thank you for giving me a few minutes of your time. >> on the next washington journal, match lap talks about the >> joshua musser be talks about the somali terrorist group and concerns of possible attacks at the homeland. as always, we will take your calls. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m., on c-span. >> c-span, brought to as a local service.

>> and representative greg walden is a republican and also the chair of the subcommittee on communications and technology. congressman walden, give us your take on what the fcc did this week. >> unfortunate, disappointing. i mean, a big win for the communications bar, because this is going to be litigated for years to come. and unnecessary. i think. for a lot of reasons, i think they went way too far. it is unfortunate that the fcc used to have a more independent -- independence than it does today. it really is not helpful for the internet, i think there is a better way that would have a given protection for consumers legal certainty for investors and it is called legislating, which is our job. we should do it. >> what kind of protections do consumers need? >> you know, i think first of all, you want to make sure that those who are providing the service are not advantage in

-- advantage in -- advantaging themselves over competitors, not blocking or throttling or engaging paid prioritization or other things that are of concern, and rightfully so to consumers. nobody has proved a market failure here. there have been examples over the last decade of individual problems, they have been worked out and the system continues on. but we haven't legislation that -- but we have legislation that would basically take the 2010 open internet order that gives consumers protections that many seek and we could make that all that all legal and a and do it tomorrow. >> well, joining our conversation with the chairman, is lynn stanton senior editor of telecommunications reports. >> thank you. you had said that you thought that once the vote was passed, there might be some more opportunity or room for democrats to work with you on the legislation that you mentioned, i know it is early, but have you -- >> no, not yet.

the door is open, i want to make that clear. we could have jammed a bill through, but we did not. we got it out there, we started in early january with the discussion draft, we met privately with democrats on the committee and different staff, and there was initially interest in it. but then it got shut down. i think what we have to do now is wait until the order is published, for all to see, it is not available. none of us have read it, only the commissioners and other staff. and then you have to give time for people to understand the consequences of it. good and bad. and then maybe there will be an opportunity to hopefully legislate in a bipartisan way. because again, and i think if history is any gauge, when we did the 2010 order it was 10 months before it was published to the federal register, then it was litigated for three or three and a half years. if you want protection, if you don't want to create a hugely uncertain market place, you should do it lawfully and as

legislation. >> there have been suggestions but i don't think it was attributed to anyone specific, but that there was pressure from the white house and from the fcc to congressional democratic members. >> we have heard that as well. the press reports, there was a n unnamed democrat staffer who reported that. >> so, you hadn't actually yourself -- >> no. >> i just mean in terms of people, nobody gave you an explanation as to why. >> you hear things here and there, it is also the secondary. nobody likes to admit to it. but we do know from some of the e-mail traffic from the white house to the fcc there was, i don't know if it is pressure maybe collaboration. maybe it was direction. it was from the white house and in printed reports since then that it was cooked up over there. the fcc certainly changed their

views and where they were headed once the president tripped them up. so, you know, it is not a good way to do public policy. >> so you do not give any credence to chairman wheeler's explanation that he was thinking about this last summer and this is the outcome of deciding that they really couldn't reach the kinds of protections they wanted without having to base them on title ii? >> i am having a hard time believing that. because of conversations that i had with the chairman this fall, where he was still in light touch, and then i read that he had this epiphany on the eastern shore that, maybe in july and -- or august, if he did it that is not what i was led to believe where he was heading in november. or maybe in december. but the two don't -- i don't know what happened there. >> chairman, do you trust the

fcc to forbear? >> they will try to forbear, i think the question is, as you know there is severability clause in the order, and what that means is they could have an order that forebears against all these things that don't belong on the internet under title ii. what if the court says, you are ok going to title ii, but you did not do the proper process for the forbearances? which could very well be the case. now, all these things that are forbeared against are gone, they are now under full title ii regulation because the court says, you didn't do proper process to forbear, but you did proper process for title ii, separation, boom, full title ii regulation internet. that is this commission or a court, what i worry about is the open ended nature of the potential regulatory energy to regulate. and what do regulators get paid to do, regulate. and this commission, on its maiden voyage out, it may get

out in the open sea and everything is feeling good, bad some point another commission could come along and say, i think we will go tougher. and you think about the pressure that will come from the trial bar, because you are opening up the internet and pricing to just unreasonable standards and class action lawsuits. so now, a collection can come together with enough plaintiffs, post-facto and come in and say i think you are charging this person too much three years ago, and now we have a class action lawsuit. they do not come in ahead of time and say this is an unreasonable price, oh no, it is not -- that would be full regulation. what they do is, after the fact, open the door for plaintiffs to come in and say that you are charging too much. it was not just or reasonable.

it opens up something that we have never had on the internet. there are also issues that i think negatively affect consumers. these new consumer choice plans, like music freedom i think it is called, that allows you to stream music with no charge against the data plan. there is an open question that this order may adversely affect that consumer choice plan. and put it under regulation. there is going to be a lot of uncertainty. we will know when we get the order. >> if this goes through and it becomes law of the land and title ii is the governing body what you foresee a temptation to tax internet usage? >> well, i think what the open question is this, does it open the door for that i treating it as a public utility? and indeed, commission or in his -- commissioner pai, in his

statement believes it does. and in fact, there are unique circumstances like your washington, d.c. and i think out in the state of washington there are gross taxes applied to public utilities. business occupation taxes, however they do that. mr. pai indicated that he thought that would mean an immediate 11% increase in your internet bill, here in washington. of some sort, we are all trying to figure out what that means. and then there is an open question about funding usf without a cap, are those fees attached? and if so, we will have a discussion about the whole universal service fund, how do you provide universal service across america with changing technologies, but it appears the order may open up that process and leave it open ended. >> of course, if and this is what puzzles me, but if they take money from the usf fee and

those will reduce, -- >> true, but it will be a shift. and we don't know yet, are you going to pay less on your cell phone, less on your landline now internet users paying for the first time, what shift goes into the enterprise world and business community. we don't know. >> you would think that there would be more reason to decide to. >> i think there needs to be more transparency and that is why we will discuss it and the issue of usf. >> what is the status of the comac? >> well we do have issues like net neutrality, which we figure d could happen. we have issued six white papers over the last year, and we have had wonderful response from interest groups, think tanks the public. and now we are beginning the process of moving forward on different elements that we have we haven't scheduled hearings but we want to make sure that the public and committee members have the opportunity to read through the papers, because they

are very helpful. as much as the former small business owner in me wants to move along, i also know that this is a big undertaking and so we will be thoughtful about it and take our time. >> the existing white papers they cover the field for you now, you are not planning on doing anymore now? >> i am not closing the door on doing others, because it has been useful. >> do you look at marking up legislation in this congress? >> i would like to, yes. >> how soon in the process -- >> let me just elaborate. that may not be a complete new comac. it may be pieces, but yes, on legislation. >> how soon in the process do you anticipate bringing in democrats, will you draft a piece of legislation then or bring them in first while you are drafting?

>> we have a lot of good discussion at the staff level and of course with the new ranking member now staffing up the white papers have been available and the responses have been available to both sides. i would like to think that i started something that is productive and it is these workgroups. it led to the effort on freeing up some of the spectrum that ended up in all of that. we have set up working groups in the past that have brought members together, they were jointly managed. it is complicated. we have had really productive outcomes. >> so you anticipate working in groups, drafting process groups? >> probably. >> congressman, you of course are in oregon, between washington, where a lot of high-tech is, and california

another high-tech state, but oregon has its own high-tech when you met with google representatives about net neutrality, what have you told them? >> you know, that is more silicon valley. we haven't some small internet -- we have some small internet providers, there is one i just spoke up today on a media source, who is realizing, and he is an internet provider, where he said, i will have to lawyer up, because of the new regulations. i know what that is like, having been in the small market whatever the fcc did in -- i did not have attorneys. you have to think, how do i do this? i think this will be one of those consequences that nobody ever writes about or broadcasts about, because you will not know what didn't happen. that is the hard part of the argument. we are trying to explain to people that this will have a

downward negative impact on investment and new technology in some sectors. i think you can point to the european union and just look at the investment and speeds there, i think it was a commissioner pai who pointed out that we invest $132 billion in two years when they invested $32 billion i think. and we are 82% penetration and they are at 54%. and our velocity on mobile broadband far exceeds western europe. what we have been doing is working and they have been under a regulatory regime. you are always going to have puts and takes. that's where i think the issues i heard about are, we don't want blocking, we don't want throttling. so we think, we can do that. you do not have to have mother may i bureaucracy.

there are a thousand things for provisions. and then the fcc will decide each fcc, which one they will for bear against or not. it is a very couple get a -- it is a very couple get a process -- complicated process that may take a lot of time. it will leave a lot of uncertainty. if you are a small startup, what is the role that you will follow today? i waited 10 years for the fcc to approve it something at my radio station. if they are bogged down, which by the way, they gave me 30 days to perfect them but you know, that is what you will see creeping in as they take on the

internet as their own. they think they will be in charge and micromanaging. you can get a very dysfunctional commission. i just don't think it was needed to go down this path. >> i think you saw in the new york times, it was said that republicans were decided -- decided to punt. >> we have not decided to do that whatsoever. one of the issues, it was if we will use the review act, with a privileged motion in the senate. we might, it is a tool in the tool chest. but it requires the president to sign it. what do you think the odds are that he will sign that appeal? my preferred approach is to work with colleagues and figure out a way to give it protections to consumers that they deserve and demand and do it in a legal way where it will not get litigated.

they know they will get litigated. everyone is lawyering up. >> do you see it as a leverage the fcc will be challenged, the leverage of people who want to support your legislation, the court denies a stay? >> i can't quite read at the politics on it why the democrats don't want to work on this with us. i know it is a huge part of their base. but, i hope all of these groups look at it, look at the orders and they may say, we need some help fixing something. this really won't work. and then there is the story today that i saw in forbes on google, the argument about how they block and throttle and own

platforms on ads. if we are going to get into that and prioritization, paid prioritization, do we need to rethink that this is more than just a piece of fiber it is more about how we communicate. if a one of the entities in there, whether it is the one pushing the data through, the wire or fiber, where is the one that says, by the way, i will move this to hear and he will never see this, i am in control here and i control all three platforms. i don't know if that is in our jurisdiction but there is a lot more to the internet i just the carriage. >> congressman, you mentioned the national public -- republican congressional committee, if you want to fund raise in silicon valley, for the position of the republicans, what do you tell them?

>> i tell them that i am for an open and free internet as well. i get support from people in silicon valley, because they have other issues too. all of this debate, there is a lot of evidence that we vote against people, that doesn't get referenced usually, but the point is, if you want a free and open internet, we can give that to you in a legal way. i raise this under different context, remember there is an issue of the vice tax and the approval of medical devices, and there was argument about what a medical device was. and innovators, they need to understand that you have been able to create apps without ever going to the government and asking will you approve this. i worry that if we go too far down a path of preapproval on every cap -- app, we won't have

innovation anymore. they will move to different sectors. now, do i want to make sure that it is certified and working, of course. but there is lack of certainty as to whether your ipad is a medical device or app. we had to decide, this is a, this is. in washington, people are deciding what is just, unjust. that needs to be a limited place for the government, where markets don't work. i really think they needed to prove market failure, before they take in troll. if there is a monopoly, i am all for getting the government in there and breaking things up. but where there is such a vibrant marketplace, now, we have to tread carefully or we will destroy what has been

extraordinary. >> if you could design a bill right now, what protections would you include and -- >> oh i have one right here. and it goes right through it, it says, you may not block lawful content. you may not throttle lawful traffic, you not -- you cannot engage in --, you may disclose -- and here is the enforcement language for the fcc to have authority and other authorities and that we don't even touch. where you can go in force -- enforce, and these are the abuses. we even go further. and by the way, from some of our witnesses, we have six pages. the order from the fcc is over

300 pages, it will be a couple of years in court and we won't even know what we have. and the fcc down the road can change with these folks do. >> does years say that the internet is not a public utility? >> correct. we limit -- yet we do, and we limit their 7060 authority down the road. it we do not want to leave the door open, because it could come right back to the same door and use of this expanded definition of 706. when you read it, it talks about their authority to do anything they think would expand access to the internet world. it is a very wide-open language. it is unlimited authority. we are trying to limit that authority, see you do not have a bureaucracy in washington that decides the fate of the internet and a bad way p or >> and terms

of the authority to enter -- implement the bill, he said that they cannot adopt rules to implement, just to enforce. some have concern that that handcuffs -- we don't know what the next technology will be, but that handcuffs the fcc in terms of addressing new problems that come down the road. >> comes talk to us -- come talk to us. if there is a problem, we can help address it. but, those that are established in the section, those complaints from the public, just on and on, there is a complaint process. there is full authority for the commission, they can do their job. they are now exceeding, i believe, they are exceeding their authority.

there are two court cases that say it is information, it is not a public utility. another thing, when they go down the path, they take the federal trade commission out of the equation. no longer can the federal trade commission take part, because it is a public utility. so you want to talk about taking a big dog out of the fight, you just took out the justice department and its experts on abusive trade practices, it is off the table. it all goes to the fcc. >> it is a long-standing call for illuminating the -- care -- eliminating the common carrier section. is that something you would consider taking off the table?

>> that is an issue for our discussion, something that we have kicked around. there are pros and cons to doing that. it is something that we have to look at carefully, so i am not prepared to say which way i would go on that. but i know with the existing law says and it reclassifies the internet as a title ii carrier and that has taken the federal trade commission out of the picture p or. flex concrete -- >> congressman, have you talked to -- >> i haven't made a presentation to the conference yet. >> the fcc also has a broadband state laws that restrict utilities, a network divider

from -- network provider from it could be geographic, things that the cities need to do before they can expand. a bill that was introduced by your collie, -- colleague that takes that away from the fcc, is that something you see moving to the committee? >> it may. there are court cases that say the fcc does not have that authority. and because municipalities are an outgrowth of state government, there is a kind of constitutional amendment that asks if it goes against the constitution. so, entree provision funding and all of that, i think that order will get struck down. they do not -- in my own state

of oregon, it is open. you can have municipalities, and in parts of my stay, we probably wouldn't have broadband levels that we have today if local governments were not involved in it. i would rather leave it up to the states to decide. it is their taxpayers pay the bill. and so i am more of a states rights person on these matters. it is not necessarily that i disagree with what the fcc is doing, but i don't think they have the authority to do it. i think the court will side in that direction. >> countryside, the sec -- congressman, what has changed legally? >> im not a lawyer, so i do not know what has legally changed. it will not take effect until 60 days after that, we don't know

when that will be. whether or not there is an injunction, that could prolong it. the long and short of it, washington now is having its biggest role in the internet and the question is, how that will play out. >> you asked chairman wheeler to publish the order, and that is not typical, do you think that that should be a regular practice? >> yes, so the public can see it. 4 million americans -- many millions of americans are concerned. all of us could benefit from seeing what they will bow on before they vote on it. we have shared our draft, people give us good feedback. the process is better served when these documents are public.

and you know, i have been a fighter for process reform at the fcc. and i will continue to work on process reform. the chairman said that his initiatives were to be transparent, so that is why am disappointed with how this played out. on march 19, we will meet and the staff will be spending time on capitol hill. we have a lot of important telecommunications issues, budget issues, it is time to do our due diligence on operations. >> greg walden is it the chair of the telecommunications subcommittee. >> sees them, created -- c-span, created by america's cable

companies and brought you as a service. >> tomorrow, house majority leader kevin mccarthy and democratic whip address the 2015 america israel public affairs conference. live coverage begins at 5:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> keep track of the republican congress and follow the new members through the first session. new congress, best access on c-span c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. on wednesday, the supreme court heard oral arguments in a case testing whether clothing retailer abercrombie & fitch discriminated against a muslim woman because she wore a headscarf.