rick boucher, mike oxley, just so many members -- >> guest: anna eshoo. >> guest: on the house side, just fantastic. trent lott agreeing on everything, and they just were going to clear the pathway to make this possible legislatively in a relatively short period of time. larry pressler. you can keep going down the line including jay rockefeller and olympia snowe working on the e-rate with me over on the house side so that the bills for every computer in every school in america for poor children would be paid for out of this bill so that we could speed up the pace at which kids get the new be skill set as we're speeding up the pace at which we're going to see technological innovation occur in our country. so the bill includes what is now $40 billion which has been spent on those poor kids, the largest single educational technology program still in the history of our country. if there's one thing i could do differently, i underestimated how much the phone companies would just try to gobble each other up first. all these names that used to be well known companies. rather than trying to

but we also did that with john .ingell and mike oxley we had a bipartisan team of people working on this reform. eddie is absolutely correct. if we had not begun this process in 1990 three or 1984, it would've been difficult to arrive at a product in 1996. when you look back at the recent history of major pieces of legislation, i really believe that our stands out. not saying it to boast, but i think ours stands out as a major use of legislation that was highly technical about the future and you had people other than eddie and i working together for a common result. we actually crossed the capital and worked with members of the senate. it was a large effort that ended up yielding a tremendous piece of legislation. >> what do you wish you had done differently? eddie may disagree with me. the only thing on my have done differently is in regard to the checklist, i might if made it more prescriptive so there would've been less interpretations with the federal interpretation commission over a short period of time. we had a conscious discussion and i think we ended up with the right results sa

probably very young but you remember 20 years ago the argument, wasn't at the fbi and then the late mike oxley and others that were champion that if we allowed more than 256 bit encryption the fbi cannot easily decoded and that would be the ruin of their investigations? >> right and the last 20 years the nsa has increasingly supported the secure technology for private-sector communication infrastructure inc. colluding the algorithm. >> it is old technology, very good with analog world but this happens to be january 29, 2015 patton in the record. it is a patent on basically self-destructing the contents inside if someone tries to forcibly open it. the funny thing thing is, i was looking for the old patent going act decades and decades because the military and others have used these. they've had more punitive responses inside when we wanted to secure it. it is not new technology but there's a new twist on it. are we in the sense the equivalent of saying you can make something that destroyed the document but then you have to tell us how to defeat it. >> that's right. >> i'm looking at saying ther

wasn't it the fbi and then the late mike oxley and others, that were championing that if we allowed morethan 256 bid encryption, the fbi couldn't easily decode it and that would be the ruin of their investigations? >> right. and what you get instead is over the last 20 years, the nsa has increasingly supported the security technologies for private sector communications infrastructure, this happens to be a patent that's already in the record. it's a patent on self destructing the contents inside if someone tries to open it. i've been looking back decades and decades. even more punitive, if you will, responses inside when we wanted to secure it. it's not a new technology. there's a new twist on it. in the sense aren't we saying you can make something that destroys the documents but then you have to tell us how to defeat it? >> that's exactly right. >> then i'm looking and saying there's no history on that. we've had plain safes for a very, very long time. this isn't new. do you know of any shredder company that's been told that they have to show you how to reassemble what they've shredded?