of months. do you have any regrets, or do you think it's been successful so far? >> guest: oh, i think we're in a very strong position and, of course, i'm thrilled that on june 12th the fcc's order went into, went into place. so i think that we're on strong legal ground. of course, there was a challenge by opponents to delay the implementation, and the court denied that. and there is yet another challenge that will be heard, i believe, in december by the appeals court. but i think that we're on very strong legal ground. and that first test, that first legal test and the passing of that, i think, was very important. and i also think that important that d that it's important that senator markey and myself launched an amicus brief that was signed by 28 members and senators. and in that brief it was in many ways kind of a reminder. both of us were there when the telecommunications act was written. we were both conferees on that huge legislation. and so we believe that, and stated so in the amicus brief, that this is a following of the congress' intent. and so we keep . >> guest: we expect that. but i'm pleased with where we are right now. >> host: well, you mentioned the telecom act, and i know your subcommittee, you and chairman walden, have done quite a bit of spade work on changing the telecom or updating the telecom act. where do we stand with that? >> guest: well, i think when we talk about it, people speak of the telecom act, first of all, that it was passed in 1996. so we have had many, many, many generations of technology since then. and i see it firsthand because it's my district that produces so much of it. so that was a long time ago. but i think that if we're going to go at an update, that we need to have a mission and define what the principles would be, what are the areas, identify the areas that really need to be upgraded to meet 21st century standards. and in technology you really have to be very cautious, because you can't really define specifics with technology. i've never done legislation that is technology-specific because before the ink is dry, the technology has changed. so i do think there are areas that we can, that we can work on. but i think that if you just go at it without any kind of definition whatsoever, that it could end up being a march to folly. so i'm open to reforms and changes, but i think that we need to do the spade work to place some parentheses around it and then use that as a road map for our work going forward. >> host: well, let's bring into our conversation kate tummarello of politico who covers technology for that publication. >> thanks, peter. i wanted to ask you about spectrum policy which i know is something the subcommittee's turned to a lot recently. there's a lot of talk about what happens when we run out of airwaves for everyone's smartphones and cell phones, and obviously the committee's paying attention. what do you hope to accomplish in the rest of this term? >> guest: well, i think spectrum is the gold. we see so much that has moved to mobile, and that requires more spectrum all the downloading, the movies, all of that requires spectrum. both licensed and unlicensed. unlicensed is really a very important platform for innovation.ççççym so the auction that is coming up, which will be held in march of next year, there's been an enormous amount of work done both by the subcommittee in hearingsing and probing and -- hearings and probing and helping to give direction to the fcc and the fcc preparing for it. so this is the first time in the history of the world that a spectrum auction is set up the way it is. it's voluntary. and so the fcc has just put out kind of the rules of the road for broadcasters where there will be a reverse auction first, the preparation for it and then moving forward. so what the broadcasters are willing to give up and what the top-line price will be. and then once that is completed, we'll know how much can be offered to 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's considerable spectrum held both in the dod and across the executive branch. and so i know that chairman walden and myself, based on the work we did some time ago, will replicate that working group because it's -- you have to have conversations with people. everything doesn't happen in a hearing. so, but if we don't produce the spectrum that's needed, it will really start choking the market. the markets that are out there. so we have a tall order. but i'm pleased with the progress that's been made so far, and i'm just dying to see what comes out of this, you know, the auction. and we've prepared for it, and the fcc has done enormous work to shape it, to launch it, and now it's not that far away. >> great. i also wanted to ask about broadband deployment. i know that's something you've worked a lot on, and it seems like something the subcommittee's gearing up to work on. you mentioned your bill coming back. is that kind of, is that the big push you're planning to make in. >> guest: well, i think it's a very important policy, and i've been on it for about six years. i always say there are two clocks on the wall, one is regular time, the other is government time. what the policy does, it is directed to broadband. and in order to bring broadband into communities all over the country -- and we have many areas of the country that either have none or very little, rural areas especially. so in looking at how broadband is brought to people, you have to dig in order to place the conduit in the ground. it costs a lot of money. if a road is built and then you have to tear it up in order to do the deed. so my legislation which, and i'm thrilled that chairman walden is the republican lead on the legislation, is to move this forward and have a policy that you only dig once. so wherever federal dollars are spent to build roads, this will be done. and what it does is it encourages local jurisdictions to do the right thing at the right time. so it saves money. i think it's smart policy. i mean, it's so common sense that i shouldn't even be adding sentences to it. but i do think that it will advance broadband in a far more efficient and less costly way. >> host: well, we've mentioned greg walden a couple of times, republican from oregon, chairman of the subcommittee on communications and technology. as the top democrat on that committee, how closely do you work with him? what's your relationship like? >> guest: well, i think that we have a very 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. you can never take a person for granted or assume what they're thinking. so the more you chat, the more -- the better you know an individual, i think, in life. it helps to, you know, to produce things. so i think that we have a wonderful relationship. i have a lot of respect for greg, and i like him. so we disagree, but we agree as well. so i think it's a healthy relationship, and we've been able to be productive. i mean, if you look at the work product of the subcommittee, of course, i always want to get more done, but i think that that speaks for itself. >> host: before we go on to another issue, i do want to bring back something you also mentioned which was unlicensed spectrum. do you think that the spectrum auction scheduled for march, there's enough set aside for unlicensed spectrum? are you -- >> guest: well, i think, i always opted for more because it is, it's so essential for many of the start-ups that i've met with. and it's really within the radius of mile and a half of my office in palo alto. now, these are, these are babies that are just being born. i mean, they may have seven employees, eleven employees. forty-two is a lot. but they were highly instructive to me in terms of what they were looking to launch all based on unlicensed spectrum. and they said over and over and over again to me if we don't have that platform, we'll have to shut the lights off, close the door, lock it because we'll be out of business. and so i worked hard to get unlicensed spectrum in the bill and an understanding, created an understanding or helpful creation of understanding amongst the members of how important unlicensed is. i mean, it's everything from blue tooth to your garage door opener. but when you use the term "unlicensed spectrum," you don't talk about that at breakfast. but if you, you know, remind people of what they use and that that's the platform, they get it. >> host: anna eshoo, there's a recent article in politico that going from silicon valley to the house of respectives is like going from the 21st century back into the 20th century. when you go home to silicon valley or you come back here to washington, do these two areas understand each other? do they speak the same language? >> guest: well, i think that it has, it has improved in congress. and i think the reason for it is that technology, the internet, telecommunications have so permeated everyone's day-to-day life that you can't help but have an interest in it. having used some device, the children of members are teaching them because they're digital natives. i mean, they practically come in the world with a mobile device in their hand. i think that it has, it has improved. it is an area of, particularly in terms of legislation, that is enormously complex. and members really have to work hard to understand it. so i think that it has improved vastly since i was first elected. there's something else though. technology is moving at such a rapid speed, moore's law, that it is a completely different time frame than a legislative body. a legislative body is -- well, our framers designed it for the wheel to move slowly, because if it moves too quickly, god knows what would come out of the congress. so there are different time frames. and that's why it's very important not to write anything that is technology-specific. it has to be broad so that it will keep up with, you know, the future. those are some observations of mine. very often-asked question of me though. >> i want to ask about a big priority for some in silicon valley, patent litigation reform to crack down on the patent trolls that are hurting start-ups. you're a cosponsor of the innovation act. last congress it passed on a huge vote. this time around it seemed to have stalled after coming out of the judiciary committee earlier this year. where does it stand and, you know, are you hearing from constituents that they want it to pass this year, or are people already looking forward to the next congress for patent reform? >> guest: oh, no. it's very much on the front burner in silicon valley for the reasons that you just expressed. but there is, this is some very -- there are some very strong disagreements between the various stakeholders relative to patents. and it's like punching a pillow. you put a dent in it, and then something else pops up. so the bill was designed and introduced really around the whole issue of patent trolls. very expensive undertaking for companies in terms of litigation. and what is the most troubling to me is that they're going into their r&d budgets in order to pay for these, you know, trolls. to pay them off. i mean, it's extortion, is what it is. but there are other very important stakeholders in this; the biotechnology industry, universities are in on it and the pharmaceutical industry. those are huge interests, especially the pharmaceutical industry. so i thought the bill was going to be taken up before we recessed in august. it wasn't brought to the floor. it hasn't been brought to the floor since. so i'm not in charge, but right now i think that there's a huge demand that the correctionsfá be made, i mean, throughout silicon valley. it's the first issue that the people raise with me, where is the bill, what do you think, when will it be brought up. we need a long-term strategy on this. it's not good enough to have a vote in the house and have a repeat in the senate. so whether there will be some further negotiations to bring together a coalition where everyone wins but they have to compromise, that i don't know. the question is still out there. but, you know, patents are, they're in the constitution. the framers, inventers that they were, innovators that they were, saw the importance that we have the patent system in our nation. that's how important it is. they placed it in the constitution. and in silicon valley we are absolutely thrilled because we now have opened a regional patent office. and the valley, one out of ten patents in the entire country comes out of silicon valley. so this is a very important win for us, and the big opening was about a week ago, and it was a wonderful, wonderful celebration. >> i've wanted to ask about icann. they're meeting in this week in dublin. there's been, you know, since the ntia announced it wanted to step back from its oversight role of domain name system, icann's been working on a plan for that. in terms of accountability reform and people agreeing to, you know, how to make icann more accountable so it's more trustworthy when it comes to not having its oversight from the u.s. government, how involved are you getting in this debate? is this something constituents are bringing one you? are you talking about this with the ceo, fadi jihadi? what's kind of the debate? >> guest: first, constituents don't really talk to me about it. it's something that we have spent a great deal of time on at the subcommittee and deservedly so. deservedly so. now, the meeting that's taking place in dublin right now i think is moving in the right direction because accountability is front and center. but i think that we always need to remember that over the years both republican and democratic administrations have supported multistakeholder framework, that no government is in charge of this. it's a multi-stakeholder model. and i think that a lot of the spade work that we did with ntia, the dot.com act that congressman shimkus led the effort on and did a terrific job with, those are all, i think, adding to -- i would say -- all in the plus column in terms of what's taking place. but it is essential, it's essential that at the end of all of this that accountability certainly be built into it, baked into it. but it must be a multi-stakeholder framework because this does not belong in the hands of governments that either want to suppress and fight with other governments such as our democracy, you know, for, you know, reflecting our values. that's why the multi-stakeholder model is so important. so is i'm encouraged -- so i'm encouraged. and i think, again, moving forward the work that we did at the subcommittee has helped to build a pathway that is going to produce the outcomes that we're looking for. >> do you think it hurts that the senate hasn't passed a dot.com act because senator ted cruz has a hold on it? has that kind of changed, i mean, does that make it seem that the u.s. government is less behind the multi-stakeholder model than they claim to be? >> guest: let's put it this way, i think it would be better if the senate would just take action. it's an important bill. it's very well designed. it was totally bipartisan, and 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. >> host: well, before we run out of time, i want to make sure that we bring up cybersecurity legislation. >> guest: yes. >> host: i know you've got your own bill, and i want you to talk about that. but the fact that jay john and the cia -- jeh johnson and the cia director's e-mails were recently hacked, does that add some oomph in the congress? >> guest: well, i think every day, every day something else comes out relative to cybersecurity. and it's not just a threat, it's taking place around us both in the private sector, name brand companies and the public sector. and 90% of the issue is in the private sector, 10% is in the government. but the federal government functions, including intelligence community, the defense community are all very, very sensitive and important. and, i mean, billions, billions of information have been, consumer information have just gone wherever it's gone. so, but what i'm struck by is what analysts have instructed us, that there are two main pillars relative to cybersecurity that need to be honored. and 90% of these, up to 90% of these breaches are due to two factors; a lack of hygiene in the system and a lack of security management. and so my legislation directs itself toward these two pillars. and it directs nist to come up with standards many cooperation with homeland -- in cooperation with homeland security and i'm trying to remember the other agency. but i think that these standards -- what congress has paid more attention to, i think, is what you do in the aftermath of the breach. you have to notify, you have to do this, you have 60 days, 90 days and all of that. but this is, it is so predictable that if you leave the keys under the mat of your front door, then you really can't question how someone got into the house and stole your jewelry. and so i think that 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. so if these two items, the pillars for securing our systems have been followed, that could not have happened. and so i think it's important legislation, and it is bipartisan. going to work hard on it. there was an executive order of the president, but it was 40-some pages, and it really didn't establish, in my view, what my legislation directs itself towards. so i think that this will be important for businesses and for the government, and we can move forward and be protecting ourselves, but it has to be on an ongoing basis. you have to maintain a system. you have to keep checking it. it's not hard to do. everyone should know what the standards are. they follow them, i think that we can reduce this considerably. and cost, there's a huge cost to this as well, dollar cost. >> host: is this an issue you hear about back home? >> guest: oh, absolutely. absolutely. consumers worry about it. i mean, people can me, you know, this is -- people ask me, you know, this is what happened, what's my recourse? well, they really don't have a recourse. i don't have a recourse. i don't know whatever my file is with the federal government, personnel file, i don't know where that's gone be, what they will do with it. i guess i'll find out maybe one day or other. but there's a high cost to businesses. i served on the house intelligence committee, and for any of those systems to be breached, you know, our national security is our top responsibility for every member of congress. so it's a across the board. everyone is being affected by it. and we can do something about it. it's predictable, what will happen if systems are less than hygiene and if there is poor security management. >> host: kate tummarello, we have one minute. >> okay. quick question. next year things are going to change a lot of you and president obama have kind of had a lot of the same positions, and he'll be out of office after the next election. but also chairman walden and chairman upton will hit their term limits soon, so there'll be some republican reshuffling. what do you kind of envision happening after that? how does the tech debate change when all these new changes will be in office? >> guest: well, i think that you know there's going to be change, but the personalities and the styles of leadership of individuals essentially remains the same. so whomever, you know, is chosen to lead the full committee, the subcommittee, they will be individuals that i know. who they will be, i don't know, but they'll be chosen by their colleagues, and i'll know them, and they'll know me. and we'll get to know each other even better. so, you know, it's fun to look forward to, but the work, i think, is, you know, i mean, this is serious. it's serious work. it takes time. you need teams to come together because that's what the american people are counting on. and it's an exciting area to work in because i want america to be number one across the board in all of these, in technology, in innovation. because we are, we are looked to, you know, i mean, we're the leaders. we're the innovators. my district is where it was all born, and we need to be aggressive in a very positive way in advancing good policy to get the weeds out of the way so that more innovation can take place. i'm very positive about the future of the committee and its work. it has a very, very powerful jurisdiction. and this subcommittee is responsible really for, deals with between 18 and 20% of our national be economy. it keeps -- national economy. it keeps growing. so what fun. what an honor. >> host: representative anna eshoo, kate tummarello 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 or satellite provider. >> and live now to the third annual defense one summit taking place here in washington d.c. among the speakers today, the director of national intelligence, james clapper, deputy defense secretary bob work, and also u.s. army chief of staff general mark millie. opening remarks to start and a morning keynote address by white house deputy national security adviser ben rhodes. this is live

Related Keywords

Upton , Cork , Ireland , United States , Oregon , Dublin , South Korea , Washington , District Of Columbia , Chosen , America , American , Ajay John , Anna Eshoo , Greg Walden , Jeh Johnson , Ted Cruz , Ben Rhodes ,