Anna Eshoo

And yet, in this debate, we are saying or some are saying it is all right. It is OK. We can be tracked.

I helped write it, Mr. Leibowitz. We knew what we were doing and we are proud of it.

I don't think your description 'clear as mud' is fair. I think that is meant to muddle the conversation, but that is my view.

It was clear that the FCC has oversight and consumer protection authority for broadband.

the American people have always been I think justifiably suspicious of big Government, what it can do, what it holds, how it can be used against people.

The FTC and the FCC have different sources of legal authority and they have different tools that they can use to protect consumers.

I just don't. I think that sensibility of the American people is on target.

One of the most important responsibilities the subcommittee has is to protect consumers.

We just learned this morning that the FCC's legal authority over broadband was upheld in net neutrality case.

If we can't be timely--identify, target, be timely, bring it up, have these measures in place, then this is just a piece of paper with good ideas on it.

Preparedness is not a partisan issue. It has never been, and it shouldn't be treated as such again.

I want to know, in terms of our national security and the import of what this law is about, why do you take the position that you do?

I think we have to raise our vision and keep in front of us exactly what I just said.

I am very proud of the legislation that former Congressman Mike Rogers and myself shaped and shepherded to create the law that led to BARDA.

I really don't get your reason, your thinking, and what you have testified today, Dr. Hatchett, about contracting authority under BARDA.

It really is a simple piece of legislation.

It is a very good idea, and I hope that what we bring forward will create some sparks and some benefits for our country.

I really appreciate your opening up the Committee to have other Members that are not part of your committee to come in and share ideas with you.

It takes my breath away just to try and digest that.

I think the Congress should come up with at least a floor relative to standards so that we can move that word crisis away from this.

America is safer, safer with unbreakable end-to-end encryption.

That is a huge allegation. So thank you.

How is it that the FBI didn't know what to do?

Once criminals know that American encryption products are open to government surveillance, what is going to stop them from using encrypted products and applications that fall outside of the jurisdiction of American law enforcement?

Has his thinking stopped from the time he was CIA director to being former and he doesn't understand encryption any longer?