testify on financial institutions and their treatment of minority in front of the house financial services committee. live coverage begins at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. online at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> here to walk through the findings of the report and to explain more is rick he had edmunds with the pointer

institute. >> can we start by describing what the pointer institute is. >> it is a nonprofit school for journalists based in st. petersburg, florida. we also own the tampa bay times. >> so when it comes to this reuters institute report, we will show people what your write up about it on the u.s. ranking last among 46 countries in that trust in media according to this institute report. fill in the blanks for us, how did that come to be? >> well, i think the simplest explanation is not a total explanation, is the extreme degree of polarization politically here which is no news that that exists, but that it translates into the dramatically low rating compared to all kinds of different countries. the philippines in my write-up. you look at another country like sand dat, more like 54%, best is

finland at 65%. united states is really dramatically lagging at this point. >> 29% of then respondents in the u.s. saying that when it comes to trusted views in the united states that's the amount of how much you can trust, can you talk about that figure? >> yeah, well, i did ask the author of the report nielsen what they mean by trust. it's fairly simple. they just ask that question, do you trust the media most of the time? and most of the news you see most of the time? and they leave it to individuals to sort of self-define what trust means and i think it is relatively evident. it's kind of a broad category, it doesn't necessarily mean that every fact is questioned, but we've reached a point now from what actually happened on january 6th the facts of the matter are very much in dispute.

>> 29% for trust in news overall, 44% of those responding say trust until the news i use and then when it comes to trust in use that comes up in searches, 22%, 13% and views on social media. what do you think influence these low numbers? you had mentioned january 6th. was it the impact of the pandemic, was it the previous administration? what factors do you think influence that? >> i do think it's cumulative and one of the findings was that people who identified themselves as being on the right they have by far the least trust and so i think that built over time, you know, it's a good question for your viewers whether that does have to do with a leftward tilt in some of the media, some of the cable networks and certainly was very much exacerbated by

president trump and his constant belittling and negativity towards the press. >> when it came to this matter of trust, the reuters institute ranked some of these categories, but on top of the list was local tv news seeing the most trust, followed by the networks, abc, cbs, bbc and then the "wall street journal" and the like. were you impressed by the if i go that local news ranked so high? >> well, that is a plus. we participate in some similar research here at any pointer. yeah, a big -- a big increase in trust when we are talking about local news. i guess that means several things. less of the polarization politically that you see, may be partly the subject matter. so some of those who are very miss trustful now of the national media have a more favorable view of local. it's also -- i'm from the long

career in newspapers, magazines, print media, but we need to remind ourselves that local tv news is coming somewhat more popular and somewhat more credible and we will get into maybe in other of the findings which i have seen in other studies is that when it comes to what people want from local news, the coronavirus was certainly very high over in the last year. but very consistently they want basic information, weather, for instance, and tv does a fine job of that. >> one of the tracks that they do as far as sources of news, the various sources involved, and the findings here, social media and online media gaining high marks, particularly on social media. what's been the growth there as far as that as an avenue where people receive news content? >> well, i think that's --

that's sort of a double-edged finding because we know we see to everybody looking into their smart phones how much news consumption has gone to digital and in the last several years, particularly to mobile devices. that means that a story from your local newspaper, a story from "the new york times," a story from cnn may be consumed online, may be consumed by people who just come for the one story because it's the subject matter. so that's how the news is being relayed and consumed. at the same time there is a general impression of what floats around on social media and it's a mix of things from legitimate reported sources and kind of rumors and so-called fake news, really falsehoods.

so the overall credibility of social media as you mentioned earlier is low. at the same time the more serious media is sort of entwined with that being the way that news is consumed. >> you had mentioned other findings. this is just one report on their take on trust in public media. how does that compare to other studies or surveys on similar topics? are the same trends happening? >> yeah, i think it was very consistent with other studies i've seen and as i mentioned in my piece the notion of trust and building trust is really a preoccupation in media and among media scholars, american press institute which is a terrific study arm of the industry has spent much, much time on kind of breaking down what trust is and how there are maybe gaps between what journalists think and what

the consumers think. so there's a lot of hard work on that topic and, you know, it's a little discouraging to see that in spite of that the score is what it is. as the reuters report mentions, they're surveying all different countries, most countries because of the coronavirus coverage the trust rating went up some over the last year. that wasn't the case in the u.s. it sort of stuck where it had been at the 29% level. >> one survey taking a look at trust in the public media, your organization taking on these issues. where do we go from here, particularly in light of the findings this have report and other reports you're finding, what does it mean for media companies involved and is this an insular thing? is it things media companies worry more about, say, versus consumers of media? >> well, of course, the media companies and journalists that's what they do, that's the most important thing in their lives.

it's not the same way for consumers. i mean, certainly we find that there are a fair number of people now to tune out the news, they don't find it interesting, they find it repetitive, they find it kind of depressing, but the sort of link there i think is that media needs to continue working on trust and i also think that it underscores that the work of finding out what an audience wants and then delivering a product that has some meat and quality to it is more important than ever and for local media, local newspapers which are having a very difficult time financially these days, you know, it's only overstating a little bit to say that's a matter of life or death. >> rick edmunds analyzing the influence of media at any

pointer.org. including the story on this reuters institute report. thanks for your time and walking through the report with us. >> okay. thanks again. >> if you take a look at the countries involved since the united states raping last on this list, finland topping the list and also topping those of people who are expressed trust in northern europe with finland, denmark, ireland, sweden and the uk when it takes the places of northern europe when you go down to north america as you heard our guest mention 45% those in canada expressing trust in the media with the united states coming in last at 29%. so those are the numbers and the statistics from that. we were inviting you to give your comment as well in this first hour about your level of public -- or trust in the public media, what you think could be done to improve it. here is how you can call and let us know. 202-748-8001 for republicans,

202-748-8000 for democrats and independents 202-748-8002. post on our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span. you can post on twitter and instagram@c-spanwj. starting us off ed republican line. thanks for waiting on this topic in trust in public media, ed, go ahead. >> you know, what gets me about the media is every year the amount of people in the united states that are coming up missing, that list keeps growing and many of these people are never found dead or alive. now, i know, you know, some of the people in this country carry the cannibal gene and there is a lot of groups -- >> ed, i don't know if that relates to your trust in public media, that's the topic that we are talking to. can you relate it to that, please. >> pardon me. >> we're talking about trust in public media. >> that's what i'm saying. how can you trust the media

when, you know, you have these people that are running around, you can't find any of your loved ones? >> okay. we will go to tony. tony in florida. democrats line. tony you're next, good morning tony in florida, hello? >> this country is so divided and recently -- this country is so divided and has their own point of view, but you have to understand misinformation and conspiracy theories and mystery and some people believe in the far right media and i give a good example, like trump was -- he's saying he should have gone and biden stole the -- and some people believe that, that trump won. most of the republicans and trump supporters they believe that and what system of truth

and that's what many people are like they don't trust the other side. in reality, the reality is biden won. so conspiracy theories, propaganda, misinformation, misleading, disinformation, that's why you have a lot of people that don't trust the media because the far right wing media they kind of make you think twice let me think and they're kind of like brainwashed to facts. >> 29% of americans in this poll or at least this survey by reuters institute as far as their collective trust in the public media, a low figure, is your figure that low, so to speak? do you have a low trust in public media? what would you say as far as your level of trust? >> i think it's just the right number. i think they have the right

number. 29%, think about t it's like most of the americans say they believe the facts but far right wing medias with conspiracy theories and misleading, misinformation, propaganda, disinformation. a lot of people are going to believe that. they are brainwashed and they're going to believe alternative facts. >> okay. since you already talked about that we will go to paul. paul in kentucky, independent line. go ahead. >> i don't believe a thing the media says. they've been lying about president trump for the last five, six years. we've got a report of trump said this, trump said that. they wouldn't have offered one bit of proof. not one bit of proof. they talk about russia. well, every time they mention russia you have president trump elected they were lying. you talk about lies by the news media, millions of lies. that's why nobody trusts the media at all. they've been doing it for 34 years, ever since the vietnam

war, it's always been left wing, it's gotten ridiculous, they're still doing it. they're talking about the trump organization, they're going to be invited no. one thing has been proved. the man has been investigated more than any man in history not one thing has been proved. >> so given your level of trust do you still consume media and if so what do you watch as far as how you get news and how consume news? >> i remember a report somebody talking about some russians how they -- there was a propaganda outlet, how they got news. you read between the lines, you go through a lot of -- go through a lot of media. read between the lines. >> but what do you personally watch as far as the things you watch for media or at least how you consume news? >> i watch a lot of the media. i watch fox news where i get most of my information, i also watch cnn, i watch news max, i

watch msnbc and they are so consumed with president trump that's all they talk about almost 24 hours a day and they have yet -- we have a report president trump said this. well, where is the proof? they don't have no proof. they are all a bunch of liars. >> okay. paul in paducah, kentucky, giving us thoughts on public trust in media. we're inviting you to share your thoughts as well. walt in maryland, republican line, hello. >> how are you? >> i'm well, thanks. >> it's my -- my radio is going on. okay. we're good. my main point is i think a lot of the distrust stems from a sense that media kind of pulls people apart rather than try to unify them and i think it was exacerbated by trump because

trump kind of -- there's like a split between corporate america and every day americans, right? there's people in the cities and then there's people in the rural america and that split is being exacerbated by the media. it's not okay to be, you know, out of the loop, you know? and i think a lot of people feel that coming through in the media and that causes the maturity of division. >> do you think that it's the role of media to either unite or divide? i mean, i know you have issues about division. >> no. >> but do you think it's the role to unite people? >> no, it's not, right? it's merely to get facts and once you have like people offering up opinions you're spinning it, you know? i guess you could argue that even in the walter cronkite days which is what people like to go back to, you could argue that maybe that media was being spun and if you want to get really

tinfoil hat the cia runs the news corporations, but i think there's a certain amount of spin that comes with news, but when it's one-sided and there's a majority of the country that's being painted -- i guess now i'm kind of talking about trump supporters, they were painted. , you are brushing a whole partition of society with a broad brush and i think that is like the powder keg. but i think there is a mistrust. when you have opinions, not facts. host: your trust in public media, that's what we are asking you for the remainder of this hour. you can reach out to us on the phone. many of you have.

202-748-8001 republicans, 202-748-8000 democrats. 202-748-8002 independents. some of you texting as well. jamie says report the news media. some people report the news truthfully. keep your bias to yourself. then your numbers may come up. this isgo the libbertonyan. the best waylo to make money iso scare people and shock them from rays texting us from colorado saying we have to change ourselves ande admit our biases before we can assess and re-assess media trust. then from mark stone. i don't trust the media or politicians. how many times does the "washington post" use anonymous stories 100% incorrect. they are o certainly pushing an

agenda.s hello. >> i thinkr a lot of the mistrt comes from every network. liberal or conservative. they have their opinions. i believe the main stream, they at least give the facts whereas fox news, news max, they're totally one p sided and they slt thees facts just like they prov over and over again with trump. they basically tell lies. the main stream media, they might throw opinions in there but they do put out the basic facts. where your right wing nut media outlets do not. they strictly give one-sided

basically nslies. >> what sources of news would you describe or at least define as main stream in your mind? >> well, the network, abc, abc, nbc, cbs. basically 24them. but your cable news channels, of course,, they're 24/7. so they'll have more opinionated, different kind' of stuff. having said that, i still believe that the cnn's, the msnbc's, they do give the facts. whereas foxal news, news max an all of them type, they are totally one slanted lies. they lie to fit the narrative. in the past four years, whatever trumpp was espouting.

>> have you spent any significanth time watching thos networks? >> i watch them all. i watch fox news when i can stomach it. and i have for the past four years. i likepi to get a sampling of a of it. that's what i found in my opinion. that your main stream and your cable networks, et cetera, fox news, they doo give a lot of opinions. they do in the end get the facts out rethere. whereas fox news is nothing more, it's more of an entertainment network than it is a news network in my opinion. >> okay. ronny givese us his trust in th reuterss institute when it come to the weekly reach of those responsibilities whos took the survey when it comes to offline. most of them when it comes to weekly viewing, topping that list. that was. followed by fox news,

cnn, i. action nbc, and then followed by local radio news and the regional local paper. w it goes down from there. those saying they consume that offline news at least three days per week. local tv news at the top of the list followed by fox news and cnn.te you can find more of this at the reuters institute. you can type itc online. we posted it as well if you want to look at their findings when it comes the trust and public media. you can givend your thoughts ort least yourng opinion. from pasadena, maryland. this is tim. independent line. >> how are you doing? >>s fine, thank you. >> caller: i'm lost as far as news is concerned. i think everybody is. they don't really realize it. it is all propaganda left to right. my girlfriend is absolutely a genius and i asked her, show me some legitimate news. wheren does she get it from?

she said huffington. and even on there, it is all propaganda. there's no reall news. if there was, it would be all sad anyway. i don't know where you go to get news. current events that are being reported without opinion, without leaning. it is all -- you have to pick a side. and then it is all propaganda. there's no news anywhere. >> so that said, that that, are there sources where you go repeatedly? >> you know, i hate to say it because like my girlfriend said, she's a hate amonger. i like listening to tucker carlson but he gets me angry. there's no news you can watch that's really news. it just gets me angry. a lot of fear mongering on both sides. cnn, usa channel,

whatever news, it is all propaganda. i really try not to watch any of it more. i do like watching tucker because he gets into some nitty gritty. but it is just evil entertainment almost. >> okay. tim in maryland. let's hearmo from the republica line. hi. >> caller: good morning. i get my information from multiple sources like a lot of your colleagues do. i've lost confidence in and faith in the somedia. iep even go to some of the othe countries to see what they're reporting. i wish that you people that are in the media would understand that when you spin stories like the covid, it puts our public safety -- it puts us at risk.

our safety at risk. so i'vey lost trust and faith the newss media. i actually think that by them reporting p opinions and workin with the cia and people that haveut lots of money that can b influence, it puts american citizensug at risk. but as far as the media goes, even one of your own hosts was caught up in disstorting information and working with a particularar party. so i do come to you for a lot of information. i do watch your show a lot. i've just lost confidence. i feel insecure because of the way stories are spun. it is not just -- it affects us in more ways than just what we see on tv for entertainment.

that's my opinion. >> as far as trust building, is there a way to restore that in yourer mind? >> well, yes. like a lot of the other callers thatat have called in. i don't mean you personally, but the media has become so one-sided. they don't report just the facts anymore. and i can -- when i see something that i question, i assure heyou, i even go to othe countries to their sources to see what they are reporting. but i don't really trust anything that is reported anymore. i watch to see what the actions are. what -- not just what you say but how it influences what is done.. so -- >> okay. that is clara in tennessee.

jamess is next. baltimore,am maryland. independent line. hello. >> caller: hello. i trust the main stream media. i do not trust the cable news pa networks. they seem to be giving more opinions and propaganda. i get my news basically, i watch bbc newsgi hour and i watch the news hour on pbs. because they give stories and depth and they import the news. they don't give opinions. they say this is what is it.ening and that is when i watch fox news, i'm getting opinions and not facts. i'm not really getting news. when i watch cnn, it's the same thing. just from the other side. but i watch them so i can be well informed and make my -- so that i know when i'm listening to, whats, i believe in, is

actually facts. actually what'spl going on. because t i can't understand wh people think that the january 6th thing was a hoex or the coronavirus was a hoax. these were actual facts but we had news stations saying these things were not really happening. > so: we'll go to flier. the democrats' line. >> yes. i'm calling to talk about your "washington journal" program. i'm bornou in montana, raised i texas. i would like to know that you didn't give any more time to motherhi earth day than 30 secos to a minute. and we've been on black history day for a week. would you please understand what

my problem is with this station. youpe need to start listening t people, in that president's program from them and we never hear fromm her. try to do better. >> caller, i'll just point to you our website at c-span.org. ifif you go to the video librar and yo' type in tribal nation issues, we've s done -- i'll gi you my take on it. we've done plenty of segments looking at issues on the tribal nations, leadership joining us on this program to talk about those issues. so again, i would invite to you checkpa out the network for tha. thee video library at c-span.or toca get a better understandingn that issue. hello to mississippi.

>> caller: my problem is quite simple. everyy time a black leader a black person will raise a voice, he can't make it -- [ inaudible ] they are traders. >> so we late that to the trust in public media which we're talking about. what is your level of trust? >> caller: the problem with public media, fox and places like that, they echo that thing, thatat black social media are traitors. instead of trying to help the black people.

okay. they do regular surveys on a lot of a topics including media consumption nissues. a recentho one of theirs takes look at which organization publishes o a story and saying of adults point to the newsus organization that publiss a storya is a very important factor when determining its trust worthiness. while a similar share, 47%, point to the sources that are cited. if you recite their gut instinct aboutd a story, 30%, 24%, and e person whol shared with it them 23%. the engagement is received on social media. that'sof only 6% according to a survey between march 8 and 14 of 12,000 plus adults. did you want to read more of what makes it trust worthy. pew research is how you can see that. t we'll do this for about a

half-hour more. again, if you want to talk about public trust in media. we've shown you reuters institute when it comes to their rankings. among 46 countries, only 29% of people surveyed in the u.s. trusting media sources. so you can talk about the specifics or you can talk about your level of personal trust when itin comes to media issues. let's go to russell in cole city, west virginia. republican line. >> hello. you're on. >> caller: yes, i had i heard trump yesterday on c-span. he was telling things that were the truth.im and they believe him. theye started saying that democrats are. believing him whn he said that the virus was coming to china.

>> when it comes to media outlets themselves, how much do you believe them? >> well, sometimes i don't believe them. i'm part of a group i've got mental health problems. it stresses me out, too. i'm trying to get back to president trump. they believe him now. they tried to impeach him twice. >> okay. russell in west virginia.ke we'll go to the republican line. a. last hello. >> caller: okay. good morning. i want to take c-span to the carpet. you were doing a lot of things, too. whenever there were some of the rallies h and you asked, i can' remember. maybe some of the ededdebates. so you have them call in. you would have a divided by political parties and then you would switch andve divide it by regions of the country.

i don't watch c-span every day. during the time trump was in office, every time i turned to c-span, it was always put to the caller something negative about president trump. i don't watch it every day now. but every time i watch it, you don't put things to your callers about biden. is a disaster and he lost. >>ia so if you watch this netwo, we'llin divide via political li. sometime we divide areas of the country. i thsuggest, i think you're talking about going back to the campaign as far as last year is concerned andsi the lead-up, whether we aired a rally of the former president, or the rally of thehe candidate at the time, joe biden. but you can go back and see the numbers off times we divided it by political rally. that's how we get to our phone lines ifeo that's what you're referencingp specifically. as far as president biden, we've

had journalists and we'll have legislators coming up toes talk about the biden administration. whether they support issues it does or oppose it. if you have a follow-up, go ahead. >>. >> caller: again, you have that guy from cnn and you divided it byu region. and i don't understand why you didn't divide it by political party. maybe you hadbi a reason for th. it just seems suspect. then as far as biden is concerned, the way that you presented questions to your callers duringe trump's time, is so different. itr. made me lose trust. i'm one of your winners from your 25-year viewer. i'm one of the winners. i had like ait time of trust in cnn. you helped me find my political footing. i didn't realize i was a conservative until i started watchin' c-span.

andd now, i just don't trust yo. i just don't. >> okay. angela,in i hope you'll keep watching. i know over time people express certain opinions aboutis networ. you did mention, you're right. we did have brianoo steltzer recently. as far as related to thee media he was talking about the bookdee wrote about fox news. also, about the topic or the idea of discussion focused programming versus news-based programming. here's a littlee more of that discussion. you can find more online. >>rd certainly, i hope to make e case that fox has moved far, far toward opinion shows and they've reduced the number of hours of news and that's measurable. fox has fewer newscast and a lot more talk. it has a other bureaus that has less of a news infrastructure. so not as many people gathering

for news. i think that's a bad thing for the gop. we need more news coverage from fox to let conservative america know what is going on in a way that is trustro worthy. i think this is an issue across the media land scape. cnnf has programs like mine tha are discussion esprograms. analysis programs. and thenep we have a lot of newscasts where you see correspondents in the field doing live reporting. so we have a fix of that. and it is certainly true in the trump years. wew, leaned more on perspective on point of view. sometimes on commentary. you think about all thehe ancho now that look straight into the camera and deliver monologues, myself included. that was in the trump years to try to cut through the lies and smears andey get to what is theu i think those formats are continuing in the biden years. they are a way to communicate straight to the audience. i don't view those as opinion monologues. i viewgum those as analysis perspective. but people ce can use different

terms. what is mostng a important is ae staying connected to the facts? are we staying connects to what the newsroom is telling us. >> of course, that's just one take on the media land scape by cnn's brian stelter there. it was on that same day we invited rich to talk about this idea of polarization when it comes to news media and what it could do within itself. it brings more balance. here's a little of what he had to say. >> do you think that the national media, be it cable or syndicate, print or television or social media has made the division in this country worse? yes or no. thank you for taking my call. >> yes. i mean, i think it is playing that, it is partly the media are trying too cater to their more and more fragmented audience

which helps increaseew the polarization. there is always been hypewh and sensationalism in news programs. whether it is political news or general news. and i thinkin social media is ao a trend where people are finding and sharing and retweeting the most extreme things. i think all those trends coming together has madee it a very divisive time. and i don't think the media are helping to calm things or bring people together. i think itsc would be better if they hadad more balanced panels balanced discussions. i wish you had more republicans on cnn and msnbc, more democrats on fox. where you wereon building covere for people to make up their own minds and wasn't predictable, day in i and day out as to who would say what. this is the era we're living in.

they're making decent money narrowre casting to their partin audiences so they probably won't change what they're doing. in terms of having authority and credibility, i think itme is no what it was 10, 15, 20 years ago. >> both those segments on the day. democrats' line from new york. go ahead, please. >> i think your cnn is fabulous and i think biden is great. i don't know what everybody else is t thinking. >> we're talking about trust in public amedia. how much trust do you have? >> i trust, i trust. >> why do you trust some what would you say is the main reason you trust. public media? >> when i hear it, i trust it, i see it, it's good. you'rein fabulous up there. >> okay.

let's go to barbie. in nashville, tennessee. >> caller: i want to talk about roger ales for a minute. he had a background in theater. okay? before he started his communication company is that before fox news. he was off broadway and producing plays and theater. and he got into the communications business. it was ane timing thing. it had to do with cable. cable news, when it was starting. my point is any network or cable news channel that has

commercials attached to it, advertisements for the money. it iss like they're actors. the people racketors. you guys aren't. c-span is not. npr may be a little bit. ish watch c-span occasionally p news hour. world news. i know what's going on in the worldd and i think people have o have a little, you have to think about the history of news. been around.always you have to think about the money thesei people are making. one of the reasons i enjoy c-span so much, there are no commercials. also onhe public television. the commercials, of course, they're allal for drugs anyway.

the commercials are giving those people lots and lots of money. >> and do you think the commercialho aspect directly drives newsnv content then? >> caller: absolutely. no doubt about it. >> what convinces you of that?: >> i wish people would realize that. >> what could not vingss you of that? >> caller: because of the money. because of how rich those people are. i'm not going to get hoodwinked by a bunch of rich people making money off of lies. period. >> okay. we'll hear from ned in florida. republican .line. good morning. you're next. >> caller: good morning. thank you forhe taking my call. i believe that the biggest reasonre that the people don't have faith in the media anymore is becausese they've lost their credibility.

you listen toe, cnn every night. whenever trump was president. it was cn99% negative. neverr anything good when you have brian stelter on cnn saying there are mostly peaceful protests, butha you have the buildings burning a behind them. what do you mean it's peaceful when your buildings are burning behind them?wn they spend so much time on the negative stuff. when they're wrong, they never come back and say it. you can take michael brown incident. hands up, don't shoot. half the people in the country believe thath happened. that didn't happen. that did not happen. just like the russia collusion with trump. it didn't happen. but halfth the people in the country t believe it because if the news media are wrong, they never come back and tell you the truth and neverer tell what yous what. >> for some of the callers that have calledyi in saying, if the watch fox or news max or anotheo

outlet saying it is overly positive, especially of the previous administration. when you hear those accusations, what do you think of those? >> caller: well, personally, everybody has the wrong opinion on whether they're left or right or whatever. i don't think thatst i can go t cnn or y msnbc and get any truthful if you want to get your best news, you listen to talk radio. you can learn more from that thanw you can anything. >> is that listening more to opinion than news? how do you a divide that line? >> caller:ne well, no, because what is brought up. you will hear things and learn things about that that you'll never ever hear on the news with tv. and that's a fact. you can learn a lot by listening. i'm not talking about one program. but you can learn a lot more on

the news from the media because it isen so opinionated. when you've got walter brennan and -- you have all these people, they're saying, we've seen the evidence and there is noy evidence. credibility goes out the a wind. >> okay. timws from kentucky, texas, sayg all the news media are opinion talk shows. very littleom news of what's gog on in the world. the bbc gives more news than our own eecountry. andut jason saying, i listen to ski, maybe he means sky australia news and you can see what other countries think about you. and then saying, when people like brian stelter, joy reid, rachel maddow with prime time

shows. and wee needan to get back to journalism. when your name is on it, it stood for something when fact checking wasas important. the various outlets that you can post on for our network. facebook, instagram. you can make those thoughts of yours known. we will hear from greg, boca raton. independent line. >> caller: a few quick points. firstee of all, i don't think trust is relevant because we live in a system based on freedom ofdo competition. it is notot illegal to promote hate or division. so i don't think privately-owned media can be trusted. it needs to be owned publicly to serve the public interest. people complaininges about polarization are really anti-american. because they are the ones that say they believe in freedom bust the first one to censor you online or whenever they get a chance, they will censor you.

but t that is kind of strange. so people are confused over whether or not they really like freedom and competition and privately-owned imedia. and you know, i think the whole border crisis is fake news. >> if f it is a public thing, a you emphasize, who then determines the content for the general public and how is that not swayed one way or another? >> caller: well, because they have to try to use principles based on serving the public interest that promotes trust and honesty like the media in scandinavia, they do a pretty good job being objective and not being, you know, political to one party. but if you really believe in competition, that should be okay. so it all depends on whether we want a a more collective agreemt

on things or we like competition. >> that's greg in boca raton, florida.a. the "wall street journal" talking about a lawsuit brought against facebook, tossed out by a judge. this was brought about by the commission saying the u.s. judge in washington on monday granted the social media giant's requestst to dismiss lawsuits filed by thee trade commission and state attorneys general ings december. the dismissals, which came in a pair of rulings came before it progressed.or thee judge said it was legally insufficient because it didn't plead enoughga allegations to support claims against facebook. the judge said the commission can try again and give it 30 days to attempt to file an amended lawsuit. >> caller: good morning. i would be red cross without c-span. my go-to source for objective

information. especially to hearings that c-span runs are extremely informative.nd so that's the good thing. the bad thing is there's no more walter cronkite. what should be the most objective sources just don't carry news. there is nothing on there about the hunter biden situation. what he's been accused of. they just don't cover it. so i have a friend who does not have cable. all she watches is regular news and lipbs. she is a very intelligent masters person. i'll bring stuff up to her she's never heard of.

theg major networks don't cove it at all. soso what's going on? is it the producers? somebody is picking and choosing and omitting a lot of big news. the last thing i want to bring up briefly is this censorship business. especially with facebook. they're posting all the time now. they even censored a c-span hearingh that was covered on t senate. inconsistent with their policy. how can that be? it wasd an actual senate heari. and you're seeinghi it more and more often and i think that's a big problem. . which hearing was this in >> caller: i don't recall which hearing it was. but it was i believe one that the senate, a senate hearing with regard to dr. fauci

testifying. >> what led to you determine that facebook censored the hearing? >> they post it. they post it right on facebook. this is w inconsistent. >> only because our hearings, when we air them online, we air them on our network at c-span.org. we give people the opportunity toia watch there. i know sometimes clips get posted to facebook and other social media disites. they have a their policies depending on that, i don't know if that's a direct censorship hearing as far as a the hearing you're talking about. that's done in-house on c-span. so let's to go bernie in louisville, kentucky. democrats line. hi. >> caller: hello. jon meacham was on your show. not on your show. he was on c-span. he said, and i believe this. that journalism and media are

not exactly the same thing. whenever there is a natural disaster or a hugeer story, the threean things that will always show up is police and reporters. theth reporters are always puttg themselves in danger, just like the rest. as far as the media goes, everybodyll has what they enjoy watching.s re c-span, i've never heard you say an ill word about anybody. you just report the facts. for some people, facts don't do what they want them to. so as far as the media goes, i have my favorites. i was watching on january 6th, the reporting that you all did on january 6th was pulitzer prize winning. i was watching it with you that day. so i don't know had a people's problem is with the media.

a lot of that still available on our website as far as the events that took place that day. everything a related to it. still a topic. news. so i'llbsbs point you to the wee if you wantac to look at things going on there. all available on our website. when it comes to legislative efforts on media, senator ron widen has legislation when it comes thet protecting certain data saying that the bill that he's t introduced. it goes further than past efforts to create a federal shield law to safeguard their phone and email records which are often health by third-party service providers. itit goesce on to say that callr such law after the justice department disclosed that it seized phone or email records from theif "washington post," c andd "the new york times" as it sought toho identify sources fo disclosures of classified information, angering first amendment advocates who say such

seizures have a chilling effect on freepr press. it wasna on civility in congres is that it was one representative, rodney davis. he askedul journalist and amand rimley about the influence that social media, particularly partisan social media, had on traditional news media. >> what can we do to help educate your profession on how partisan some of the techniques the general espews may be damaging the institution. >> i'm glad that you asked.nt i think it has to involve the news media. often think there should be a warning that pops up that says, eight out of ten americans do not use this service. like cigarettes. because it does really work. basic human psychology is you, it is not designed for to us

calibrate those messages. so you get very attacked on twitter and there are conservatives on twitter as well. but inry any case, very activis leftea and right are more than twice as likely to post on social media so you get this really distorted view. it is not human size. we can't calibrate it. soe i think there are some peoe working on overlays for twitter, which i have beta tested a couple and i'm very excited about. i would encourage more of that to help us see. there is one that puts just a label. you opts s into it. it is not twitter doing it. it is a label that says, this is probably a bot. or itt says, this person posts extreme 'content. it is not representative of whatever you want. you can come up with aial goal

rith that you want. i found when i use it, was immediately able toma let thing roll that i might not have otherwise. so dr. grant can maybe speak for to it. there are some basic ways we know, the way we process information has almost nothing to do with the way it is displayed to us. ase. journalists and also th politicians. so there are better ways to collect feedback than twitter for sure. and that i think the news media needs to get more creative. get more creative about covering political conflict. >> robert, independent line. >> caller: a vietnam vet. what i see in the division in our country that is taking place now just disturbs me deeply.

with a people forget, they say history repeats itself.he when we're talking about the media this morning, what i see happening with our media is the same thing thatel happened in germany. when you had a guy who went on the german radio and poisoned people's minds, and you see the same thing going on here in the united states. dr.y sean hannity does the sam thing with good people who believe in this country butho a easily onmisled. and the bottom line is who profits from that division? and the privateers are greedy corporations. we had a war one time. a civil war. and the war was based on the

fact that these greedy people in the plantations in the south made great money on exploiting the backs of common man. and that led to that civil war. >> okay. one more call. david from inglewood, new jersey. your last call. >> caller: yeah. i'll be real quick but please let me get my two points in. my point is that abc, nsa, cbs, cnn, msnbc, they have not one conservative acting anchor. they don't havees conservativesn their editorial slate. you look at two examples. let me get both these in. look at the coverage that was givenet to the border when trum was here. now the media can't even get into thely compounds and see what's going on. and they're perfectly happy with this. my second pointt is, you look what is considered the worst

journalists, they're not journalists. george stephanopoulos, and the worst of all is chuck todd. they'ree all democratic activists. and yet they sit up and espouse their opinions every day as if they're independent. >> okay, okay. two points got in. i have to leave it there. we're out of time. thank you to all of you who participated this hmorning. we havesu two members of congre joining us to talk about various issues. first up joining us, mark pocan of wisconsin from the education and labor committees. and then later in the program we'll be joined by the top republican on the committee, jasonn smith. those topics and more coming up on "washington journal."

saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, the former xerox ceo. the first black female ceo of a fortune 500 company on american business and the corporate world. she's interviewed by zon's senior vice president alicia boler davis. and sun, live at news eastern on in depth. join our two-hour conversation with pulitzer prize winner annett gordon-reed as she talks about slavery and emancipation. her prize winning books include the hemings of monticello. she will be taking your calls, facebook comments and tweets. watch book tv on c-span2 this weekend.

♪ "washington journal" continues. >> our first guest of morning serves the second district of wisconsin. representative mark pocan from that state also serves on the appropriatations committee. thank you for joining us. i really appreciate it. >> thank you. some of the top line numbers from both sides when it comes the $6 trillion in spending in '22 and then back to $8 trillion. how do you react to that?

>> a lot of this happening spending we needed to do. especially around infrastructure. and i know that there are a couple bills possibly moving. there will be possibly a bipartisan compromise that will be moving forward. some of the physical infrastructure but some of the human infrastructure and other budgetary matters will move forward in another bill, possibly through reconciliation. so there is a lot of possibilities of what will happen. the bottom line is, we need to seriously invest in infrastructure, both human and physical. and we haven't done it for very long. how many times did we during the trump administration to have infrastructure week only to have it not be infrastructure week. it is long overdue, it is needed. it will help get people back to work post covid. and i see this as very necessary for this country to thrive. >> i would imagine you hear from republicans, the house budget committee put out a press release. they said the president's plan

would increase spending. would it equal 25% of economic output by 2031. talking about deficits that will be gone over. what is your reaction to the potential impact of a budget if it is passed as the president wants? particularly those criticisms from house republicans. >> some industries have been devastated through covid. i talked to at love small business owners. i am one myself. and there is a fight. you're swimming against the stream. second, i would remind everybody, while this money is helping everybody across the country, when the republicans want to spend trillions for a tax cut that ultimately went to the top 1%, they thought that was just fine and i would argue that's pork spending for the most wealthy and those who make contributions to conservative

candidates. so i think this is better spending. this is something more americans will benefit from. i understand why they don't want to talk about their tax cut for the he wealthy. i want to talk about investments for everybody else. >> when the president presents this, it is a blue print. when you see these numbers, how much do you think it will change when it goes to analyzation from others? >> some of the stuff on the infrastructure side, who knows exactly right. as far as the actual appropriations, that we're in the middle of. i have a full day mark-up today. i think the numbers will be pretty consistent. so our fest is with us to talk about monetary matters. then you can text the questions.

as a side bar to the discussions about appropriate ragss, one of the things you do is serve on the defense spending caucus. what does this president do for defense spending, what is your reaction to that? >> i think this is something for a long time. we've put an awful lot of money into the pentagon with almost no oversight. we don't audit the pentagon like we do almost everything else and then we often get money that's wasted. a lot of us have a problem with that. it was a time of relative peace. and fortunately, there is a slight increase even in the biden budget. just that increase. that 1.7%. that increase is 150% of the entire cdc budget. so at a time our biggest national threat has been covid,

the at of money that goes toward something like covid is just a fraction compared to what we spent around the country. let's make sure we're investing in things i would argue that are really in defense of this country like stopping covid and climate change, also. >> $715 billion is the request for '22. that's up $11 billion. r&d would see $110 billion which would be up 5%. and then procurement would go down on that side. what do you think about that, when it comes to actual procurement, a down grade. >> the part that matters is it is a 1.7 change. that's the problem will we never say, is this a valid expense?

we say how much will we add when we talk about pentagon spending. and no one looks closely at it. how many weapons programs have you heard about? the most recent aircraft carrier that we have, this is a problem when you flush toilets. it is hundreds of thousands of dollars of chemicals that you have to flush down the toilet to make sure they operate occasionally? that's officially the definition of flushing money down the toilet. yet we don't really have any checks and balances for that time of misuse. we need that oversight. >> what do you think about negotiations? as far as what the president is thinking as far as joint plan presented by the democratic senator, are you okay with the number figures being tossed around? >> i think you have to realize that ten people out of 535. i'm glad 2% of the people have a plan. the rest us are also going to

have a say. both. in and reconciliation process that will hopefully run on a parallel track. so it is nice that some republicans are actually willing to come to the table. that's five out of what hundreds of republicans. our real problem has been, we don't have republicans coming to the table to negotiate. at some point we'll still serve the meal. whether they come or not. we have to get this done. this is important for the american people. i just hope it is not just five republicans deciding they have to be part of the process. but we get more, maybe hundreds of republicans coming to the table doing their jobs. >> we've seen progressives calling for bigger numbers. but compared to what is being discussed, are you satisfied with that division? or at least that disparity? >> we'll have that debate when it comes to the house. to debate among ten people, and then the other 500 plus of us will have something to say as well. >> our guest joining us. this is from mark. mark from massachusetts,

actually. independent line, you're on with mark pocan of wisconsin. mark from massachusetts, go ahead. >> caller: thank you for being on this morning. was this just brought up about defense spending and how it impacts all the other spending in the usa is what i want to touch on. can you speak on the fighter, i've been to wisconsin and i love it. madison and platzburg -- or the university of wisconsin lecture up there. i can't remember. >> plattville. >> caller: thank you. >> well, thank you, mark. let's just say it this way. f-35s have had many problems. if this was any other federal agency, would you stop the expenditure. you figure out what's going on. here you throw more money at the problem and you decide, at some

point how much more money you'll throw. you never talk about when you'll stop throwing money at it. there are other programs. we've had some missile programs that have failed miserably. no one looks at the fact billions of dollars have been thrown away. we need to have more responsibility. specially with these private contractors. i want to make sure we're protecting those that serve our country in the military and their pay in benefits is an absolute protection we have to have within defense spending. a lot of this other money, there's a lot of fraud, waste and abuse that happens. and many of these contractors have been fined for breaking the law and they're still able to continue getting money. where else does that happen except for in the pentagon? it is just time we really get

the same scrutiny to the pentagon spending we do from everything else. >> this is in the president's request. $174 billion. down $8.58. the navy, up about 5 billion. and them the air force, up about $9 billion. our next call from spence. expense in clarksburg, west virginia. democrats line. >> caller: i would like to know why the congress can't get more about what they do? the unemployment on the state says they wouldn't faye extra unemployment. it is what congress voted for. i think that all other covid money should be given to the states until they do what you guys voted on to do. this dividing in the parties and everything, it comes down to, congress decided they needed to have that. and it would help the economy. and they want to fight the democrats on this. democrats need to get tougher.

period. you're not playing with the normal situation. our leaders in the democratic party to start mouthing off and talk about what's going on. >> thank you. you're right. bluntly, you're right. we've got states abusing what we intended to do. part of it is we did really large bills. the american recovery act is one of the largest bills that we passed in decades. it is having a great impact across the country. you're seeing the very positive nature. getting schools reopen. and that's very important. the problem is some states have found loopholes around this. even in my state of wisconsin, they found a loophole around not doing the maintenance of effort and education funding. and they had to go back and start over again after we told them that they might not get the

funds. in case. so it really is following the language that we put into the law. some of them have found some pretty clever loom holes. specifically what you found out, some industries. i'm a small business owner simpson i had hair. i was in my 20s. and this is something i know well. some industries have been devastated. the meeting industry, venues, restaurants and taverns. and they need the help even more than maybe some other businesses that have been doing all right or hurt a little in covid. taking away unemployment from those workers in that area is illogical. and it will hurt not only those industries but those people severely. those states that do that are doing it again just to score some political rhetorical points rather than actually helping their constituents. we need that, and someone like you, i hope you have the hotline to your elected officials. your state is one of those that many people are watching. >> representative, you've heard

the president, you yourself mentioned his desire for the american families plan with some permanently current tax credits extended. also, money for childcare and paid family leave. universal preschool, college and the like. how would you make the case that this is a sustainable path if you're going to make these things a permanent factor? >> well, it is, if you look at all the money that we've done in tax breaks for the wealthy. as an exam. the trillions i was talking about earlier that went to the top 1%. things like a child tax credit go to people who are working people. people aspiring to be in the middle class. this will really benefit the vast majority of manager. and it is good policy to lift people out of poverty. if you lift people out of poverty, you take care of a lot of problems in society and some of the funding that has to go to alleviate people in poverty. so it is an investment in raising the level for everyone. and i think that's what is the value. i'm very happy that joe biden has put these out there and i think they'll have a dramatic

effect if we can get them done in the form that he's suggesting. but for republicans to not even be serious enough to come to the table to negotiate on most of this, it is really the sad part. we need republicans to care about their country and their districts as much as we are right now. and not just wait to make a point for the 2022 election. if you think like that, we'll never get anything done here. >> what is the vehicle to pay for all these things? how do you playing it sustainable? >> that's great. joe biden has put a number of proposals out there from slightly raising the corporate tax rate to not even halfway where it was in 2017. going after the companies that hide their money. we all know about that. that is something to go after. he has other countries yaeg we should have minimum tax rates. what he's doing on revenue is things that are common sense that will benefit in the long run and make sure people who are really wealthy are paying a

similar amount. that's what we need to do. using things like that. >> peter in erie, pennsylvania. republican line. hi. >> good morning. my comment kind of a more broad in nature, but since the congressman has brought this up twice so far, i would like to know the source of this accusation that 80% of the previous administration's tax break went to this 1% that he's referred to twice now. can you specifically provide the audience with the source of that conclusion, accusation, talking point, whatever it is. >> or fact is what we actually call it because it's written into the law and the congressional budget office i believe is the source that in the ten years time, i think it's

83 or 86, i don't know the exact number, over 80% of the money goes to the top 1%, and that's great for the top 1%, but not so much for the other 99% because that was an extremely focused bill by republicans to those people, but i think right now in a time like covid and trying to reopen the economy we have to do just the opposite, get that money out as broadly as possible and have it go from the grass roots up and that's how you have a sustainable economic growth that will benefit everyone so it's just in the law itself. it's -- it's the congressional budget office that's been given these numbers and the good news it truly is a fact in the traditional definition of a fact because it's what the law says. >> from steve in baltimore, maryland, democrats line. >> yes. my question is wouldn't it be the legislative duty branch or legislative branch's job when we

spend taxpayers' dollars on things such as $200,000 to flush chemicals down a plane's toilet, isn't the legislative branch's job to follow the money? isn't that why you're all on an appropriations committee? don't they have the power to stop these type of programs right in their tracks? so i see the failure in this country always coming back to the legislative branch because the legislative branch makes the rules, makes the laws and this is -- this is how it's been done and here we are yet trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars in the hole. the legislative branch's failure is so big that i think we're going to become the next great third world country.

thank you. >> yeah. so there's some truth to what you're saying. i do think that the oversight committee, and it wouldn't necessarily be the appropriations committee, it's more likely the standing committee in this area that would have that oversight should push harder to get the scrutiny that's needed. the problem is traditionally the way the department of defense works, there hasn't been that. they have resisted having audits done. they had a separate slush fund for years that, again, i give joe biden credit. he put it on to the base budget this time, but it used to be called the overseas contingency account that was totally unseen and had no input really for members of congress so part of it is just how we've let this happen, and i think the real reason for this is the defense industrial complex as you've often heard going all the way back to dwight eisenhower is in every person's district, and they try to make it about jobs rather than are we spending money efficiently and because of it it's how much are we going to increase the budget without ever questioning whether a faulty

f-35 or aircraft cairier that you're flushing hundreds of thousands of dollars down the toilet is a good idea and i think that's the real problem is we've got some structural problems with pentagon spending that we have to be able to have more ability to have that oversight, but i don't disagree that in some areas we need committees to be more aggressive in that area. i do think though it's unique around pentagon spending that a lot of that money is really hidden even from members of congress. >> mike is next up. mike in ohio. independent line. you're on with our guest. representative pokan from wisconsin. mike, good morning. >> good morning, gentlemen. thank you for the opportunity. mr. representative, i have two concerns. one is what happened to the right to protect the right to organize act and number two i understand there is an attempt not only by republicans but by corporate democrats at the

behest of the u.s. chamber of commerce and wall street to privatize the infrastructure bill. nothing could be more dangerous than that. it's been proven as a failure in other countries and in this country. as a retired operating engineer here in ohio i have big concerns about that, so if you would please address both of these things that i brought up. thank you. >> mike, i can address the first part a little easier. we passed the pro act, protect the right to organize act in the house twice. last session we passed it. this session we passed it. the holdup right now is in the senate and probably having a 50/50 majority with what i would argue are arcane rules around the filibuster have made it difficult so we need to put pressure on the senate for the pro act so i agree with you. it's something that levels the

playing field for the average working person to have a say in the workplace and i think it's essential that we get that passed. to the second part. there's a lot of things being said right now. again, mainly by ten people, but, remember, there's 435 people in the house and 100 people in the senate and so far ten people are being pretty vocal. what about the rest of us? so i think you're going to find many of us that aren't going to let things happen that are going to make it so that this bill, you know, that it doesn't have the oversight that we want. we want to invest our infrastructure, traditional, things like roads and bridges and schools like broadband and water delivery systems and energy grid, go down the list and as well as the human infrastructure parts and right now we have been very clear that nothing is going to move in the house. nancy pelosi has been extremely clear without having a parallel track for that human infrastructure package as well, but i can assure you, we're going to watch very closely. in fact, one of the things i think we need to do is make sure there's more protection for

working people in labor in whatever we do on the infrastructure bill because if we're going to put this much our taxpayer money into it it should be done on a high road and not just giving companies that should be competing for lowest wages. it should be done for the people with the various skill set that you have working all those years that you did. we need to protect workers with whatever we do on the infrastructure bill. >> mr. pokan. you are the co-chair of the lbgtq plus caucus. can you tell us the work of the caucus and the purpose. >> this is pride month. a lot of folks are focusing on quality. we have another bill much like in the last conversation that's passed the last two congresses, the quality act that would pass a group of state laws that we have around for discrimination. for the lbgtq plus community in a majority of states you can get married on a saturday locally but you can lose your lease the very next day and that's in a majority of states in this country.

they don't have the same protections as a place like wisconsin has. in fact, we were the first state in the country to have those protections for the gay and lesbian community, not necessarily the transgender community. this law fills in most of the areas to have protection against credit and go down the list. it's important to note that the only group of people that right now it's still legal to discriminate against is the lbgtq plus community and that's why we need the quality act and that's one of the major pieces of legislation that we're working on. >> currently sitting in the senate. what's the i guess the resolve of senator schumer to get it passed in the senate and what's the hurdle there? >> a strong supporter. the hurd s&l arcane rules that didn't come from the founding fathers but have some since then, evolved or devolved around the way especially to take away people's investigate rights and jim crow laws and now we're acting as if it's sacrosanct. we need everyone to take a quiz

on the history of the filibuster and make that quiz public and maybe then we can realize it's not sacrosanct. instead it's stopping progress from happening, but that's what's happening right now with that and many other bills. >> absent those changes are there other ways to get the changes that you desire? >> we can always try executive orders and the support doing executive orders and he's been extremely supportive of the cause for equality but ultimately we need this in statute. this is a common sense bill with bipartisan support across the country. we need the senate to figure out rules that match where we are as a country right now and you can't let any one person hold up progress and i think in this case this is another example why the filibuster's time either has to be seriously reformed or time to go. >> here is tim from the republican line for the representative. go ahead. >> hi. why can't they take money out of the discretionary budget and put

more of that and allocate more of that money to critical programs like the health program? >> and some of the good news is, and i should have said this in the very beginning. this is roughly a 16% increase in discretionary spending going to non-defense by the president, and that's a very, very good thing versus a 1.7% on the defense side of discretion aspending. the problem is the scope of that money still as i mentioned just that increase in defense spending is already 150% of everything that we spend on the center for disease control. so we think, many of us think that we should look at defense and look at that definition as broadly as what it really is. the biggest thing to defend this country in the last year and a half has been a way to deal with covid and more dollars that we have in the defense, the pentagon budget should go to the defense of this country in terms of health care and climate change and that's what many of us are working towards. >> representative, if i may, two

quick questions. speaker pelosi tends to inform the select commission to take a look at the events of january 6th. should a definite timeline be put on the work of this committee? >> you know, i don't know if that's as important as finally having a committee to take a look at it. rather sad and pathetic to be honest quite honest people here on january 6th, many who spoke out on the floor that day loudly and clearly who now are afraid of donald trump's wrath and, therefore, they are acting like nothing happened. that whitewashing is bad for this country. that the first attack in several hundreds years on our nation's capitol. we need to get to the bottom what have happened, and anyone who doesn't think that, i think is making a poor choice for this nation's history. >> one other question from a texter who texted and asked you directly if you're going to run for ron johnson's senate seat in 2022. >> no. i've already said -- i think i've explained enough why i think the senate rules are pretty odd and i don't know if that's the place i want to spend

my time. i love being on the appropriations committee. i really believe you put your values best displayed by where you invest our nation's money and being able to do that on that committee and continue to gain seniority and work and i can get far more done than being the rookie over in the u.s. senate because ron johnson, i'm quite sure is not going to win. i think we had a poll that says 60% of the people don't want him to run again. we have a large democratic primary with a lot of great candidates and i'm very convinced that ron johnson will have a lot more free time after november of 2022. >> representatives, thank you so much for joining us this morning and thank you for your time, sir. really appreciate it. >> absolutely. coming up, another perspective, particularly on fiscal matters with the lead republican on the budget committee, representative jason smith, republican of missouri, and we'll talk with him when "washington journal" continues. ican of missouri.

>> live today on the c-span network. the coming up live today on the c-span networks, the house returns at sock rahm eastern for general speeches. shortly after sock we're join the health, science and technology committee looking at the state of federal wildland fires, research opportunities and the impact of climate change on wildfires.

the house returns at noon to work on several bills including examination the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol. that's on speech answer. on c-span2 at 9:30 a.m. fema administration deanne criswell testifies before the house homeland security committee on agency readiness. at 11:00 a.m. on speeches pane-3-a house armed services committee on the army's 2022 budget with army secretary kristine warmouth and the chief of staff general games mcconnville. at 3:00 p.m. a house subcommittee looks at the financial services committee commitment towards economic and racial justice. >> june 13, and w york has began publishing the on june 13th, 1971, the "new york times" began publishing the pentagon papers, a classified history of the vietnam war. this event subsequently led to

the creation of a special investigative unit in the nixon white house which became known as the plummer's. author michael dobbs formerly of "the washington post" has written a book called king richard which has taken a look at the special unit which ultimately resulted in what is nope today as watergate. >> listen at c-span.org/podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. "washington journal" continues. >> jinx us now is representative jason smith, republican of missouri and also the ranking member of the budget committee. thanks for giving us your time, sir. >> good morning. thanks for having me. at a snapshot, what was your initial response to the 2022

request from president biden? >> first off, it was the latest budget request in the history of congress. quite disappointed. he release it had on the friday before memorial day weekend which usually when you're trying to release something the friday before a holiday weekend, you're not wanting the goods that's inside of it to be readily available to a lot of folks, and whenever we started going through the 72 pages, it was quite disturbing. you saw over $69 trillion of spending which is the largest amount of spending in our nation's history. it also had tax collections of over $55 drill crop, tax increases that would in fact make our taxes higher than that of communist china. and then just adding to the deficit, almost $17 trillion over ten years. some items within the biden budget that should alarm a lot of folks is that $80 billion was set aside to hire -- >> we're going to leave

"washington journal" at this point to take you to live coverage of a hearing. can you watch the rest at c-span.org. finance experts are getting ready to testify on financial institutions and their treatment of minority communities before a house financial services subcommittee. you're watching live coverage on c-span3.