tv Washington Journal 04112018 CSPAN April 11, 2018 6:59am-10:00am EDT
at the builder board meeting in 2008 centcom i think what we really need of the world government is a massive financial crisis. at 8:00sunday night p.m. eastern on c-span. >> here's some of what we're covering wednesday on the networks. on c-span at 10 eastern, live coverage to amend the dodd-frank regulation at. c-span two, the u.s. senate considers that nomination of john raining. 10:00 a.m. >> in a half hour, we talked to congressman robert pittenger about efforts to tighten in for an -- foreign investment rules to address concerns about u.s.
tech companies. and representative rocha hunt up on mark zuckerberg's capitol hill testimony. and a discussion about the cbo of a $1 trillion deficit in 2020 with william hoagland of the bipartisan policy center. we did not take a brought in a few of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. it was my mistake, and i am sorry. it,arted facebook, i run and i'm responsible for what happens here. ♪ the first day of testimony before the senate, facebook ceo mark zuckerberg promised reforms of the company's practices when it comes to data protection and political advertising. mr. zuckerberg faces another day of testimony, this time before the house. that will be at 10:00 this morning. you can see that on c-span3, radio.org, and our out.
hearingnterested in from you about his testimony. do you believe those changes will,, and will it change your practices when it comes to facebook or the use of other social media? for social media users, (202) 748-8000. for all others, c-span.org -- (202) 748-8001. if you want to post on our social media platforms, you can do so on twitter at @cspanwj, and that facebook.com/cspan. wordsckerberg using the "my mistake" during the course of this testimony. that was the headline usa today used when they talked about the ceo preparing before the senate. that kelly writes facebook is getting better with artificial intelligence that might try to spread misinformation. russian entities tied to the kremlin tried to use fake
accounts to sow division among u.s. voters in the 2016 election. that is just one of the topics that came up yesterday. one other was the topic of data protection, and we will show you what some of those interactions between mr. zuckerberg and members of the senate, but if you want to give us a call about the testimony, what you saw and learn from it, and what it says about data protections in this day and age, (202) 748-8000 for facebook users, and (202) .48-8001 for all others you can see the hearing yesterday on our website, but here is senator dick durbin of illinois in an exchange of mr. zuckerberg. this was about data privacy. [video clip] >> would you be comfortable with sharing the name of the hotel you stayed in last night? -- no. [laughter] >> if you messaged anybody this week, would you share with us the names of the people you messaged? >> senator no, i would probably
not to do -- choose to do that publicly here. this isnk this is what all about, you're right to privacy, the limits of your right to privacy, and how much you give away in modern america in the name of "connecting people around the world."\ it is a question of what information facebook is collecting, who they are sending it to, and whether they were asking in advance my permission to do that. is that a fair thing for a user of facebook to expect? , senator. i think everyone to have control over how their information is used. as we have talked about in some of the other questions, i think that is laid out in some of the documents, but more importantly, you want to give people control in the product itself. the most important way that this happens across our services is that every day, people come to our services and choose to share photos or messages, and every
time they choose to share something, they have a control right there about who they want to share it with. that control is extremely important. >> they know who their friends are, but they might not know, as has happened, and you conceded this point in the past, that sometimes that information is going way beyond their friends, and sometimes people have made money off of sharing that information, correct? >> senator, you were referring to our developer platform. it might be useful to give some background on how we set that up, if that is useful. host: that whole hearing is available to you on c-span.org. today's hearing starts at 10:00, before the house energy and commerce committee. you can see that on c-span3, c-span.org, and c-span radio app . fran is a facebook user, go ahead. caller: hi, good morning. i want to speak to the abuses of the data that facebook takes.
they treated a profile based off of its application i have filled out online with my personal information just out there. contact customer service and take it down, because i do not want that personal address out there for the world to see, and nobody has ever responded, and the page is still on there and there is nothing i can do about it. host: so when you see the reports about mr. zuckerberg before the senate and the house and him proper thing -- promising reforms of the practices when it comes to the data and privacy, what goes through your mind? caller: i don't believe it for a second. they need to do something to limit the ability of this platform from using your data without any consequence, and it is something that has been ongoing and pervasive on all social media platforms, and i have stopped using facebook as a result of it, and i am not on any social media platform as a result. host: chicago, illinois, david.
good morning, go ahead. caller: hi, i watched most of the hearing, believe it or not, and one thing i did not notice anybody asking about in terms of tech hiring and all of these workers is the issue of hiring foreign workers to do this work in america. formerant nationals deciding our first amendment rights? that is a big problem. second of all, people do not realize what a's areas problem serious problem this professor robert epstein really laid out a case about how abusive tech companies are in intruding on our privacy. asking thes are not right questions, to be honest
with you. remember, facebook started out , it wasgling websites on harvard, they had a sketchy premise to begin with. this is what we do with it now. i never joined facebook and i modest, low-profile, even though i work in tax, for these very reasons of invasion of privacy. t wish everybody would qui facebook. ios has a piece on its website about what mark zuckerberg did not say before congress. they asked what kind of privacy regulation is facebook open to? zuckerberg carefully avoided to committing to any specific privacy rules, but offered vague suggestions, like using simple language to describe how data is used, but did not get into specific. it is reported that zuckerberg said the safety monitoring team would be expanded to 20,000 people, and artificial
intelligence would help weed out fake news, but he was unable to guarantee that the site was free asm propaganda, such material russians placed in the 2016 election. as long as there are people sitting in russia whose job it with elections around the world, and going to be an ongoing conflict. peppereded cruz h mark zuckerberg with questions about removing some left-leaning pages from facebook, as opposed to right-leaning pages. host: hi -- say that i i want to choos am a facebook user, and i choose what information i want the world to see. as for the previous callers who were against social media, that is your choice. you choose not to engage in that platform. have anyyou impressions of mr. zuckerberg's testimony before and how he did, and the information that he offered?
caller: i thought mark zuckerberg did fine. i was kind of taken aback by mr. durbin's questioning, asking him where he stayed in his hotel room or what messages he sent out. that is our choice to put that information out to the world to see. it is up to us whether we use that platform or not. host: let's go to glen bernie, maryland. cindy is a facebook user. extremelyam, but infrequently. maybe once every couple months on a holiday or a birthday. i listened to the testimony yesterday, just about all day. again this morning, a few minutes ago bringing it back. it is just a reminder -- not one time did i ever hear mr. zuckerberg straightforwardly answer a question. he is a master of debating questions, speaking in circles. he begins every answer with
senator, or yes, senator. there are particular methods to be able to speak like that. he is a master at it. i have lost so much respect after just hearing him and his inability to be accountable. we have laws. if you look at the area of health care protection, you have health care information accountability acts, and much of the information mr. zuckerberg refuses to it knowledge -- acknowledge is the same information the government has kept a log on. i am not against social media, but i think even in response to the question yesterday about this facebook have too much power? he would not answer that.
every question, he would not answer. host: that hearing is available on our website, at c-span.org. there is another hearing today on c-span3. onwant to get your thoughts mark zuckerberg, his responses on data protection and political ads. you can let us know in the next 20 minutes or so before we go to our first guest. facebook users, (202) 748-8000. all others, (202) 748-8001. we will hear next from thomas. caller: c-span, i appreciate your platform and allowing us to have a voice on this. i thought zuckerberg did well yesterday. i thought that it are crews -- senator cruz's line of was a fading sound bite. i would like to see more of this put back onto congress, which just past legislation -- passed toislation to allow isps sell our personal data.
if they are so concerned with this types of data breaches, why do they sell i is -- why do they allow isps to sell our data? host: from twitter, fred bingham says nothing is going to happen. facebook is going to sell you, congress is going to talk down to you. you can post on our facebook and twitter pages on this topic. joe from michigan, line for others. go ahead. caller: this man has made his living doing what he is doing. i don't blamehim, congress. i blame every ignorant person on that that is -- on there is putting their life on that computer. they done it to themselves. i'm not here to ask the government to save me. they want the government to save them. every time we ask them to save us, we lose rights. host: if you go to the cnet website, one other topic that political ads placed by foreign entities.
on cnet's site yesterday, facebook said it would support efforts to regulate political ads. u.s. senators are urging alphabet and twitter to do the same. be honest ads act is a bill that requires tech companies to disclose how political ads were targeted and how much they cost. it is sponsored by sonny amy clover char -- senator amy and senator mark warren. it was during yesterday's test money that senator klobuchar about to zuckerberg about the honest ads act. here a bit of that exchange. [video clip] >> they are supporting the honest ads act. techd no support from companies before this, and they are voluntarily complying with it. that means we will see all political ads, issue ads and candidate ads, as well as disclaimers. agreed tos also
support the bill, and now we are working on the other platforms and would like to pass it. those topics were addressed during the testimony yesterday. you can see that on c-span.org. mike in annapolis, maryland, a facebook user. good morning. is mike.i, this one thing i want to say is i tenuresn a tech manager ago, 12 years ago, whatever. in the end, these are managers that are managing a technology that you voluntarily are going on and using. they are not people that are content. manage your that is your responsibility. they are doing their best to try and design something that is basically facilitating you. i think the culture right now in america is the fact that we want to blame everybody else for what our decisions are on what we are
using. so this fallacy or farce of privacy is something that does not exist. there is no privacy if you are going to put yourself out there. the other thing that i have is the whole political advertising thing -- we already know that our own political ads are false and misleading, and we want to basically blame, again, the technology companies, who essentially monitor and maintain some sense of fairness. in all reality, you do not even have to listen to or read these ads or whatever the case may be. that is your responsibility as a user of that platform. at the end of the day, americans a sense that we are not responsible for what we do. everybody else is, and you have to take care of everybody else because i cannot think myself. that is where i am at. host: rich from hughesville,
maryland, others. you're up. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call, i love c-span. i think you did a fine job, as much as he good. ashe did a fine job, as much he could. it is an overwhelming task to go in front of that committee. the bottom-line is users and people using technology these days need to realize there is no security. there are only these big companies promising they will secure your data and the infrastructure, and it is impossible. i have been in cyber security for about 15 years, supporting securityyou can put controls and place, you can audit them, but it is just overwhelming. involved and that is unbelievable complying with that technology, and the security is just crazy because it changes so quickly.
you don't know who was on the other end. you might think that is your friend on facebook you are sending someone to, but it may not be. it is up to the individual to be cautious. i opted to get off of facebook -- it probably does not mean anything, because i have a gmail account and other accounts, i assume my information is out there, no matter how i try to keep it local and personal. but i check my accounts every day, checking account, i checked that every day, and just pray. host: that is rich from maryland. for the next 15 minutes, we will take your calls on the testimony from mark zuckerberg yesterday. we will show you other stories as well, particularly concerning syria and central action that might occur by the united states and others with response to that chemical attack from last week that was reported. this is jim michael reporting in usa today this morning. the headline -- trump's warning to syria, don't ruin the element of surprise. jim michael's writing there is a
difference between stating overall policy objectives, for example, the united states will not stand by it chemical weapons are used in violation of international lawrence, -- norms, and telling an enemy where and when an attack will come. a retired army lieutenant general said trump and obama stayed within the bounds when they warned of attacks. "i think they were both stating policy objectives and positions" without giving away secrets that would help the enemy defend and attack. mments about general james mattis, who wrote that concept into the pentagon's national defense strategy, the document that provides overall guidance to the u.s. armed forces. ae united states should make policy that commitment well-known to friends and foes, but when it comes to combat, it should rely on the element of surprise, be strategically and predictable, but operationally unpredictable. rush about to shoot down any and
all missiles fired at syria. becausey, russia, they will be coming. back to the calls on facebook in the testimony by mark zuckerberg yesterday, go ahead. caller: good morning, thank you. i just wanted to point out that back when television first came along, they had a lot of -- on a lot of a the same lines about what should be allowed to be viewed on television and what shouldn't. a lot of roles have, and gone -- regulationse, and for all social media. i think that was interesting. think facebook is going anywhere. social media will be around for a long time. host: jim in pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: i think he started off
with a good heart, wanting to get people together, see pictures of family. i am connected with a lot of old army veterans, and it has been great. but where i think he has failed is it got so big, the reason he couldn't answer all those questions is because he does not know the answers. it is just too big. what i do not like about facebook is all the political fake news and the trashing every ethnic background with these memes. it just creates hate. connection,th the sharing stories, pictures, but it kills me to see the other stuff, and it does not need to be on there. get people riled up, and you see people comment check this out, this is fake. that needs to go. how aredom of speech -- you going to get rid of it? all in all, i think it is good, but i wish we would just wake up as a nation and be a little more
nicer to people. this causes a lot of hate, and i think facebook helps share that inadvertently. i do not think he intentionally wanted that to happen. that is my comment and i love listening to speed span -- c-span. host: carol on twitter, the only fact that came out of zuckerberg's hearing was that almost no one reads the facebook terms and conditions. that hearing is available to you on c-span.org. the latest hearing will take place today at 10:00, and is available on a multiple amount of platforms on c-span. you can watch it on c-span3 and monitor it on c-span.org. if you have our c-span radio app, you can listen and monitor with markng too, zuckerberg. caller: hello. host: hi, go ahead. caller: i just wanted to point is that a lot of information made publicly available or
available to these companies through third-party apps. when you download an app and login, it will give you the choice -- you can login with your google account or facebook account, which makes it a lot easier to set up the app. facebook thinks you will hopefully share it with friends. you are granting that application permission to view your facebook data, and a lot of times you can remove certain permissions, like i downloaded an app earlier today, click the link, and removed a lot of that information that the third-party app hat. but once they have that information, they can sell it to other companies that want to sell ads do you. .- to you
it is not just facebook through facebook, it is the information you are providing to these apps by logging in with your phone. host: john in winston-salem. reporters say the president is set to host gop leaders were a dinner tonight. the dinner has been in works for several days, and was being planned before the president attack special counsel robert mueller on monday and is press secretary on tuesday, -- his press secretary said on tuesday that he has the chance to fire mueller. this will offer chop republicans -- top republicans to hear from trump personally whether he plans to fire mueller. the house and senate majority house speaker paul ryan and john cornyn are set to attend.
this morning, saying senator majorityonnell, the leader, reiterated he believed that mr. mueller should be allowed to see the investigation through, but that he saw no reason for legislators to pick up bills to ensure the special counsel cannot be fired without good cause. "i have not seen clear toication yet that we need pass something to keep him from being removed." part,ats, for their locked in a minority in the house and the senate, huddled behind closed yours. they plotted possible responses in case president trump moved to dismiss mr. mueller or rod rosenstein. they pleaded with her colleagues to take seriously mr. trump three results on the investigations. the senatey -- minority leader chuck schumer said "our republican colleagues must not continue ignoring the elephant in the room." , icolm in st. petersburg
facebook user. we are here to talk about the hearing yesterday. what did you talk about -- what did you get from it? caller: hi, pedro. i wanted to response to a couple of your callers who said we need to take responsibility for our own privacy when we put our information on the internet, things like that. i want to say that i do agree partially to that. i think where the disconnect , anyway,with facebook is that facebook gives you a false sense of security when it gives you the option to go on and set your privacy settings and set who can view your content. if it is telling you hey, you can go and set these types of things, you are going to want to trust that platform that is actually protecting your information and letting you, the
user, decide who can see it and who doesn't. people,that is where including myself, are kind of upset about that, that they are not entirely as private as facebook was giving off that we were. host: brian on twitter says almost all terms and conditions and privacy policies are written ese soionally in legal most people get frustrated to understand them and simply quit reading. taylor and baltimore, maryland on our line for others. caller: good evening. never in my life have i seen people. i called the police and to sit down by my table and catch them people that got my social security number.
now that most of our data is assumed to be shared, but we do not have the opt in option as more of a normative policy. an opt really like it if in system, as opposed to an opt out system, was more normalized, or even a legally enforced thing. i believe people ought to have more explicit or intuitive data andover their their information. know where and when they are putting it out. spencer, thank you. we will take another round of calls after our first guest of the morning. robert pittenger, rebuttal can of north carolina joining us to talk china's investment in the
he saystates who could compromise national security. that conversation is coming up next. ♪ >> monday on landmark cases, , ku kluxrg v. ohio klan leader clarence brandenburg was convicted of hate speech under in ohio law, but the supreme court unanimously ruled violated his first amendment rights. with us to discuss the president of
the american civil liberties union and a law professor at new york law school. fallow, fromkatie columbia university. we have resources at our website for backgrounds for each case. you can find it at c-span.org/ landmarkcases. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a service by america's cable television companies, and today, we intend you to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events and iraq --n, d c
washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by are -- your cable or satellite provider. host: representative robert us, serves ons the financial services committee and others. good morning to you. rep. pittenger: good morning to you, sir. host: you also serve on the task force on terrorism and unconventional warfare. i want to get your thoughts about what the u.s. response to syria should be at this time. rep. pittenger: i think it should be a targeted response, and measured and considering what has been done, which has been horrific and egregious. the president i am sure is working with the secretary of defense. the response will be proper for what is done. i believe he should do something . regrettably, we are still suffering throughout the world
because there was a line drawn in the sand and nothing ever was done. i think the world sees this president as remarkably different, and that is why they trust him. that is why the 55 nations in the muslim world came to meet with the president. after a year, who would have believed that 90% of the landmass has been taken back? i believe the president's judgment, along with his good advisors, will do the right thing. host: we sought military response last time. what makes the difference this time? rep. pittenger: it should be a greater response. i think it is outrageous that president assad would be allowed to destroy his people in such a despicable way. it is so hurtful to see these young children and any person that has been gassed. it should be a very significant response. host: we saw a tweet from the president, bringing up the fact of russia this morning and the
whole of this convocation. between said russia back -- the shootsaid russia vowed to down missiles fired at syria. the president's response -- ready, russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and smart. rep. pittenger: i think with the president said to them as you have made some bad choices. we will do the right thing. host: we are here to talk about china. one thing you are interested in particularly is the chinese investment in the united states. can you give us a sense of what the chinese investments in the united states is? significant.r: the chinese investment has increased since 2010 by about $4 --lion in the united states since 2010. it was about $4 billion in the united states, now it is $46 billion. so the investors are really focused. they have been pursuing our military technologies since
2015. china has acquired over 17 semiconductor companies in the united states. to ourre supply chains defense systems, and they have been able to skirt our laws, specifically the committee on the foreign investments in the u.s.. our interest with senator cornyn , we have the same bills in the house and the senate. we want to reform and strengthen it, give it greater oversight to china and other countries so they cannot skirt our laws and create joint ventures with american companies, which is what they have done. not just acquiring them, they have ownership, participation, and minority positions, which allows them to put pressure on them. for example, ge entered into a relationship within a commercial -- mutuallative venture -- commercial venture.
now the chinese have in their military conflicts to be able to utilize that technology. host: and as far as the legislation goes, there was a response to it. this is from ibm, and it says "in making his case to expand offered examples technology sold overseas by ibm and other companies that the u.s. government itself long ago ruled were nonsensitive and able to the freely sold around the world without a license. in fact, everything ibm has done globally complies with u.s. and foreign expert control laws." rep. pittenger: bacon skirt the law than to do these joint ventures that are not within our legal framework today, and that is why we had to reform cfius. and that is why our bill is so
critical and so important. we cannot allow these joint ventures to continue. that is why this bill has the support of the president, secretary matter us -- secretary mattis, secretary mnuchin. throughout our government, it has full support of cfius. in the senate,in she is my cosponsor. the chairman of both intelligence committees, senator burr and representative n unes, both approve this bill. host: if you want to discuss more on this bill, (202) 748-8000 for republicans.
-- (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000, democrats, (202) 748-8002, independents. if you put more regulatory aspects on these ventures, is there a concern this will affect business and trade economically? rep. pittenger: i have the largest processing plant in the world in my district. smithfield, owned by the chinese, processing 75,000 hogs a day with 5000 people employed there. we have textile companies in my area owned by the chinese. focused ons laser military related technology. yes, we do need to put a major wall around that so that they are not able to acquire it. host: what kind of expansion of the cfius group do you want to
see to a college what you want to get done? rep. pittenger: the expansion is --, as i told you. if you can force companies to do partnerships with you and china, which is what they are doing, hundreds of joint ventures have been created and skirted the law bill, thee cfius wording does not relate to joint ventures. it relates acquisitions. so there are some legal changes that need to be made that include all of this. cfius this comes -- this comes into the debate over china and trade. where do you think we are over equity between the two countries, particularly with the president's rhetoric lately on this? rep. pittenger: since the early 1990's, when china was received as the most favored nation with the trading status, and was accepted in the wdm, they began
at that point to challenge the rules. they succeeded. nobody ever called them on it. and because they have not been responsive to the fair trade rules, the president is calling them on it. my goodness. we want fairness, equity. he did the same thing in nato. he said pay your 2% or get out. he wants fairness, and i think the president is measured and has done the right thing. i think he is calling it for what it is, and china needs to be a responsible person to play fair on the world stage. i'm a free-trade guy, but i am a fair trade guy. let's do it in a fair way. host: we saw a response of sorts from president she shouldn't hang wall street journal, saying it was on tuesday he promised increased exports, accelerated access to china's insurance and other financial sectors, and
reduced ownership restrictions or foreign carmakers. do you really that response directly to the president's rhetoric? rep. pittenger: of course. it is very straightforward. that is why many leaders around the world can work with him, because he is clear and what it -- in terms of what he wants to a college. but it isly clear, fair, balanced, and measured. he is a businessman. he looks at this as a business approach. i think the chinese and all the in leadershipnow in china, the ones that i have met with, understand president and can work with him. host: in response to your legislation, have you heard any reaction from china or chinese officials toured it? rep. pittenger: they are not surprised by us, because they want to exploit our laws. it keeps going on and on and on, and we have not called them on that.
this is a serious issue. general deford says china is our number one security threat by 2025. we better be paying attention. host: if the technologies being used, what areas is it being used in that you are concerned about? militaryenger: it is related, our missile defense systems. some semi conductor companies, their interest to be a supply chain for that. that is a big issue. , utilizednovo throughout our military. the military is recognizing now that is a big problem. those are chinese computers, and they have the ability to send information back. so the chinese have been very adept and very smart -- they have 325,000 students studying in the united states today, and they are focused on what they are studying and going to our best universities, learning from our best professors, and much of
it is related to technology capabilities. callswe have some phone for you. this is can in lancaster, south carolina, independent line. go ahead. rep. pittenger: hello, ken. caller: i have a few questions. thented to start with facebook ceo testifying in court congress about personal data and information. for fake news through facebook, america [inaudible] can't the steamers between fake news and realness. [indiscernible] why would the sod, when he's winning -- assad, when he is his peopleattack with a chemical attack.
in the united states economy, we [inaudible] how can we afford to try and fight these endless incessant wars? rep. pittenger: i appreciate your comments. they are certainly related to make choices. i heard someone call in a little bit earlier. americans in any consideration should be responsible for providing data. is some natural proclivity now to want to blame someone. entity or other structure, anyone but themselves. i think we have to assume some of our own responsibility for allowing our data to be disseminated. , it ise to syria heartbreaking. it was so grievous to see these young children being gassed, and assad is such a brutal person. his goal is to intimidate, and he could care less about the
plight of his own people. this is very sad. i think the president of the response will be measured -- president's response will be measured, but we cannot allow for this type of despicable , a horrible abusive people to be tolerated -- abuse of people to be tolerated. it is not the context of any of our humanity. i respect with the president wants to do on behalf of these individuals. host: georgia, independent line, david is next. caller: good morning, and thank you for washington journal. i have two questions, but since aller went off 100%, we need to make sure assad did this. before, andd ago --
now we find out there is no proof assad gassed his people a year or so ago. my two questions -- about cfius, is this the same cfius that allowed 20% of our uranium to be sold without any safeguard of russia getting a hold of it after they were warned russia was trying to gain access to our uranium? , doesn't china have developing country status still? they should have fully developed country status. wouldn't that get in the way of them being able to steal and skirt the rules here? i will take my answers off the phone. rep. pittenger: yes sir, thank you so much for calling in. i would say to you that d,garding a sod -- assa yes, he has gassed his people. the president will respond in a
way that he feels is correct. the intelligence out there, from what i understand, is that he did gassed his people. frome not heard anything the contrary on that, except from hearing from president putin, and i am dubious about his response. cfius as it relates to russian uranium, you get back to what cfius is able to govern and what the authority is. that is why all these issues need to be addressed. there are 16 agencies that are involved in cfius and with oversight. the treasury gives the lead to this. we are challenged in so many ways. i heard a report yesterday about the iranians trying to buy a in the united states. all of this should be under review, and this is why cfius is so vertical in this process. host: south carolina, john, sumter. good morning, pedro.
give me a minute, please. first of all, the trade with done is weat we have have given the big companies tax breaks. most of these companies are in china. you can saye world we will put tariffs on china, we will do this to china, but all of our businesses are in china. next, our weaponry. you said ok, china has this technology because they make all of this good stuff for us. what sense does that make? it is ridiculous. rep. pittenger: i would say to him, regarding china and their trade and businesses that are havethere today, yes, they interests there. these are american companies that have foreign partnerships with china, forced partnerships. my concern is they are forced
into these partnerships to get out intellectual property of critical and sensitive data. these are american companies still that have partnerships in china. for: (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also post on our twitter feed at @cspanwj. rep. robert pittenger from north carolina is with us, talking about cfius and syria. what do you expect to hear from mitch mcconnell, and what do you think he brings that others do not? rep. pittenger: i think what nick brings to the position is specific oversight. mok.as really run a
this is an agency funded by close to $700 million annually directly from the fed. no accountability to appropriations to our government. of therepresentatives taxpayers have no say in what they do. the director, former director, and the current director have absolute authority. they can't be fired by nature of the structure. so what make is going in there is going in there run the to effectively organization as it is supposed to. it has been in the law long enough to be there. many of us believe that the oversight is very egregious and has been counterproductive for consumers. the outcome of the cfpb has been part of the problem. what they have done to restrict growth in the country -- you have financial institutions that
are harassed and have been datased by the cfpb, and and oversight, on and over and over again. we need to have regulations and we do have regulation, but the pendulum has swung so far at the cfpb, that is why in north carolina, we lost 57% of our banks in 2010. -- since 2010. this is specifically designed to help minority individuals, the demographic -- this reuters story, one of the things that will be asked is why mr. mulvaney has dropped cases among payday lenders and pull back in the market against small dollar loans -- pulled back in regulating the market for small dollar loans? rep. pittenger: we have seen the american people -- people are stupid. ,hey have needs that can be met
oftentimes critical needs. if you have a child who is sick and you need to go to the emergency room or a car that needs to be repaired, you have to have a choice to borrow money wherever you can borrow money, and it has really been taken fully out of context in terms of what the rates are when you look at the cost. i was on a bank board from -- you know, there is overhead costs regarding a loan. if you have a loan for two or three days or a week, those overhead costs are fixed. it is going to require a certain amount of money just to cover your cost. to sayery disingenuous well, they are charging these egregious amounts for a seven-day loan. there is the cost of doing business. again, the american consumers have the right to make the choice they want to make to address their own needs. host: democrat line, brenda, you
are next. good morning. i have two questions. first of all, during the campaign, donald trump claimed he was going to name china a currency manipulator. he said that numerous times during the campaign, but after he was elected, he decided that no, china was not a currency manipulator, and i wonder why he changed his mind. i would like to have that answered. in dealinguestion is with china, these agreements, how are they going to affect the patents that trump got in china, and how will this affect the manufacturing that trump has done in china? thank you. rep. pittenger: sure. manipulation is something that has occurred with the chinese. i think what the president, i come toesident x
mar-a-lago, that laid out the framework for their discussions going forward. right now, we see president xi being responsive to what our president, president trump, is saying is required for fair reform for us to work together on. you have to look at the broad context of what is being accomplished. and ases a lot of issues lot of concerns. we have to give him some credit, that some of these issues are now being responded to by president xi. they will continue this discussion, and we will see how it plays out with our trade agreements and what unfolds, whether possible tariffs or if we really do something that changes the course of our trade relationship. we have a $350 billion trade deficit with china, and that is a major issue. i think the president was right. -- was right in raising all of
these issues, and at the end of the day, he is a good negotiator. that is what he is good at. as to his businesses in china, i am not familiar with those, and i cannot response to that. it is not information i can speak to. any patents or laws are there under current authority and current legislation. that is why senator cornyn and i are focused clearly on changing the laws, to make sure that any partnerships that are --ablished with the chinese effectively, we are dealing with the chinese government -- are done under clear indication of the impact it will have and america's interest. host: mike in virginia, you are next up. caller: thank you for taking my call. [indiscernible] china is to what he. i want to know if the 25% is in
chinese currency and the 2% is in american currency. that is my question. host: could you clarify what you want our guest to address specifically to your question? that ifmy question is it is 2% american dollars, and china is 25%, it is low. therefore, we are charging higher than china. host: i think he is talking about the difference in currency and how china values its currency versus the u.s.. we needtenger: again, fair play, and the currencies can be manipulated. let's go forward and see how china response to the president's direction. host: the wall street journal put out a chart, taking a look at chinese investment in 2017.
at the top of that list, that is real estate. does that have any concern for you? transportation follows that. rep. pittenger: absolutely. they are trying to acquire properties next to military installations. host: in what cases? rep. pittenger: we have military areas around the country, bases, information comes out of there. they have sought to acquire some properties surrounding that, and that is why our bill also includes prohibiting the acquisition of properties near military bases. host: does that fall under the a relative of the cfius -- umbrella of the cfius group? rep. pittenger: it does. caller: thank you for taking my call. [inaudible] is manufactured in china. impose tariffs on china,
will that affect the prices we pay here for the products that american companies are building in china? inc. you. rep. pittenger: that is a great question, and that is what is on the line today. that is why we do not have tariffs. you buy a car, an american car imported into china is a 25% tariff. we have a 2.5% tariff. we want fair play. in the early 1990's, china with strugglingg -- was a economy. nake,were a garden s and now they are a boa constrictor on the world stage. we need to be thoughtful and prudent in how we approach china, and have fair trade policies with them. i think the president did the right thing. let's let this play out and see the end result. host: this is frank from florida. go ahead. caller: hi, my name is frank,
how will theon is carolinas, north carolina and south carolina, do business otherrships with china or chinese countries like taiwan, singapore, and so forth. thatially given the fact it is multidirectional. dealing with china is dealing with other countries, troo. we want to have trade with china, korea, hong kong, and singapore. our bill opens up the market even more. we have a position in our legislation that provides for a friendly relationship, a good guys list. people who have the same type of oversight and scrutiny of these types of foreign investments that we have. i think we will see even greater
cooperation and greater trade with our partners around the world as they share with us the same concern and oversight regarding foreign investments. we welcome that. we want foreign investments. this bill in no way prohibits or restricts that in china or any toer country, except related a specific sensitive military technology. host: richard is in north carolina, wendell, north carolina, line for democrats. caller: yes. my question is this -- why do we treat education like a step child or something? we are the greatest country in the world, but we do not talk about education like education should be. we treat education like maybe, maybe not. defense,more money on
this so-called defending our country. we should be spending on education. greatest pinthe for freedom, whatever you want, to be number one. rep. pittenger: >> thank you for your concern. america spends more on education per student than any in the entire world. it is not a matter of money. it is our approach, our structures that allow for education, the best education to be afforded. we need competitive markets. education is controlled by a monopoly. teachers unions don't allow anyone to compete with them and give choices to the american
people. go to where dollars they can get the best education. that works. the goodpplauding school systems and discouraging others. we have raise the pay significantly for our teachers and we have allowed the best to come forward. this has been done under a republican legislature over the last six years. that will allow us to create opportunity for more teachers to come in and want to teach. we have some of the highest pay now in the country for teachers in north carolina. the choices, creating a competitive domain for families where they want to send their andd makes a big difference forces people to give their best. that is what is the genius of america.
we need to have that an education. representative robert tenger.r -- pit we are going to revisit the question we started this morning about mark zuckerberg. when mr. the question, zuckerberg talked about promised reforms and data protection, when it comes to ads placed by foreign entities, we want to get what he said. can make those calls now and we will take those when we come back. >> sunday, hoover institute senior fellow and author neil
ferguson on his book the square and the tower, networks and power from the freemasons to facebook. >> when i indirect with these groups, it is not their power, but their sense of powerlessness. if you think of the events of not many members of the world government planned that britain would vote to leave the european union, and donald trump become president of the united states. then take the financial crisis, 2008, 2009. no one sat there in the build a bird meeting and said what we need is a massive financial crisis. q&a on c-span. thursday morning we are in carson city, nevada.
governor brian sandoval will be our guest on the bus thursday morning. >> washington journal continues. host: we want to get your testimonyn that yesterday with mark zuckerberg, particularly on facebook, and you can let us know your thinking. one of the exchanges that took place yesterday with dianne the ceo whatking he was doing to keep foreign actors from interfering in u.s. electors. here is some of that exchange. zuckerberg: this is one of my top priorities. one of my greatest regrets is we
were slow identifying the russian information operation in 2016. we expected them to do more traditional cyber attacks, which we did notified. we were slow to identify the new information operations. senator feinstein: when did you identify new operations? >> around the time of the election itself. 2018 is an important year for the elections. around the world there are important elections in india come a brazil, mexico, and hungary that we want to make sure we do everything we can to protect the integrity of those elections. i have more confidence we are going to get this right. there have been several important elections are we have had a better record. the french presidential election, the german election, the u.s. senate alabama.
senator feinstein: explain what is better. zuckerberg: we have identified fake accounts that may be trying to spread misinformation. we were able to proactively remove tens of thousands of accounts that before they could contribute significant harm, and the nature of these attacks is they are trying to infect other systems as well. they are going to keep getting better at this. we need to keep investing on getting better at this. we are going to have 20,000 people by the end of this year working on security and content review across the country. host: writing about that hearing yesterday, in the new york times, his appearance turned
into a gripe session, attacking facebook for failing to protect users data and stop russian interference, raising questions about whether facebook should be more heavily regulated. that took place yesterday. more of the same expected today before the house. you can see that at 10:00 this morning on c-span3 and our website. we want to get your calls on yesterday's testimony, what you think will happen going forward. dave. you are up first. caller: my concern is the federal government should propose new laws that tighten regulation on the sharing of privacy information.
i don't think facebook itself is necessarily mellon tent with their desire to share information -- mal in tent -- malintent. there needs to be ways to protect our privacy as well as a commonr language for person to read and understand, when they are putting their information on the internet, if they decide, if they want to or not share that information, with private entities or the public. r jim.four >> i watched the whole thing yesterday. the thing that amazes me is we would spend all this money and take the time to go over all of this, and listen to this gentleman talk about you can opt in or opt out, your information.
what difference does it make what he says if 87 million people have been compromised? the financial times in a graphic highlights things that mark zuckerberg has said in the past about data. said i am sorry about college is he for the cambridge analytica data breach, saying this is a breach of trust. i will work to do better. that is september 2017. in 2006, saying this was a big mistake on our part. 2003, i apologize for any harm done. from maryland. james from our lines for all others. caller: i wanted to say i watched the session yesterday.
i watched many c-span presentations of executives. mark was impressive. hostileed sometimes questions and attitudes from congress, which i don't understand why they have to be so hostile, and he said this is an industrywide issue. the industry needs to come and takewith congress action. he agreed to more regulation. that only can happen if everybody comes together on this. congress did not say anything about bringing in the real culprit in the cambridge analytica -- i would like to hear a hearing of cambridge analytica ceo, who stole the data and used it inappropriately. i hope congress, moving forward
does that. host: matt joins us. >> i am just calling. i used to use facebook. i got it in college. i thought it was a very good application to talk to friends. to reach out to people who you may have lost contact with over time. noticed it seemed to be advertisement after towardsement, targeted specific things i did not know how it was looking at. it was starting to get permissions -- pernicious. i ghosted facebook and got off of it. i am fine without it now. i just realize it seems like we
put a lot of data out there as people, and i don't think the american public is as tech savvy in terms of how protected their information is. i think we need an online bill of rights for americans, saying we have a right to privacy. what does that look like when it is online? do you think americans -- you can speak to your own experience -- using the user agreements and things of that nature, before they sign on. caller: many comedians have made jokes about how americans read the fine print. i think you can sell away your because youhild, did not read it, and people would do that. i don't think people read the fine print. i'm not sure why we need a 40 page document to buy an online
application. how we gotdiculous to this point where you have to sign a 40 page document with 800 stipulations, and an arbitration agreement, just to get an ipad. beyond -- ie we are don't know. the average person cannot navigate that. 'sst: it was facebook user agreement that was top concern yesterday, talking , hist lee -- directly attitude toward the user agreement. here is what he had to say. peace.me in [laughter] i doubt want to vote to have to regulate facebook, but by god, i will.
depends on you. i am disappointed in this hearing today. i don't feel like we are connecting. let me try to lay it out from my point of view. i think you are a really smart guy. i think you have built an extraordinary american company. you have done a lot of good. some of the things you have been able to do are magical. digital utopia, we have discovered, has minefields. there is some impurities in the facebook punch bowl. they have got to be fixed. i think you can fix them. here is what is going to happen. there are going to be a whole bunch of bills introduced to regulate facebook.
home, spend $10 million on lobbyists and fight andor you can go back home help us solve this problem. one is a privacy problem. the other is a propaganda problem. let's start with the user agreement. here is what everybody has been trying to tell you today. i say this gently. sucks.er agreement [laughter] you can spot me 75 iq points. the purpose of that is to cover facebook's rear end. it is not to inform users about their rights. you know that and i know that. i'm going to suggest you rewrite it.
that whole hearing from yesterday -- host: that whole hearing from yesterday, you can rewatch it. let's go to texas, our line for others. hello, c-span. i want to say i appreciate you giving us clips of the hearings. i feel at this point mark zuckerberg is somebody who is making an effort to address the problem that person spoke about ,y that there is to problems and i feel like at this point i to make these changes better than the current leadership in washington this minute. not in athey are ruling to keep our internet free
and equal to all people. that is what they do. allowing that to happen. mark what is it about what zuckerberg said that convinces you he is going to make these changes? caller: i feel like he is expressing the changes he is already making. i guess he is hiring 20,000 to help with this problem of the propaganda. it is an evolving problem. i thought it was telling. we are still under attack. , this is not over yet. it is not just oh well, we give up. that.re still working on
from more than one country. we have identified one that the russians have. expressing how this is a moving target and we are addressing it. i'm not saying that he is finished, or his company is finished. when you mentioned some good has come from facebook, my daughters have to use facebook for their school activities. that is how they communicate. i think that this is a platform a digital mobility of four who don't have access as easily as others. host: gotcha. jonathan swanson of axial's reporting according to them the house speaker, confidence for paul ryan, he is not going to run again, and he plans to tell
colleagues today. and then politico reporting as of today a combined version of two bipartisan senate bills to protect robert mueller's job set to be released today. the new senate legislation is graham,uct of lindsey cory booker, and chris coons, who went through similar protections of mueller protection bills. adding the final product would give any special counsel 10 days after termination to challenge the move in court. politico reporting that this morning. from ohio, thence. good morning. good morning. caller: what of the things i saw
from zuckerberg is this emphasis on the perimeter security model. that is important but it is not the only thing. what do you do when the perimeter is breached? cryptographymploy and other sorts of mechanisms to defend against that. difficult thing to do. just don't-- they know what they are doing. the second thing, we are ready have significant laws in place for protecting data. fisma for example which applies to government agencies not controlled by the department of defense.
facebook is how you can make those comments. we have divided the lines for facebook users and others. we wonder next from -- we will your next from mark. caller: thank you for c-span. interesting news about axios about paul ryan. i now -- i'm on a vacation from facebook. is a corporate entity, not a
public entity. it is not a charitable organization. he is there to make money for his stockholders. if people choose to give them this information, because they want to be part of facebook, that is on them. if you don't want your information out there, don't give it to them. vacation week is of the same reason. , it hasd many years ago been said, if you don't want your information available, may be your will, don't put it on the internet. host: how'd you know when you are going to end your vacation? caller: when i figure out whether or not i want to go ,head and set up a new account
and make sure not to put any thing i don't want anybody to know on facebook. my wife is the same way. she can't go anywhere without posting on facebook. when she is doing that it is public information. david, from north carolina. caller: you do a great job. mark made a comment that he did not sell data. he deals with data. that is his bread and butter. he makes use of the need to share data, to share with friends, and companies need to get data. against -- if it was against the law to sell trees, i
would just charge an entrance fee. i'm not going to sell the trees. i will just charge money for them to do what they want to on my land. wasno one challenges, i surprised. i wish ted cruz had 20 minutes with him. mark was not smiling or joking. comment, ier actually feel bad for mark zuckerberg. and see theent hearing again at 10:00. previousatch the hearing, yesterday's hearing on c-span.org. more, atnt to see
c-span.org. from maryland, you are a facebook user. caller: thank you for c-span as usual. i have a different concern. i thought zuckerberg -- senator s questioned about the omission of right wing or trump , and he justople said you know, people we have here in silicon valley are left-wingers. what it says is we need some legislation that will have an independent group that reviews poster isparticular
one that is left wing, right service to the general public. without that you are going to see facebook go farther and farther to the left. thesehe absurdity with bright young ladies. of employedproblem conservative racism. i hate to use the term. host: we will have to leave it there. we are running short on time. time magazine an exchange that took place between senator cruz and mark zuckerberg saying ted as had been known
someone with a plan of attack. it was a canned marketing point reported with a more pointed query. are you a first amendment speaker or a neutral public forum? it was a worthwhile question as the internet continues to grow to a plane which we conduct our everyday lives. you can see that at time magazine. bart in maryland, hello? let's go to roxanne in vermont. caller: good morning. is what calling about zuckerberg is doing is the icing on the cake.
the computers built by nsa can we send across the united states and the world. switzerlanduter in and decode any code across the world within 10 seconds. supercomputers that have been built. the chinese are building another one. they will be able to decode and crack any code within 10 seconds. they can do mathematical equations that would take you 30 years to figure out. host: do you think the average person is one to care about those specific technologies? caller: the average user of facebook is just an information
gathering tool. the more information they can gather about the individual, the more the governments across the world can control them. that information is going to be used against people. we are talking about getting into your home life and taking over. basically being held hostage. this is beyond people posting pictures on facebook and the like. this is beyond what we can fathom. the implications are staggering. the control that is going to be exerted on the world is going to be staggering. that will be our last call on this topic. we will be joined by
>> monday, brandenburg v. ohio. convictedrandenberg of hate speech under an ohio law. the supreme court ruled the state law violated his first amendment right. and katie fallow at columbia university. watch landmark cases monday and join the conversation. c-span.s at we have resources on our website for background on each case. a link to the national constitution center's interactive constitution, and the landmark cases podcast at c-span.org/landmarkcases. washington journal continues.
host: this is representative ro khanna. he is a member of the budget at armed services committee. good morning to you. district falls into silicon valley. caller: there are many people who work at facebook in my district. host: what did you gather on mark zuckerberg's testimony? guest: two things struck me. the knowledge gap that the senators who have not been on facebook -- and a terror election of duty. it is not for mark zuckerberg to figure out privacy laws. it is for the united states senate and congress to legislate. europe has done it. we need an internet bill of rights. ,hen need to know our data transfer data, to correct data, to access data, limit data.
these are principles that were not discussed. answer most questions, but there wasn't any commitment in what legislation would look like. what should have legislators ask? guest: they should have drilled down -- what do you think of your question zuckerberg said there are things they do right. the next question would be what is it that you disagree with? the right to be forgotten? it would violate our first amendment, a can't just say if i don't like this show, take this off the internet. would you be open to adapting those principles? there was not as much of an understanding of the details. in europe the bureaucrats have
told these companies what tools to design and how to design them. it was a disservice. withd not come armed knowledge. there was not any real commitment in terms of legislation. host: gd rp? caller: general data regulation protection which will go into place in may and is europe's law , protecting europeans on social media. i think it goes too far, but are of those principles correct. i would have loved the conversation to be about how do we construct the privacy framework in the united states? the biggest point, it is not for zuckerberg to fix this. it is for congress to fix this. we are elected to protect .merican's privacy it is not for 30, 40-year-olds
to be doing that. twitter at c-span, what keeps congressman writing that? caller: it was tried twice before with the obama administration. withnk the pendulum swung the snowden revelation. people became less concerned about privacy and more concerned about government access. ,he pendulum has swung back where people are concerned about privacy. the framework was a decent starting place. i think it can be stronger. there are republicans. the freedom caucus and the libertarians would agree a
person's online identity are to be protected. i think it is time to give it one more try. host: how do you balance putting protections in the place but does not affect the business's ability to do what it does? guest: that is why i don't support the european framework. not only do you have the right transferur data, to your data, delete your data, but we are going to tell you how to design your site to protect your rights. should say we are going to give the businesses the discretion how to make the product that will protect those rights. there is a balance between not being overly prescriptive recognizing people don't want online identities finally did just like they would not want their house violated. we have a whole new cyber world. most people under 30 grew up in the cyber world.
the laws have not caught up. our framers would be debating this. host: don't consumers have a role in this? guest: they absolutely do. the consumer who can be better company.by the ,or example, if you use firefox you know that they can contain your data. , and youowse on safari --it a site to buy tied ads targetingsee you fort wise. facebook gets data from your browsing. if you use firefox they don't allow for that to be
transferred. are options for consumers. who has the time to research? you're busy making a living. it is for congress to require the proper disclosure so consumers know what products are doing. host: representative ro khanna joining us. our first color, from dallas. i think you are in the right place at the right time. , weeed to stop pretending need to stop being so hypocritical. that is the main issue of humanity. havend to believe that we been created for memories.
host: how does that apply to what we are talking about? we keep talking of the same thing over and over. everybody knows facebook has no value. they have no values. facebook is not an entity that produces a product. a vegetable or anything of that nature. host: we will leave it there. guest: i appreciate your perspective. i disagree. this is a big debate about whether social media has value. 2 billion people have signed up on this platform. they certainly have a preference. could you argue this is a waste of time, i tend to believe there
are positive aspects to social media. consider the parkland kids. i had one of them in my district. we put on facebook. i thought this was a terrific use of social media to mobilize the next generation. there are abuses, ways facebook has been exploited for political gain. there are stories spreading that are harming our democracy. the fix is not to do away with a tool that allows people to connect or share their experiences. the fix is to make sure citizens and consumers are protected. host: jonathan in new york. caller: i would just like to
present potential solutions for some of these problems. one is that we have all of these different privacy policies. everyone is different and modified each time. we don't have to let that happen. if you look at the open source community, there are standard licenses. that knows sees automatically what that means. they have to read it once and it is the same license applied again and again. congress could have a few standard privacy policies and the industry could contribute ideas as to what they would be but the public would have a clear understanding of what each policy was and what it meant. that would help. fake profiles and things like that, we could use
authentication to make sure that postings to platforms like facebook are coming from only registered devices. as far as preventing bad content like terrorist propaganda, that could be reviewed in advance. host: we have got your point. guest: some of these are excellent suggestions. i think there is a role for authentication. when i stand in line to get onto an airplane i have this password and take my fingerprint they know it is really ro khanna getting on the plane. i'm not suggesting everybody needs to be fingerprinted, but there should be some form of authentication online so you don't have false profiles.
and there is a technological solution. i agree about having a standard privacy. it is for congress to legislate a common standard, one that is simple. place to look at where europe is requiring a pop-up to inform consumers about privacy protections and rights. host: bob in maine. republican line. there is a larger problem taking place. congress is not doing anything to the perpetrator.
the broadcasting group is the largest in the country. within the last two weeks the touired 150 tv broadcasters read a statement prepared for the home market word for word to the public. that statement says our station group always tells the truth to the public and anyone else that tells you anything different is a purveyor of false news. host: what do you think about that? guest: i agree with that. singulair is one of the biggest -- sinclair is one of the biggest challenges for our country. they control 72% of local news affiliates. view.ften have a point of they can spread propaganda into american homes, watching television.
there was a report at stanford that said broadcast television and table -- cable news were more responsible for the polarization and misinformation election. why think facebook has problems they need to solve? absolutely. this congress made to legislate? absolutely. does this account for the misinformation? absolutely not. we need to look at cable news. we need to look at the role they have played spreading false news or polarization. host: one of the topics that came up yesterday, senator klobuchar asking about facebook ads to put legislation into play , the honest ads act to
counteract that. does that do a good job? guest: senator clover sure, all the members understood this technology. she got into the weeds. she is thoughtful about online legislation. sociall would require media to do the same saying broadcast media does. if you have an ad on television have to say where it is paid for , what should happen -- we should have the same thing on social media. i don't think it is sufficient. it is a constructive step. host: what makes it sufficient? well make it better? guest: it is great tackling the problem of political ads on social media but there are a host of other concerns about privacy, protecting data, making sure there is third-party
verification for news stories. -- the clover sure -- i do not think we should end with that. host: what about social media regulated like utility? guest: my concern with doing that, utilities are guaranteed a 15% rate of return profit. in california were i represent, pg&e gets a guaranteed rate of profit. you are entrenching them for the next 20, 30 years. i don't think that is the answer to have bureaucrats controlling social media and having a guaranteed profit rate of return. , would rather we see snapchat other new companies emerge that we restrict mergers. i was dubious of allowing facebook to acquire instagram. we should require others to emerge.
we are going to go to a subscription model, but we are not going to use your data for advertising. you can see alternatives emerge that may increase competition. i don't want to entrench facebook for the next 30 years. host: let's go to jennifer. caller: ro khanna said it all. we are making too big a deal out of facebook. i am not sure if he is born here, but he will be our next president. guest: ma'am, i appreciate that. my wife's family is from ohio. i hope you're not connected to them. that is a kind thing for you to say. i was born in philadelphia.
a very kind thing for you to say. i do appreciate your view that we should not just looks a facebook. as much as i think facebook acted incorrectly, we have a broader challenge. we have to change the way the economy works. how are we going to create the opportunity?der of socially and cold surely our nation is changing. blame sinclair, let's blamelame facebook, let's
the media companies. let's blame a company for our problem. the reality is becoming a mulch change.ltural we have all the struggles in our politics. host: is silicon valley as a , onlylooking at this because of the attention now being placed on facebook? guest: i think silicon valley, there has been a wake-up call, which is the iron rand libertarianism is dead. let us do our thing, government doesn't matter, politics doesn't matter, technology is going to solve problems. recognition. zuckerberg said you need regulation if it gets it right. a need to answer the
call to service. what is silicon valley doing to create jobs and parts of this country that have been left behind? what is silicon valley doing to deal with diversity problems? diversityions -- many problems. the problem of economic inequality. there has been a social and political awakening. let's go to don. european model is excellent. one owns his own information and data. ,e owns his name, his address his family. we need that sort of law in the united states. i think you are right.
the framework is that an individual owns their own data. the rightgive people to their own data and identity. this is their identity. this is about protecting their freedom, their individuality. it is not some massive regulation. it is about protecting american freedom, american citizens from institutions that could harm individuality. i completely agree with you. in america we would never pass this. we would pass something in the bill of rights protecting equal freedoms and the right to their own data.
caller: good morning. i would like to state i believe this is an issue that facebook notsocial media -- it is something the government really needs to put their hands into. you are just attacking the symptoms. it is something that needs to be worked at between the users and the social media platforms. no regulations. no government needs to be involved. you're not going to stop people from the way they act on social media. you are just giving a false sense of security saying post whatever you want. be irresponsible and we will protect your data.
i think this relationship is between these two entities and the government should not be involved. guest: i'm sympathetic to some of your point. consumers, when i go on social media are assuming some risk knowing they are putting information out there. there is a risk to that. but i do think the government has a role to make sure that consumers have the right information and they are protected. when you buy a car, there are a lot of rules about what a car salesman can tell you. about got to be honest the pricing. he can't sell you a lemon. the government can create the roles of the market. but we are saying, when someone goes on facebook they should know what is happening to their data. like when you get a consumer credit report, you get to know who has asked for your credit score.
there is no reason they should not get to know what is happening with their data, shouldn't be able to transfer their data. giving consumers some basic rights with the company. host: companies would say you are cutting off a source of income for me if you're going to limit me. guest: there may be some people who say yes, we are fine with to targetour data advertisers. i don't care if i get targeted with ads saying by these nice ties. other users may say i don't want those ads. facebook and say we are going to give it to you for free anyway or were going to charge a subscription.
others are sensitive about that. khanna,presentative ro before we let you go, take a few more calls. current policyn in syria. terrible, said situation. is a is a brutal -- assad brutal dictator. i think the united states made a mistake when we called for regime change that led to the rise of isis. we should have pursued a more diplomatic solution involving russia and iran, not trying to oust a sod -- assad. where weve a situation have largely defeated isis. the president is right to call for most troops to come home.
we can have some residual counterterrorism force. russianso involve the and iranians taking in bringing stability to that area. i don't think it is for the night at to continue to be involved in a region where we don't have a direct national security interest. another military strike? would you be in support of that? caller: i don't begin military strike at this point, which is unilateral from the united states makes sense. if there was something to go to to have a nations, multilateral coalition to respond to chemical strikes, that should be debated and considered. oppose a unilateral strike and oppose a unilateral strike without consultation with congress. i was just on a letter, thomas ,assie has done a great job
with a letter to the president saying any strike in syria would be unconstitutional. host: rachel, democrats line. caller: good morning. from the hearing yesterday, it was fascinating -- my question is what do you think of the tech leaders getting together with congress and creating a bill of rights? thank you. is a: rachel, i think that terrific idea. that is what these hearings should be about. asking tech leaders to sit down to be a constructive person and come up with regulations that would make sense. what i wast is disappointed with the hearings yesterday. it did not get into concrete plans for how we are going to create this legislation. that is what would make sense. ryan,e a date that paul chuck schumer could say we want by labor day to assure the
public we are going to come up with a bipartisan bill of rights. it would be a great moment for congress. it would be an historic moment. that this congress would be writing the rules for the cyber world in a way that enshrines american values. i want my -- i hope my set up to look like a news organization or some kind of feed, that get clicked on nd entered into someone's facebook, whatever their newsfeed is there and those things are spread dynamically that way, what can you tell me that? i'll take the answer off the air. thank you. guest: you're absolutely right. news stories, false
sites often become propaganda. in the doug jones election, there was this news "washington the post" had paid the accusers of roy moore and that turned out to ricasion.fab false story from a false website thinking it was news. hard problem. facebook has started to address t by having links come up for third-party verification. if you see a false site in your you have a link saying consider an alternative fact, they could limit the retweeting of things that are totally inaccurate and is -- these are questions that social media needs to ask needs to ask. we know in journalism if an article were to be false, many the publisher and editor has a duty to provide correcting information. media companies have some duty to have third-party verification.
representative ro khanna of the 17th district, member of services and armed committee. thanks for your time this morning. guest: i enjoyed it, enjoyed the questions. up, talking about he cbo, projecting $1 trillion deficit by 2020. be up next.d will don't forget, 10:00 today, you an see another round of questions from legislators for mark zuckerberg, the facebook c.e.o.. website for more information, we'll be right back. >> sunday on c-span's q&a, fellow nstitute senior
"the thor neil ferguson, square tower." striking to me, i interact with the groups, not heir power, but their sense of powerlessness. if you think about the events of take an example, not many members of the supposed that government planned britain would vote to leave the european union and that donald president of come the united states. donald trump is definitely not omebody who gets invited to those meetings. so then, also for example, take he financial crisis, events of 2008 and 2009. nobody sat there in 2008 saying, for the eally need world government is massive financial crisis. sunday night 8 eastern on c-span. >> thursday, the senate confirmation hearing for
of state nominee mike director, will testify before the senate foreign affairs committee. 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3, c-span.org or listen with the app.c-span radio >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is bill of the bipartisan policy center. serves as senior vice president to talk about financial matters, particularly the deficit and what will happen to it. morning. the congressional budget office weting out figures, what did find out? guest: we found out we're going to be running large deficits for next 10 years, as far as projections going, a trillion that s and growing over period of time. debt, also that the cumeulation of the deficits will 1946, highest level since
after the war. combination of all that, we also news ineast in the good cbo projects that rowth in the economy, 3.3%, stimulated by tax cuts, as well as increased spending. pumping the -- pump being rimed rather strong right now creating growth, they are saying, they also see it coming the as we go out into future. good news, bad news kind of story. short term, the economy is lowest unemployment 1952..3%, since we're at the ninth year of growth. all that, but we still, there is price to be paid, there is othing free out here and the umeulation of debt will haunt us. host: how much can be afributed to tax cuts? according to cbo 1.8
trillion of that is over the period attributed to the tax cut, reestimate, reestimate when theye joint tax, pass the law up here back in december, it was an estimate committee of tax 1.5. new economics put slightly that.r than host: are there other factors from the last administration figures we'll see? is t: many, what contributing to real growth and spending over the next 10 years fact that the entitlement programs that many of them put in place in the '60' '60's, the '70's and even back '30s. the post-war baby boom is coming, aging and major driver terms of ecpend tours are on entitlement side, these fall in particular category. many previous administrations are somewhat attributing to the that we're having this
spending. host: did passage of the add to this,re act as well? guest: it does add to it, not as would have expected. premium subsidies in there are attributing to it. with us until 9:30, if you want to ask about the figures we're hearing from cbo concerning debt and deficit in the united states, us. is your chance to call it's 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. mr. hoagland, this the taxration has built cuts and other economic news on this idea of growth. detail about into what we'll see as far as the long-term growth and why you down?those will go guest: well, i think the cbo and when conomists expected you have tax cuts, as well as spending increases, you are, as say, priming the pump, you are creating growth in the form of overnment spending and also
providing greater growth in the form of individuals having more take-home pay. the short term, that is -- does have a growth factor to it, put that, that is why 3.3% real gdp at a growth fourth quarter over fourth quarter. cuts are ulty is, tax not permanent, some expire in down.that will come and the spending is somewhat temporary, the agreement that a month or two bipartisan the budget agreement was for two years in terms of the increasing spending and that drops off, too. combination of the fact the tax permanent, the fact the spending is temporary for the next two years, that helps in short term. long-term what it also does is create debt and debt increases of the interest payment on debt, the fastest growing component, when you look
numbers cbo put out, fastest growing component is just paying interest on the public debt. when you're increasing that there, that out takes out of the private sector creates short revenue or and to grow vest and the combination. second of all, we are in a where the labor force is not going to be growing, the ging again, the population, demographics are going to limit the growth that, too, limits the economy wth of going forward. host: we have calls lined up. this is malcolm. malcolm starts us off from louisiana, republican line. you are on with bill hoagland of bipartisan policy center. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a question. know why we even need the cbo anymore, or ever, the last time they have even been close, even predictions? their
ooked at this for years, never even been in the ballpark, most of the time not even in the state. malcolm, in fairness, i have to point out i congressional e budget office. i began my career when the 1974. was established in so obviously malcolm, i'll be here.ly biassed i understand, first of all, it established particularly to give congress, both republicans, independents an alternative to simply the office f management, office of management budget in the xecutive branch, it gave the congress their ability to look at numbers differently than maybe the administration. separation of powers between the executive and the legislative. i -- i'll accept your criticism of cbo, but when -- when they have
analyzed this, what you will budget the congressional office is no more off or on than any other projections. in fact, they are better in terms of projections in the near erm than any administration estimates and they worked on this pretty carefully. respect your question, malcolm, but i have to say, i think i disagree with you. i don't think they are inside the park. host: cbo director keith hall and testify on the budget economic outlook for 2018 to 2028. ou can see that on c-span.org at 10:30 this morning, if you want to monitor that. virginia, msburg, democrat's line, eleanor. hello. caller: hello. he reason i'm calling, i'm 90 years old, i've been around the block a few times. watch all an, as i of -- i have a plan for two things, unemployment and the
budget. we could correct this budget ituation very easily if we would for every swipe of the transaction, y deduct 1 cent, you have a thatter there, if you look up, we would very soon not have problem.be a host: is it that difficult, mr. hoagland? guest: transaction taxes have been proposed in the past, they are an option. what you are suggesting is revenues, i want to make it in r that would be increase revenues, that is an important element in reducing the deficit, argue it has to be balanced with spending of ction, so combination increased revenue whether through transaction tax or eduction in spending or combination of the two would be factors that would get us on a better path going forward. by the way, the cbo director testified in front of he house this week about the
projections they have, what they see from it. here is a bit of that testimony. difficulty we have is nobody knows what's too much debt, what will cause a fiscal crisis. it really depends upon the country, depends upon the situation, the real key, of course, whether people are still willing to loan the federal government money or the government continues to borrow. thing we can say and do try to say is the bigger the debt, of a gger the chances fiscal crisis. and we respect the timing, one things most important about the timing is when did you like to fix something this? the longer you wait, there are more draconian the measures have to be to fix the problem, the earlier you start to tackle it, the measures nian can be, that is the biggest with g, i think we've got this, if you continue to ignore it, you are going to have -- you going to require economic
policy to make more dramatic fix the problem later on. host: mr. hoagland, what are that?thoughts on guest: the analogy i have used over the years, something we sed to refer to as having termites under the front porch. you don't know. they're eating away at the understructure of the porch, step out ou will there, it is fine smchlt day you will step out there and you're to collapse. keith, dr. hurt is absolutely we don't know how much is too much. i will point out that when we deficits and debt to gdp, percentage out there, to levels we're running now in the late -- after the war, we owe ourselves, we had debt world close to 100% after war ii. that debt was owed by ourselves. 50% of our debt,
thank you very much foreign foreign , is owned by investors. at some point, there may come a wait a n they say, minute, we're not sure the united states is a good place, for investment, they start withdrawing capital investments, interest rates up and the you have the crisis that dr. hurt is talking about. cocoa, illiam from florida, republican line. caller: yes, sir. problem with e your verbiage. call social security and medicare an entitlement, whereas of it as giant press-ons invested.ve guest: uh-huh. caller: we had a huge amount of boomer payments, which excess social f security and medicare payments federal deficit
pending all those years and then the government paid from the right hand to left hand an this, i am concerned about that fact that what did you do with that money? helped out on the budget and social security and medicare are having problems is the lieve that government's fault because they didn't handle our press with them. you, caller, thanks. guest: i agree with you that during the period of time when paying more in in terms of social security, than we were tacks, out in payroll that additional revenue was being used to reduce the federal deficit at large and it does and unfortunately, there is more taking out than being paid in and that is working the direction, however, during that period of time, we surpluses to the
that were in the social security fund become available to the federal government through to iou's that we owe back ourselves. long story short here, i don't disagree with you. is a sad state that we did not address the funding of this program long ago when it should have been addressed. in id reach a crisis back 1983, '84, under president reagan and greenspan addressed it. we are going to have another crisis coming up here. i can't remember the exact date, i think some place in 2024 or '25, the social security trust or hi trust fund and medicare will be exhausted and this have to deal with still. yes, it is an issue and i don't disagree with you. fred, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: hi. good morning. my call. for taking guest: good morning, bret. caller: i was wondering what since we do have
the best president right now, resident donald trump, if we get rid of the fed and start with our own money? what would that do? you would like to do away with the federal reserve, is question? ukt caller: absolutely, yes, yes. a st: i don't know if i have good answer for that, i think that would be a rather startling doubt it would happen. the federal reserve is independent of the executive and legislative branch. they have a specific role and budget bility under the or the banking control act to low-level inflation and maintain employment and growth. they have a responsibility. like to see the elimination, i don't think new federal reserve chairman mr. powell would like to see his job eliminated. hey have a role to play in terms of their part in terms of maintaining the economic country.of this
host: republicans on thursday are set to work or plan a vote budget alanced amendment. first of all, how would it work and would it work? guest: i have not seen the amendment, i understand it is mip cal amendments offered many times over the years, just to put into the constitutional maintain, achieve balanced budget. majorityeceive a super vote in both chambers and have o be voted on as amendment, voted on by three quarters of the states out there for ark adoption. how would it work? does, never clear in these amendments, it would come back lead to congress carrying through that constitutional think it's, to be honest, find it to be a of hypocritical vote, right now purely political. differently. right now, tax filing day is th,ing up next week, april 15
under congressional budget ontrol act we're operating under today requires congress to put together a budget by april the 15th. it would be better if rather than saying we want to alance the budget, i agree, i worked during the period of time when we actually did achieve a back in 1998, '99, 2000, bipartisan way and i suggest that maybe congress would first do its job of putting together a budget up telling us how they would achieve a balanced budget moving ng budget and forward. right now no indication on my part, from what i can tell, doing s is considering what they're supposed to do, to pass a budget. reports of g.o.p. leaders talking about recision. what is that and how does it work? guest: recision, the fact that set up the congressional budget office, set up the process. congressional budget and the ndment control act,
raise on for that act was that nixon, before the act was impounding money, money authorized, appropriated and the president said, i'm not going to spendit, i'm not going to it. that created a constitutional crisis. literally crisis came the congressional budget control act that set up procedure, impoundment portion. wants to sident impound and rescind money, that he has to tell congress and they have to have it is ision process, being discussed, one where the president has the right, clear to submit to congress proposals to reduce the appropriations, some apropriations he just signed law a month or so ago and congress has to act on that. he would would work,
ubmit a recision package, the recision package would come up as legislation, congress would by 45 days to act on that, the way, requires simple in house and then the president has to release the amount he "has period of during that time. host: bill hoagland, bipartisan joining us.r mike, thanks for waiting. caller: thank you. i'm 55 now. heard you mention by '24 or '25, medicare may go bankrupt, what time table on social security? i think it is like -- it is a little further out, i mike, i would have to check my figures, i believe it 2032 or '33, at least the trust fund
xhausts and payments will continue, mike. you're 55, payments continue to come out, it will only be, equivalent to that which total payrolls are coming in. estimates are that relative to what you thought you were going to get, it would be about reduction in what your -- what you thought you were going to get in social security we could only e pay that which was coming -- pay benefits equivalent to payroll taxes at that point. host: are there ways to change programs to extend the life of them as far as how much money can be give over time? yes, a lot of proposals, bipartisan policy center had a major commission that was set up by former chairman of the senate committee, conrad and lockhart, a few years ago, which rushhour and a number of other experts in this area, reform the ays to
social security program in terms of the benefits, in terms of again, much like the federal budget, require changes revenue side, payroll taxes and something to the benefit side. host: from joseph in new york. hello. caller: yes, good morning, to both you. homework, he has really good -- i would say answers. sir.t: thank you, caller: my question would be -- yes, my question would be, we all know we need secure military, but do we need such an expensive one? i've een -- i'm 72 and seen the expenses go out in the wars and is there a of you think, a new face politicians, congress, new resident, ever consider rimming the budget and
sustaining what we have and elping that go towards the saving of all the other social programs that are really necessary? caller.anks, thanks, caller. expenditures he the federal government does for our department of defense and efense and defending our country, of course, in the majortution, government's responsibility, about 12 or 13% total but the issue you though, mike, joseph, is right, we can maybe make it a three-sided building, i don't know, there are ways to find efficiencies, no question about it. however, i will say the major expenditure for our defense is personnel, for maintaining the benefits and the payroll for those people who
to put forth their service our country. the expetours for weaponry, i'm sure there are ways to find savings there. elative to what we were spending on defense back in -- vietnam s during the era period, we were spending gdp, we are down to slightly less than 3% of gdp. complicated at is and more confusing everyday, we want to maintain our security maintain our national defense, but i'm sure, yes, every agency, in fact, i a shout out to bipartisan policy center is release to help you at 2:00, a study looking at in improve ways to we were trying to
say, at ways where we could is this being done in an efficient way? to department es of health and human services. is next, cambridge, ohio, independent line. caller: hi, i have a couple pedro.ns, mr. hoagland, were you ever in the u.s. senate? in the was a staffer united states senate, staff of the senate budget committee for i was also nd then under dr. bill frist, when he leader, budget appropriations staff person. caller: yeah. okay. i kind of read an interview, it like you were in the senate. anyway -- sir. no caller: isn't bipartisan policy soft way of pedalling republican ideas?
-- the in point, they budget, the way you talk about like you want osterity for everyone, but, you socialized all the debt, we don't put hat budget.ational we have my own congressman down won't take his office seriously, he won't vote on wars.ization for people know why the participate in your government. guest: thank you for the call. think the you bipartisan policy center is republican-oriented agency. no. established by -- yes, enator howard baker, late,
great senator howard baker, senate robert dole on the side.ican bipartisan. george mitchell, and tom are truly bipartisan, republican and democrat. we are not pedalling republican democratic positions, we are trying to, if you like, pedal those particular we think can -- will help the country address some major challenges it has a bipartisan way going forward. have to say that i think trying, y a role in working with a number of congressmen, senators, democrats to d better, to improve the policy making process, as i said, we do release this afternoon called the evidence-based policy making, help congress think through provisions. i can't comment on your individual position on his votes or not. host: jacksonville, texas,
democrat's line. bob, go ahead, you're last call. caller: yes, thank you, pedro. lucky that time. guest: good morning, bob. caller: i want to ask a question. know why and sir, you air.t when you came on the why everyone talks about the medicare, s being social security and medicaid? it's my understanding that in the that is written law is an entitlement and that retirements for god knows how many federal employees, politicians, etceteare ra. that, please?er thank you. guest: the distinction between appropriated account. that is not quote entitlement. quarters, not
counting interest rates, is benefit that has been written you're eligible for if you qualify because of particularly with our age or if you have reached an age because of disability or something of that nature. "benefit" that is written into law, but you -- word is where the entitlement comes from. you can change that law so to benefit, whether social security or medicare benefit. get ng, i sometimes disturbed as budgeteer that we term entitlement, nobody is entitled to anything from my perspective. entitled to benefit congress provides to them and congress can change benefits going forward, particularly when focused on -- these are the major programs driving the pending and driving the deficits that will have a major impact, not on you or me, bob, our future generation.
hoagland, bill hoagland, bipartisan policy center. the website to read the research issues of debt and deficit. thank you for your time, sir. eports this morning house speaker paul ryan will not run for re-election, look at those in open nd others phones until the end of the program. republicans. for 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. we'll take your calls when we come back. >> thursday, the senate confirmation hearing for nominee mike tate pompeo who serves as c.i.a. director, will testify before the senate foreign affairs committee. 9:30 a.m. c-span 3, c-span.org or listen with the
fr c-span radio app. "landmark cases," brandonburg versus ohio. leader brandonburg, convicted of hate speech under ohio law. court unanimously ruled the state law violated his first-amendment right. to discuss this case are nadine strosman, head of liberty union and law katiessor in manhattan and fallow, columbia university amendment t institute. watch "landmark cases" monday and join the conversation. hashtag is "landmark cases" and follow us at c-span and we website urces on our for background on each case. companion book, link to interactive constitution "landmark cases" podcast cases.an.org/landmark
continues. journal" host: this is open phones until 10:00. brandon buck counselor to the speaker of the house, which reads as such. this morning speaker ryan shared with his colleagues this will be his last year as member of the house. he will serve his full term, run through the tape and retire in nearly 20 years in the house, the speaker is proud of all that has been accomplished and ready to devote time to being a husband and father. he did not seek the position, he colleagues serving as speaker has been professional honor of his life and thanked trust they placed in him. he will discuss his decision membertely following the meeting. that will take place at 10:00 this morning. that is happening on capitol hill. also happening on capitol hill, on the house said, facebook to o. mark zuckerberg set testify on second day, before the senate yesterday and will be efore the house energy and
commerce committee today, the hallway leading up to the committee room. we'll show you shots of those as go through this half-hour. it is open phones, so you can or ent on one of those bits something else. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats.00 for 202-748-8002 for independents. -- cold spring harbor, new york, republican line. steven up first. morning. caller: yes. i would like to clarify for the the social t security fund, which it was endowed in 1935, was never part f the general fund to be distributed like it was. ut in 1965, president johnson, wanted declared war on poverty out,he started taking money he apropriated or took the money social security fund to help the poor. but it shouldn't have been taken kept t should have been
there. the congress put iou's in the the l security fund and only reason that everybody keeps saying the social security fund bankrupt is go because the congress never money to be put back into the social security fund. host: steven in new york. xios reported about paul ryan, why it matters. house republicans were in a tough spot in the midterm with endangered members and democrats could win majority. republicans said this is titanic to tonic shift, donor ery republican think the house can't be held. becomes the last bastian according to the republican quoted. anada, from dayton, ohio, as we show you shots from the hearing
mark zuckerberg about to take place at 10:00. go ahead. yes, hi. i want to go back to the reason basically o funds, enough to cover anything for us in social security. about it much anymore, but so many millions of killed and have been also, you know, the funds were out of social security. with that, i'll hangup and listen. host: i apologize, just to show you mark zuckerberg did make his ay forward to the hearing taking place, at 10:00, cuwatch s show you pictures of the outside and the room inside and that as we go along phones. open charlie from new york, republican line. go ahead, you're next up. he caller: yes. good morning. hillary forums, clinton blamed everyone for her james comey to the
russians, to sexism. donald trump was elected because barack obama than jimmy ompetent carter and more corrupt than clinton. how did this happen. 2008, he had an election, no intention of winning and handed the victory to barack obama. thank you, caller. again, mark zuckerberg making his way into the room, that will take place. watch that on c-span3 this at 10:00. also at 10:00, paul ryan, the speaker expected to address his announced retirement. c-span.org, that at if you're interested in monit monitoring that. virginia, enna,
democrat's line. you're next. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to g. comment, the new york caller, the previous caller, he's right.tely during the johnson dministration, they took out from this social security trust fund, millions, millions of of the social security medicare trust fund, for. is already paid solutioned i'm oriented person. we should still request congress the egislation to increase tax limits, instead of $140, we should continue to tax people up $250,000 because we have so people that are retiring, we have baby boomers higher number of retirees 10-1.s workers, used to be 10 workers per retiree. ow it is the opposite, over 10
retirees for every one taxable, you see our pay stub, social security tax. that is not enough to keep us to 2030, like the gentleman, your guest was right, money.oing to run out of it is not our fault, it is congress, dipping into the trust it back.never put host: james from indianapolis, you are next. yeah, i'd like to comment on the f.b.i. and how mo is working his to break in ninth trump's lawyers office. that the amazing press doesn't find this, just biassedw overwhelmingly and leftist the press is that aclu,i hope the f.b.i. tarts breaking in doctor's offices, i hope they put peace all the nd find out
secret things that are told. system has been corrupt so bad, but they have their heels and put their long panels and president trump. fan of president trump, but the judicial system nd the f.b.i. and it is just they are like lap dogs. host: the f.b.i. raid on cohen's living at the time and his home, subject of editorial necessary two papers this morning. this is "new york times," the trump. coming mr. mr. trump spent his career in the company of developers and goons and , sharks, crooks, he cuts corners, lies, he's , brags about it, gotten away with it, protecting hishreats of litigation and
own bravado. proving limits applied for the oval office. leader necessary congress can keep cowardly silence mr. trump has a real ark frayed. raid on lawyer's office doesn't happen everyday. ultiple government officials and a federal judge had reason to believe there was evidence of crime there and they didn't trust the lawyer not to destroy that evidence. that is the "new york times" on it, editorial of the "wall street journal" this morning, michael cohen raid is title it. they write this. mr. cohen's lawyer denounced inappropriate and seizure of protected attorney/client communication. trump called the raid an stand for, at we self-serving defenses, we expect worried a few are about the intrusion to target right to council. cohen notes as much about --
allowed to attend the interview council.y clinton and mrs. mills was part of the saga at the state department, all from treason. way allegation mr. trump is plan for vladamir putin. trump be indicted for 2006?ng up an affair from hilarious thought is the lawyer mr. ves he could protect trump's reputation. in the "wall street journal," if you want to read it. avon, ohio, independent line. hi. caller: hi, how are you? fine, thank you. aller: my question about the national debt, for all the journalism, i never hear anybody talk about the national debt as of the -- national
debt is as big a deal as to be.dy makes it out last time anybody posed this, '92 debates hethe was in. i'd just like to hear some response to that. you. host: bill in alabama, barbara, good morning. ahead. caller: this is -- what i called paid in money that was to social security. he people, we the people, are supposed to be owning this ountry, instead of the politicians and we put our money into social security so we could had it and now bush said we too much money in social ecurity and so he took it out and spent it. now he spent our money knowing hat we're going to have baby draw socialng up to
money y and spent our anyway. that is not legal and now they entitlement, hat they are going to do away with the entitlement? texas, ke from independent line. mike, you're next up. caller: hi, like to talk about zuckerberg. i find it amazing our country is quantifying how much russia had to do with our -- with the thetion, yet we're ignoring fact that huge companies like facebook that control the removingare constantly conservative viewpoints. mean, supposedly she won the popular vote by 3 million, well, how many of the 3 million were swayed by facebook? quantify that. about -- hearing will the house this on
said with the facebook c.e.o. mark zuckerberg. if you want to watch that, you see that on c-span3. if you are away from your c-span.org, cumonitor that, as well as our radio apptochlt see yesterday's hearing, in front of the senate, go to c-span.org, that hearing you there.or we will show you and continue to show you those events, especially the pictures from the rooms, from the room, as we go on until 10:00 this morning. texas, mike, go ahead. caller: you didn't hear me? host: sorry, already got you. avid in panama city, independent line. caller: hey, good morning. i wanted to comment on the because to me it is just ludicrous that people are something this is new. he f.b.i. has been raiding organized criminals for years, onejohn ck to al cap
gotti, whoever they have in crime ights, organized syndicate, they have a right to go to priests, doctors, lawyers, like that utilize those people as a shield of cover. trump, we can stop pretending, he is the biggest organized ever lived in as this nation. we'll find out so many things going en involved in, back to possibly jimmy hoffa, the construction industry in new york city, that is why "new york times" a criminal, a is thug and potentially the head of organized crime syndicate that has ever been seen in america, pretending like he's not guilty? verona, siness pennsylvania, john is next. caller: hello. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: like to know why there is not an investigation in this from the uranium 1 deal
rosenstein, holder and obama all got money back from clintons? i'll hangup and listen to you. host: one of the discussions capitol hill n among senators is legislation to protect robert mueller from by donald trump, we give robert mueller days to in court.t story in new york time, asked ay mitch mcconnell specifically about this idea of ossible firing of robert mueller by president trump and if he needs protection from response.e is the >> my view that mueller should be allowed to finish his job, i the view of most people in congress.
i haven't seen clear indication et that we needed to pass something to keep him from being removed because i don't think going to happen, that remains my view, i don't think he's going to be removed from office. he shouldn't be removed from the office. he should be allowed to finish job. i'm not going to answer he'shetical, i don't think going to be removed, be allowed to finish the job. it's still my view he will be allowed to finish the job. would you do -- >> i will not answer a telling you, i am i think he will be able to finish the job, should be job ed to finish the appointed to do. host: political reporting that .o.p. leaders will have dinner with the president tonight, possibly to discuss robert mueller and other topics there. politico website. from virginia, this is sylvia, virginia, republican
line. hi. caller: yes, hello. about president trump's infidelitys and looking we've had pastt, presidents that had many infidelity and we didn't know them until years later, i think we need to respect the pray for the -- him and whatever comes out is fine. doing a great job and i think we need to stay out of his personal business. thank you. 10 minutes until the house comes in or at least we are talking about the paul ryan on rom c-span.org. you can see that. hearing with mark zuckerberg, that could be -- you that on c-span3. all those things happening this things.amongst other 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats.0 for independents, 202-748-8002. about 10 minutes left in open
phones. james is next from colorado. democrat's line. yeah, this is james he'lly. the national debt contributed money office, e running for that would help our country tremendously. the next way to raise money is games, football, baseball, basketball, all these gatherings, tax them are 0%, set figures, these all patriots and they have money money and paysome off the national debt, use it to take what you en re saving on interest and put together social security. latest executive order deals exampleation of government aid programs, writing that the lays out broad principles
for overhauling programs to participants to prove they are working or trying to find jobs considering to officials.nistration it also instructs federal agencies to oversee and craft regulation, the order is primarily aimed at programs such s food stamps, which covers about 43 mill yob americans, medicaid, which covers 74 mill programsle and housing according to an official. it doesn't include supplemental income, that is means tested welfare freshman roviding cash assistance to poor, disabled people. raleigh, north carolina. morning.d caller: yes, my name is didi, something to say to all republicans. republicans need to take each breath and look at other and communicate because -- the way we treated president obama was to sit up and for us
there and say that trump is -- we're supposed to respect him believe in him is disgusting. the part about forgiveness is for forgiveness for yourself before you -- before somebody else prays for for forgiveness. everybody, if to you can't run for office and do different, stop knocking somebody else. ost: "washington post" reporting by emily wax takes a ook at vacancy as veteran affairs, tens of thousands of vacancies according to the rate and human resources department is 11.5% or 540 employees, does not affect numerous staffing successes, kirk cashhaur, who added he department 15,000 slots since the president came into office. 33,000 he agency,
full-time vacancies as of early march. main benefit of working at v.a. is stability, people are the v.a. as stable and making recruiting more difficult because of that, randy erwin, president of the federal goes on to say it is a real problem. baltimore, maryland, joe independent line. caller: hello. yeah, my comment, i think mr. staying away from his assignment. assignment was to discover any collusion with the russians. othing to do with collusion with the russians. i think congress should, of -- se, if need to -- also not should divert from and that fair approach. -- thank you.g is
host: the president responding o announcement of paul ryan, who announced he is not running for re-election, donald trump responding. truly good is a person and while he will not be seeking re-election, he will achievement that nobody can question. we are with you, paul, the tweet president. let's go to illinois, where robert lives, democrat's line. morning.good caller: good morning. hi. i just got to say that this is repeating itself with trump in power. me of musa linni and hitler. host: specifically how? well, trump wants to be with se leany compared putin and hitler and a lot of ussian agents in the congress, that is my feelings. host: cleveland, georgia, republican line, from susan, morning.
caller: good morning. say i think o either mueller or president trump has a clear past without scandal in it, but what the point is, there is no ollusion, it's time to quit wasting our money and time to let the president run the make america t it great again. it's ridiculous we have all and day ndals day in out and everybody wants to point fingers. the he president run country. host: democrat's line, melissa pueblo, colorado, you're next. caller: yes. wanted to ask somebody from the democrats, who is on this ask mark if they can zuckerberg what they can do for their y who has lost facebook page, has no identity, their lines ll tapped? host: are you referring to yourself? caller: yes, i am. you addressed
facebook directly to those concerns? find nobody and g-mail.y i go to, even i make up a g-mail address and verify my gle cannot identity. host: how long have you been experiencing this? caller: since february. host: melissa giving issues concerning facebook. the subject of questioning by legislators on side.use series of legislators starting to gather as the hearing is about 10:00 place on c-span3. that is how you will be able to atch going through the house and senate on 1 and 2 respectively. you can watch on c-span3 at and our radio app, too. on that front, on the paul ryan speaker with se his announcement pending it an.org, you can monitor there. expected statement or comments to be made at 10:00 this morning. virginia, sun is next,
independent line. you're on. caller: good morning. about -- helling in had nothing to do with this raid. he actually found a trail, it to activity, passed deputy attorney general, who passed it on to the attorney, ones who got -- raided office. had nothing to do with it. that called and said there is everyday something new, is because trump is the one who is causing all these everything trump says is out there on google. it, an search and find these people are in denial. all i want to say, thank you. page ad in the paper from a group, american future which it says advocating free market ideas. mark zuckerberg.
eight questions for him smchlt questions include two weeks ago reported ork times" cambridge analytica harvested personal data of 50 million 87 million ou say users, what is the real number? am i one of the 87 million question?other does facebook keep track of me when i'm not using facebook? opt out of data collection? how much money does facebook my phone lling history? employees laughing at pictures i sent my spouse? hard es facebook make it to figure any of this out? don't know if the questions will today,ed by house members but you can see for yourself, starting 10:00 when you go to c-span3 and you can also see what was asked from senators on side when mr. zuckerberg was interviewed then. hearing, a lot of time devoted to that. go to o