war, how it helped establish regional identities and a viable fighting experience for the american revolution. and sunday night, president ford 's congressional testimony on the nixon pardon. find our television schedule at www.c-span.org, and let us know what you are thinking about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, for send us a tweet. join the conversation -- like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> this week on "the communicators," we talk with legislators on pending telecommunications legislation and some of the issues the fcc is working on. joining us first is the chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, joe barton, a republican of texas. congressman barton, a lot of proposals are coming out now,

not to the fcc, but from members of congress and groups, about how to treat net neutrality. henry waxman wrote to the fcc asking it to be reclassified as title ii. what is your reaction to that? >> i respect henry a lot, obviously. but he is wrong. they are trying to use an old for ansed in the 1930's industry in the 21st century. it has been proven over and over again that the best solution to allocation issues and usage issues is an open, transparent market with appropriate oversight by federal, and in some cases, state and local government. we have a booming internet. we have a booming telik and indications system -- telecommunications system, and

by and large it is because congress and various presidents have adopted more open market-based policies. for henry or the fcc to try to use an almost 100-year-old law to regulate the internet, in my opinion, is frankly flat wrong. reclassifycc does broadband as a title ii entity, would congress have a voice? the congress override that? >> we certainly have the right to override that. bill to have to pass a go to the house, the senate, and the president. with president obama as president and a democrat majority in the senate, it would be difficult to do, but not impossible.

there are some issues that still have some partisanship elements to them, and i do think telik indications policy -- telecommunications policy is one of those issues. again, title ii of the committee case and -- communications act, this is certainly what people would call an operator, from a party line to make a long-distance call in the 1930's and 1940's. when you have monopolies. when he did not have market competition. int is not the case today telik indications -- telecommunications. we have fierce competition. a very informed customer base. you don't need title ii regulation. fccongressman barton, the

is looking at major mergers. comcast and time warner cable and at&t and directv. at&t is a constituent of yours. do they look like they will go through? >> i am not as up-to-date on that as i probably should be. my hunch is they will go through, which -- with some qualifiers, some strings attached. but again, because of my previous answers on how robust the marketplaces, how transparent it is, i think they will go through. >> you also served as cochair of the congressional privacy caucus and you recently wrote to the ceo of home depot. what were you asking him? >> as you know, home depot has had, i don't know how to say this, a penetration of their customer base, their cardholders

. hackers have gotten into the .ystem they had access to a lot of private information, customer information. what we are trying to do as a congresswoman, anna to get -- degette of colorado and myself are trying to move legislation to protect the privacy of the american citizens in the various mediums. companies andge industries to be more accountable, more protective of their customers' privacy. >> do you see any of the issues we talked about so far coming up in the lame-duck session in congress? >> i do not. [laughter] you know, that and a dollar gets you a dr pepper. but i think we will have a very

short lame-duck session. and i don't think telecommunications issues will be a part of it at all. >> what about the 114th congress when it sits in january? >> part of that depends on which party controls the senate. if the republicans gain the senate so you have a republican house majority and a republican senate majority, then i think definitelyee very some telecommunications actions. chairman upton and subcommittee chairman walden have a very aggressive agenda, and we have some bipartisanship with congresswoman anna eshoo of california and in new jersey, whichever one of them gains the minority ranking member position. anna is the ranking minority

member on the subcommittee right now. so if you have republicans in the house and senate in the majority, i would say yes. say if you don't, i would it is possible. again, telecommunications is, has traditionally been a fairly bipartisan issue. and there are certainly things that could be done. fcc reform. you are to talked about net neutrality. that is a little tougher. privacy is an issue that could be handled in the next congress. so there are opportunities. >> speaking of anna eshoo, you and she sent a letter regarding spectrum auctions and low-power television stations. >> well, in 2012 we pass a law that makes it possible for the major broadcasters to give back some of their spectrum that they have and be compensated for it.

authorityhe fcc the to repackage spectrum and reallocated. under current law, low-power television industry does not have automatic standing. in other words, they are granted licenses, but those licenses are subject to the availability of spectrum in a particular marketplace, and if you , thesege the spectrum low-power television stations don't automatically have standing to continue to have a license, nor do they have any standing to be compensated. though it is one of those nation -- niche issues that in the cannot scheme people pay much attention to. but the reality is, in certain markets low-power television major player, and in some rural

areas it is the only player. so i have been approached by a number of low-power television participants in texas. i have also been approached at the national level. i have sent letters introducing legislation, working with congressman walden on a hill that we passed quarter past subcommittee. i have also worked with anna eshoo to come up with a the youan approach and that, instead of trying to get a bill. we decided with chairman greg walden's support to send this letter to gao asking them to conduct a study on the impact of the spectrum auctions on low-power television, how it would impact a number of stations, broadcast ability, a number of issues, and then report back to congress and the fcc. the sec has come around and they have begun to pay attention to

low-power television as a result of some of the things i have done in the last couple of years, but this gao study will shed quite a bit of light on how they could be impacted. as you know, the spectrum auction is an ongoing issue. i think we have about eight more years. maybe 10 more years with which to conduct it. so we have time, but i don't want, and greg walden doesn't want, and anna eshoo doesn't want, and i don't think chairman upton wants low-power television to be left in the cold. >> representative joe barton. we appreciate your time to talk about telekinetic it and issues. nicationmmute issues. >> joining me, congressman griffith.

you have a bill called the cell phone freedom act. what is it? >> it is a pretty simple little bill. as you know, a lot of companies are coming up with kill switches to put into cell phones. government entities are looking at the opportunity to help people when their cell phone gets stolen. i am for that. that is fine. but what i am concerned about is if some government entity or an individual decides they want to cut your phone off and it is your phone, i think you ought to have some protection. so this bill says that you can certainly ask for your carrier to cut your phone off. if you are the primary person who used the phone, the contract owner, you can ask that the phone because off. or if you are a government entity or law enforcement agency, you have to get a court order. this makes perfectly good sense to me. because what you don't want to 99.9% of law-

enforcement folks would never think about doing this, but there is always that small element, having a dispute with a boyfriend or girlfriend or a neighbor or something. , andget a little crazy they say i will call verizon and say, cut his cell phone off. if they have the phone number, and verizon gets a call from authority from the government, law enforcement or in agency involved in the industry, they will say, what is your authority? this bill says that person will have to get a court order. whether it is an individual phone or the phones of everybody in boston after the attack their at the marathon when the government told everybody to stay in place. they may have wanted to do a kill switch on all the phones in a particular neighborhood. that may have been appropriate. let's make sure we have a different set of eyes looking at it. let's make sure we have a

judicial process before we kill somebody's cell phone that has not been stolen by a bad actor. >> are we heading in the direction of all new cell phones will have pills which is, or the option? >> i do think we are heading in that direction. it makes sense, as long as there are protections on the other end that cannot be abused. if my cell phone is stolen, i nearestgo to the store,, carrier on the phone and say, here is where i am, how can i identify myself? my phone has been stolen, wipe it clean and turn it off so it has no value. the thugs and criminals are stealing the phones. even if it is wiped, they can still use the base materials to use your phone for some other purpose. often they are converting that to criminal purposes, whether it be drugs or other criminal enterprises, and we want to put

a stop to that. but like every thing else, there has to be a balance. >> there have been a couple cases, during the arab spring, there wasinternet -- a case in san francisco where cell phone towers were shut down during a protest. where is the limit? do you see a limit on what the police can do in cases like this? just a cell phone, or further? >> i think it could go further. certainly the intent would be the same, that you don't shut down all of san francisco or all of boston because of whatever reason without having a set of judicial eyes looking at it to make sure that this is an appropriate use of government power. there is clearly a fear the internet could be cut off. not in our government, but in other governments. so we need to make sure we continue to protect our rights.

you would never have the ability to get a broadside of a newspaper posted on the side of a building or a wall, the founding fathers would have said, you cannot say you will not allow any broadsides in boston or san francisco. likewise, we should move forward and say the government cannot shut down the internet, again without some compelling reason, whether it is a judicial oversight that says, what are you thinking? because we cannot give up our right to have the ability to freely express our opinions and to be a free society. >> the trade group for wireless cell phones has said about the california law -- california has mandated kill switches -- given the breadth of action the industry has taken it is unnecessary to have these kill switches. >> i think the industry is probably correct. you may not need legislation for the kill switches. most companies have put them in.

most phones will have it. it will be an option. that is something industry and consumers can figure out. but once the kill switch is there, i want to make sure the government doesn't abuse it. >> what is the status of your bill, and is there a companion in the senate? >> there is not a companion i'm aware of. the bill has been assigned to a committee and has not gotten a lot of attention yet, but talking with people like you and the viewers watching this, they should contact their congressman you might wanty, to take a look at that griffith bill. >> you iron -- are in your second term. what attracted you to these issues? >> my district is a natural gas and coal-producing district. i ran on coal issues, along with bringing down the debt. it was a natural fit for my

district. also the health care component, and we have some of the hardest territory in the east to get cell phone coverage into. so all of things attracted me to it. this issue is one of civil liberties that falls into the telecommunications zone. making sure that the bill of rights is updated and modernize and we continue to have those freedoms. >> one of the issues the committee has been working on is net neutrality. how do you approach, what is your viewpoint towards that in general? >> i think we ought to be relatively neutral and what we are doing on the net. it is a little more on the commerce side then civil liberties might normally lead you to believe, but it has similar libertarian overlaps. civil rights or civil liberties. i'm in favor. i'm a big believer in letting people make decisions on their own, and that the government

does not need to regulate everything. too great a degree. i am more for freedom than having the government control, or having corporations and control of that entity. >> you have had tom wheeler in front of your committee several times. what do you think of the chairman? >> i think he is very bright. i like some of his ideas. others, i would question. but you put good people into a position. he is extremely bright. a good man to have in that position. that does not mean we will always agree, but it is always good to have bright people. >> morgan griffith, member of the energy and conference -- technology committee. joining me this week is representative leonard lance, republican from new jersey and member of the energy and commerce committee. , theust had a bill passed anti-spoofing bill. what is spoofing?

>> spoofing is very bad behavior were those who are fraudulent try to trick the public to get information from the public. for example, a social security number or tax information. this is a growing problem in america, particularly among senior citizens. the anti-spoofing act, which is completely bipartisan in nature, i am the sponsor of it, a republican from new jersey. a democratic member from queens in the city of new york and chairman emeritus of the house energy and commerce committee, joe barton of texas. the legislation has passed out of our committee. it was passed on the floor of the house of representatives, and is now in the united states senate. there is a companion piece of legislation in the united states senate, also completely apartisan in nature, from

missouri senator and amy klobuchar of minnesota. this is a challenge. there are new forms of terribly fraudulent behavior that occur not only in america, but from outside our country as well. i hope the senate will consider this bill at an early date. >> how is this fraud being conducted? via new technology? >> yes. there was an act passed in 2009, also completely bipartisan in nature, that addressed this issue. but technology marches forward, and the bill which i have been ,nvolved with includes texting which was not in the original bill, along with new forms of communication. for example, telephoning someone through an ipad. this is just a demonstration that congress has to keep up with new technology that exists.

it is our responsibility to do so. for example, there was a person in new jersey who was defrauded out of i think $5,500 when she thought she was answering a telephone call and the color id -- caller id said it was the local police department, and it was not the local police department at all. there was an allegation she needed to pay more in taxes. d, we expected to be the person or entity that is in the caller id. tragically, sometimes that is not the case. >> how was it that a local police department number shows up on your phone, even if it is not the local police? how is that being conducted? >> they are able to have access to that police number, and they

are able to manipulate the means by which they communicate with the public. when i was a young person, it was exclusively the telephone, but obviously time marches on. for example, texting now. the 2009 law does not include texting, and this is a relatively new form of communication, and that is why congress should update our law appropriately. this occurs across the entire country. one district in the largest city in the country, new york. congressman barton represents a district that in many ways is rural. and we have heard horrible stories of how the public is abused. the legislation we passed in the house, which i hope will pass in the senate, includes the fact that some of these

abroad.ations come from the original legislation in 2009 did not include that. i want to give special credit to aarp, who has been involved in this. certainly it is greatly interested in making sure senior citizens in particular are not defrauded. but it goes across the board. ,t is not only senior citizens but certainly that is a significant component of the overall challenge. >> there have been cases -- i think last year -- where people thought the irs is calling them saying, we need more money. do you have any idea of the economic damage, the monetary loss involved in the aggregate? >> i think it is in the millions of dollars. i don't know precisely how much, but there were fraudulent persons who were claiming to be from the irs. voluntary taxation in

this country. people comply by filling out tax forms. the rate is significantly higher than in many parts of the industrialized world. although none of us like new taxes, the american people pay taxes. and when somebody professes to be from the irs communicate through a telephone or text message, the american people's response is overwhelmingly to attempt to comply with the law. that is why it is so incredibly important that we crack down on those engaged in fraudulent behavior. it is really reprehensible. citizens, asenior payment of $5,500 really is something that is upsetting to what they are able to do over the course of the year. that is a great deal of money to most americans. >> congressman lance, people

listening to this might think, of course we should have this law. what is the pushback? what is the other side of this argument? >> i don't believe there is another side. it passed the house of representatives by a voice vote earlier in september. that means that there was no opposition. i want the public to know that the committee on which i am honored to serve, the energy and commerce committee, and the telecommunications subcommittee, that committee is more bipartisan in its work than any other committee in the congress. this is an example of that. more legislation has come out of the energy and commerce committee and has passed out of the house of representatives from the energy and commerce committee and has been passed in the united states senate than any other committee of congress.

it is the oldest committee in the house, established originally in 1795. sam rayburn, the great speaker of the house of representatives, chaired the committee when he was chairman of the committee before the coming majority leader and speaker of the house. and our most senior member, john dingell of michigan, who has served in the house longer than anybody in american history, also at one point chaired the committee. the committee is currently chaired by fred upton of michigan, and mr. waxman of california is the ranking democratic member. there are many areas where we work together, and i hope that the public recognizes that that is the case. certainly, this legislation, bipartisan in nature in the house, but also in the senate under the leadership of amy an example of how we can and should work together. >> i want to pick up on something you said earlier,

which is that congress needs to keep up on technology. is congress keeping up on technology? >> yes, i think congress is keeping up on technology. that does not mean we will not have to continue to keep up with technology, because technology advances so quickly. but i think it is the responsibility of the energy and commerce committee to take the lead in this regard. staff.rely on expert we also allow the testimony of those who appear before us in the technology area. and we want to make sure that the united states continues to be the leader in the world in technology. and the various centers of that. i live outside new york city. the area i represent is an area of expertise. certainly silicon valley in northern california. inas near boston, areas

north carolina, and other places as well. it is the responsibility of congress to make sure that the fundamental laws of the land reflect where technology is. >> finally, congressman lance, net neutrality. the fcc is working on it, the energy and commerce committee is working on it. what is your general view on how that should be approached? >> i really think net neutrality is something -- a solution looking for a problem. we have a free internet. it has been exploding over the course of the last 10-15 years, and i do not think we really need to go down that route, and i think the innovation of the american people and of the free enterprise system is at the heart of why we have had this explosion. and i believe that is the view of the overwhelming majority of the american people. i certainly -- certainly of the

leadership of the energy and commerce committee. we want to free internet able to be accessed by all americans, and indeed all across the globe, and that is certainly my point of view. i want to work with the fcc on making sure that continues to be the case. >> leonard lance, republican of new jersey, thank you very much. "the communicators," which looks at telekinetic asian issues facing the country -- te lecommunications issues facing the country airs every week. >> campaign 2014 coverage continues this evening, live from iowa, where democratic congress and bruce braley squares off against republican challenger joni ernst, live tonight on c-span. sunday, a debate from the michigan governor's race. incumbent recover