surest way to show them that their lives matter and it's the smartest way to prove to them that in communities like this and in a country like ourselves we believe in opportunity for all. thanks, everybody and have a great weekend. >> hello, this is united states senator johnny isakson from the great state of georgia. in my state of georgia, 1.2 million jobs are directly related to international trade. in the last 10 years, georgia's exports to our trading partners grew by 69%. with negotiation on trade deals that are ongoing, we expect that to just continue. next year the panama canal is opening to the larger shifts of the 21st century. we are accommodating those larger ships bringing goods and services from the rest of the globe to america. this project will make the city of savannah, the state of georgia and the entire southeast a hub of exports and imports. we're losing all of those goods and services they carry going

elsewhere around the world. i'm thrilled the trade promotions and accountability act is coming to the floor of the second. it will promote american workers and jobs by setting out clear objectives mandating by congress that the president must achieve in international trade agreements. the legislation will go for six years and require presidents from either part to consult with congress. congress still has the final say in approving a trade agreement. i want to be very clear, this legislation does not guarantee approval of any proposed trade agreement. every trade agreement is scrutinized by your representatives and by the senators in congress. republicans will not support any attempt to override u.s. law by sneaking extra provisions into any trade agreement. that includes it --

trade was not supposed to be a partisan issue. it is about helping hard-working american families. raise revenue and hope and opportunity. this does precisely that. american manufacturing and american jobs. these benefits could be found around america and in georgia. one example is caterpillar. caterpillar was able to move back to the united states, including bringing a plant back to my state of georgia in 2013. that is what trade promotion authority has the potential to do. it will expand trade and opportunities for the american people. this ensures that america had not china and other countries at the forefront of economy and trade in the world.

it will empower america out jobs and economic growth. when congress votes on accountability, i hope they vote in favorability of free trade. choose innovation over isolation. innovation and hard work are the attitudes that make the american people and the u.s. the leader on the global stage. america should be the leader it has been in terms of technology and genuity, and trade. it is good for our country and our economy. it is good for the middle-class american families will reap the benefits of our jobs. they give for listening. god bless the united states -- thank you for listening. god bless the united states of america. >> "the communicators" is next. it is followed with our interview with the grand prize winners in this year's studentcam competition.

and honoring the teacher of the year. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite providers. >> this week on c-span's "the communicators" first up is senator al franken. the judiciary committee, you hailed the failure of the comcast-time warner merger as a win for consumers. why? senator franken: i firmly believe they would've been too big of a company. they would've been anti-competitive and not in the public interest.

it would lead to higher prices for consumers. lest choice. -- less choice. >> is it because of the size of the merger? senator franken: the size and the pieces and parts of the different markets they had. 30% of cable between them. the d7 percent -- 57% of internet broadband. that is too big. i had a lot of content providers and networks come to me. said they were opposed to this deal. it gives you some idea of what happens when you get this big. they were afraid. they feared retribution. >> did comcast come to you? did they try to influence your opinion? senator franken: they did not. i had been against the comcast and nbc and universal purchased

acquisition. for some of the same reasons. this is much worse as far as i was concerned. they knew i wasn't going to favor this. they did not try. i was opposed to this from the beginning. >> the fact that charter communications has been sniffing around time warner, is that something you would also oppose? senator franken: that is something i would look at. this is of a different magnitude. comcast is the largest cable tv provider. the largest internet provider. putting it behind the second-largest cable tv provider and second-largest internet provider -- from the outset, it was too big. i think this deal ultimately collapsed of its own weight. >> what about directv and at&t? senator franken: that is one i

am skeptical about. i have been focused on this one. this one i knew. [laughter] when it started 15 months ago, i think most people thought -- but i didn't. i think i'm happy with what happened. i'm proud of my role in that. >> something else you are probably in favor of is the net neutrality decision. senator franken: yeah, i fought hard for that. net neutrality has been architecture of the internet from the beginning. the fcc has been trying to establish net neutrality rules of the road. they have had in the past go to court against them. the circuit court in d.c. ruled against the fcc.

the circuit court basically saying they had to invoke title ii and basically say the internet was a utility and they did that. i think what focused everyone's attention was when tom wheeler the fcc chair, over a year ago put out proposed rules that called for the antithesis of net neutrality, which is fast lanes that you could pay for if you were a deep-pocketed company. everyone else on a slower lane. the whole point of net neutrality is treating everything neutrally. allowing everything to flow at the same rate. this got people mobilized.

i was very much opposed to what chairman wheeler was proposing been. i have been an advocate for net neutrality for years. over 4 million comments from the american people, which is more than twice the fcc has received on any other issue. over that time chairman wheeler saw the light and understood what was at stake here. came down firmly for net neutrality. that was a good outcome as far as i was concerned. i think that comcast and time warner cable played into that. there were about one million comments on this. when you are talking about a company getting 57% of all high-speed internet, i think

that bodes ill for net neutrality in the future. think about the power of that and the fcc's composition might change. that became part of the issue as well. >> really, a big grassroots push to promote net neutrality. senator franken: yes./ people knew. this isn't just small businesses and startups and individuals. this is the businesses -- big businesses. ups, bank of america, others formed a coalition. every business in america uses the internet. any manufacturers put specifications over the internet -- the internet is used by

everyone. the only people who would benefit from fast lanes and slow lanes would be the isb. that would be passed on to the consumers who would end up paying more since those who bought the fast lane would pass that cost on to you. >> it is said that your neighbor in south dakota is preparing some legislation to overturn the ffc's ruling in this area. will this extend the uncertainty for years? senator franken: i did think this will be very hard to overturn -- to turn this back. we have to be vigilant. no question about that. i have colleagues who do not understand what the issue is

here. i have heard members of the house get on the floor. some would say, i do not know why we need net neutrality. you do not have to know anything to get on the floor. it is not a rule. [laughter] you could say whatever you like. >> you are the ranking member on the judiciary committee. what are your thoughts on the issue of privacy on the internet and also on potential reenactment of the patriot act? senator franken: in terms of the surveillance nsa surveillance, i have supported transparency. i think there is a balance you have to strike. it is hard to strike between privacy and national security.

i think everyone recognizes that. i voted against those programs that snowden revealed. the 215 and 702. i am only saying it with those numbers because it is c-span. i'm guessing there are a few people watching who know what i'm talking about. [laughter] i voted against them because there wasn't transparency. i think they have the right to know what is happening so they can make a judgment whether that balance is being struck. a republican from nevada and i offered transparency under the last bill on this. got 58 votes in the senate. hopefully it will go forward again. we need something in place to make sure that we are not attacked again. we need to do in and away that protects privacy to the extent that we can.

i was the first chair of the privacy technology subcommittee judiciary. basically what this is about is technology keeps accelerating. we have to think about that. the founding fathers never conceived there would be the telephone. someone had to decide wiretapping a phone was a violation of the fourth amendment. it was decided it was. we now have technologies that are just head spinning. there is one app named name tag with facial recognition.

they wanted to put it on your google glass. you go walk around and look at people and it would identify them and connect to their dating website. i wrote a letter. do not do that. [laughter] and they aren't. they aren't doing it. this is just going to keep accelerating. there are lot of privacy issues. location is being taken all the time with your smartphone or it can be. people have a right to privacy, including who is taking your location information. you should have the option to opt in if it is fine with you. >> to use a bipartisan support for that? -- do you see bipartisan support for that? senator franken: yes.

we didn't get that taken up on the floor. i will be pursuing that come especially on stalking apps. it is something that has become an issue in terms of domestic violence and slipping into your smartphone. your partner may slip that on and always know where you are. it is so dangerous and has been dangerous. pretty ugly stuff, including murder. police law enforcement are now understanding that. we will be addressing that hopefully in this congress. >> senator al franken, democrat of minnesota. senator franken: thank you. >> we also caught up with

representative bob goodlatte. chairman goodlatte when you think about the judiciary committee, why are you down here? representative goodlatte: technology is something that is important to all americans. we play an important role. we have jurisdiction over intellectual property, patents copyrights, trade names, trade secrets. we are working on the innovation act. it is designed to control patent controls. they are strong supporters. we are also working on dealing with people's privacy's and protections of their civil liberties. that deals with the nsa and fisa court. it deals with the revelations about the gathering of telephone

metadata. this bill that passed the house with a big bipartisan vote in the last congress -- we are about to bring it up again. it bans metadata collection and storage by the government. it still protects our national security in many ways. they are also interested in issues like making sure that brilliant young people who are educated at america's universities are able to stay here and work for good companies are start businesses here and create more jobs for americans. lots of issues that judiciary committee deals with that are important to the tech sector. >> you were talking with google and qualcomm. google has an issue in europe. will our committee -- representative goodlatte: we have communicated with good people to say that in the united states, our antitrust laws are

focused on protecting the consumer and not on protecting businesses here we are fearful the europeans may be envious of the environment we have in the u.s. for the creation of new businesses like facebook and google and so on. they are chinese antitrust laws to disadvantage these companies. -- they are trying to use the antitrust laws to disadvantage these companies. for about two weeks, you couldn't use it in spain. they heard from the people in spain that they wanted it. that is a kind of situation we have got to combat. that purpose is to promote the petition. not to distort competition. not too favorite domestic companies for the reasons that do not benefit the consumer. >> now that net neutrality rules

have been published, is that judiciary committee going to follow up? representative goodlatte: we had a hearing a couple of weeks ago with the chairman, chairman wheeler and some commissioners from the federal trade commission. our position is strong. you can protect the openness of the internet a better way i have been competition protected -- by having competition protected by antitrust laws. have the fcc usurp the authority of the ftc -- that's a bad idea. some who have been calling for that have not imagined that is a bad idea. the internet has grown and has become so important in everyone's lives. it has been relatively free of that kind of regulation. now to use a scheme that was

used to regulate the monopolistic bell telephone company of half a century ago to regulate the internet, that doesn't work. that is what they are trying to do. we are opposed to it. it will be tied up in litigation. we should be acting in congress to move in a different direction. >> do you foresee legislation? representative goodlatte there have been bills introduced. that is one avenue. you could always limit an agency through the power of the purse. i believe our antitrust laws are good. they need to be tweaked. feel the protection of the antitrust laws. what we should not do is how the

fccc get their nose under the tent and regulate it in the way they are. >> bob goodlatte, frequent guest on "the communicators." finally this week, representative doris matsui. she represents the sacramento area. we talked about spectrum and net neutrality. joining us is representative doris matsui, a democrat from california. representative matsui you are cochair of the spectrum caucus. what do you do? representative matsui: my cochair is from kentucky. we felt spectrum is a vital resource in this country. it is a finite resource. the powers of most everything we understand as far as our ipads and phones and everything else.

i felt it was necessary for people to understand this is what powers our economy. it is something that is important. it is the oxygen of a digital economy. whether you are doing -- measuring your heartbeat or the heating in your home -- we had to think about water efficiencies. we use spectrum for all of that. we thought it was important for the rest of congress to understand this vital resource. it is our invisible infrastructure, so to speak. it do not see it but without it, we wouldn't be where we are today. >> is it controlled by an entity? representative matsui: a spectrum is out there. we had to harness it in a way. we have to locate it as well.

we have an auction. people who watch this program will understand it. it pays for the public safety. in beginning when we had this auction -- as it turned out wireless spectrum billions dollars worth in the auction. it went to pay down the deficit. other things were paid for too. what we're looking at is the fact it is something that is so critical. quite frankly, we will have other options. everybody looked at us. we cannot believe this happened. at first, they were very lukewarm about it.

i look at the value of the spectrum today. wow. there is an opportunity here. we believe it is helpful we had a successful auction. in order to do the auction, we really had to work with the department of defense. that ban was critical in order to ensure we had a successful option. the pentagon in essence controlled that spectrum. with the pentagon, it could always say it is for security reasons we cannot share. we developed a relationship with the pentagon. they understood where we are

coming from. we understood where they were coming from. the process took about six months or so. it is critical we all work together. it was very helpful to start off with the pentagon. we could share spectrum. the broadcasters were helpful with that. they got into it and really helped us work with the pentagon. no one really controls it. that is the nature of internet and everything else we do. that is a part of it that a lot of people have difficulty with. if you saw the net neutrality

base, that was unbelievable in the sense that people understand that the internet should be free. there shouldn't be people who get faster access or not. when that occurred, that whole energy that happened with that when chairman wheeler with the overturning of the internet order, when he hinted that there might be privatization -- prioritization -- that they may have to pay for faster speeds or whatever, 4 million comments, that was unheard of. it demonstrated that people in

this country have this feeling about the internet and free expression. obviously the chairman and the fcc came up with another solution. it balances out for everyone. free access and banning fast internet lanes for certain types of industries or people. given enough authority to the fcc so that they could do things like broadband. ensure we have the ability to cable and other companies to do things in cities so you're not dependent on a big carrier to do that. competition in all that.

it is an area i'm very passionate about. whether it is net neutrality or spectrum, it is the future. a lot of people know about it. a lot of people doubt. -- don't. it is as important as roads and highways. in this day in age the 21st century come it might be more important. >> what do you say to companies and startups in the sacramento area that have succeeded without net neutrality being regulated? representative matsui: you'd be surprised at what they are thinking. i had a hearing in sacramento. last year in september, we have never had a hearing in sacramento or silicon valley.

i had two commissioners come out. it was totally incredible. my constituents came out of the hearing. many times the do not come to the state capital. but they came out. these were people who were entrepreneurs just getting started. they really did understand. they deny care whether it was title ii or not. they wanted to make sure they got the axis they needed. this is