talked, net neutrality is the law of the land. do you have any regrets, or do you think it has been successful? lot of people think we are in a strong position. i am thrilled that on june 12, order when in the place. -- went into place. i think we are on strong legal ground. there was a challenge by opponents to delay the and the court of denies that. there is another challenge that will be heard in december by the appeals court, but i think we are on very strong legal ground. the first legal task and the

passing of that i think is very important. i also think that it is that senator markey -- launchedaunch a an amicus brief that was signed by 28 members and senators. it was in many ways kind of a reminder, both of us were there when the telecommute -- telecommunications act was written. on that hugerees legislation. we believe, and stated in the amicus brief, that this is a following of what congress's intent was. we keep going. i think so far, so good.

and i think that the expression of millions of americans is something that i never forget in this. between 4recedented, million and 5 million americans contacted the fcc and said, we want the internet to remain essentially neutral. we don't want it chopped up, we don't want different speeds, we don't want any of that. i think that all of this effort is based on the public good. exciting, there are always pits in the road. we expect that. but i am pleased with where we are now. rep. eshoopeter: you mentioned m act. i know in your subcommittee you have done quite a bit of spadework on changing the

telecom act. where do we stand? rep. eshoo: i think only talk about it, people think of the telecom act, first of all, that it was passed in 1996. so we have had many generations of technology since then. it isit firsthand because my district that produces so much of it. that was a long time ago. but i think if we are going to have an update, we need to have define what the principles would be, what are identify the areas that really needs to be upgraded to meet 21st century standards. and in technology, you really ,ave to be very cautious because you can't really defined

specifics with technology. i have never done legislation , butis technology specific i do think there are areas we can work on, but if you just go at it without any kind of it couldn whatsoever, be a marked folly. i think we need to put forth place work and use that as a roadmap for our work going forward. peter: let's bring in tate of politico. kate: thanks, peter. -- there's a about lot of talk about what happens when we run out of airwaves for cell phones and smartphones.

what do you hope to accomplish in the rest of this term? think that the spectrum is gold. we see so much that has moved to mobile. that requires more spectrum. downloading of movies, videos, all of that, that requires spectrum. both licensed and unlicensed. unlicensed is a very important platform for innovation. auction that is coming up, which will be held in march of next year, there has been an enormous amount of work on both the subcommittee and hearings and probing and helping to get directions to the fcc, and the fcc preparing for it. this is the first time in the history of the world that they

spectrum auction is set up the way it is. voluntary. just put out the rules of the road for podcasters, -- for broadcasters, were there will be a reversed operation first, and then moving forward. so what the broadcasters are willing to give up and what the topline price will be, and once that is complete we will know how much can be offered for the rest of the market, so to speak. but we also have to keep scrubbing and finding new ways to produce more spectrum, both within the federal government, because there is considerable dlg --m held both in the doj and the executive branch. i know that based on the work we

did some time ago, will replicate -- we will replicate networking group. you have to have conversations with people. we don't produce the spectrum that is needed, it will really start choking the market. order. a tall but i am pleased with the progress that has been made so far. i am dying to see what comes out of this, the auction. we are prepared for it. and the fcc has done an enormous work to shape it, to launch it, and now it is not that far away. kate: i also wanted to ask about broadband employment. it seems like something the subcommittee is gearing up to work on.

you mentioned your bill coming back, is that the big push you are trying to make? rep. eshoo: i think it is a very important policy. i have been on it for about six years. are two big there clocks on the wall, one is regular time, the other is government time. the want policy does, it is directed to broadband. does, itat the policy is directed to broadband. in order to bring broadband to communities all over the country, we have many areas of the country that either have none or very little, rural areas especially. in looking at how broadband is brought to people, you have to to place the conduit in the ground. if asts a lot of money road is built, and then you have

to pair it up in order to do the deed. up in order to do the deed. my legislation -- and i am forward this and have a policy that you only did once. wherever federal dollars are spent to build roads, this will be done. it encourages mobile jurisdictions to do the right thing at the right time. it saves money, i think it is smart policy. is so common sense that i shouldn't even be adding sentences to it, but i do think it will advance broadband in a

far more efficient and less costly way. we have mentioned greg walden a couple of times, republican from new york, chairman for the subcommittee on communications and technology. as the top democrat on that committee, how closely do you work with him? what is your relationship like? rep. eshoo: i think we have a good relationship. it becomes tense at times when we don't agree with each other. but we have a mutual regard for one another, we like each other. a relationship is never going to be a good one unless you work at it. take a person for granted or assume what they are thinking. the more you chat, the better you know an individual in life, things. to produce

i think we have a wonderful relationship. i have a lot of respect for g and i like him. we disagree, but we agree. it's a healthy relationship. we have been able to be productive. if you look at the work product of the subcommittee, which i always want to get more done, but i think that speaks for itself. peter: before we go on to another issue, i want to bring back something you also mentioned, unlicensed bandwidth. do you think of the spectrum auction scheduled for march, there is enough set aside for unlicensed spectrum? rep. eshoo: i have always opted for more, because it is so for many of the startups that i've met with.

is really within the radius of a mile and a half of my office in palo alto. these are babies that are just being born. they may have seven employees, 11 employees, 42 is a lot, but they were highly instructive to me in terms of what they were looking to launch, all based on unlicensed spectrum. they said over and over and over again to me, if we don't have that platform, we will have to shut the lights off, close the it, because we will be out of business. i worked hard to get unlicensed spectrum in the bill, and then how important

unlicensed is. it is everything from bluetooth to your garage door opener, but when you lose the term -- use spectrum,"nlicensed you don't talk about that at breakfast, but if you remind people of what they use, and that's the platform, they get it. rep. eshoo: and there i -- peter: there is a recent article from kate and politico, saying public to from the the house of representatives is like going from the 21st century to the 20th century. when you go to silicon valley, and then go back to the house, to the house, do these two areas understand each other? rep. eshoo: i think these two areas understand each other. telik duplication's have so permeated everyone's day-to-day

-- telecommunications have permeated everyone's day-to-day life that you can't help but , havinginterest in it used some device. the children of members are teaching them because they are digital natives. i think it has improved. that is area anonymously complex -- enormously complex. members really have to work hard to understand it. vastly it has improved since i was first elected. there is something else, though.

technology is moving at such a rapid speed. it is a completely different timeframe than a legislative body. well, ourive body is, framers designed it -- the wheel, to move slowly. so there are different time frames, and that is why it is very important not to write anything that is technology specific. it has to be brought. -- broad. so that it will keep up with the future. this my observations. -- those are my observations. ask about patent litigation reform, to crack down on the patent trolls that are hurting start up.

you were a sponsor on the innovation act. it passed on a huge vote. this time around, it seems to have stalled a little bit. where does it stand, and are you hearing from constituents that they want it to pass this year, or are they looking forward to the next congressional patent reform? rep. eshoo: no, it is very much on the front burner in silicon valley for the reasons you just expressed. but there is some very strong disagreements between the various stakeholders relative to patents. it's like punching a pillow, you put a dent in it and something else pops up. the bill was designed and introduced around the whole issue of patent trolls. a very expensive undertaking for companies in terms of litigation.

what is most troubling to me is that they are going into their r&d budget in order to pay for these trolls, to pay them off. it is extortion, is what it is. but there are other important stakeholders in this -- biotechnology, universities, and pharmaceuticals. those are huge interests, especially be pharmaceutical industry. i thought the bill was going to be taken up before the recess in august, it wasn't brought to the floor. it hasn't been brought to the floor since. , but right nowge i think there is a huge demand that corrections be made throughout silicon valley. it is the first issue that people raise with me, what is

the bill? with you think it will be brought up? what is the long-term strategy on this? it is not good enough to have a vote in the house and have a repeat in the senate. whether there will be further negotiations to bring together a wins,ion where everyone but they have to compromise, that i don't know. the question is still out there. constitution. the the framers, inventors that they were, innovators that they were, saw the importance that we have a patent system in our nation. that's how important it is. they placed it in the constitution. in silicon valley, we are now havebecause we

opened a regional patent office. in the valley, one out of 10 patents in the country comes out of silicon valley, so this is a .ery important win for us the big opening was about a week ago and it was a wonderful celebration. there has been some trouble in terms of ican accountability reform. how to make ican more accountable and trustworthy. are you getting in that debate? our constituents ringing up with you -- bringing it up with you? what is the temperature of that

debate on the hill? rep. eshoo: constituents really don't talk to me about it. it is something we have spent a great deal of time on in the subcommittee, and deservedly so. the meeting that is taking place in dublin right now, i think it is moving in the right direction because accountability is front and center, but i think we always need to remember that over the years, both republican and democratic administrations have supported multi-stakeholder framework that no government is in charge of. think that a lot of the act --rk we did, the.com act, that is adding to

the plus column in terms of what is taking place. -- but it is essential that at the end of all of this, accountability be baked into it, but it must be a multi-stakeholder framework, because this does not belong in the hands of governments that ander want to suppress fight with other governments , forsuch as our democracy reflecting our values. that's why the multi-stakeholder model is so important. i'm encouraged. again, i think moving forward, the work that we did at the subcommittee has helped to build a pathway that is going to produce the outcomes we are looking for. kate: do you think it hurts that

the senate has not passed the.com act because senator ted cruz has a hold on it? does that make it seem like the u.s. government is behind this -- less behind this than they claim to be? rep. eshoo: put it this way, i think it would be better if the senate would just take action. it is an important bill. it is well-designed. totally bipartisan. i don't know what his reason is for putting a hold on it, but it would be much better if it was taken up, debated, and passed. before we run out of time, i want to make sure we bring up cyber security legislation. i know you've got your own bill, and i want you to talk about that, but the fact that the cia director's e-mails were recently oomph tooes that add getting something passed in congress?

rep. eshoo: every day, something comes out relative to cyber security. threat, it is a taking place around us both in the private sector, name brand companies, and the public sector. privatehe issue is of a sector, 10% is the government, federal government functions, including intelligence communities, the defense community, are all very sensitive and important. billions of information -- consumer information have just gone wherever it's gone. what i am struck by is what analysts have instructed, that there are two main pillars relative to cyber security that

need to be honored. 90% of these breaches are due to two actors, a lack of hygiene in the system and a lack of security management. and so my legislation directs itself towards these two pillars. them to come up with standards in cooperation with homeland security and -- i'm trying to remember the other agency. morecongress has paid attention to, i think, is what you do in the aftermath of the breach. you have to notify, do this, 60 days, 90 days, all of that. it is so printable that -- so leavetable that if you the keys under the mat of your front door, you really cannot

question how someone got in the house and stole your jewelry. i think these standards are essential. in the office of personnel management, with the records of hundreds of thousands of people, they had no encryption system. in the 21st century. items, the two , for securing our system had been followed, that would not have happened. i think it is important legislation. it is bipartisan. it was 40 some pages. establish, in't my view, but my legislation directs itself towards will stop i think this will be important

for businesses -- directs itself towards. i think this will be important for businesses and the government. but it has to be on an ongoing basis. you have to maintain a system, you have to keep checking it. it is not hard to do. everyone should know what the standards are and followed them -- follow them. i think we can reduce this. cost is a huge part of this as well, dollar cost. peter: is this a huge issue you hear about back home? rep. eshoo: absolutely. consumers worry about it. people ask me, this is what happened, what is my recourse? we really don't have a recourse. i don't have a recourse. where my personnel file with the government has gone, or what they will do with it. i guess i will find out one day or another.

i served on the house intelligence committee, for any of those systems to be breached, our national security is a for every member of congress. it is across the board, every member is being affected by it. we can do something about it. it is predictable what will happen if systems are less than hygienic and if there is security management. peter: we have one minute. kate: quick question, next year things are going to change a lot. you and president obama have some of the same positions, and he will be out of office after the next election am a but also -- election, but there will also be republican reshuffling. how does the tech debate change with all these new politicians

in office? rep. eshoo: you know there is theg to be change, but personalities and styles of leadership remains the same. lead thes chosen to full committee, the subcommittee , they will be individuals that i know. who they will be, i don't know, but they will be chosen by their colleagues. i will know them and they will know me, and we will get to know each other even better. it is fun to look forward to. think -- this is serious. it is serious work, it takes teams to come together.

that's what the american people are counting on. ins an exciting area to work . i want america to be number one across the board, and technology, and innovations, because we are -- we are the leaders. we are the innovators. my district is where it was all born. we need to be aggressive in a very positive way in advancing good policy to get the leads out of the way so that more innovation can take lace -- place. about thepositive future of the committee and its work. .t has powerful jurisdictions and this subcommittee is -- between for deals

18% and 20% of our national economy. it keeps growing. it's fun. what an honor. peter: representative an issue eshoo and kate of politico. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable and satellite provider. announcer: next, "landmark cases." then, a committee with senator charles grassley of iowa. after that, a discussion on social media and politics.