c-span, created by america's cable companies and that she has a public service. >> joining us for the communicators is the formal care of the energy and commerce committee and chair of the privacy caucus in congress. chairman, last time we spoke to you there was a merger between comcast and time warner that had failed and net neutrality till cold and is now the law of the land. that took hold and is now the law of the land. >> i can give you my exquisite opinion, but i will say -- explicit opinion, but the net neutrality rule is wrong.

they should enjoy it while they can. we certainly have the votes to change the law and make this different, make them know that this is an appropriate. there is a new presidential election coming and eventually we will change it. the open internet or whatever they call it is wrong. you cannot regulate the internet . there is no problem. i'm disappointed in what they have done and disappointed that the court has allowed it. but i am confident that we will change it. >> for the next couple of years it will remain the law?

representative barton: it is the fcc interpretation, and through the president, they were able to put that in and so far the courts have followed it. in the 1930's, when you had a monopoly telephone service run by bell company, the internet today is going to all kinds of providers, and the transmission capability -- i lived in a small town outside of dallas and i had a cable option, phone option and other option. you do not need the government

to protect open internet, the market place was doing it and will continue to do it. all you are doing is adding a burden that does not need to be there. host: joining us is kate from politico. kate: the republicans have been pushing for net neutrality to counter the fcc rules, what do you make of that push? representative barton: i'm supportive of these efforts, i would be more aggressive than they are being but as i said as the bill passes the house and senate, the question is if the

visa will -- if the president will veto it. both chairman upton and chairman -- are working on this issue and finding common ground so we can get democrats to support the bill. kate: do you think that there is a chance? representative barton: i'm not going to try to predict political cap relations within the democratic caucus. think common sense tells you what fred and greg are trying to do, it makes sense but we will hope in some time that the democrats will support it. host: i want to ask you about the office of personnel management and the hack that

occurred, there have been calls for the head of opm to resign do you support that? representative barton: at this point in time, i don't seriously for her to resign. -- see a point for her to resign. i did have a staff member whose information was stolen, they received a letter. i received a letter myself that some of my information might have been copper mines, but i have not received confirmation that it was. all government servers are under constant attack from groups, not just military service but just generic run of the mill government institutions the

house office buildings, and others. i think that contractors and federal employees that run these have done a good job. somehow, somebody got into the system. we need to find out how and who and do what we can to fix it. but i would not at this point in time or choir -- in time require her to resign. host: -- representative barton: possibly, the whole issue of privacy is politically complicated. you would think that it is

against policy, but when you get into the uses, the security people, the run-of-the-mill commercial marketers, they all want access to databases and collect metadata, which i think is unnecessary. when you legislate and check the privacy of the individual at the same time providing legitimate exemptions for special case uses , for security and intelligence purposes and for marketing purposes in the commercial area, it gets company. i'm willing to look at it i am the cochairman of the privacy caucus and we are there to

catch the individual -- protect the individual. it is the individual's data. not the providers, not the government. no one should have access to it unless i say so. it is privacy as i see it, from the fourth amendment protection they never dreamed of the internet in the 1700s. if they had, they would have protected the individuals's data and have the information. kate: energy and commerce committee has been working to set up rules if your company is

breached. is there any hope that this committee can bring together a bipartisan copper mines -- compromise? representative barton: i think there is. there are many, myself included, we have lots of people on both sides of the aisle that want to do something about it. go back to basics, if we start premise that the information is mine, and we give the individual 's rights, we worry about what

happens during a breach. if you try to protect access to it as opposed to not even making it available, you have less to worry about who will break the wall. it does happen, we opted -- ought protect it and penalize those who do it. it is for better protection that way, not have as many people attempt to acquire it. kate: the obama administration is charging sort out things like mobile uapp policy and this week we saw privacy advocates walk away from facial recognition technology.

what do you think that means for the brighter that broader privacy question -- broader privacy question? representative barton: my children and grandchildren their generation thinks of privacy, their expectation, is much lower. even if i am on a mobile app, it is not automatic, if i make a cell phone call or somebody calls me, i don't think that that is automatically recorded or maintained in some database. i couldn't do it. in terms of what has transpired

i respect the decisions made. i do back to the basics. eight changes the way you regulate and the way you legislate. if you take the position i am being a part of it i am

forgoing my individual right to privacy. that is a different issue in its entirety. host: could you go back to the generational thing. you spoke about your children and grandchildren not caring or being as concerned as you are about privacy. what do think that says? rep. barton: i don't know that they don't care. i don't think they realized they had a right to privacy. i am old enough to remember before you have surveillance cameras in stores, before cell phones, the internet. you communicated by telegram or by actual mail. the regulatory authorities at the postal service guaranteed you that privacy. it was a federal crime for somebody to reach into your mailbox and steel and open a letter that was addressed to you. you had a right to privacy.

then they can get a court order to monitor your phone calls and mail. absent that, the u.s. millions telegram or personal, private. you had a right to privacy. you don't have that today. when my son or grandson get on the internet, they don't have any expectation of privacy. they except that -- accept that it will be a part of some mega-database that a lot of people have access to. i think that is sad. does it have to be that way? i don't think it has to be that way. for it not to be that way, the

congress and the president have got to reestablish and the courts backup a modern era equivalent of the fourth amendment that you do have privacy and in the house we have just begun to do that a bit in this session. we have stopped some of the data collection that had been done after the initial passage of the patriot act. we stopped that and i think that is healthy and that think that is the right direction to go. host: we have spoken about how current law has not kept up with technology. is there and on the legislation that can help this or does it have to be peaceful?

realistically, i don't think that is possible. i will think we have the political climate to really establish privacy. rep. barton: we don't have that environment right now. to do it and make it last, we need to get there and you have to have that trust between individual members and the committee leadership and in between the leadership of the republicans and the democrats in the house and senate. at this point, in my opinion, it is not there. >> there has been a lot of talk about the role in privacy.

you don't need to regulate the internet under title ii. they are trying to take us back to the 1930's. if there is a problem, you solve it in the modern era by making the internet more transparent making the transactions more open. you could set up some of the expedited complaints. there are things you can do without going back to some regulatory authority you don't need and right off the bat saying we will forbear there here. if you start off talking about

forbearance on the don't need to do it in the first place. i think this sec is more about political correctness and less about getting it right. >> as the former chairman, what do you make of the republican

efforts to overhaul the communications act in its entirety. is that something feasible? rep. barton: i think it is a noble thing to do. i think it needs to be done. i commend them for attempting it and there are friends in the senate working along the same track. it may take a while to do. again, i think to really get it done right you need bipartisanship. you probably need a new president. hopefully, we will get that in the elections.

icon limited him on the clearing -- icon lamented him on the clean act amendment. he worked as chairman of the energy committee. it was not an overnight success. it was a big issue, contentious complicated. he made i voted for the clean air act because of the human right to take time. you can say the same thing about tele-communications. it is a good thing to take on a big project, and if it takes a little time to do it, so be it. but we need to go into the 21st century with laws that reflect where we are today not with laws that were passed in the 1920's and 30's, even 1950's and 60's.

the primary telecommunication act recently was the tele-commission act of 1996 which i was on the committee and voted for her in -- which i was on the committee of and voted for. >> congressman and other bill that has taken a while is the child privacy bill. what is the extent of that bill? >> i just introduced the latest version in the house last week. that should be a no-brainer. in fact, i talked to senator markey about it a couple weeks ago. we would hope to move it into his congress. i do not have commitment for chairman -- from chairman upton on that bill, but it is something i have asked for him to put on his watchlist. i think if we can get a hearing and get stakeholders involved it is something we need to do.

the children's privacy law they were operating under is almost 10 years old. a lot has changed on the internet. i don't need to go into all the bad things that are possible but we do need to protect our children from the various predators and purveyors that are out there. and the safe kids act that i just introduced last week on a bipartisan basis would be an improvement over current law. it's something that can and should be bipartisan. >> would you push legislation to allow states to set up online gaveling? online poker specifically -- online gambling? online poker specifically. is there a sense that that will

fire up again this congress? >> i haven't introduced my bill this year, but i intend to. many states allow their citizens to play poker on the internet for money within their state. my bill is an interstate across state lines, but it has a states rights protection that lets the governor of the state opt out if the governor doesn't feel that the citizens of his or her state should participate. poker is a game of skill. the best player overtime wins the most money. it's not mandatory that anybody play poker on the internet, but for those adults that wish to there ought to be rules of the road that make sure it is an honest, fair game. but it is poker only, and it is opt out for the states, so it is not federal preemption of state's rights.

it is simply setting up a regulatory scheme that is run at the federal level by the department of commerce, said that if the state allows it, and my bill were to become law you would go to poker room.com and play for money. it would be an honest and fair game. funds that you deposited to play in that game would be protected. if you decided to cash out, your money would be there. dollar for dollar. >> congressman we have a couple more issues in the last few minutes. i want to talk about internet governments -- internet governance as the process moves toward more international regulation of the internet and less responsibility of the u.s.

what is your view on that topic? >> i have a mixed mind on that. i understand stakeholders would want to go through -- we want to go forward with less u.s. government involvement. to a degree i am ok with that, but as i have said in committee hearings, you know, there is a reason that we have sheriffs and jails. not everybody is honest or plays by the rules. as the internet becomes internet -- has become international, the u.s. department of commerce and i can -- ikhan have been the sheriffs, so to speak. if you go to a governance structure that has a backstop -- the protection, the regulatory power of the federal government

to a governance structure that is totally voluntary and dependent upon self-governance especially if they were to move their headquarters to the united states. it would take an extreme case -- to havana, cuba, or to moscow or beijing. he could be problematic. -- it could be problematic. you don't have to look further than the u.n. to see an international government structure that most -- that in most cases is dysfunctional. if it's not broke, don't fix it. i don't think the current government structure is broken. i certainly respect those that want to move to the next generation, so to speak, but i think you have to be careful when you do that because it's working now -- because it has

the full faith and credit, so to speak, of the u.s. government behind it. we are a nation of laws and transparency, constitution. everything's in writing. we believe in openness fairness, and tolerance. if you move away from that, in the beginning you have the best of intentions, but again, if you don't of the sheriff around -- some i will say, i'm going to been that rule and do something i shouldn't do, and you don't have the authority to stop it. >> final question. >> very recently we saw the inner -- the energy and commerce committee passed a bipartisan version of the.com act. does that mean we can expect to see more bipartisan compromises coming out of the committee, or is this specific to the situation with ichan?

congressman martin: that is a hypothetical -- barton: that is a hypothetical christian. -- hypothetical question. the laws that tend to have problems, and the most immediate bill that people are familiar with is the affordable care act referred to by many as obama care. that was totally a partisan approach. even if you are a proponent of it, you realize it is not working if you -- like you hoped it would, and if you are an opponent, like i am, you would want to repeal it and start over. and a perfect world, everything we would do would be bipartisan and i know chairman upton wants to be. i think ranking member pol loan once to be.

sometimes it's not possible. the more bipartisan we are, the better the product is. and the more likely it is to last if it does become law. >> congressman joe barton former chair of the energy and commerce committee. cochair of the congressional presidency caucus area he is been our guest. >> thank you. >> tuesday in new york city businessman and reality tv personality donald trump announced he is officially running for president.