhanced broadband service, for so-called fast lanes. do you support the so-called fast lanes? >> i think obviously companies do what they need to do to protect their investment and their shareholders. weedson't get into the

about what someone is doing before the decision is taken. they doing that for their own interest. what i would point to, they needed to protect themselves because of the spectre of blocking. that is what i pull out of that story. there isn't anyone who will stand up anywhere and say, guess what, i'm for blocking. there just isn't anyone who is for it. even those who may be have been inclined to it say, we're not for discrimination. so i think we need to be adults, and we need to be pragmatic, and you know, i know there's a whole range of interests that have an interest in this. god bless all of them. i have my responsibility overall

to the people of the country, the people of my district, and the public interest. that at the end of the day, after listening and weighing a majorof this, that is ingredient i have to throw into the mix to bake the cake. fear, heavyo regulation i understand that, i am not for that. quite another question important to the future of the internet, wave a potential consolidation. comcast wants to buy time warner cable, and another deal the government kind of scared away, sprint trying to buy t-mobile. this consolidation, should it be allowed, and what does it mean? >> the american people view these proposed mergers with a wary eye, and i say that

because of the number of constituents i have heard from. thousands have sent handwritten notes to me. obviously most of the correspondence is via email. there's a reason they are skeptical. they want to be assured that they are not going to be getting less and paying more. they are for competition, and they know from their own personal experience that without robust competition they have very little choice and prices go up. in some instances, service is less than what they want. so i think the reviews of these mergers have to be viewed lens.h -- through that now to have been mergers that have been approved over the years. people say they have worked.

one instance in terms of what would be merged, they don't compete with each other in the same markets. throughlens i view it is what i stated to you. that is, a central responsibility of those in the federal government were going to review this. because at the end of the day, who are our bosses? who is paying our salary? who is, you know, ends up with the result in their day-to-day life? the american people. these mergers need to be scrutinized very carefully, and i think that driving them, review, needhe

to be these values. >> do you think there could be a tough conditions that would make the deal acceptable? for should the fcc and justice carbon block comcast from buying -- department block comcast from buying time warner? >> i am not going to go there in terms of out right blockage. reviewing. one doing i thought it was a good idea for our subcommittee to bring in the parties and have a hearing on it. i suggested it. i asked chairman walden, the chairman of our technology, to and technology subcommittee, to do that. perhaps he doesn't think it is a good idea. happened, let's put it that way. but i thought it would be a good idea for members to be exposed to more of the issues other than

what we may pick up on our, however we absorb information. newspapers, alerts on our p hones, what our staff may give to us. that has not happens. i still think there is time for it. i don't think these decisions are going to be made immediately. but that didn't happen. are veryhose elements important. breaches. we have been hearing about data breaches. target, home depot, et cetera. is there a legislative role for congress? >> i think that there is. i think that there is. i didn't ask for my credit card to be replaced when there was the breach at target.

i did go through my statements according to the time frame mentioned in the news. during that timeframe, i hadn't made any purchases, so i didn't make a call to replace my card. but these are sweeping breaches. ensnares tens of millions of people, and it is no source of comfort to my constituents, or anyone else, certainly not to me, when it is announced after the breach has taken place that we detected it two weeks or three months later. what does that mean? it just is not a source of comfort. now, we have real thievery going on, and it needs to be address. if every major bank in the country were held up at once, or successively, don't you think

there would be a massive response on the part of law enforcement? who are the cops on the beat? congress and the administration should be working to achieve two changes. at least i think these are prudent ones. one, that there be security requirements. you have to work with the private sector. i have never done technology-specific legislation, but i think that we can work with the private sector. met. need to be standards it would be in their interest as well. the time and money and effort that has to go into playing catch-up after the breach takes place, as in my case, i got a new credit card. i didn't ask for it, but it was replaced. so were tens of millions of others. so i think that a security standard should be two steps.

to be examined, working with the private sector, and also -- what heuld be the other one -- trh penalties. the penalties need to be very stiff inermf -- terms of these huge and malicious undertakings and the folks who do them. that would send a strong message. >> another important issue, the fcc wants to hold a spectrum auction where they buy back licenses from tv stations and auction them to wireless providers. the national association of broadcasters sued the fcc. could that delay the option? >> is a bump in the road, but i don't think it will delay the option. tohink the fcc is on track conduct the auction in 2015.

it is a huge and very important undertaking, and it is 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 is voluntary. y are real essentials in the 21st century, that we create more unlicensed spectrum, which is an innovation platform. that we fund. you know there was one recommendation of the 9/11 commission congress had not made good on. 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 could not communicate with each other.

so we finally put that in place. the funding for that effort would come out of auction dollars, and also pay down the deficit. so it's very important and historic undertaking. it is unfortunately broadcasters have done that, but i would co nsider it a bump in the road. i don't think it will stop the effort. >> representative eshoo, the 113th congress is nearing its end. henry waxman is leaving. you expressed an interest in taking over his position. how is it going? >> i think first we should appreciate the number of years of service of henry waxman. 40 years in the congress. 40 years of extraordinary leadership. john dingell, from the

committee, who also serves as years.n emeritus, 60 that's 100 years of service to the american people. so isolate them. when mr. waxman made the announcement, i also made mine that i would from my hat in the ring to be the lead democrat at the committee. so we have been working hard on the effort, and i'm highly encouraged. it's a long journey from the end it'snuary 2 december, but a worthwhile effort. i'm encouraged by the support i'm receiving by my colleagues. the people listening are probably wonder who -- wondering who votes on this. it will be the democrats, the new democrats that come in and be reelected democrats after the national election. so we are still working very

hard, which you need to do to earn people's support, what i'm very encouraged and overwhelmingly grateful. >> does your fellow californian nancy pelosi support your bid? >> she does. >> does that help? >> i think so. i think enormously. an important such vote of confidence. this is not something she has ever done on a regular basis. i dind'dn't know she was going o do it. i think it is a blessing. eshoo, brendan sasso, thank you. >> c-span -- by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. former presidents george w. bush

and bill clinton were recently theashington dc to launch presidential leadership scholars program, a partnership between the presidential centers of bush, clinton, george w bush -- george h.w. bush, and lyndon johnson. watch that tonight at 8:00 on c-span. tomorrow, bill clinton will join his wife at the 37th and final iowa,-- steak fry in posted by retiring senator tom harkin. live coverage beginning at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. next, senate armed services committee chair carl levin, speaking about u.s. foreign policy at the council on foreign relations. topics include the situation in the middle east and ukraine, as well as the u.s. strategy for combating isis. senator levin is retiring in january after serving 36 years in the senate. this is one hour.

>> good morning, everybody. welcome to today's on the record meeting. we certainly have a lot to talk about. just so there's no confusion, since we are about the same size and same age and we both wear our glasses on the edge of our nose, this fellow on my right is the very distinguished senator from michigan, carl levin, and the pbs ombudsman. senator levin is of course the widely respected chairman of the senate armed services committee. served for 36 years when he retires in january. he literally needs no introduction to this group. he has some remarks before we get started with the questioning.