tv Washington Journal 10272021 CSPAN October 27, 2021 6:59am-10:05am EDT
connection is something no one can live without, so wow! is there for our customers. now more than ever, it all starts with great internet. >> wow! support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. this morning, attorney general merrick garland testifies before the senate judiciary committee. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern on c-span three, live at c-span.org, or watch full coverage on our new video app. >>
♪ host: executives from tiktok, snapchat, and youtube all on capitol hill yesterday facing questions and accusations from lawmakers to do more to protect children online. good morning, everyone. we want to hear about your concerns with kids on these social media platforms. parents, dial in. all others, dial in at (202)
748-8001. you can text us with your thoughts and join the conversation on facebook.com/c-span or send us a tweet. we will get your comments in just a minute. i want to begin with frances haugen, the facebook whistleblower who testified earlier this week before a u.k. parliament committee. here's what she had to say about facebook's practices toward kids. [video] >> what facebook could do to address those issues, children who want to kill themselves, children who are being bullied, children who are obsessed with their body image in an unhealthy way and all these other issues facebook can do now without difficulty to solve those issues. >> there are a number of
interplay factors that drive those issues. on the most basic level, children do not have good self-regulation. that is why they are not allowed to buy cigarettes. when kids describe their uses of instagram, is described as an addict's narrative. kids say this makes me unhappy. i feel i do not have the ability to control my usage of it. i feel if i left i would be ostracized. i am deeply worried that it may not be possible to make instagram save for a 14-year-old. i sincerely doubt it is possible to make it safe for a 10-year-old. i would be surprised -- i would love to see a proposal from an established independent agency that has a picture of what a safe version of sram for a 14-year-old -- i am not aware of something. >> -- instagram say for a
10-year-old. >> what i think is misleading about facebook's statements regarding children is we need instagram kids because kids are going to lie about their age so we may as will have a safe thing for them. facebook should have to publish what they do to protect 13-year-old on the platform. >> frances haugen before a u.k. committee earlier this week. we highlight all the points of interest for you so you can quickly go through and see what lawmakers in the united kingdom were asking her and their concerns. as we told you yesterday, the subcommittee of the senate commerce committee wanted facebook executives to show up and testify as well. they did not do so, but they heard from snapchat, youtube, and tiktok executives. to frances haugen's point, a
washington post columnist writes a piece with the headline "stop comparing facebook and instagram to cigarette stock" he writes, the reality is teenagers are going to use social media whether facebook is tamed or not. the genie is out of the bottle. if minors do not use instagram, they will use snapchat, tiktok, or something they -- we have never heard of. parents need to take more personal spots ability for monitoring kids' social media usage instead of relying on the nanny state to do their jobs for them. we want to hear from you. oliver, falls church, virginia, we will go to you first. caller: good morning. i -- my concern this morning is it is absolutely amazing that our federal government has let
this dark cloud come over this country called facebook. i have always thought the site preached hate and confusion. it just injected it in everything in the united states and the government has to get control of it. i believe it helps donald trump come into our lives. just a disaster. kids are in trouble with that. host: tell me what your concerns are with kids specifically. caller: it is the miss information, the concerns about vaccines. it is the attack on the capitol, just the confusion and misinformation that has come
over the internet. it is destroying this country. host: when it comes to kids, listen to senator mike lee, a republican of utah at yesterday's hearing. his questioning to the snapchat executive about what his staff did on their platform. [video] >> in anticipation of this discussion and hearing, i had my staff create a snapchat account for a 13-year-old -- for a 15-year-old child. they did not select any content preferences for the account. this of the intraday name, birth year, and ima address. -- email address. when they opened snapchat with default settings, they were bombarded with content i can most politely describe as wildly inappropriate for a child.
including recommendations for an invite to play an online sexualized videogame marketed to people who are 18 and up. notices for video games rated 17 and up and articles about foreign stars. let me remind you this inappropriate content that has by default been recommended for a 15-year-old child. it was sent to them by an app just using default settings. i strongly backed to differ on your characterization that the content is suitable for children
13 and up, as you say. according to your own website, discover is a list of recommended stories. how or why did snapchat choose the stories to recommend to children? how would that happen? >> discover is a closed content platform. we hand select partners that we work with. that kind of content is designed to appear on discover and resonate with an audience that is 13 and above. i am unfamiliar and have taken notes about what you have said that your account surfaced. i want to make clear any online sexual videogame should be age
gated to 18 and above. i am unclear why that content would have shown up in an account for a 14-year-old. these publisher guidelines on top of these guidelines are intended to be an age-appropriate experience. host: yesterday's exchange between senator mike lee of utah and the snapchat executive. if you missed it, you can also go to our website, c-span.org, and find the points of interest from that hearing. we are asking parents to dial in and tell us your concerns as well as all others, grandparents, family members. if you are a young adult also, what is your reaction to using social media platforms? what do you think the government should do about it? facebook's nick clegg wrote in usa today an opinion piece on
october 12, we agree it is long past time for congress to set fair and clear rules for the internet. here is what he wrote. we have argued for creating a new digital regulatory agency to navigate competing trade-offs in the digital space, much like the federal communications commission overseas telecoms and media. we have proposed ways to reform section 230 of the communications decency act, including requiring platforms to be more transparent about how they remove harmful and illegal content and requiring large companies like facebook to demonstrate they comply with best practices for countering illegal content to earn the laws -- the law's protection. facebook is saying they want to be regulated. executives on knuckle -- on capitol hill yesterday from the washington post reporting -- disables direct messages for
accounts under 16 and sets direct messages off by default for 16 and 17-year-olds. snapchat has emphasized its safety features, including showing users locations on a map feature only to friends they have added. the executive or snapchat sought to differentiate the platform from some of its competitors. she says social media evolves to feature an endless feed of unvented content, exposing individuals to a flood of viral, misleading, and viral information. snapchat was built as an antidote to social media. zach is a parent in alabama. good morning to you. what are your concerns? caller: i am concerned with how you regulate content or media. we are focused on facebook or snapchat, but any website out there.
if a kid has access to the internet, he has access to content in a number of other ways. if we block or just focus on facebook or snapchat, the internet provides everybody an opportunity and kids have an internal network where they share go to this website, you will find this content. it is a challenge that we are probably over simla vying -- simplifying. host: you agree this comes down to parents and their responsibility of overseeing what their kids are doing on these platforms? caller: i believe, right, it is mostly on the parents but there needs to be regulation on tv -- there needs to be regulation. we have regular non-tv, magazines, bookstores. the question is how you do it given the way the internet is currently set up.
i do not think just fixing facebook or snapchat souls anything because they can create a new website -- solves anything because they can create a new website and put it somewhere else. you are not going to solve it by creating -- regulate each of these websites. host: are your kids on these platforms? caller: some of them. some have gotten off because they do not like the negativity. we talked to them and focus on trying to be positive. host: do they keep their accounts private or do they let anyone look at them? caller: most of them keep theirs private and we watch them because right, i follow them but remember, they can create other accounts that i don't know about. the ones i know about, right? they manage those very well. host: and, i mean, that's an issue that's come up in these hearings is that kids create
different accounts that their parents don't know about and they're allowed or they're not, you know, taken down by these platforms. do you think they should be? caller: and that's why it's a bigger challenge. and i think realistically, they really need more tech people involved with some of our congressional leaders. we know new ones are starting. and my kids, oh, i'm over here. we don't even use facebook anymore. host: right. keeping up with what's that? what are you talking about? what's that website? what's that platform? caller: right. host: so what do you make of francis hoag, the document that she took from facebook and the
release from them and the testimony that she's given? caller: right. facebook gets a lot of attack and snapshot, youtube. she raises a concern but i don't know if a company since we don't have regulations on any websites, so not just facebook, the newspapers we have some regulation. i guess tv. the question is how do you manage something that's not so easily there and it's not easily controlled. so i don't think there's a simple solution by just picking on facebook or any other platform because it is all the internet. host: so let me put it to you and the others who are planning. this is an opinion piece written by the "new york times" and the headline is "face it." facebook won't change unless advertisers demand it. and this is what he where is in
nowadays and they're able to get around it. and a big one that they left out in the panel is roadblocks. and that targets much younger kids. it has a ton of inappropriate things on there. it's like, you know, sexual innuendos and they also share information. they also can share their screen where predators can gain access to their screens. gives a whole lot of information about them. that's a huge one that they left out. it's just so many things that's so wrong with kids being on the internet today. and it's really difficult for parents. host: yeah, let me bounce this off of you, kay. this is joe and he writes congress could also place a transparency requirement on social media platforms. tech companies often operate in extreme obeysity -- obeysity. so shedding some light should
shed some light on their practices -- your thoughts, kay? caller: it might help a little bit but it's no so many pass peaks -- aspects of your life. caller: i'm concerned that wear not treating this as serious as it should be. the upset is -- internet is becoming a drug for kids. they get a dopamine response when someone likes their stuff. they, like you said, they're
putting together fake accounts to get away from their parents to do things covertly. they can go places that, you know, no parent would ever want their kids to go. and i'm not saying that we should ban the internet or anything like that but it's clear that these companies can throttle their products. they do it for china. they do it for brazil. they do it for all these other countries when they are supposed to or when the countries demand it. i don't think the united states is demanding that they do anything about their product where -- you know, that the bad things about their products. and i think that they could. and i think that the united states should demand it more. host: from the documents taken by francis hogan and the 17 publications that teamed up on digging through those 10,000 pages, "washington post"
headline is five points for anger, one for like. facebook's own researchers have been quick to suspect a critical flaw in this system. flavoring -- favoring controversial posts including those that make users angry could open up the door for more spam, abuse, click bait and a staffer whose name was redacted wrote in one of the internal documents. a colleague wrote it is possible the data scientists confirmed in 2019 that post that sparked angry reaction emoji were likely to include misinformation, toxicity and low quality news. so it also meant that those people were engaged more. they stayed on these platforms for longer, meaning that they saw more advertisers going to the business model. aaron in alexandria, virginia, a parent. good morning to you. what are your concerns?
caller: yeah, my concerns -- i'm going to try to get this out as quickly as i can as concisely as i expect i am a parent of a 13-year-old boy and who other younger children but my 13-year-old does have access to those apps but i manage my router and his phone accounts. i manage the bill that pays for the phone. it seems as people are more concerned with regulating what people see online rather than regulating their safety in schools with guns or with masks. and they feel as though social media platforms are the most dangerous thing that our children can encounter which is not true. what is dangerous is trying to lump everything under one umbrella and saying that social media is the root of all evil because our children can access it and subvert our own parenting. be better parent. manage your children's time. know what your kids are doing and be a positive influence on them there. are positive experiences other than snapshot or facebook.
and if they do have a facebook account and you nonnus know about it, it's because you're not paying attention to your child. you could have discussions with your child. i mean, people are worried about dangerous content. we all knew it was in daddy's top drawer. why don't daddy take what's in the top drawer and take it out of the house? manage your child. host: all right. aaron, listen to this exchange yesterday at the senate commerce subcommittee hearing. the chair talking about the impact of platforms on children was asked the staff chat. executive was asked about beautification filter kids can use to change their appearance. >> we studied the impact of these filters on teen mental health. i assume. do you study the impact of these
filters before you put them in front of kids? >> yes. the technology that you're referring to is what we call lenses and these lenses are augmented reality filters that we allow users to choose to use them to apply them over top of selfies and for those that are familiar, they are the, you know, opportunity to put on a dog face or -- >> i've seen them but they also change one's appearance, potentially to make one thinner, different colors, different skin tones. >> so these filters, senator, are created both by snapshot and our creator community. there are over five million of these augmented filters and they vary a very small percentage of those filters are what you call
beautification filters most of them are silly, fun, entertaining filters that people use to lower the barrier of conversation. because, again, when you're using snapshot, you're not posting anything permanently for likes or comments. you're using those filters in a private way to exchange a text or to exchange a video message what friend. so, it really kind of creates can this fun, authentic ability to communicate with your friends in a fun way and those filters are one of the many ways in which friends love to communicate with each other. >> do you study the impact on kids before you offer them? have you studied them? >> so we do a considerable amount of research on our products. in fact, one of -- i think it was one of the competitive pieces of research that was revealed showed that filters or lenses on snapshot are intented to be fun and silly. >> we need you all to know --
host: back to greg. caller: i like to say after watching ms. stout here on tv, augmented reality filters. where has our technology gone? out of control. and i have to agree with the last caller eric. parents, you have a problem with your kids on these platforms? don't let them be on there. take their gadgets away. how about reading some books? remember those? yeah. technology, out of control. i'm sorry, but that's the way i feel. thank you. host: all right, greg nathan in maryland. nathan, how do you feel about this? caller: yeah, i think we're focusing a lot on the platforms themselves but what about those
push. content on the line? why are they being held accountable? i'm not talking about just kids, but in general. if someone is posting false information or information that's harmful to either children or a company or an individual, why aren't they being held accountable for information they're publicking in the first place? sort of like a news agency used to be in the past. when you're talking to an influencer to tens of thousands of people in some cases, why aren't they held the same account as these news organization that has widespread influence at that point in time? and that's the idea behind that but i will save that for another
time. thank you. host: happening today in the u.k., this is from rioters this morning -- rooters this morning. lawyers want to have a fresh attempt from have julius asan extricated. the 50-year-old australian is wanted in the united states on 18 charges -- criminal charges. host: let's go to john. caller: when we identify who is responsible for a lot of this inappropriate content, it is labeled as anti-semitic and his wife, if you say something about her, you're anti-asian. so this subject is laughable.
host: all right. john, in maryland. we're going to return to this conversation later on in the program. we're going to switch gears though after a short break and talk about what's happening in capitol hill behind us over the social spending bill and that infrastructure bipartisan bill. we will be joined by dan kildee and louisiana republican congressman garret graves will join us on the climate crisis. ♪ >> this morning, attorney general merrick garland testifies at an oversight hearing before a senate judiciary committee. online, at c-span.org or watch full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. the c.e.o.'s of common, british
petroleum and shell testify on climate change before the reform committee. watch live on c-span3, online at c-span.org or full coverage on espn now. -- c-span now. at 10:00 eastern, the justices hear whole woman health which challenges a part of the law that gives the public the power to end force it. and at 11:00, united states versus texas looks at whether the justice department has the right to sue in federal court to block the law. watch the oral argument live coverage on c-span2 -- ♪ ♪
announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: joining ups this morning is dan kildee, a democrat from michigan and part of the leadership team in the house. congressman, let me show you "the hill"'s front page headline this morning. dems hit wall with progressives. your reaction. guest: well this is a tough
negotiation. the fact that it's only taking place with democrats is a unique aspect of these. these are hard issues we're trying to tackle. we have a lot of diversity of opinion within the democratic caucus. that's ok. i think one of the things that i take from this, that i fry to talk about when i go back home is that this isn't dysfunction. this isn't failure this is basically how the democratic process works. we argue with one another. we do it in public. sometimes it's not pretty. but it's not like people storming the capitol or denying basic facts of science or denying the outcome of an election. this is the democratic process in full display. and i think maybe people have sort of gotten used to not seeing that and i think it's ok. we'll get to the resolution, but sometimes, it's a difficult process to get there. host: will you get to it by the
end of this week? guest: it's hard to say. i hope so. we've got some issues regarding transportation funding that we have to deal. we have the bipartisan infrastructure deal which i support and could address that. the real question is whether enough members in the house with these really thin margins that we have and on the democratic side, no republican negotiating partner, are we able to look at one another in the eye and say look, we trust that the agreement that we have around the other part of this, the build back better agenda is a strong enough agreement that makes us feel like we with move forward? host: we're cannot there yet. host: so congressman the leader of the progressive caucus according to the report said she wants all 50 democrats in the senate to glee to a full bill text for build back better package before voting on the
bipartisan infrastructure bill. so the ball was last week, a framework before voting on the infrastructure. was the ball moved? guest: yeah, i think the challenge here, and understand where congressman jayapal was. the bill text is very technical. our senate partners have come up with full ideas that are not fully drafted. we went through the process, what we call a mark-up, where we take the legislation through each of the committees that have jurisdiction and write every word of the legislation. so the house bill is ready whatever elements of that house bill would be included in the final package has full
legislative language drafted. where we would have some difficulty in meeting the standards of congresswoman jayapal lays down is what the senate lays down with is part of this deal. but to vet some of these ideas that have been floated. some which have merit, i'm sure but they haven't gone through the process that we went through in the house to determine whether or not we can actually translate these ideas to legislation that not only works, functionally, operationally but that we think actually makes sense from a policy standpoint. so, i obviously argue that the best way to move forward is to move forward with the elements of the house legislation which pays for the spending that we have on the table and determine how far we want to go with that and for how long we want to go
with that. to me, that's a better way to go at it. host: here is the headline in politico this morning. the finance committee chair in the senate takes shots at billionaires but he argues this that? new idea. he presented it two years ago in a white paper. he's had it thoroughly vetted, he argues. this is on the so-called billionaire tax. so what's your reaction to moving forward? guest: we can't move forward on a white paper or an idea. we have to have legislative text. what senator wyden may propose may very well fit into a broader tax strategy. there are some questions about how consistently reliable the revenues-degree from that
billionaire tax would be year-over-year. and as long as the gains are being realized, it would be a robust tax. i'm for that. i could see myself supporting it. but i don't think it fully replaces what we're trying to do, and that is make sure that every high wealth individual, corporations that do well pay their fair share. and if there are additional obligations that come from the 700 or so that fall upon, the 700 or so billionaires who have worked the system to their advantage, i can see myself accepting that. but i don't think a tax that might be more volatile is one that we can consistently rely on when it comes to the year-over-year budging -- budgeting decisions we have to make. this is where the details actually do matter at the end of the day. host: let's invite callers to join in. republicans, 202-748-8001.
democrats, 202-748-8000. and independent, 202-748-8002. text us with your first name, city, and state at text message -- 202-748-8003. i want to get your reaction to senator john boone talking about what he says are budget gimmicks by the democrats to hide the cost of your social spending proposal. >> it is important to note that the short-term programs and program extension will be paid for by 10 years of taxes. that's right. it will take 10 years of taxes and other revenue raising measures to pay for programs that are scheduled to last as little as one year. so what happens? what happens when democrats want
to extend that child lockdowns again this -- allow dance next year or for long term? are democrats going to trot out more tax hikes to extend the child care subsidies permanent? while they -- or are they going to just suggest we add hundreds of billions and eventually trillions to our already dangerously large national debt? and if they are for tax hikes, who is going to be facing those tax hikes? democrats are going to run out of money from millionaires and billionaires. and then they're going to start coming after the wallets of the middle class. host: congressman, that is a fear when we talked about this billionaire tax. many of them destructing lawmakers that they think it's a slippery slope.
guest: well, i understand what the senator is saying. i don't agree with his assumptions, number one the way we crafted our legislation is to pay for the spending that we're putting on the table. and i know they may not like the fact that our target are the corporations. and people who make more than $400,000 a year. so if in the senator's view is people who make more than $400,000 a year are middle income earners, he can describe it that way. but that is the way we've gone at this. what's really troubling to me though is this seems somewhat maybe even more than somewhat duplicitous. because it was only a few years ago in 2017 when the republicans pushed through on a reconciliation package a bill that we saw less than 24 hours before we voted upon it that cut taxes for the wealthiest
americans and the largest corporations on a permanent basis, but temporarily cut taxes. in a really cynical use of the tax coated, temporarily cut taxes on middle income earners and set a five-year time bomb where taxes on corporations would not go back to the perforates, but for individuals who work for a living, their taxes would go up. we're not doing that. they don't like the fact that we're forcing to the table the notion that we're going to pay for what we spend. to tax people that are extremely wealthy that we might increase taxes on middle or lower income individuals it's just an assertion that's being made but there's no reality based upon that because if we were going to
do that, we'd do it. this is our approach. this is what we're going to do. this is our plan. and all i ask is people compare it to what the republicans did when they combed through every inch of the tax code in 2017 and decided that when it came to restructuring our economy, restructuring the distribution of wealth in our society that 83% of the benefits of that legislation would go to the top 1%. that's not what we're doing. we're taking a different approach. and i'm happy to have people compare the two and make their own judgments. host: let's get to calls. cliff in texas, a republican. you're up first for the congressman. go ahead. caller: yes, thank you, greta. i just want to make a little statement and then a couple of questions, if you don't mind. host: if you can make it quick. caller: sure. the laws for the billionaires were made by who? [laughter] now, we're coming back and we're
punishing the very -- the people who have worked under the laws that this gentleman and someone else put into effect. but i think that's kind of ironic. i also would like for him to tell me and really tell me, give me a figure. what is fair share? being a professional athlete back in the 1970's, i paid over 50% for the government and i couldn't appreciate my body. i was number one world player in tennis. and that's not fair. i didn't care who you are. not even be equal partners with the government. it's not fair. but here's the main question i really want to ask him, which is a philosophical question, really. we can talk figures all day long. do you as one of the moderates and the other moderates, when you get into a room, do you really debate what you want?
vis-a-vis socialism versus capitalism? because that's what this got is -- debate is about. and the capitals -- ballists can't lose the argument because socialists has never worked and i just can't believe that intelligent people would even discuss all this other stuff without deciding first what kind of system we want and the rest of the gang wants has never worked. do you ever debate that? guest: if you watch the debate, you would say yes. down to voices, race, and real passionate views. f this is a capitalist economy
and it will be for as long as i have anything to say about it but that does not mean that there are not aspects in our economy that we can make sure like for example, when someone is sick, they have the ability to leave their job and take care of a sick parent or a sick child or when they bring a new member to the family that they can take paid family leave that we make sure that families raising children received tax benefits. this is what we're talking about in this package one of the biggest pieces of it is a significant tax benefit that accrues to families with children, especially children under the age of 6. that has the effect of equalizing the economy and making sure that we don't put parents in a tough position of having to make cuts to their future in investing in education, all the things they want to do in order to take care of their kids. but the question is, is this a
capitalist society? yes. that's how our economy is structured. we don't want to do anything to stifle that. but the other point that i want to address that the caller made. i don't blame the billionaires for the tax code directly. i blame policymakers who intentionally decided to let those billionaires off the hook by granting them additional tax benefits that allow many of them to pay almost nothing. so what's the fair share? look at the legislative proposals that we're putting on the table. a corporation, for example, may have to pay a minimum tax. this is one of the ideas that senator cinema floated that had pretty significant merit that a corporation has to pay a 15% tax. if they have enormous earnings and have lots of costs that they want to offset, there has to be at least a minimum tax.
some of the biggest corporations base the end of united states of america made billions and billions of dollars in profit and paid exactly zero federal taxes. now, we can argue about what the minimum ought to be but we all should be able to agree that that's not right. and that's what the tax code delivers right now. and it's a tax code that was written in 2017 by the republican majority. i disagree with that notion. and what we're trying to do is address that. what's interesting is that the legislation that we produce doesn't dramatically overhaul the tax code. we increase, for example, the top tax rate, the very top tax rate for the highest wealth individuals on the tax. we increase it by 2.6%. and that is not exactly the
march towards socialism. we increase corporate tax rates by a few percentage points to a number that is just slightly above what the former republican chairman of the tax writing committee then ways and means committee suggested back in 2014. 26.5% as opposed to 25%. it's being characterized as this big confiscation of wealth. and what it really is is an effort to try to find some logical fairness to the -- in the tax code in order to make sure when people have family members that are sick, they can take care of them. when people have children, they have a tax code that grants the biggest benefits to them as opposed to a tax code that lets billionaires off the hook and allows them to pay little or no taxes. that's what we're arguing over. host: let's get to jamie, democratic caller, indiana.
jamie, you got to go ahead. you're on the air with congressman. all right, jamie, one last call for you. all right. let me go to don in washington state. republican. don, you're on the air with congressman dan kildee. go ahead. caller: good morning, congressman. good morning, greta. i just have one or two questions real quick and then a comment at the end. i'm curious if this congressman because i tried, has actually read the bill because it seems quite large, quite a bit of pages and some of the stuff in there, i don't even understand how it could even be for a social program when it's for certain parts and butterfly experiments and whatnot. but my other comment would be obviously, i want to know if he's read the bill and then i remember within the last year or two, a big talk, even on the
democratic side about getting decriminalizing and maybe taxing the us of marijuana. and i'm wondering why there's no talk on that now. because i'm in the state and i believe, sir, you're in a state that has medical and recreational. and i know they make hanover fist on taxes over that. host: all right, don, i'm going to have the congressman respond to you. guest: first on the question of whether i read the bill, i help write the bill. we sort of read it when wearying it. writing it. we spent 40 days now, not only -- up to 40 days ago, months and months putting together the legislation. i'm on the ways and means committee about 2/3 of the legislation comes directly through the committee that i serve. and i'm also on the budget committee and 100% of the
legislation then goes through the budget committee. yeah, this is a big difference. we had a meeting right before a vote, we finally got this three-foot high stack of paper and it was the 2017 tax bill that the republicans had written and there were scribbles, literally, ink pen scribbles in the margins two include languages that were written too quickly to even put it through a word prosser and then we -- processer and we voted it on that day. we have allowed this to have the light of day and let people, organizations, individuals, go through it line-by-line and offer their suggestions before we bring it to a vote. so, in the answer to that, yes. on the issue of marijuana, we
have tried. the piece that really is the critical part of the federal government role with marijuana is the issue of whether it's a scheduled one narcotic. and if that which continues to be the case, continues to stand, then it puts state laws where states have legalized the us of marijuana for recreational purposes in conflict with the federal law. and i do support the so-called descheduling. as the caller pointed out, different states have different laws when it come those use of medical or recreational marijuana. if we can deal with the descheduling issues, that opens the doors for states do what they do best. and those resources into the
priorities that state governments think are the highest priority to them. host: i want to go to your home state, victoria is in michigan. what city are you in? caller: i am in norton shores. host: ok. go ahead. caller: perhaps it is my immature way of thinking, but i am at a loss as to how we came up with the fact that big business should pay their fair share of taxes that is socialism. i get it that politics rules. this is the time that we're in and that you're either a republican, democrat, and nothing is fair if it's the other side. i get where we are. but how in god's name in america, have we arrived at a place where if we say big
business, big corporations should pay their fair share of taxes, that is wrong, that is socialism, that is us going after people's money. i don't understand it. the middle class and the poor has been paying off. we have been faking paying our taxes from the beginning of time. i don't understand it. and yet, people are comfortable with corporations not paying any taxes. host: all right, victoria. congressman, your reaction to hearing victoria. guest: that's one of the reasons i love the state of michigan. i agree. one of the frustrations, you know, being in the federal government is the characterizations of the policies that we are pursuing. socialism. it's become the buzzword. you know, the interesting thing is people who are making these
assertions don't know anything what a real socialist country engageses in. this is not socialism. this is a question of whether or not we have a robust economy built on a capitalist notion of investment and returns on those investments and we don't want to interfere with. and at the same time, billed into that economy, a floor of decency, below which no person should ever fall in the richest country in the world, at the richest moment in our history, the idea that we can't say to ourselves that you can go as high as your ideas and your risk will take you. but we're not going to let you fall below a level where you don't have a roof over your head, clean water to drink, and enough food to keep you from starving. that's pretty fundamental. i mean, that's basically what we're trying to achieve here. and that's why the way we've structured this is so important. to build that floor of decency
but not try to eliminate the ability for people to pursue their dreams, invest in their dreams, and benefit from the success of their dreams. we can do both of those things. and i don't think there's anything that prevents us from doing it. and the idea that everyone should have 20 to pay for it except the largest corporations is something that it's not socialism. that's just cheating. and we need to address that. host: jamie from north carolina. democratic caller. caller: hi, greta. i hope you guys can hear me ok. i just had dental surgery here so it's a little hard for me to talk. but i can't believe this guy is a democrat and he doesn't understand we are already a socialist country. this is mind-boggling. does he have a computer? has he ever looked up anything? host: jamie, give us specifics. why?
caller: we're capitalist/socialist society. we have been forever. we have social security, medicare, public schools, highways, national parks. they're all socialists. host: all right. respond, congressman. guest: this is a theoretical question. it depends on what you mean by socialism. we know what the attacks mean. the attack means that we are not a capitalist society when with people talk about particularly the republican messaging machine attacks democrats, saying we're socialist, they do so by saying we try to take away the capitalist incentive built into our economy. but i will say the caller makes an important point because in the rosevelt administration when
he -- rosevelt administration, when he pushed forward social security, it was attacked as being a march towards socialism. when in the 1960's when lyndon johnson launched medicare, it was called a march toward socialism. so let's be clear. this is not some sort of an academic debate when these terms are being tossed around over how we describe investing in basic floor of decency. you can call it what you want to call it. the term has been weaponized by republicans to scare people. and all i'm trying to point out is that it's that same argument that was used when social security was being put on the table. maybe that's the point that the caller's making the same argument that was used when medicare was being advanced. poll americans right now and ask them if they think in order to
udo what then was called socialism, we should eliminate social security and medicare and i think we'll know what the answer would be. host: congressman, what happens today on negotiations? what should people be looking out for? guest: right now, a lot of the focus is on the revenue side of this question. so i think what we should be trying to focus on its what aspects of what is being proposed on the senate side, particularly like right now this notion of minimum corporate taxes. is that something that we can fit into the sort of constellation of ideas that we have put together called the build back better act? the revenue side of this question has turned out to be the really sticky part of this and it's largely because the senator particularly has subjected to raising that top rate from, you know, up to 39.6 from 37 or the corporate rate. i disagree with her thinking on that, but that's essentially
where we sit right now and that's where a lot of the argument is going to have to be focused. host: congressman dan kildee, before we go, i want to get your thoughts on your uncle, dale kildee passed away this summer. what should our viewers remember about him? guest: first of all, thanks for asking. he was my uncle. he was my mentor. i think the biggest legacy that dale kildee leaves behind was that he was a very strong advocate for the positions that he believed in. he was a true roosevelt democrat but he treated everybody he met, democrats, republicans, left, far right, he treated everyone with respect and with dignity and with kindness. and if there's any one less son that dale kildee leaves behind that we ought to take more stock of right now especially, it's that particular lesson. he was a beautiful man. and i will miss him forever. host: congressman kildee, we appreciate your time and the conversation this morning.
guest: thank you. host: we'll take a break. when we come back, we'll talk with louisiana republican congressman garret graves. he's the ranking member to the top republican on the select committee on the climate crisis. we'll talk about the biden administration's climate proposals and washington examiner's jerry dunleavy will be with us to preview today's senate judiciary hearing focusing on the justice department and attorney general merrick garland. ♪ >> when this frenchman was 19, he came to america and was approximated major general by
george washington. the year was 1777 and the american revolutionary war was underway. a political history podcaster an author has written the story of lafayette called "hero of two worlds." included in his book of the famous frenchman is an account of his return to the united states, where he was celebrated in the each of the 24 states, and that year was 1824 and lafayette was 67. >> that on this week's episode of lookn -- booknotes+. you can listen on our new c-span now app. this morning, attorney general merrick garland testifies in an oversight hearing before the senate judiciary committee. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern on c-span3, c-span.org,
or full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 8:00 a.m. eastern, two discussions about american presidents. first, talk about presidential speeches and public opinion from the 1970's there 1990's as committee k should shifted from network television to cable and then the internet. the net 9:00 a.m., presidential legacies and what factors make a successful presidential term. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, former assistant attorney general for the district of columbia run james discusses his book "the truman court," in which he discusses whether president truman established a precedent for politicalization of the supreme court.
exploring the american story, watching american history tv, saturday on c-span2. >> get an early start on holiday gifts at c-span's online store. shop now through wednesday and save up to 15% on c-span products, apparel, books, and accessories, something for every c-span fan the holidays. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now with code gift 15 at the website. >> " washington journal" continues. host: with us is the top republican, garret graves, on the committee for the climate crisis and also on the transportation infrastructure committee, republican of louisiana. thank you for being with us. i want your views on climate change. what are they? guest: look, i think there's no
question that we are seeing a change in the play. there is no question that we haven't obligation to chart -- we have an obligation to chart a course for a clean energy future. it is important to remember that this is not something we can solve only in the united states would we have to work with the international community one thing most folks do not realize is the u.s. has led the world in reducing emissions. we reduced emissions more than the next 12 emissions-reducing countries combined. but during that period, as we have let the world in reducing emissions and bringing energy solution innovations to the table, china has increased emissions by four. so that is moving in the wrong direction. so it is important that as we continue moving in a clean energy direction, innovating ourselves out of this quandary we are in, that the solutions are abundant, affordable, because there is going to be a 50% increase in the global energy demand moving forward.
we have got to be aware of that and make sure that the solutions we make available, that they are abundant and exportable and affordable, because some of these third world countries will not take up unaffordable and more expensive energy solutions. so really thoughtful process-forward and deliberate, making sure it is based upon u.s. resources so we can continue leading the world in energy innovation and solving this problem. host: the president is headed to the u.n. climate change summit at the end of the week, and you are going as well, part of the group of republicans per but will be your role? guest: it is important for us to communicate to the global community that we agree that we do need to reduce emissions globally, that we do have an obligation with the global community to help to develop solutions, energy solutions, clean energy solutions, and chart that forward. but we are not going to do it in a way, as some have proposed,
that will need cap the u.s. economy or put restrictions or mandates just on the united states that would undermine our economy and american opportunity while you have other countries like china continuing to increase emissions or countries like russia that are going to be building pipelines in the communities to bring dirtier energy solutions like their gas compared to american gas, which has a much lower emissions profile. first, it will be a message of unity, that we support the biden administration's largest topline goals of a cleaner future and reducing emissions. but there are significant differences between how we believe we should get there versus some of the policies they are pushing and also differences in the world we see the united states playing versus the larger global community. we ought to move in lockstep and
not simply give a pass to countries like china, russia, and others that are not really complying with any type of long-term reduction in emissions. host: for our audience, your turn to call with questions or comments about climate change to the congressman. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. send a text with your first name, city, and state, as well. yesterday, the social spending plan expected to include at least $500 billion for climate, that was said yesterday what do you know about it? what do you think of the price tag? guest: it is interesting because the white house came out initially and there were a lot of mandates, a lot of choosing technological winners and losers, really more of a stick type approach. it appears what they are doing now, because of senator manchin and other folks that i think are
candidly sticking to the science a little bit more, they appeared to be taking more of a carrot type approach, where they will try and offer grants and build on what republicans have done with tax incentives to try and in clean energy future, move in a direction of sequestration type technologies to sequester some of the greenhouse gases. so this is really more of an approach on building on some of the incredible progress we made in the 2017 tax bill, incentivizing the sequestration of greenhouse gases and a tax provision wilting upon some of the bipartisan work we did -- tax provision, building upon some of the bipartisan work we did in 2020, the appropriations bill, which was actually with a republican president and many republican members of congress, making sure the the research and develop an agenda is focused on american clean energy sources, clean energy solutions. so i really think it is a better
direction. however, it is amazing that they are going to try and put it $500 billion, anywhere from one third to one quarter of the entire package, but i think overall the package is excessive spending. they proposed nearly $12 trillion in spending this year. and with the debts already approaching $30 trillion, this is just out of hand. we have to be more thoughtful and targeted about the limited resources we have. otherwise, we will really challenge our children and their children's future. host: that price tech reported, $500 billion, far off from the roughly $600 billion, and the bill was expected to cost $3.5 trillion. the associated press reporting a couple days ago that emerging proposals would expand grants and loans in agriculture and industrial sectors to help shift to clean energy, provide with fewer emissions. and there would be new tax
credits for taxing solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources. the official says momentum was building as the group coalesced around his new ideas. congressman, it does not sound like you would vote for the overall package. but if this was standalone, would you vote for it? guest: look, i have read that story and talk to some other members involved, and candidly, there are not enough details at this point. shifting from trying to use mandates, restrictions, picking technological winners and losers, shifting from that type of approach to more of an incentive type approach, i certainly do welcome. historically, i will give an example why that has worked better. president obama put something in place and set an objective of reducing emissions in the power sector by about 32% by 2030. but it shows technological winners and losers, used more of
a stick type approach. president trump said, look, we're not going to choose technological winners and losers, we are going to let innovators innovate. he removed the restrictions and even the targets. despite that, in the 2019, 11 years early, we exceeded that emissions reduction goal. let me say it again, not with restrictions, mandates, or penalties, just by letting innovators and evade. americans have been incredible in their ability to innovate our way out of problems, and it is a perfect example -- history has shown this over and over again, how that type of approach works better. and i think perhaps with senator manchin's presser and using a little history and evidence, you have seen a little bit of evolution with the democrats, but i still think the overall bill is incredibly problematic, spending too much money, and there is nothing in america's history of success that shows expanding social wealth programs is the right direction to go. host: a call from west chester,
ohio, republican. hi, deborah. caller: thank you for taking my call. my concern with our climate is that we have -- we do not have, as a public, an understanding of all of the rare minerals, all the minerals, in our cell phones and in our laptops, etc. as a result, china has 44 million metric tons of rare earth minerals. afghanistan is one of the richest nations in the world. and we are not mining rare earth minerals in the united states. i think we have one in wyoming. so what we're doing is sunday we're going to wake up and say, oh, you mean those euros that are all outside of the united states are what we have to have to fuel the green new deal, etc.? and the american people are just not informed about that.
it would be like driving a car, not understanding that a lot of our gases coming from the middle east. guest: thanks for the comment there, the question, the observation. you are exactly right. look, this is why we have to be very careful about how we proceed. folks can say we are going to get rid of oil and gas, but what are we trading it for? for mining in the congo and china, where there are no standards, trading it for slave labor and child labor which has been utilized to mine these.meanwhile , we have these exact resources in the u.s., and we are prohibiting access, preventing mining. last november, we were energy independent in the united states, and we go to shifting trillions of dollars in economic activity and becoming dependent on china, just like we saw at the onset of the coronavirus, them buying back all of the masks and gloves and other
things sent around the world and then significant increasing the price and selling it back to countries like the united states. we cannot allow a country with those types of values to have that type of leverage over the united states, from an energy security perspective, economic security, or national security. it is the wrong direction. we can maintain our energy independence in the united states by simply continuing to innovate. we have led the world in reducing emissions. so i agree with you 100%. we have got to move forward in an america based clean energy future, not one that plays into the hands of russia and china. i think, unfortunately, this administration is leading into that right now. host: battle creek, michigan, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: yeah, i think we have to recognize we're already into the global warming crisis. i keep looking at the drought out west. almost half the country is in drought.
it has gone through the entire summer. we have had wildfires, droughts. the water levels in the reservoirs are going down. we are going to have to pay. i will give this to the republicans, their economic minds, we are going to have to be paying for crop losses, flooding, hurricanes. i just wanted to ask about -- so we are in the crisis now. and right now we are at 420 parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, probably 100 parts per million up from the average. so we are already in a very bad situation. i want to know, do we have a carbon budget? are we going to try to reduce -- i would ask the congressman, what is the annual carbon pollution, how many metric tons of carbon dioxide does the
united states put into the atmosphere every year? host: ok. we will try and get an answer. guest: you bring up a really important point, and i think it is something all of us need to take into consideration. look, we have had scientific expertise from all over the world that have acknowledged united states today could cut every bit of greenhouse gas emissions that we emit, every bit of it, and it would have virtually zero impact on the climate, zero. you could cut every bit of emissions globally today, all of it, and you are still going to have this momentum building continuing to move in this direction of climate changing. so the first thing we have got to recognize is something we can all come to agree on, does not matter where you are ideologically, which is making adjustments and resiliency. we made record investments in
resiliency during the last administration. we made investments to make sure our communities can sustain changes. i represent south louisiana, where we are having some of the fastest levels of c rise, hurricane impacts, and we are having these new rain bomb events were, in may of this year, we had like 12 inches of rain come down in the half of a day, just incredible events. one thing, let me say it again, that we can all agree on, and it is a fiscally conservative approach, is making investments in our communities, and flood protection, coastal protection, and we have to be smart with management, making sure we are not being a responsible about allowing for these disasters to be worse than they are. step two, if we're going to come in and continue this trajectory in the united states of leading the world in reducing global emissions and we are going to have china increased four --
four times for everyone 10 we reduce, then what is the point? so i think it is really important, and secretary kerry has worked in an international format, but the paris accords he is celebrating results in increasing of global emissions, including china, that is emitting no more than every developed country in the world combined, and it will increase another 50% over the next 10 years, absolutely the wrong direction. it was a flawed agreement to agree with -- to begin with, and we have to hold the international community's feet to the fire. host: when folks talk about proposals, grants or loans, for the agriculture industry, what are they specifically looking at? should there be a review of what crops we grow in this country and why, and would that help with climate change? guest: it is a great question. when you talk about innovation, a lot of folks have been on the
sidelines, and looking at how to improve the management of our natural resources is one of the greatest opportunities we have in the u.s. republican leader kevin mccarthy and congressman bruce westerman of arkansas have proposed this trillion trees initiative, going around the world and planting trees. trees sequester greenhouse gases, natural solution. so farming is that another opportunity. what types of crops or replanting? even things like killing the soil, we're losing those emissions. in louisiana, we continue to have coastal land loss or erosion, releasing methane or other emissions sequestered in the soils. so all of these natural resource opportunities are using natural solutions and need to be a big part of it. when we talk about how to incentivize the agricultural community, incentivizing best practices that lower emissions through different soil management practices, different crop practices, different planting practices, these are
all opportunities we have that can be a significant and complementary, meaning in some cases, this helps the yields of our farmers, rather than a detrimental effect on our agricultural community. importantly, u.s. agriculture is the most efficient agriculture in the world, meaning that there is less emissions per unit of crops from farming in the united states than any other country in the world. we feed the world, and that is helping to reduce global emissions are just like our economy, the more me -- we manufacture here, because of efficiency in our economy and energy sector, we produce products at lower camilla to emissions than in other countries would so we are leading the world today and some of these practices. we do have big opportunities to expand in the agriculture sector, using natural resource management practices. host: pro-public road a piece about the drought situation in
the west, and that 70% of the farmers out there are growing what they called unnecessary crops and that they are growing alfalfa to feed cattle, not just cattle in the united states but it is being shipped to the middle east and other countries to feed cattle over there. your reaction to that? guest: looking at the excess water we have in south louisiana, california and others can have as much as they want of it. secondly, in regards about my comments about best management practices, we need to look at all of the types of efforts going on and figure out we can be smarter about using our agricultural land, how we can build upon that success of being the most efficient food producer in the world in terms of emissions per yield of crops. there is no question that we can make additional progress there, and i think it is a huge opportunity for us. host: connie in illinois, republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning, c-span.
i have just got to say, everything that is happening today is written in the holy bible by the one who controls the climate, god almighty of the holy bible, and not man. and god give america everything we need to survive in these last days. he gave us oil, coal, wind, solar. he gave us gas and oil. everything. and we need to use everything. these countries that went to wind and solar, they are going back to gas and oil now. host: do you agree with her? guest: i do believe there is a god, and i do believe that he blessed us with a lot of resources in the united states. i think it is important for us to remember that there is
something much greater than we are. in regard to the resources we have in the u.s., she brought up conventional fuels, things like natural gas, gasoline and oil, it is important to keep in mind that those fuel sources have about 30 times the energy density of the next closest renewable source. so all these people talking about going out and saying that we're going to electrify our car fleet or we're going to make all of these ships powered by battery, we have really got to think through that. because in many cases, the technology is not there, the energy density is not there, and there are some amazing innovations happening now in texas and louisiana and other places where they have been able to demonstrate that you can use things like natural gas and can have zero emissions. continuing to use this very energy dense resource that we have abundantly in the united states, but you are meeting some of these clean energy
objectives. meanwhile, as was brought up earlier, we have to think through what happens when we become dependent upon mining critical minerals, and what we do with spent batteries that generally have a 10 to 12-year lifespan, all of that e-waste. we have to think about the strategy, and some folks have left the science and it has kind of become a religion, very concerning because we have to keep this anchored on science evidence. you can look at what california has done, largely viewed as being one of the most progressive states on the climate. they have the eighth worst emissions growth in america, most dependent state on foreign energy, and they recently shut down a nuclear power plant, emissions free, and then sent a letter asking for an injunction to emit more emissions beyond allowable limits in the state of california. at the least reliable grid, high electricity prices. why in the world would you want to take that? or in europe, they became
dependent upon wind, and wind stopped blowing, and they had to bring in dirty and expensive energy sources to solve their problem because they do not have sufficient energy. we have got to learn from the mistakes of some of our friends in europe, from the state of california, and proceed in a way based on science and based on america's resources that are affordable and clean. for us, double and triple down on these strategies that have proven to not work is an awful path forward for the united states. host: bob in virginia, independent. caller: good morning, representative graves. guest: good morning. caller: the air quality and the temperature are two completely separate things. there is a thing called the milankitovch cycles.
he was a serbian astrophysicist, mathematician just, as drum assists -- as dramatist, and a civil engineer, and he calculated the position of the earth in relation to the sun. everyone needs to look that up. it has to do with the orbit around the sun, the tilt of the axis of the earth, and the movement of the earth around the axis. this happens on a 26,000 and a 100,000-year cycle. this was all explained. host: ok, the congressman is shaking his head. guest: bob, thanks. i hope i do not ever have to repeat the spelling of that name. [laughs] you bring up a point that is
very important. a lot of people, and i made this point earlier, i think that climate has kind of become a religion to some people, rather than a science. you are exactly right that there are other factors that do influence the weather patterns and climate in the united states , including things like the amount of energy covering -- coming from the sun, and that is variable. there is a tilt on the earth's axis, so there are other factors that influence weather patterns and climate on earth. we have to take all of those things into consideration, instead of just going in and saying we're going to kneecap the u.s. economy and do all these things and that will save us. because in some cases, there are other external factors not being brought to the table. host: we're going to springfield, illinois, democratic caller. caller: good morning, please allow me a few minutes. you mentioned god quite a few
times and religion quite a few times. do you believe in science, as well, and have you taken a covert shot? guest: yeah, thanks. i think i mentioned god once, and i am a believer and a sinne r. two, i do believe in science. three, i lost my father to covid earlier this year. and while it is my private health information, i am happy to share with you that, yes, i have been vaccinated. caller: very good. you are a smart gentleman. i have two things to ask about. we have spent $80 billion on disaster relief this year. mentioned $500 million over 10 years. we would actually save $30 billion if we implemented the biden policy on the environment. you mentioned china. does louisiana have climate
change, as well? does it affect you? guest: i brought that up earlier. yes. caller: you always mention other countries are doing it are not doing it, don't you have a responsibility to louisiana? guest: i do. let me tell you what the science says. the science is clear that we can cut every bit of emissions globally, not just in louisiana or the united states, globally today, and we are still going to see changes in climate. there is already this momentum that shows up. we could cut everything today. depending on the model you look at, 50, 75, 100, or even longer, you will have that momentum built up that we will not be able to stop or change based on current technology, including reducing all emissions globally. so what we're doing in louisiana is we are making no regrets investments, investing in
resiliency. that should not be a partisan fight. we are making record investments in louisiana. i have been able to secure about $5.6 billion in addressing many of the resiliency projects and coastal restoration in our home state, because these are critical investments. we currently have to be working on implementing this clean energy future, but it has got to be the united states working in lockstep with other countries, not this disparity we are seeing today with the united states is reducing and china is increasing four times more than we are reducing. that is moving net in the wrong direction. a further challenge, our children and grandchildren and our great grandchildren's future. host: 500 billion proposed by the president for climate change proposals over 10 years, $50 billion investment every year, and to try to reduce the natural disaster emergency bills that we see every year to the tune of a
b billion dollars this year. --$80 billion this year. guest: based on science, does not make any sense. here is why. if you are going to say that by reducing emissions over the next 10 years we're going to reduce disaster costs by $30 billion, $80 billion, $800 billion, based on the moment of an concentration of greenhouse gases in the environment today, there is virtually nothing you can right now to affect what happens over the next 10 years. that momentum is baked in, it is done. the one opportunity is if we can advance technology where we can actually withdraw greenhouse gases from the atmosphere right now and sequester those and actually reduce concentrations, that has some potential. but there is no math that any critical scientist can show you
that over the next 10 years we're going to resist disaster costs as a result of efforts solely in the u.s. to reduce emissions. that just does not hold water. host: the ceo's of exxon, bp, shell, and exxon will be on capitol hill tomorrow, and we have coverage on c-span3 at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. i am wondering, if you set on that panel, what would you ask them? guest: i will be on that panel tomorrow, and i am excited to have the opportunity to join. i have mentioned this, and i think it is worth mentioning again, i am really concerned at this issue of climate -- look, it is serious, it is something we have to keep on the front burner and address. but this discussion has departed so far from real science. we refer to it in our office as the church of climatology. the solutions, the discussion is no longer anchored to science by
many. folks are just talking about this as an emotional issue. that is very dangerous, for us to allow or legislate based on emotion. we have got to move forward on a path based upon science, based upon evidence, based upon facts. unfortunately, that is not what is being done right now. this is one of those scenarios were i think if you follow the money, look at the people making money of what is being pushed right now, and i think it is the wrong direction. i will make mention of something i stated earlier. the u.s. has led the world in reducing emissions. do you know who has pioneered many of these solutions? the very energy companies coming to testify. i have no doubt that there will be efforts by many people on that penalty tar and feather these folks. in some cases, they deserve it. in south louisiana, i negotiated
the big oil spill we had back in 2010, but we held those people accountable when they were wrong, largest settlement history from a single company. but you also have to give credit to people doing the right thing. and these same people, in many cases, are the ones that have developed these solutions that have allowed the united states to lead the world in reducing emissions. so if you think you suddenly are just going to jettison all these folks and let rob from iowa come up with the neck solution, it is a dangerous direction to go. we have to make sure the key energy innovators are at the table. yes, incentivize them to continue moving in the right direction, and direction in the united states' interest, not one that will trade u.s. resources to those in china, making us dependent upon them for future energy sources. host: congressman garret graves, we appreciate your time this morning. guest: appreciate the opportunity. host: we will turn back now to
our question we asked you all earlier this morning. kids online safety, your concerns. we have divided the phone lines. parents and all others. we want to know what your concerns are with kids being on social media platforms like facebook, instagram, snapchat, youtube, tiktok. some of those executives were on capitol hill testifying about this topic yesterday. we will show you what they told lawmakers and the questions and accusations made by the lawmakers, as well, to these top executives. we will get your thoughts on that in just a minute. joining us on the phone is alex bolton, senior reporter with the hill newspaper, to give us the latest on negotiations within the democratic party over infrastructure and social spending. alex bolton, what will happen? where is the proposal right now, the social spending proposal, and what will happen today? guest: i think what it is stuck
on right now our proposal to expand medicare benefits and also for the federal government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. on the prescription drug price question, i am told that the negotiations are moving closer to negotiation, and they are looking at empowering the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices for pharmaceuticals that are out of whack in the marketplace. that is the phrase i have been told. in other words, pharmaceutical drugs that are far too expensive or significantly more expensive compared to other drugs or for which perhaps the drug company bought the intellectual property to the drug and then raised the price. we have seen high-profile instances of that. it will be more than a small handful of drugs. it will be wider than that.
and kyrsten sinema appears to be showing some flexibility on that issue, a big breakthrough. but those are two of the toughest nuts to crack. and they are figuring out how to pay for the proposal, the two tax ideas that surfaced yesterday are a corporate minimum tax that sinema says she will support, so that got a big boost, and then there is the billionaire's tax that was unveiled, which has potential bigger problems because the house ways and means committee chairman is questioning whether it is workable. there are questions as to whether it is reliable to pay for going forward, and there is questions about who is on board. we have not heard some of the reactions. so that is another issue
outstanding, but there are multiple issues. the length of the national paid family leave program needs to be resolved. a bank reporting requirement that would give essentially the irs more power to review activity in banking accounts, that is something that will likely be stripped from negotiations, but that has not been finalized. also, the climate provisions, there is building consensus on including a strong climate package in the bill, probably somewhere around $500 billion worth of spending, so a huge amount of money. but one of the key components is a methane fee that environmentalists are keen on, that it would punish polluters, they say, but joe manchin is waiving the caution flag here. he is saying he could support it, depending on how it is crafted, and that if it is penalizing companies, he will not support it. but if it is done in a way were fossil fuel companies, natural gas companies, they are helped,
maybe that is something he can support, but it all depends on the fine details of the proposal. host: they had to lower the price tech from $3.5 trillion to somewhere near to truly dollars -- near to truly dollars. so what is on the chopping block? guest: looks like the paid family leave program was supposed to be 12 weeks, now down to four weeks. we know chuck schumer, the senate majority leader, and nancy pelosi, the speaker come up who both represent high income areas with high property taxes, they were pushing for repealing the cap on reductions of state and local income taxes, and it would be a short period of time, and another proposal popular with democrats was creating a program for long-term health care, long-term home
health care for people with disabilities and seniors. initially, that was $400 billion, then chopped down to $250 billion, and now it looks like it will be below that. so that has been cut down significantly. on the medicare expansion, the latest proposal is to provide a voucher for people to get dental care. so they want to expand medicare to cover dental, hearing, and vision, and that is being pared back as well. the white house is floating providing an $800 voucher for dental care, which will only take you so far. one of the concerns that came up is whether dentists would be accepting medicare to cover dental procedures. there is real concern as to whether they would do that or whether medicare could be expanded robustly enough to actually incentivize dental care providers to participate in the program. so there are a variety of cuts that have been discussed and phased in, and there's still a
fair amount of work to be done. it is the real question as to whether they can make the deadline to get a deal by close of business today or tomorrow before the president leaves for his overseas trip to europe to attend the glasgow climate conference. host: i want to show a headline from your reporting at the hill. your quoting senator manchin saying that i think we will get a framework deal. i thought progressives in the house were demanding and actual test with 50 democratic senators signing off on it. guest: that is what has been demanded, saying the senate has to pass a reconciliation package before progressives will let the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package, which passed the senate in august, before she will let that pass the house. that would really delay the
program, probably weeks or maybe even months. you think back to when the framework agreement on bipartisan infrastructure package was announced earlier this year, it still took them weeks to negotiate and hammer out the final details and then get it drafted. so with that demand, that means the bipartisan infrastructure bill is going to be held up until december, most likely, just given how much work has to go into drafting this legislation. we know the president is very keen to get this bipartisan bill out the door. he wants an accomplishment. he would prefer to have it before the november 2 your monitorial race in virginia -- gubernatorial race. but there will be a 30-day short-term extension most likely, but the pressure will build.
i think if this reconciliation framework is announced and ma nchin is very committed to it publicly, maybe she will back down from her demand. but if she sticks with it, then the bipartisan infrastructure bill will be delayed for weeks and weeks, just because it will be so complicated to get the legislative text for the reconciliation package drafted and finalized. host: alexander bolton, senior reporter with the hill, we appreciate it. guest: thanks for having me. host: we return to our conversation about kids online, on social media platforms. executives from snapchat, tiktok, youtuber on capitol hill yesterday testifying about what they are doing to try to protect kids. lawmakers were skeptical and had bipartisan questions for these executives about what they are doing to protect kids. at the same time this week, frances haugen, the whistleblower, former employee
of facebook, was across the pond in the united kingdom testifying before parliament. she was asked this about practices, facebook practices towards kids. [video clip] >> perhaps you can tell us in a really simple way that anybody can get what facebook could do to address those issues, children who want to kill themselves, children being bullied, children obsessed with their body image in an unhealthy way, and all the other things -- what is it that facebook can do now, without difficulty, to solve those issues? >> there are a number of factors that interplay and drive those issues. on a most sick level, children do not have the self-regulation that adults do -- on a most basic level, and that is why they are not allowed to buy cigarettes. on instagram, facebook's research described it as an
addict's narrative with kids saying this makes me unhappy and i feel like i do not have the ability to control my usage of it, and i feel like if i left, would be ostracized. i am deeply worried that it may not be possible to make instagram safe for a 14-year-old, and i sincerely doubt it is for a 10-year-old. >> they should be honest? >> i would be -- i would love to see a proposal from an established independent agency that has a picture of what a safe version of instagram for a 14-year-old would be. >> you do not think such a thing exists? >> i am not aware of that. >> facebook says instagram is safer a 10-year-old. >> i think it is misleading regarding children. kids are going to lie about their age. facebook should have to publish what they do to protect 13 euros
on the platform. i guarantee what they are doing is not enough. host: the facebook whistleblower earlier this week before a u.k. committee. a question for you, your concerns about kids on these platforms. parents, (202) 748-8000. all others, (202) 748-8001. james holman, in his piece for the "washington post," argues that you need to stop comparing facebook and instagram to cigarettes. he wrote, the reality is that teenagers will use social media. the genie is out of the bottle. if they do not use instagram, they use snapchat or tiktok or something we have never heard of. parents need to take more personal responsibility for monitoring their kids upon three social media usage instead of relying on a nanny state to do their jobs for them.
on facebook, this is someone agreeing with james hohmann. it is like teaching them to look both ways crossing the street. candace on facebook, it is difficult for parents. kids rely on these devices for online learning and communicate with each other. the problem is it is predatory, as well. i do think online platforms need to do more to keep our kids safe . not an easy time to be a parent, she writes. also on facebook, this says it is up for the parents to control it, period. there are already safety settings. a call from buffalo, what do you say? caller: good morning. my point of view is that, from a parent and a teacher, a lot of these students -- my kids are a little older -- are tied in and sucked in, and they cannot put their phones down.
and occasionally throughout the school year, last school year, as well, i show the documentary "social dilemma," and it draws attention, at least to my students, how they are being programmed by the ads and their searches and all the information they put out there. i am finding that a lot of students cannot put their phones down, and it is interfering in their academics. i am sure not all, but from what i am seeing from the educator point of view, the kids in the classroom or on the phone instead of paying attention. i have three kids, two that are grown and one in eighth grade, and we monitor his phone more or less for contact use, so he does not have those luxuries of being tied down. another thing, i polled my
students, and most of them do lie about their age as far as signing up stuff, too, which i think is a problem. obviously, it is meant for people of a certain age. host: frances haugen testified that before u.s. lawmakers and not that long ago, saying there is evidence that kids lie and facebook knows that they have lied. they can tell by the type of content that they are reading, liking, and the kind of content that they are posting. so does facebook then have a responsibility to do something about that? caller: they do, because a lot of these kids are posting mean stuff about each other, which results with fighting in school. we have probably more problems with girls in schools today than we ever saw when i went to school. it was usually males in fights and stuff. our fights in schools and outside of schools are female-related and usually has something to do with facebook, some type of posting.
again, if you are lying about your age and everything else that has been pointed out by the panel in congress, it is a problem. these kids are doing adult things too early in life, and that goes for a lot of other things, too. we have not even touched pornography, but that is another subject. thanks. host: thanks. i am going to throw this out there for you all to react to. an opinion piece in the new york times this morning, face it, facebook won't change unless advertisers demand it. here is his argument behind that. he points out that advertisers are sticking by mr. zuckerberg. and facebook's third quarter, ad sales jumped 33% from the same period the year before to 28.3 billion dollars, helping push profits up 17%.
the company has enough cash on hand to buy back $50 billion worth of stock, nearly four times what he says it spent on safety. joe is a parent in maryland. good morning. what are your concerns? caller: thank you for taking my call, and thanks for everybody's work on this issue. i just want to say that it seems to me like we're arguing about cigarettes again -- cigarettes are bad for you appeared we know cigarettes are bad for you. with the internet, we know this is bad. we take our babies -- i have four daughters, 17, 13, 14, 24, and i have a wife, 45, same thing. me, too, internet. it is just robbing our lives. my little kids see people kill themselves on the internet come on instagram or whatever. i do not know. we know cigarettes are bad. we know the internet is bad. we're just being lazy, hoping someone else will do our work
for us and fix it. it will not get fixed until parents get involved. no one else will care. corporations will do what they are going to do. seems like the parents will do what they want to do, go home and go home. go down to d.c. politely in march. host: i am curious what you think about the argument about advertisers. if there was a grassroots effort by parents and others to put pressure on advertisers, to pull their ads from the social media platforms, might that work? caller: greta, we know that is exactly the one thing that does work, money. marching, you get written off as stupid or a hippie or crazy. but the money thing works instantly. i will get out of your way. there are smarter people than me that can talk. i am running for governor in maryland, y'all. host: john in nashville, tennessee. hi. caller: hi, i am a computer
scientist, in a masters program. i wanted to talk about some issues related to me. as a computer scientist, i have to be held legally by the association of machinery and software engineering, the code of ethics. so things about planning long-term for the growth of children is kind of paying it forward. education, peer relationships, knowledge, and we have to think about health. in a mobile society, one thing we can do to mitigate the harm of things on the phone is just managing our batteries. we can think about the time limits. another thing is career interest. two paths in life, the academic path with networking or we can go the trade path involving apprenticeships.
so how can we focus on this in terms of social issues for kids online? we can think of this in terms of personal finance, too, because if we're getting kids online, we have to introduce ways for them to manage their budgets. there is the premium model, where you get free stuff and then pay for the additional features, and this is frequent in games, a $90 billion industry. host: like roblox? caller: exactly. one way to sort of get kids involved productively, with people pushing towards technology with kids, is a shop model. i would like to mention open source technology, because this is free to use, legal, and
people will not get in trouble for using it, and it can be monetized in some cases. they can earn pennies, sometimes way more than that. just a few things i wanted to mention. host: a member of facebook wrote an opinion piece recently where he said that their company wants to be regulated. we have argued for creating a new digital regulatory agency to navigate trade-offs in a digital space, much like the federal communications commission oversees telecom and media. we have made proposals for the communications decency act, including more transparency about removing harmful and illegal content. and requiring large companies like facebook to demonstrate they comply with best practices for countering illegal content to earn protection from the law. mary in wisconsin, a parent. welcome to the conversation.
how concerned are you? caller: good morning. i have very concerned. i think the only way we can control -- we cannot regulate tech. they do have all the children on tech in schools in california. kids are not learning how to negotiate on a piece of paper. and having the courage to do it, so people will have low self-esteem. host: do you take their phones away when they are at school? are they not allowed to bring the phones to school? caller: my oldest is 28, and they do not have phones until they were a sophomore. he was in sports. he used my phone when he went on a bus. and we moved to wisconsin, and
he was the only one who did not have a phone. [indiscernible] facebook, there must be something about the technology, and the schools do not want the children exposed to it. but the public needs to keep saying no. once they are exposed to all this stuff on that computer, they do not want to go back. and they will never want to go to school. host: i will show you from yesterday's hearing with these executives from snapchat, tiktok, and youtube, tennessee republican questioning the tiktok vice president on data collection of children. [video clip] >> it says you collect and keep a wide variety of information, including biometric data such
as face prints, voice prince, geolocation information, browsing and search history, not just on tiktok but on other apps , and keystroke patterns and rhythms. why do you need all of this personal data, especially on our children, which seems to be more than any other platform collects? >> senator, many outside researchers and experts who look at this have pointed out that tiktok actually collects less data than many of our peers. on the keystroke issue -- >> outside researchers that you are paying for? >> no, senator. >> you would submit that to independent outside researchers? because what we are seeing with all of this biometric data and the keystroke patterns that you are exceeding that, so what do you do with this? are you creating a virtual view of the children on your site? >> senator, i do not know what
you mean by virtual you. >> you and your presence online, like a virtual dossier. i am sure you understand that term. what do you need with all of this information? do you track children's viewing patterns? are you building a replication of where they go, their search history, their voice, their biometrics? and why does tiktok and bytedance and others need that information on our children? >> tiktok is an entertainment platform where people watch, enjoy, and create short form videos. it is about uplifting and entertaining content. people love it. >> that is it from the positive, but there is also a negative. and the negative is that you are building a profile, a virtual
you, of our children because of the data you are collecting. [video clip] -- host: from yesterday's hearing. on the reporting, handling of kids. another questionthey report thad cristiano, snape in tiktok facing pressure to stock illegal drug sales and connections on their sites, particularly as overdose deaths of sort. parent groups called on the sites to do more to stop drug trafficking as kids die a fentanyl poisoning. senator klobuchar questioned the executive from snapchat on the company's actions to rid the app of drug dealers, something stout says was a priority for the company. still, klobuchar suggested changing the law to hold companies liable could speed up the process. jerry let's hear from you in
watertown, new jersey. caller: among the other questions that are being asked, you know, about this issue i think one of your questions that always is in my mind is what our children not doing when they are on social media? what kinds of interaction with the world, what kinds of intellectual exercises and things like that, what are they not doing when they are doing that? i have grandchildren, lots of them, and they are being disciplined to do those other things, not to be on social media. i think the question among all the other questions is, what are they not doing when they are on social media? host: we believe that there for now. we will come back to it in the last hour of washington journal.
when we come back we turn our attention to attorney general merrick garland testifying on capitol hill. we talk with washington examiner's jerry dunleavy about the senate judiciary committee hearing oversight of the agency. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: this morning attorney general merrick garland devised an oversight hearing before the senate judiciary committee. coverage begins at 10:00 eastern on c-span3, live at c-span.org, or watchful coverage on c-span now the new video app. thursday morning the ceos of exxon, british petroleum, shall and chevron -- shell and chevron will testify beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or watchful coverage on c-span now, i were new video app.
monday the u.s. supreme court will hear oral argument in two cases concerning the texas abortion law. sb8 bans nearly all abortions after six weeks. the justices will hear women's health versus jackson which challenges part of the law that gives the public power to enforce it without federal court review. at 11:00 a.m. the united states versus texas looks at whether the justice department has the right to sue in federal court to block the law. watch the oral argument live coverage on c-span2, live or on demand at c-span.org, listen on c-span radio or on the new c-span now mobile app. ♪ you can be part of the national conversation by participating in the video competition. we are asking you to create a 5
to 6 minute documentary on how does the government impact your life? show both points of view that affects you and your community using c-span video clips which are easy to find and access at c-span.org. the student cam competition awards $100,000 in cash prizes and you have a shot at winning the grand prize of $5,000. entry must be received before january 20, 2022. for rules, tips, or how to get started visit our website at studentcam.org. washington journal continues. host: joining us as jerry dunleavy, justice department reporter with the washington examiner here to talk about the attorney general. he will be on capitol hill today testifying before the senate judiciary committee and coverage begins on c-span3 live and
online at c-span.org and you can now download the free c-span now app. jerry, i want to begin with questioning of the attorney general. he is likely to get questions about voting rights in this country. what has he done on his own, his legislation is stuck on capitol hill, what has he done on this issue? guest: i think one easy way to look at the battle is to look at what has happened in georgia. georgia passed a series of laws aimed at republicans, aimed at election integrity, verification, making sure persons only voting once, they are who they say they are, that sort of thing. this election, series of election laws georgia put in place was challenged by the biden justice department led by merrick garland and some of the
language that got thrown around earlier this year was pretty dramatic. president biden referring to the georgian election law as "jim crow 2.0." things got so heated that major league baseball ended up moving the all-star game out of georgia and now the atlanta braves are in the world series and the games are not going to be played in atlanta. that is a microcosm of the battle going on over voting rights and election integrity in the country and the biden justice department has been filing lawsuits. georgia is a prime example. pushing back on republican led states and republican led laws which have been aimed at election integrity. host: the other issue that came up with the attorney general testified last week was this memo that the justice department sent on school boards and board
members being threatened. he wrote, those that dedicate their time and energy to ensuring our children receive a proper education and safe environment deserve to be able to do their work without fear for their safety. the department takes these incidents seriously and committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them, and prosecute them when appropriate. why did they send out this memo and what has been the backlash? guest: violence, threats, and intimidation are bad. when they cross the line into crimes obviously should be prosecuted. the timeline on this is interesting. the national school board association put that letter together and released it at the end of september. internal emails from the national school board association showed they had the president of the group, so the top leadership, had been in
communication with the white house. once the letter was published merrick garland testified that the white house likely spoke with people at the justice department about that letter and he also testified that he relied on the letter, at least in part, for putting together his memo. this letter was extremely controversial. it likened some of the parent protests going on to domestic terrorism, even suggested the justice department should look into deploying the patriot act. garland and his testimony last week before the house judiciary -- he is facing the senate judiciary today -- could not imagine a scenario where he would consider this domestic terrorism. but the press release the justice department put out accompanying his memo did talk about the creation of a task force to deal with this which
the task force would include the national security division. it has raised a lot of controversy at the national school board association, because of pushback within its own group and among state-level associates, ended up apologizing for the letter and withdrawing it. that is certainly something garland is going to get grilled on quite a bit today. host: those topics on the table for viewers. you can ask other questions related to the justice department as well with our guest jerry dunleavy. if you are republican, (202)-748-8001. democrats (202)-748-8000, independent (202)-748-8002. you can also text as with your name, city and state. i want to go to steve bannon. this is the conservative wall street journal editorial board writing today, mr. bannon's claim of executive privilege is no legal merit. the supreme court said the privilege applies to conversation with the
president or making policy or decisions. mr. bannon left the white house in the summer of 2017. he has no immunity as a private citizen who may have spoken with then-president trump. the wall street journal is saying, congress also has its own inherent contempt of power and could jail mr. bannon on its own until he testifies. mr. bannon has a first amendment right to not incriminate himself but he does not have the right to defy subpoena with impunity. president biden blundered when he interfered with the decision by saying public justices should prosecute mr. bannon. mr. biden has since admitted his mistake. the wall street journal saying either congress itself or justices have good reason to vindicate congress' subpoena part. what has the attorney general said about this? guest: as you mentioned, president biden did weigh in on this saying he believed if congress held -- if the select
committee dealing with the capitol riot and associated issues, president biden said if the committee referred to see bannon for criminal contempt, the justice department should prosecute. now, that is very problematic. dlj immediately emphasized -- doj immediately emphasized independence but the cat is out of the bag. merrick garland has said any decision he makes is going to be based on the facts and the law which very well might be true. but president biden waiting in the way he did complicated things in the same way a complicated things for the trump justice department whenever former president trump would weigh in. host: is the justice department investigating what happened january 6? guest: yes. the doj investigation into the
capitol riot is being run out of the u.s. attorney's office in the district of columbia. right now about 650 arrests have been made, it is probably a little bit higher. doj says around 200 of the arrests include some sort of charge related to either assault on police officers or impeding police officers in their official duties. it is a very big investigation. there is pushback from those on the right about the investigation going too far. there are people on the left, especially some in the base of the democratic party, that want to see things like president trump the people around him charged for something. but charges in the realm of
sedition, charges in the realm of insurrection have not been filed by the justice department suggesting, for now, there is not evidence to support that. host: what is the timeline for their investigation? guest: it seems open-ended. you know, arrests continue to be made and there have been guilty pleas. most pleading to misdemeanor charges, a few of them pleading to felonies. because of the size of the investigation and the number of cases this could drag on for quite a while. covid-19 and the restrictions the courts have placed because of the pandemic also slowing things down. this is the sort of thing that can take a long time. this is why some people on the right have raised issues about
how long some of the people are being kept in pretrial detention ahead of trial because this has been going on for a while now. january 6, we are starting to approach almost a year. host: michael in miami, democratic caller. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i myself had a complaint against the fbi. i am calling from a region in southern florida where we are under attack by the governor and mr. corcoran, chief of the doe. the reason they are doing this i believe has not been mentioned. it has nothing to do with getting more involvement in the school boards. because mr. corcoran is on case -- if you look up hillside college -- he speaks for 30 minutes about how he is intentionally looking to clog up and stop the system and block
discourse. for example, when i speak about social darwinism -- which is on the airwaves, it is not in print as much but eugenics bias as being the reason for the governor doing what he is doing -- 2.3 more blacks, 2.6 more times hispanic are dying. it is being pushed by people -- they are not doing it on purpose i believe -- in the 1860's they -- host: michael, what is your point? caller: the point i was at a school board meeting yesterday and people can come and present things but when you got 10 speakers that can speak in all our speaking on nonsense you are clogging up the system and preventing representation and preventing voices speaking rationally. whenever you come out and say, you are pushing national immunity, you are using children as smallpox blankets.
host: understood. jerry dunleavy, any thoughts on that? guest: school board meetings and school board protests and the sort of thing is happening all over the country. people who are doing it have a variety of motivations and reasons. some people have problems with the ideas on race that are being pushed in their schools. there is evidence of that sort of stuff happening. some people have problems with various parts of the curriculum. some parents are pushing back against things like masks and schools and that sort of thing. there are a variety of reasons why people are protesting to the point of kids -- cdc numbers to say something like 720,000
americans have died from the virus. very dangerous disease. it does affect people that are in their 50's, 60's and especially their 70's and 80's more. when it comes to kids, luckily it really does not seem to be nearly as deadly or dangerous for them and the number of children that have died from the coronavirus is comparatively small. obviously every death is a tragedy but covid doesn't seem to affect kids less. host: sophia in the bronx, republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning, greta. good morning, jerry. i really do not need to call. you have been great ever since steve scalise left. you question things that we
needed and i appreciate you for your service. but for jerry, last week my party, the republican party, especially jim jordan, this attorney general has been only six months. the way he was questioning him, he could not even finish his sentence. la, la, la, it is so disturbing. i hope it does not happen today. ask questions the way it should be asked. ask for the country, for the people. jerry, will they be bad like they were last week in the senate? but you don't really need to answer me. just a few words. host: ok sophia. guest: i mean, there is no doubt the grilling that garland got.
republicans really did go after him pretty hard on some of these issues, especially the school board letter and doj's apparent reliance on it to some extent. i would say the house does tend to be a little bit more boisterous than the senate in terms of questioning. but i do expect that attorney general garland is going to be put in the hot seat again. there are senators that have a lot of tough questions for him. i expect it will be similar to what it was last week. host: you can watch the questioning on c-span3 today at 10:00 a.m. eastern also online at c-span.org and watch full coverage on c-span now, our new video app and it is free. download it on your mobile device. loretta in mississippi, independent. hi, loretta.
caller: i was calling about the board meeting. they had one last night in virginia and they had the fbi there, cars marked fbi and helicopters spotlighted over the parents at the meeting. stacy was apparent protesting about porn in her schools. she has been threatened by people and followed and the fbi and justice department should not go after people and use it to push people's rights to protect their children. host: jerry dunleavy, is the fbi showing up at meetings? guest: in fact, attorney general garland, that was one of the things he promised would not happen. i cannot speak to the event the caller was referring to but attorney general garland last week promised fbi would not be showing up to school board meetings. he really tried to distance the
justice department and his memo and the justice department press release from some of the very strong language and the national school board association's letter that referred to some of this stuff as domestic terrorism. but again, he also admitted the letter did play a part in his decision to put the memo out. that is the sort of thing he is going to be questioned on. the genesis of his memo and why he decided to address this the way he did. host: sergio, florida, democratic caller. caller: good morning, greta. how are you? host: i am well, sir. your question or comment. caller: good morning, jerry. how are you? guest: i'm great. thanks. caller: two questions i have to ask you. there was a comment the governor
said about kids should not wear masks. that was kind of irresponsible what he said. what is your aspect on that and what about the george floyd law? what is taking so long? why has that not become law? guest: so i believe the governor you might be referring to is governor desantis. i am not sure but there is this debate about masking in schools, proponents of masking in schools. it is a pandemic and as of right now kids are not eligible, generally, to get vaccinated. people that would oppose masks would point to the fact that the coronavirus is much, much, much less deadly for kids than
adults, especially older adults. for the kids that is a blessing because the number of kids who have died from covid is comparatively quite low. that is what the debate is over. host: what about the legal aspect of it? mask mandates versus the governor in florida trying to pass law or rule saying you cannot mandate a mask? guest: that is the sort of thing playing out in the courts as well. president biden tried putting in place a variety of mandates for federal workers, he has tried to put together one for employers generally, pushing for vaccine mandates, pushing for masks and that sort of thing. governors like the one in florida, republican ron
desantis, have pushed back saying that is not the role of the federal government. they argue that masks are not necessarily particularly effective and that they should not be mandated. it should be the choice of a parent whether they want their kid to wear a mask in school. that is where the battle lines are drawn. host: front page of the wall street journal, the fda had a hearing all day on whether or not the pfizer vaccine is safe for kids 5 to 11. the fda ruled it is safe for them. there are more steps to go. the cdc commissioner will have to make a decision. yesterday or earlier this week we talked about it on washington journal with dr. hildreth, temporary member of the fda panel. you can find that on our website, c-span.org. we covered the discussion
yesterday with the fda. you can find that as well. jim, milton, massachusetts, independent. you are on the air. we are talking about the justice department and oversight of it. you have got to turn down the television. go ahead and ask your question. i am going to move on to chris, west palm beach florida, democratic caller. caller: good morning. my comment is we are under attack in florida. governor desantis has passed some kind of law saying private citizens have the right to ram their cars into protesters without punishment. then, when people protest against masks and vaccination, i mean, there is no pushback. that is allowed. one thing i really want to say
about this gentleman is i really wish he would comment independently as a reporter and not propaganda. host: what propaganda did you hear? caller: well, on the merrick garland letter for instance. he has not commented so far on the number of officials that have been threatened. it feels like threats are legal. you have people that are officials who are threatened at their homes, doctors. host: jerry dunleavy, are you aware of the number of threats? guest: i don't know the exact number but like i mentioned threats, and intimidation, violence, especially crossing into mentality, that is the sort of thing that should be prosecuted -- criminality it
that is the sort of thing that should be prosecuted. whether that is the role of the justice department, fbi, national security division should deal with this. or whether any threats or intimidation or violence that happened at the local level, whether that should be dealt with by local law enforcement. that is just what the debate is all about right now, whether the federal government is overreaching or not by inserting itself with the memo in response to the letter the national school board association put out. host: ian, you are next in long island, new york, republican. caller: the fbi should try to catch people like the kid down in florida, right?
if there is a threat -- and no one should threaten nobody -- the local police can deal with it. they used the poster child for what happened the gentleman that got arrested whose daughter was raped. then they shuffle the kid to another school and now he is in custody. but that letter was based solely on him. there was nothing that set a precedent for this to happen. the school board came out today that they said, your daughter was not raped. there is a letter that came out, email, twitter, it is in the air. it is going to get caught and recorded and you are going to be caught for what you did. they knew about it. she should be fired, probably should go to jail. honest to god, this gentleman's daughter was raped. he was trying to bring it up in the next thing you know he is being tackled by sheriffs. the fbi should definitely never
be tackling people. they dropped the ball. host: i think we heard your point. jerry dunleavy? guest: the incident he is referring to that loudoun county a judge, i believe yesterday in juvenile court, did conclude that a teenage girl had been sexually assaulted by a teenage boy who had been wearing a skirt and the girl's restroom. that is what a judge concluded yesterday. that incident, the father showing up at the school board meeting and protesting, that incident was one of a number of incidents cited in the national school board association's letter calling on the justice department to take action. that letter has apologized for.
host: melissa, bloomfield, iowa, independent. caller: thank you. speaking of the national school board association, i would like to hear what you have to say about biden offering the person in charge of the national school board association that sent that letter to the government a job in the government and i would like to let biden and everybody in the government know we american people run this country, he doesn't. thank you. host: go ahead. guest: the president of the national school board association was offered a position by the education department. a position on a board, the name of which i am blanking on, but the president was offered that position on the advisory board to the education department.
that was done after nsba put the letter out. that is the thing merrick garland might get asked about just because, again, this letter made waves, it made headlines. it seems to have helped spur the justice department into action and now the letter has been withdrawn because of internal divisions within nsba, reaction from republicans because state level associations trying to disavow the letter. it is a real political hot potato now and it looks like it is the sort of thing the attorney general is going to have to answer more questions on. host: juanita in cincinnati, ohio. democratic caller. i have got to push the button, sorry. caller: thanks. two things, i am an old journalist.
i don't pay much attention to social media but two things. as far as desantis is concerned, the last time i heard -- and you can correct me if i am wrong -- but on the worksite, worksites are governed by osha. am i correct? hello? they are governed by osha. my point is this, he may be the governor of florida. however, his religion does not supersede osha. they want to determine whether a place is safe or not. the guys who grade your meat, they are making it a safe. host: jerry dunleavy? guest: all i can say is that
there are federal laws, federal regulations, federal agencies and then there is power states have. i can tell you, you know, after being a doj reporter and covering the courts there is a constant clash all the time over who has the authority and a lot of this stuff makes its way into the courts to get litigated and decided that way. i am not trying to take a position one way or the other. just laying out what the battles are whether it is federal versus state or what have you. host: you can follow his reporting if you go to washingtonexaminer.com. follow on twitter @dcexaminer or @jerrydunlevy. guest: i appreciate it. host: when we come back, kids on social media platforms and how concerned are you?
parents, dial in at (202)-748-8000, all others (202)-748-8001. ♪ ♪ announcer: get c-span on the go. watch the day's biggest political events live or on-demand anytime, anywhere, on the new mobile video app, c-span now. access top highlights, listen to c-span radio app, and discover new podcasts for free. download c-span now today. ♪ announcer: attorney general merrick garland testifies at an oversight hearing before the senate judiciary. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern on c-span3, live at c-span.org, or watch full on c-span now, our new video app. ♪ announcer: american history tv saturdays on c-span2.
exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 8:00 a.m. eastern on lectures in history, two discussions about american presidents. professor john pitney talks about presidential speeches and public opinion from the 1970's through the 1990's. at 9:00 a.m. david o'connell looks at presidential legacies and what factors contribute to making a successful presidential term. at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, former assistant attorney general for district of columbia discusses his book "the truman court." he discusses whether president truman established the precedent for the politicized court. ♪ announcer: washington journal continues. host: u.s. lawmakers as of late
have been hearing from folks concerned about kids on social media websites, including the facebook whistleblower frances haugen. she testified recently and yesterday on capitol hill this is the headline from the washington times, senators accuses snapshot, tiktok of fostering dangerous behavior, hate, and anxiety other platforms. this morning we want to know what are your concerns with kids online? parents dial in at (202)-748-8000 and all others (202)-748-8001. send us a text with your name, city and state at (202)-748-8003 . you can go to facebook and join the conversation, facebook.com/c-span, and twitter @c-spanwj. want to show you one moment from yesterday. senator mike lee, republican of utah, talking about a fake snapchat account his staff made
posing as a teenager. [video clip] >> in anticipation of this discussion at hearing i had my staff create a snapchat account for a 13-year-old -- 15-year-old child. they did not select any content preferences for the account. they simply entered a name, birth year, and an email address. then, when they opened the discover page on snapchat with default settings, they were bombarded with content that i can most politely describe as wildly inappropriate for a child. including recommendations for, among other things, an invite to play an online sexualized videogame that is marketed itself to people who are 18 and up, tips on "why you should not
go to bars alone," notices for video games rated 17 and up and articles about pornstars. let me remind you this inappropriate content that has, by default, been recommended for a 15-year-old child is something sent to them by an app using the default settings. i respectfully but strongly beg to differ on your characterization that the content is in fact suitable for children 13 and up as you say. now, according to your own website it is a list of recommended stories. how and why does snapchat choose these inappropriate stories to
recommend to children? how does that happen? how would that happen? >> senator, allow me to explain a little bit about discover. discover is a closed content platform and yes, we do select and hand select partners we work with. that kind of content is designed to appear on discover and resonate with an audience 13 and above. i am unfamiliar and taken notes about what you have said, that your account surfaced. i want to make clear that content and community guidelines suggest any online sexual videogame should be 18 and above. . i am unclear why that would show up in an account for a 14-year-old. these community guidelines and publisher guidelines on top of those guidelines are intended to be an age-appropriate experience. >> right. host: there appears to be
bipartisan concern on capitol hill from lawmakers about kids online and overall, the social media platforms. it is your turn to tell washington what your concerns are and what you think they should do about it. deborah in south bend, indiana, we will go to you first. caller: look, look, i am not debating on what should be shown online, but i want to explain to you my experience that i had about two years ago with my great-granddaughter. dealing with nothing but whatever she was watching online on tiktok. one of her friends, he must've been about 10 or 11, he committed suicide.
she came to me and she asked me, hey, this is what happened to him. i am feeling like that. i am trying to explain to her, wait a minute, uh uh, tiktok technology or whatever eight is nothing. when i was a young girl we had people called peeping toms. they would go around and i showed her a picture had took of her mother when her mother was about that age. it was a peeping tom. then we had one next door i said, uh uh, you cannot take this internet technology,
whatever you are looking at, and think it is supposed to dictate your life. two and a half years she has been smiling, living life, and i have got my eye on her. trust me, they are suicidal from whatever y'all show. y'all have got to stop here and help us. host: that was deborah in indiana. inez in minnesota, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i am the grandmother of a young lady who is absolutely beautiful and 21. i have an 18-year-old grandson and 16-year-old grandson who use all these tiktok and snapchat apps. my granddaughter has been on snapchat since she was 15. i am so grateful i watched last
night as senator cruz drilled the tiktok vice president and held him accountable. as senator lee held everybody accountable on that board and grateful that this is finally coming out into the public, into the air. i want to know what they have said about what is going on. i have seen what is posted on instagram and i don't know why people think those that had these companies that it is ok for 12 and 13-year-old children to be mature enough, emotionally mature enough, to see the things that people post that are not decent, that are not appropriate for that age. host: inez, some of these companies have argued they are not media companies therefore they would not be regulated by the fcc. but listen to facebook's nick
clegg. he argued, we have argued for creating a new digital regulatory agency to regulate trade-offs. much like the federal communications commission overseas telecoms and media. we proposed ways to reform section 230 of the communications decency act, requiring platforms to remove harmful, legal content. and require companies like facebook to demonstrate they comply with best practices for countering illegal content to earn the law's protection. i mean, what do you say to lawmakers? facebook says they are asking for this regulation. caller: well, what i say is the same thing senator lee said. host: which is? caller: senator lee is bringing to the attention and senator cruz was bringing to the attention the facts that all these technology, the ai that is
copying the face recognition of these children using these apps, the voice recognition, and then it is being recorded, all that data is being recorded overseas in the hands of whom? of whom? host: i want to show you another moment from the hearing. this is wyoming republican cynthia lewis questioning the youtube vice president. [video clip] >> youtube implemented several features like autoplay that have been proven to make the platform difficult to stop using. what mechanisms has youtube employed to make sure that children specifically have tools to counteract these design decisions? do you believe those controls are sufficient? >> senator, thank you for your question. autoplay is default off on
youtube kids as well as in supervised experiences on youtube main. we have set those to default off. we do allow if the default is changed to allow for autoplay, for example, if a family is in the car and they would like to have the -- the parents want autoplay to continue but we have set it to default off. >> and do you believe that is sufficient? >> i think it is one of a number of tools that are important to make sure that kids have a healthy and safe experience on the platform. another is that we do not deliver targeted advertising on youtube kids. another is that we agegate content to make sure minors do not see age inappropriate material. it is only with a number of tools and protocols in place do we think we are meeting the bar
we set for ourselves, that parents expect of us, experts in the field such as child development advise us on to make sure kids are having a safe experience on the platform. host: david, we will go to you in los angeles. do you have any concerns about kids on social media platforms? caller: as a grandpa with several grandkids, yes, i do have this concern. but first of all i have been watching you for well over, i think close to 30 some odd years and time has been very kind to you. host: i have not been on for that long. [laughs] caller: you seem like you have been there since i have been watching. be that as it may, time has been really kind to you. my concern this morning is what i perceive to be a cognitive
disconnect of what is manifestly being something harmful to our kids such as what we are discussing right now as opposed to this manufactured madness concerning critical race theory. now, the cognitive disconnect manifests to the degree to which, where is that outrage, that concern, let's storm the gates of these companies and all these other outlets? it is driving our granddaughters and daughters into suicide. manifestly with evidence but it does not rise to the level where you are storming the places that are doing this harm. host: what about putting pressure on advertisers? we have read this piece. caller: that is a brilliant
thing you always do. you put the question where it makes sense, where it is logical. for my question to the listening audience who need these political issues to get outraged about, where is your outrage in this matter which is manifesting through your child's mind, like critical race theory is going in and doing. where is your level of outrage in this matter? but anyhow, i just want to pose that to people who call in with this falls outrage for their kids and what is being filtered into their brains. host: let me pose this to you about the new york times piece, beyond zuckerberg, would it make you feel better if facebook were to announce that mark zuckerberg is no longer going to run the
company? caller: well, i do not think it is the personality per se but it is the policies and the thing that governs -- this is one of my other pet peeves -- is that profit supersedes miles above all of our things to which we bring into control in our corporations. whether it is zuckerberg or whoever is heading up these entities, we have to figure out a way how we are going to do our economics and how we are going to do our social and political in a way that is healthy and don't put these strange notions of priorities that govern over us. host: i want to read a little bit of the peace. thank you for the call. she writes, he is not going to
go, zuckerberg, in the same way we are used to seeing leaders exit the stage up and out. because of his controlling stock zuckerberg will wield all the real power at facebook for as long as he wants. but the era of him being a cultural touchstone is effectively over, she argues. she says in this piece, zuckerberg's belligerent attitude during the social media giant's call yesterday suggested he is facing a new level of pressure. this would normally be the time for the patented apology he rolled out whenever times got tough before. no longer. he and the pr machine are worrying and clicking with indignation and bile. quote yesterday, we are seeing what we are seeing is a coordinated effort to selectively use the leaked documents to paint a false picture of our company. which brings us back to the ceo
job, kara writes. the best move would be to bring in someone who is not part of the suffocating inner circle that zuckerberg created the last decade. this group is made of people who are in constant agreement. they have bragged to me about their longevity and how they could finish one another's sentences. can someone from this gang be counted on to make much-needed change? jason in ohio, you are a parent. are your kids on these platforms? caller: unfortunately they are. my biggest complaint is that i have not heard much about parental control. seems like everyone lets their kids run around the house with a smart phone or sit around the computer in the afternoon. they have turned into a convenient babysitter and as long as they are not bothering us, well, everything is good,
right? but we have got to take personal responsibility. we are the consumer. we are the ones that choose what comes in and out of our home, what our kids hold in their hands to a certain extent. once they get, you know, kids get up in the mid teens your level of influence decreases but by then you hope you helped start building a small, smart, mature young person. host: charles in kentucky, we go to you. share your thoughts with us. go ahead. caller: i have had a computer since 2008. i don't know much about it but as much as i have been on facebook and stuff like that, all i have seen is nothing but chaos that is creating destruction, creating a lot of people hating one another that don't even know each other. it is hanging out in space trash
for others to chew on. just disband facebook altogether. host: you think it is a monopoly? caller: it is more than monopoly, it is chaos. host: you might be interested in the washington post piece reporting from the documents that were given to 17 different publications from frances haugen. 5 points for anger, for a like. facebook programs the algorithm on what people see in the newsfeeds to use the reaction as signals to push more emotional and provocative content, including content likely to make them angry. starting in 2017 facebook ranking algorithm treated emojis reactions as five times more valuable than likes, internal document revealed. facebook's own researches were quick to suspect a critical flaw.
they thought favoring controversial posts, including those that make users angry, could open the door to more spam, abuse, and click they inadvertently. the company's data scientists confirmed this in 2019 that posts that sparked angry reactions were disproportionately likely to include misinformation, toxicity, and low-quality news. tracy in virginia, we go to you next. caller: ok. i am a mother of seven and grandmother of 26. when i had devices for my children to use i monitored those devices. my grandchildren, their parents are doing the same thing. even though it says they are 14 years old there are safety features on these apps that you can set. these parents don't do that. the hand things to children and expect these companies to
monitor their children. those are their children. they should be monitoring them and those pictures are on the internet. you can set your internet that your child is using in your home not be the same as yours. there are features these parents not using and expecting these companies to watch their children. host: that was tracy in west virginia. keith in north carolina, what do you say? caller: hey, good morning, greta. host: good morning. caller: thank you and thank c-span for all you do. i wonder how you don't just jump through the screen with some of these phone calls. also, i wish it was election day because you got my vote. host: [laughs] caller: the reason i am calling of course i am concerned about the kids but i am more concerned about the parents the don't watch the kids, like the previous caller. there are ways to turn these apps off and, you know, parents like to let the kids go out with
the phones and do what they want with no monitoring. also i am concerned about other types of media. what about television and books and radio? where is the concern about that? there is a lot of misinformation on those types of media as well and again, why are the parents not doing anything? who is running the show? host: let me ask you setting aside the apparent responsibility, what about these predatory practices? a word used by lawmakers and critics of these platforms. that they do things and they set algorithms that encourage addiction, misinformation, toxicity like we have been reading. did they have a responsibility not to do that? caller: well, of course they do. they have a responsibility to put out the truth. the question is, what is the truth?
it is getting more and more disconcerting to differentiate what the truth is anymore. host: let me ask you this, you think facebook, for example, is a media company? caller: well, i mean, what are they? they are a media company. to me it all comes down to, you know, the fact that don't believe everything you read. now, if facebook is allegedly pushing false information, algorithms that do all these things, yes, there should be government intervention. but people need to have a brain. like i said, let the person, you know, look at what they read with a grain of salt. host: that was keith in north carolina. gloria and upper marlboro,
maryland, a parent. caller: good morning, c-span. i raised 22 children and i happen to be physically blind but my emotional acuity is a lot better. i see the problem is america having been caught sleeping. this whole situation should have long ago been regulated. we have a unified, moral responsibility to make a world safe enough that our children can use these things without wandering into filthville. the only reason so many are arguing is because of their own addiction to things that ought not to be so available. it is possible for everyone to have their smut diet and protect our children.
senator menendez: the hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. mr. secretary, thank you for joining us today. as this committee continues to seek to restore its position of conducting robust oversight, we greatly appreciate your willingness, like that of secretary blinken, to come