consistent with the way the internet is developed and the way consumers have come to enjoy the internet. but title ii is only being imposed because the fcc was given no authority by the congress to regulate the internet. the fcc was given authority to regulate telecommunication, but when congress last acted in this area, nearly 20 years ago it said that there should be no federal or state regulation of information services and it is defining internet access service as an information service. the reason congress wanted to have the internet unfettered is because it is so dynamic. congress at that time just had experience with repealing this kind of common carrier regulation on the traditional industries of railroads, airlines and trains to spur investment. there is complete agreement that the fcc doesn't have clear authority. this is the third time it has tried. the fcc has no clear authority to regulate the internet. you can go to two branches of government to seek clarification. you can go to the judiciary and say does the fcc have authority. they can look at the statute and say it isn't clear they do. or we can go to the congress. that is why we are advocating this should be

the legal justification that the fcc used to support its adoption of the rules. now, while those legal means are important, in fact, they are the statutory tools congress gave the fccs job. we must not lose sight of the results of this rule-making in terms of the protections that the fcc adopted. as this senator has said repeated repeatedly, as i had discussed with the chairman i remain open to a truly bipartisan congressional action provided that such action fully protects consumers, does not undercut the fcc's role, and leaves the agency with flexible forward-looking authority to respond to the changes in this dynamic broadband marketplace so much of which what we think we know today is often changed because of the rapiddyity of the development of technology. many of you have heard me speak of title x as a yet to be defined title. i use the term as a way to think beyond the rhetoric that has now engulf of mexicoed this political argument. the key question for me is we must ask how or is it possible to take what the fcc has done and provide certainty that only legislation signed into law can provide. is it part -- it is part of the larger debate on the appropriate

the solution. the solution is, provide the fcc with the authority. that can be done easily by the congressreal bipartisan approach to doing this. in the senate, chairman john finn and bill nelson have talked about the importance of providing the fcc clear authority to be able to guarantee an open internet. so i am hopeful. julian: would you support a legislature approach? christopher lewis: the optimism is the consensus that we keep referencing. that is why we see a ranking member nelson and other leaders sitting down and talking. that is why we see them calling us in to give our views on how we can move forward on congressional legislation. the reality that sets and is that, while there is consensus on it meant each audi, the unintended consequences of the legislation have to be dealt with. the impact on other values around broadband beyond at night -- beyond that neutrality have to be dealt with or -- in either you have to answer those questions legislatively or you don't want to hurt those questions in the future. those questions like, do you preserve universal service for broadband in

the cow. it's the fattest cow in town they want to milk it to give more away to get elected. that's the political game there. tom: that's the fcc and congresse upset about this whole thing. the horse is out of barn. any way to get the horseback in and go back. >> of course there is and there are lawsuits pend buying people that will be hurt, businesses hurt by the government regulating the internet. and, of course, the next administration, if it is more friendly to business, perhaps they'll pull back the fcc because they get on appoint the majority members of the fcc. so there is still hope. there's a lot of hope out there. but you have to complain you've got to get mad because it's your bills that are going up and your internet that's going to become more complicated. write to your congress people. you've got to stop this from happening. tom: the arguments have not been left right it's interesting how some people are all for it and people are against it. >> the people who are for it are changing. liberals in silicon valley were initially for, it now looking at the monster it could become in terms of the fcc regulating everything in the int

the question of all the commissioners is that something you think we ought to do? is it time to reauthorize the fcc? >> that's a a decision that you make that congresscision not to thus far. if you want to change that decision, you're the congress, you make the rules. >> i agree that's up to congress but i also agree it's always good to review federal agencies and practices. >> yes. it's congress decision but i agree it's time to move forward with something. >> i yield to the expert body. >> mr. chairman, can i say 25 years is a long time. >> i'm agreeing. >> your hair was a different color back then. >> and very quickly, one reform that you would recommend that we make or a top reform as you think about fcc reauthorization. anything come to mind? >> i've put a number on the table already. one that i haven't talked about that -- i think there's a need to have an accountability of our enforcement procedures. we issue a number of nals and judgment in that case but there's no tracking of what happens to the money. are we getting the money that we're assigning penalties for? i think that that would be very helpful. i tried to get this for the -- get the

is why i said in the wake of the verizon versus fcc decision in 2014 that now the fcc now twice having failed in court to have its open internet rule sustained we should turn to congress for guidance. >> is there anything in the law quickly that gives the president kind of -- so let's say chairman thune or ranking member nelson give a big speech on the internet and it's regulated and well thought out. and then the president gives a speech too. is there anything in the law at all that says this agency should give more deference to the president? >> absolutely not. >> absolutely not. >> in terms of consensus, do you try to work consensus as commissioners? there is obviously some pretty differing opinions of this rule. is that the typical approach to try to work on consensus? do you think that is important to try to achieve consensus? a lot of times if you are the chair you want to work on consensus. do you think that's important? >> i totally agree. 90% of our decisions are five 5-0. the difficult decisions often become contentious. we had a series of 4-1 decisions. >> you think that -- you think that decisions like this that are highly contentious, splitting the commis

the conflict is over broader authority of the fcc. not the net neutrality rules. we have agreement those rules are good. so it just shows that it is important we have these rules in place why congress and policy policymakers and the fcc look at the challenging topics. this is why you are getting push back from the broadband providers. they are worried about how title ii impacts their broader services. not potential violations to net neutrality which by and large with a few exexceptions they have lived under for the last decade. it is really important we have the broader discussion about broadband policy and we have it soon. let's not get rid of net neutrality protection in order to have it. >> mr. lewis walter mccormick, thank you so much for joining us. cspan created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a local service by your cable or satellite provider. >> coming up on c-span2, discussion on the iran nuclear agreement, then turkey's foreign affair's minister talks about his country's role in the middle east and the iran nuclear negotiation negotiations. and then we will bring you several protential presidential candidate speeches. gl coming up on the n

the fcc not the net neutrality rules. we have real consensus that the rules are good. so it just shows that it's important that we have these rules in place while congress and policymakers and the fcc start to look at these more challenging topics. this is why you're getting pushback from the broadband providers, because they're worried about how title ii impacts their broad or services, not -- broader services, not any potential violations of net neutrality which, by and large with a few exceptions, they've lived under for the past decade. so it's really important that we have that discussion about broader broadband policy and that we have it soon. let's not get rid of protections in order to have it. >> host: christopher lewis walter mccormick, julian hattem is with "the hill" newspaper. >> 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 provider. >> today the united states institute of peace and the woodrow wilson center hold a discussion on the politics of a nuclear deal with iran. participants include former congressman jim slatly of kansas and howard berman of califo

then you had security regulators of the fcc and the cftc and let me not forget the united states congress commotion a few things which i think the most egregious by far really by far was passing the commodities future modernization act. i love this word uttered a station i in the year 2000. a whole bunch of things have no interest to people like you are in the commodities business. one thing of great interest which literally bands the regulation of derivatives. year 2000 was this big haired ones that do not enter sign for regulators was put up by congress, it just grew like topsy. so there is a plethora of mistakes coming from everybody. i emphasize the last one because if i had to pick it nice to receive the absolute worst decision made along the way that would probably be a period >> so interview the financial crisis of 2008 had its roots in the 2000 derivatives act? >> one of the roots. obviously in the housing bubble. if we didn't have the big housing bubble, the derivatives -- let me go back. if we didn't have the big housing bubble, the mortgage-backed securities based on houses wou

the question of all the commissioners and is that something you think we ought to do? is it something we need to reauthorize the fcc? >> that's a decision that you make, congress has made the decision not to thus far. if you want to change that decision, you're the congress. you make the rules. >> i agree that's up to congress. >> it's congress's decision. i, too agree it's time to move forward with something. >> i yield to the expert body. >> can i say 25 years is a long time. i've agreed with it. >> your hair was a different color back then. and very quickly one reform that you would recommend that we make or a top reform is you think about fcc re-authorization re-authorization. anything come to mind? >> one that i talked about that i think there is a need to have an accountability of our enforceme in. t procedures. we issue a number of nels and in judgements in that case. there is no tracking of what happens to the money? are we getting the money that we're assigning penalties for? i think that would be helpful. i tried to get the material for this hearing. and the information just came back we don't track that. i think there is something wrong. we should k